Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Q1 IEEE 802 LMSC Data in NetSuite.

I have not had the same level of heart-burn that you have had with NetSuite.
I agree that it takes time to get used to the interface.
I agree that the interface is gludgy.
The more time I have used it, I have been able to reduce the time to enter information.

As for Verilan, it does not matter to the 802 Wireless if F2F or Arinex is used as the PCO.
We (Ben and I) authorize payments to be made in either case.
Verilan is a service provider that gets paid from the appropriate PCO after we have reviewed the Invoices.

The Budget we get from Arinex is different, but the detail is similar to the budget reports I get from F2F.
What I put into NetSuite is dependent on the transactions at the Concentrated bank account.
Because we have an account with F2F that is tracked in NetSuite, I have those entries as well.
If I had only the Concentrated bank account, then I would have only those entries to track.

So for Arinex for the Greece meeting last Sept, I have 2 entries in NetSuite, but I still have the detailed report whether it is F2F or Arinex:

Financial Row

2014-09 Athens, Greece



Ordinary Income/Expense




2.11 - Registrations


Total - Income


Gross Profit




4.113 - Venue


4.12 - Financial Fees


4.13 - Meeting Planner


4.14 - Food & Beverage


4.15 - Network Services


4.17 - Shipping


4.18 - Misc Expense


Total - Expense


Net Ordinary Income


Net Income


This same level of detail is provided to the membership/IEEE etc.
Is this enough for the EC?  It has seemed to be enough for the 802 Wireless Treasury reports.

An Accountant tracks the individual transactions in both cases.
The Accountant at F2F gives me transactional detail that I put into Netsuite because we track that account.
The Accountant at Arinex gives me the rolled up of expenses and income in more categories than are listed above, so one could argue I get more detailed breakdown from Arinex, but for what we report, this seems sufficient.

I would argue that Clint does an excellent job tracking financials himself.
Then he gives his record to the bookkeeper to make a separate record into Quickbooks. 
     (bookkeeping is paid as for as part of the F2F PCO agreement)
Then he enters the data into NetSuite -
(F2F PCO contract has a condition to charge us to have the bookkeeper do that work, but we have not exercised that option).

When Ben suggests item 3 "changing our procedures", there are lots of things we could consider.
As Clint will point out, some of the options will reduce the level of detail we have available to use after the fact.

The question is a trade-off of the details being asked for and the time to meet the request.
Personally, I have tried to make this as easy on myself as possible.
I do not see the level of pain that Clint has, so maybe I am one of  those "other interested parties" that are not as impacted as 802 seems to be.


Jon Rosdahl                    Senior Standards Architect
hm:801-756-1496             CSR Technologies Inc.
cell:801-376-6435            10871 North 5750 West
office: 801-492-4023         Highland, UT 84003

A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Clint Chaplin <> wrote:
Ben, Jon,

What might help is hearing from you regarding your experiences with working with Arinix.  Note that I am >not< suggesting we switch to Arinix, but do you have any data about difficulties with that arrangement?

Going that way would possibly require Verilan to deal with the meeting management company rather than with us.  It will also mean that I (or anybody else in LMSC) will not have access to the detailed financial data we currently have.  I may not be able to answer some of the financial questions the LMSC have had in the past.

Face to Face may be capable of changing their relationship with us to do this.  But there will be consequences.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Geoff Thompson <> wrote:

Good summary but I think you left something out of your list.  When Clint described the situation to us he said that other groups farmed out most of their services and included the money handling in that outsourcing.

I would assume that would go something like the following:
    - It would include money handling (collecting funds, paying for services, executing contracts) and accounting services in the meeting management contract.
    - The technical group (e.g. 802) would get a single payment or bill per plenary that would go into the IEEE consolidation banking account.

I believe such an arrangement should be added to your list.

There is an inherent bias in IEEE requirements that we have not discussed.   That is, many IEEE technical groups use IEEE's own meeting services and/or consolidate standards meetings with other IEEE events.  That produces a situation for other groups where the effort involved with transactions is often buried in the overhead of other operations which come out IEEE budgets elsewhere.

If there is some way that we could include some details and provision of this in our discussion list, it would be good.

Geoff Thompson

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:41 AM, Benjamin A. Rolfe <ben@BLINDCREEK.COM> wrote:

Adrian, and all,

I agree with Adrian that we may need professional help ;-).  I agree we should investigate, get an estimate on the cost, prior to making a decision. Then we should consider the impact  on our membership. Adding opex ot 802 will ultimately have to be paid by the membership via meeting fees or other indirect effects that raise the cost of participation.    

We should not forget that this expense is overhead created by the poor fit of the IEEE mandated tools with the operation of 802, and decisions by IEEE such as not opening a programmatic interface so that tedious repetition could be automated.

I see several options for action:
  1.  We can simply accept this as the cost of being part of IEEE.
  2. We could present to SASB and IEEE leadership our findings, pointing out that this cost is due entirely to the choice of tools mandated by IEEE.
  3. We could review our operating procedures and see if we can better adapt our operations to the mandated tools.
  5. We could simply do nothing and see if SASB is prepared to stop 802 from holding meetings.

Note I removed "continue to whine at IEEE about the magnitude of stupid" from the list, though we can perhaps include a variation as part of (2).

If 802 is in fact so unique as to be the only sponsor in IEEE-SA struggling to use NetSuite, I would find (3) rather compelling.  Being honest, our experience so far with NetSuite leaves me completely out of ideas for (3).

Being a the sort of fellow that believes that the quality of information affects the quality of decisions, I'd like to know how other sponsors have coped and see if we can learn from others' experiences. I have asked the staff trying to help us how other groups are  fairing with NetSuite but I don't think people we have been interacting know. Perhaps if the request came for SASB it might find it's way to the right folks?   Perhaps this will help us apply professional help with less cost.

regards and happy pondering.

On 7/22/2015 9:37 AM, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:
Dear EC,

While we can rail at the unfairness of it all,  that will have no effect.   The SASB came a hair's width from resolving to instruct us to hire an accountant to do this work.

Notwithstanding that I spoke against this part of the resolution,  before I got booted out of the room,  I think we should not be using our volunteer resources to do repetitive and time-consuming admin.

I would be supporting of getting an accountant in to take over the parts that are time consuming asap.   If anybody needs a motion to that effect,  I'll make it.

Best Regards,
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (971) 330 6025 (mobile) ⇐ please note new number
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Q1 IEEE 802 LMSC Data in NetSuite.


Hmm, part of me says we should just tell them that they need to attach the bank statement (which I am guessing they get) to each credit card transaction.  Just refuse to do it because they are being silly.

If they think that is too much effort for IEEE-SA or IEEE to do, then maybe they should re-think NetSuite.

So, I suggest we draft a letter telling them that the 802 Treasurer nor any 802 funded individual will _not_ be doing this and if they want it done, they need to pay, out of their own funds, to have it done.


James Gilb

On 07/21/2015 10:40 AM, Clint Chaplin wrote:
Dear all,

It turns out there is an additional IEEE requirement to attach 
supporting documentation to every transaction $1,000 and above.  This 
has not been done yet, but I will be working away at it.

However, there is currently no way to automate this process in 
NetSuite; it requires someone to manually touch every transaction 
$1,000 and above to attach the documentation.  The upload template 
that IEEE is looking into for us, will be incapable of doing such documentation attachment.

This is a problem for IEEE 802 LMSC.  For example, many of our credit 
card deposits are $1,000 and above.  I just did a survey of IEEE 802 
LMSC's finances for the first half of 2015, and 206 out of 322 
transactions are
$1,000 or more.  The only documentation that I have for credit card 
deposits are the monthly Wells Fargo checking account statement and 
the monthly credit card merchant account statement.  Given an envelope 
calculation, I will essentially be attaching the exact same documents 
to approximately 30 transactions each month.  Manually.

This is not a problem for 2015, in that we did receive special 
dispensation for 2015 only to consolidate similar transactions on a 
monthly basis.  But for 2016, I may just quit rather than face the 
effort that is being required upon us.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Clint Chaplin 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clint Chaplin <>
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: 1Q 2015 data in NetSuite-due by 7/31/2015
To: Diane Mistretta <>, Paul Nikolich <>, Yatin Trivedi <>, 
Karen Kenney <>
Cc: Juanita Lewis <>

Dear all,

All known financial data for IEEE 802 LMSC for the first quarter of 
2015 has been entered into NetSuite.  The data for the 2015-01 
Atlanta and
2015-03 Berlin departments has been finalized, but are not verified 
nor audited.  The data for the other departments has not been 
finalized, verified, or audited.  2015 Berlin is missing one 
transaction that I cannot enter as an account payable because I do not even know the amount.

All bank statements for the first quarter have been reconciled.
Reconciled only verifies that the correct amounts are present; 
reconciliation is no guarantee that the transactions have been put 
into the correct accounts.

Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung R&D Institute America

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung R&D Institute America
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.