The Numbers Don’t Lie
As of June 30, 2008, STARFLEET has spent $9,077 on legal fees. These figures have been presented by the Chief Financial Officer to the Admiralty Board.
Doing the math, that’s around 19% of the organization’s net worth. That’s over three times what STARFLEET awarded in scholarships in 2008. That’s also almost twice what was spent on IC year to date. It is also almost twice what was spent on Quartermaster.
When I was kicking around these figures, I was reminded that neither the IC nor the QM are contractual obligations of STARFLEET. Certainly neither are Sal’s legal expenses.
STARFLEET spent $1,559 in June 2008. I would like to see an itemized report on exactly where this money went. This is also as of June. This does not count the last two months.
Year to date figures are scary. Something has got to give. Membership is dropping. Spending is out of control.
Is anyone else worried about this?
(4 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
August 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I am going to have to get back to you on this one.
I need to study the STARFLEET constitution or bylaws or both. You see, I am a firm believer in following a club’s operating documents to the letter as best as possible. This belief has made me popular and vilified in another club because if it ain’t written, I am not dealing with it as a club leader.
As an example:
If we have always donated some of our membership funds to the IC and the Scholarship Fund but it is no where in the constitution or bylaws that we do indeed do that, I would insist we stop doing it. If we needed to raise funds for an IC or the Scholarship Fund then we should raise them separately from the membership dues.
Now, I am not evil, if the Scholarship fund were to go strictly by donation, I would pony up what I could afford as a donation, but I do not like it dues mandated if it is not in the constitution or bylaws.
Again, I use that as an example - I have not read STARFLEET’s constitution or bylaws so I honestly have no qualifying input.
Am I worried about the spending being out of control? I do not know.
If Sal (et al) is spending it under the rules and regulations of his position, I have to, and do trust he knows what he is doing. If the rules and regs are not being followed and I find out, make some major space on this blog for my anti-Sal spending rants.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Will the AB speak out about this? Not bloody likely.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
If Sal (et al) is spending it under the rules and regulations of his position, I have to, and do trust he knows what he is doing.
He can be spending money the rules say he can but still be spending it wrong.
In other words, you don’t have to trust that he knows what he’s doing.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
JC,
Yes, even if Sal is following all of the spending rules to the letter and by the book, he could still be spending it poorly. What I have to trust is that he is doing it for what he thinks is the “good of the club.” I do not agree with spending money on a lawyer until and unless we are fined unjustly or sued.
I do not agree with everything the governor of my state does, but I have to trust he is doing the best he can with the information he is given. One thing I have learned is I do not know everything, so if I think something Sal is doing is wrong I have to trust he knows something I do not know making him think his action is proper.
I would not follow any one blindly. If I strongly disagreed I would let him know. Again, after I study the bylaws or constitution or both, if I think Sal is breaking a rule or bylaw, I will jump all over him - figuratively.
– — –
Dave,
This argument is feeling familiar, have we discussed this before?
It is good to discuss issues openly, but I do not want to become redundant.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
One thing I have learned is I do not know everything, so if I think something Sal is doing is wrong I have to trust he knows something I do not know making him think his action is proper.
I would not follow any one blindly.
Your second statement there is in direct contrast to the first. If, in fact, you think Sal is doing something wrong, you should do your best to make him answer your questions in public. You’re an editor of the CQ. How about an editorial demanding Sal explain himself?
August 24th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“How about an editorial demanding Sal explain himself?”
Anyone; nay, EVERYONE who thinks Sal should explain himself, has every right to write an editorial demanding he do so. My job as CQ Content Editor is to make sure what is submitted for any CQ is published (disclaimer - I will not publish anything vulgar or blatantly slanderous).
If anyone wants to submit an op ed on the Sal Spending Spree, send it to my email address and I will do my best to get it published.
Again, while the cost does concern me, I do not know if Sal is breaking rules or being stupid spending the money he spends on lawyers. I do not have all the facts and until I do I will not demand anything.
August 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
That’s cool, re: editorials. Of course, you’re a member, you’ve stated repeatedly you aren’t comfortable with what’s going on, and I’m curious why you won’t take action on that discomfort.
I do not have all the facts and until I do I will not demand anything.
How do you expect to get the facts if you don’t ask? If you ask in private and he doesn’t answer satisfactorily, how do you expect to get the facts unless you ask in public? If he obfuscates in public, how do you expect to get the facts unless you convince others to ask the same questions to raise the pressure on him?
I appreciate that you have these questions, but I don’t understand how you expect to get answers (or even “the facts” - and keep in mind that without paperwork, what Sal says may or may not be the facts), and I don’t understand how you expect things to change for the better beyond “trusting” it will all work out.
For things to keep going poorly, all we need is for people with questions to keep them to themselves. Sunshine (and public scrutiny) is the best disinfectant.
August 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Rob,
The fact you are controlling articles for the CQ and are making nonsense statements like:
I do not have all the facts and until I do I will not demand anything.
Just how do you propose getting the facts without demanding anything, especially documentation?
August 24th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
JC,
Read my entries on this thread as a whole and you will notice I have nothing to complain about until I read the costitution and/or bylaws. Until I know (ie have the facts of the constitution in hand) the rules and regs on EC spending, I will demand nothing.
August 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
The rules on spending are simple. The CS can spend all he wants, so long as the CFO allows him to and keeps countersigning the checks. Tammy Wilcox and Denby Potts were fantastic CFO’s because they flat refused to give the CS a blank check everytime he wanted to spend the organizations money (And I say that with the full knowledge that I cannot stand Denby personally, but thats a personality issue really)
How do you all feel that the AB has failed the measure to require the CS to come to them anytime he wants to spend xx amount of money? I would love to have a roll call vote on that one, see which RC’s voted against it (Mine didn’t, I trained her too well
)
Finally Tony, I would tend to agree with your comment. The AB is pretty much pro-Sal at this point. Some see what is going on, but most want to bury their heads in the sand with their fingers in their ears going lalalalalallalalala. Reminds me of the McGinnis AB, and any EC/AB member that is reading this, you would be remiss in not realizing that by not doing anything now, it will dearly cost you in the end. Just ask Coyote…Oh? She’s not around? Well how about Wayne Cavalier….Nothing there either? Well shoot…how about Cindy Krell? Nowhere to be seen? Imagine that.
August 24th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Rob-
except the thread took a turn and we pointed out he can be wrong without violating the rules. You then said you agreed with it…
Yes, even if Sal is following all of the spending rules to the letter and by the book, he could still be spending it poorly. What I have to trust is that he is doing it for what he thinks is the “good of the club.”
I’m saying that you don’t have to trust that. You should be asking questions. Which has nothing to do with the documentation and the bylaws, and everything to with his good decision making skills. Its not legality, its wisdom, you should be questioning - and you’ve pointed out that you agree with that.
You just don’t seem to be willing to demand the answers to your questions, and I don’t know why. I agree, for your legality questions, sure, review the constitution and the MHB first (I helped write it, though not as much as others, so I’m pretty confident in my recollection of them, though I could probably use a refresher) but for your questions of “Why are you spending this money?”, you deserve an answer. You should demand Sal answer you, and then tell everyone else, because frankly, we’re all wondering.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
SIDE BAR:
Has the AB appointed an Internal Auditor?
If no, would that help get the answers you all seek?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:22 am
JC,
I am not being clear. I have no burning questions to ask right now. Yes I am concerned about the monies being expended on lawyers, but it does not bother me enough to demand answers. If Sal has a regulated right to spend the money then that is that. If I learn he does not - I will demand to know why he is doing it.
My concern is whether or not STARFLEET can afford the cost - not whether or not he should have hired the lawyers. He has made his point of view clear on that account. Sadly, no matter what you or I type or ask, his motives won’t change and I seriously doubt we can get him to see it another way.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Rob - fair enough. Disappointing, but if your questions aren’t burning enough, no one can argue that. One has to wonder, though, at what people will start asking questions, and will it be before all the money has gone to the lawyer.
Correction: when enough people will ask. Some have been asking all along. I don’t remember the exact quote off hand and tab browsing on an ipod is tough while in a text window, but I’m reminded of a certain quote, maybe someone else will remember it, about tyranny thriving when good men stand by and do nothing.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:21 am
To Dave’s credit, he has been asking from day one.
Great discussion, JC. I hope Sal will explain it better in the next CQ, but if he doesn’t, I will keep researching the topic.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:09 am
JC, it was Edmund Burke:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
That said, I would not classify Sal as “evil” nor really as tyrannical. But, yeah, if the membership just hangs around and just lets the fiscal ass raping continue, then STARFLEET deserves its fate.
Something has got to happen. And soon. I just don’t know what that “something” is. As they say, “talk is cheap,” unless it’ s billed at $400 an hour from a law firm.
An aside, the quotation is attributed to Edmund Burke, however Wikipedia does stipulate that this quotation may not have been Burke, as it never appeared in his works, letters, or recorded speeches.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
That said, I would not classify Sal as “evil” nor really as tyrannical.
He lies directly to me and is driving me from the organization through that lie. I find that evil.
While saying he wants everyone treated equally, he aides his supporters and hinders his detractors. I find that tyrannical.
He has worked to have people removed from this organization who he finds inconvenient. If this were real life instead of a club, that member would have disappeared in the middle of the night. I find that both evil and tyrannical.
Sal isn’t merely “in over his head” and “spending like a drunken sailor”, although he is both of those things. He is also actively malevolent. Like most dictators, he thinks he is doing good, but in the end, while its only on a scale relative to our importance and we’re just a fan club, he is doing evil and supporting tyranny in the name of good.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
JC, that is a fair assessment. I have also been at the receiving end of Sal’s lawyers, at least it sure seemed like it to me. Evil? Maybe. I’ll give you that. Either way, it needs to stop.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Dave -
Evil in the name of a fan club is pretty much the diet coke of evil, I’ll give you that.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Just one calorie!
August 25th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
STARFLEET + COKE ZERO = FAIL
August 26th, 2008 at 4:59 am
So does that make CDF the UnSTARFLEET?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Tammy Wilcox and Denby Potts were fantastic CFO’s because they flat refused to give the CS a blank check everytime he wanted to spend the organizations money (And I say that with the full knowledge that I cannot stand Denby personally, but thats a personality issue really)
And I appreciate you saying that… She did her best to live up to the job, and tried very hard to follow in Tammy’s hard-to-fill shoes.
As for the rest, I can’t offer anything more than that she is really a person with a heart-of-gold, but who led a very cloistered life until she met up with this guy from the ‘wrong side of town’
She often doesn’t pick up on a lot of the social cues that those of us who grew up with ‘lots of different kinds of friends’ just know unconsciously.
She may not be the ‘popular girl’, but I love her, and she’s a great mom to our son… that’s good enough for me
Thanks again, though… It means a lot.