Posted By Dave Daniel
Shaun - Since there are no laws about anyone being a "Director for Safety" what your organisation does is not constrained in any way in this context.

There are concerns about one director being singled out as the (?only?) director responsible for safety and becoming the scapegoat, particularly with Corporate Manslaughter lurking in the background. On the other hand, in many small businesses I deal with, one director takes the lead in safety matters, although I always stress that there is shared accountability.

There are many people with views on how Company Directors should assume responsibility and accountability, but quite frankly few of those voicing opinions have been company directors themselves..... Since I've been one for 10 years, perhaps I am less enthusiastic about falling on the sword when anything goes wrong!!

Posted By JPK
Not necessarily Shaun..

In an organisation you may have a Financial Director, Marketing Director, H&S Director, Commercial Director etc etc...

The BOARD of Directors would jointly make a decision on spending and the Financial Director then releases the budgeted money to the relevant department.

Wouldn't be a very clever idea to have every position writing cheques left, right and centre!?

JPK

Posted By Garry Homer
Any company CEO will be given the legal advice that he should ensure that Health and Safety is the sole responsibility of one of his fellow directors. This will keep the CEO out of jail.

However, with responsibility comes the need to control resourses otherwise in law this person will not be held fully accountable. The courts recognise there are people with the title who have not been given the means to carry out their duties and then they focus in on those controlling the means. Therefore, without the proper sett-up any legal responsibility could be placed back with the CEO or lead director, etc, etc.

It should never be a case of falling on your sword, unless of course, you have not been carrying out the duties you have been given the resources for. Then you deserve everything that comes at you.

Garry Homer
Director

Posted By Garry Homer
I do not see why you are pushing this concept.

It is not simply a question of either being able to sign cheques or not to test a director's ability to discharge his or her duties. That would depend upon the size of the organisation.

A very small company with two directors, then both could be expected to sign cheques and usually with the nod of the other director. Best keep an eye on what the other is doing ;-)

For larger organisations, it is for the Board of Directiors to agree budgets for the forthcomming term, be that monthly, annually, whatever.

It is for the individual directors to state their needs and agrue their corner in both progressing the company and discharging their individual duties. If a Director feels this process is inhibiting his ability to discharge his duties he should have that concern registered in the minutes. Then when the egg breaks, the whole Board has a shared responsibility, not just the individual director.

The actual monetary control is best placed with the Finance Director who has the responsibility to audit the day to day spend against agreed budgets, predict cash-flows etc. In a smaller company this may mean sitting on their desk and waving the last agreed minutes at them to get a cheque signed for a supplier that will not provide the usual 30 day credit.

If the supplier provides the goods on 30 days terms, the invoice will automatically become the Finance Directors duty sort out.

Garry

Posted By Garry Homer
Hi JPK

I did not read that much into the original question. I did not see an explicit reference to only being able to write cheques!

Anyhow, hopefully Shaun can extract the info needed from this banter!

Garry