Q. Is this relevant to matters here

4. Confirmed decisions taken
a. Web-site changes to current version
i. Upgrade frequency and timeliness of providing content to the web-master
ii. Review navigation

A. No.

The decision was made soon after a minute dated late December 2009.
The Treasurer's report posted by Grant is February 2010.
The issues raised by the new Treasurer were all unknown to the Executive until he posted his report.


Just to refresh...the December minute was


The frequency and timeliness processes have been changed.
Some changes to navigation have been made.
The look and feel remains as the same because template software is being used.

You will have noticed no new posts on this topic (CV web-site functionality changes) since . And the would-be other entrants into the market seem to have choked off their update enthusiasm.

$ 500 sponsorship of MCC Cup Weekender in October
$ 100+ payment of all ratings fees on behalf of the MCC Cup Weekender in October.

7 That the cheque book reside primarily with the treasurer, with specific release to another signatory only for the purpose of paying prize money and appearance fees.

Documents Withheld by Previous Treasurer

Obligation to maintain records

It was on 3 February that I became aware of the scope of Chess Victoria’s obligations. Chess Victoria is obliged to maintain adequate and accurate accounting records of financial transactions (Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (‘AIA81’), s. 30A). Accounting records are defined to include all documents triggering recognition of accounting entries or explaining how accounts are made up (AIA81, s. 1). Relevant documents are defined to include records, no matter how compiled, recorded or stored (AIA81, s. 1). The adequacy of records in terms of retention period can be gauged by the obligation to keep financial statements made to members for seven years (AIA81, s. 30(3), (3A), (3B) and (4A)).

Request for records

Accordingly on 3 February 2010 I made written (email) request to the previous treasurer for all treasury-related documents in his possession, including all electronic documents and records up to eight years old. He has not acknowledged or otherwise responded to this request although we have since had other email correspondence.

Prior to 3 February the previous treasurer provided to me specific documents in response to specific requests from me for information. These requests were triggered by anomalous information on MYOB. However, the previous treasurer did not accommodate all of my specific requests for treasury-related information. Four notable instances of his professional silence are:

• the 2009 balance sheet item ‘undeposited funds’ was $1,403, yet the bank deposit made on 2 October 2009 was for only $932 and some subsequent deposits from 22 October had been stripped of descriptions for some of their components: please explain the difference of $471

• [$150 of the $471 missing from above was explained by a deposit slip error once the bank gave me on 22 January a reprinted bank statement for the period 30 September to 2 October; it appears that the previous treasurer had earlier requested this odd two-day bank statement and then withheld it from me]


• the 2009 balance sheet item ‘cheque account’ was $13,716, yet the bank statement at 30 September showed only $12,815; the major contributing factor was revealed by MYOB to be an outstanding deposit of $1,530 on 3/10/2008 which was never banked; hard copy bank reconciliation statements prior to 30 November 2009 show no record of such an undeposited amount; a trial reconciliation report printed on 14/11/2009 but run as at 28/11/2008 also showed nil outstanding deposits; this suggests that the 3/10/2008 deposit of $1,530 never existed but was invented, recorded and subsequently purged in the fortnight prior to the November 2009 AGM: please explain

• a journal entry recognising undeposited funds of $180 dated 16/10/2009 contained an internal cash payment of $240 against an inactive 2002 revenue account; this had the effect of ‘disappearing’ $240 of cash belonging to the transaction; cash received was acknowledged to a number of schools; the true destination of the $240 is probably revealed by the journal entry description, which identifies the recipients as a ‘VK’ for $100 and ‘DH’ for $140; presumably these mean Victor Kildisas and David Haache, two current committee members: please explain.

4 That the committee resolve to press recipients of $3,210 of recent payments to either:
• provide the necessary PAYG-related documentation; or
• return the funds previously paid.

Hi,


Interesting stuff Grant.

A couple of questions...



My understanding (which may be wrong), is that sponsorship was the provision of a qualified arbiter, namely Gary Bekker. That cost being $500, which seemed rather expensive at the time. Is that correct?

How does the payment of the rating fee measure up to the MCC treasury report on the 2009 year?

cheers,

How does the payment of the rating fee measure up the the MCC treasury report for 2009? I dont know - Im not even sure what you mean by that, but Pano (the MCC treasurer) would be able to tell you.

We still had to pay the FIDE rating fee for the Cup Weekender - just not the ACF one (if my memory serves me correctly). In any case, Pano will be able to give you an exact answer on this one. His accounting and treasury practices are unbelievably accurate and transparent.

Therefore, MCC cannot under ANY condition be held accountable for any back payment to ChessVictoria in 2010 for any supposed receipt error (not that this action was necessarily going to occur) .

Well, if the MCC benefitted from a CV error, isn't paying it back the honourable thing to do?

1. the alleged "purging of MYOB transactions prior to Oct 1st 2009"

2. the alleged "withholding of financial documents by the 2009 treasurer"

3. the alleged "fictious $1530"

4. the alleged "$3500 ignored financial commitments in the Nov 2009 AGM budget"

5. the alleged "overall loss of $9744"

6. the alleged fact that "Chess Victoria’s financial position and financial trajectory are now quite different to the expectation accepted by members at the AGM less than three months ago. Both are worse, to the cumulative value of about $10,000 or 30% of the total equity reported at the AGM."

7. the alleged payments to Leonid Sandler for $1626 and $2803 (Im not questioning the legitimacy of these, but I do think that they are quite high and that they could be explained in more detail - is it normal to pay someone this amount for organising a masters tournament and an interschool competition?)

MCC hasnt benefitted from any CV error.

Nothing on the CV agenda.


Nothing on the CV agenda

Nothing on the CV agenda

Nothing on the CV agenda

Well it appears that the CV President has chased up the sponsorship from Lexus , so the figure may be reduced to $6,744.


I suppose we will here about this from the treasurers report.

I am very curious about these payments. They do seem rather expensive.

cheers,
P.S I noticed the CV agenda lists ....
9. Inward correspondence.
a. Access to CV records.
i. Importance of privacy and confidentiality
I certainly hope somebody speaks up about open democratic accountability because a transparent ChessVictoria is what the punters want!

cheers,