On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ted Gould <ted@...1...> wrote:
> My impression from Karen's e-mail was that she felt for previous to
> discussing the FSA a donation was reasonable, but for the future they'd
> prefer the 10%.

Correct. That was my impression too. But putting language in the FSA
isn't leaving a donation as something that could be considered a
reasonable choice for us to make, it's making it a requirement. We're
all on board for the mandatory 10%, but weaseling in the language
about a required donation (I brought it up as uncomfortable and they
just rephrased the donation language and kept it in the FSA, but
didn't really address why they thought it really belonged in there...
my interpretation is that they feel we're obligated to do it and they
will bind us to do it) feels like they don't trust us to make the
donation outside the terms of the FSA.

I don't have inside knowledge, but my guess would be that it's more about cash flow and accounting more than trusting us to do it. By dealing with it as money comes in they actually end up with a flow rather than impulse based accounting :-) Which can work, but when you have things like salaries and bills it means you have to keep much more reserves.

I hate to use wording like "weaseling", but they're not the best at
addressing these concerns, they just make modifications as they see
fit. I've worked for a couple law firms (most of my professional life
has been working for them) and still occasionally do contract work for
other firms, so I am aware of how changes in documents usually take
place... this doesn't feel like they're being above board and direct
about how they see things should be handled.

It seems that it is hip today to put legal documents in version control, should we suggest that?