The AGM and the Audit: Records Members Will Question
A SACCO faces a room full of owners once a year, and the questions members ask are almost never about the core banking system. They are about expenditure, procurement, assets and governance — the operational half, which is usually the least prepared.
The annual general meeting is the one day a SACCO's management is accountable to the people whose money it holds, and the questions that cause trouble follow a pattern. Why did administrative expenses rise faster than the loan book. Who supplied the branch fit-out and how were they chosen. What happened to the vehicle. Why are sitting allowances at that level.
Notice what none of these are. They are not about interest calculations, savings balances or loan performance — the things the core banking system holds and the auditor examines closely. They are about operational spending, and in most SACCOs that is exactly the area where the records were assembled in the fortnight before the meeting.
Two systems, two kinds of question
It is worth being explicit about the division, because SACCOs frequently expect one system to answer both.
The core banking system answers
- Member savings and share balances
- Loan issuance, repayment and arrears
- Interest and dividend computation
- Member statements and account history
The operational side answers
- What was bought, from whom, and who approved it
- What the SACCO owns and where it is
- What administrative expenditure went on
- Whether governance thresholds were actually applied
To be clear about our own boundary: this is the right-hand column. Savings, loans and interest are not what we do and a SACCO should not evaluate us as core banking — that separation is set out in SACCO operations beyond the core banking system.
The questions that cause trouble at an AGM are rarely about the loan book. They are about a supplier, a vehicle and a line of administrative expenditure — the half nobody prepared.
Prepare the four questions in advance
The uncomfortable questions are predictable enough to prepare for, and preparing them takes a morning rather than a fortnight if the underlying records were kept as they happened.
| The question | What answers it | What it looks like unprepared |
|---|---|---|
| Why did administrative costs rise? | Expenditure by category, this year against last, with the two or three real drivers named | A defensive total and an impression of concealment |
| How was this supplier chosen? | The requisition, the comparison, the approval and who made it | "They have supplied us for years", which is the answer members hear as a problem |
| What do we own, and where is it? | An asset register with named custody and verification dates | A depreciation schedule, which is a different document answering a different question |
| Were the thresholds followed? | Approvals recorded against the transactions themselves | An assurance, which is not evidence |
The third row catches SACCOs regularly. A depreciation schedule proves the accounts are consistent; it says nothing about whether the asset still exists or who has it. When a member asks where the second branch vehicle is, the register answers and the schedule does not — a distinction worked through in what is a fixed asset register.
Governance evidence is created before it is needed
Every governance control a SACCO has — tender committees, approval thresholds, board authorisation for material spend — produces evidence only if the evidence was captured at the moment the decision was made. Reconstructed governance is not governance, and both an auditor and an alert member can tell the difference immediately.
-
Record the approval on the transaction, not in minutes alone
Minutes prove a committee met. An approval recorded against the specific purchase order proves this expenditure was authorised, which is the question being asked.
-
Keep the comparison, not just the winner
Three quotations retained, including the two you did not accept, is what converts "we chose them" into "we compared and chose them". The rejected quotes are the evidence.
-
Verify assets on a rhythm, not before the AGM
A verification round done in March and recorded is credible. One done in the week before the meeting is a stocktake performed under pressure and reads as such.
-
Separate the request from the approval
Where the same officer raises and approves, no control exists regardless of the threshold policy — see segregation of duties.
The expenditure story members actually want
Members are not usually hostile to expenditure. They are hostile to expenditure they cannot understand, and the difference is entirely in the presentation.
The same increase, explained and unexplained
Illustrative, in KES. Same expenditure, two very different meetings. The 20% figure invites suspicion; the breakdown shows that the increase is mostly a branch the membership itself approved. This analysis requires expenditure coded by category and by cost centre during the year — it cannot be produced from a general ledger summary in the week before the AGM.
What we do and do not do
What AWRA OpsHub does today
- Procurement with requisitions, comparisons, approvals and thresholds, recorded against the transactions.
- An asset register with named custody, movement history, verification dates and retirement with reasons.
- Expenditure coded by category and cost centre, with committed spend visible against budget.
- An audit trail carrying actor, action, subject, IP address and time.
- Document storage with access logging, for quotations, contracts and committee papers.
- Compliance evidence packs and reporting, so a reviewer receives an assembled set rather than a request list.
What it does not do
- No core banking. Savings, shares, loans, interest and dividend computation are not part of this and never will be.
- No member register or member statements. Member-facing records belong to your core system.
- No statutory or regulator returns. Whatever your regulator requires in their format is produced by you or your auditor.
- No board or committee minute management. Papers can be stored; the governance process itself is not modelled.
A SACCO evaluating us should be clear on the first two lines from the outset. The value here is the operational and governance half — the questions members ask that the core system was never designed to answer.
A twelve-month rhythm beats a two-week scramble
- Quarterly: verify a portion of the asset register, so a full year covers everything without a single painful exercise.
- Quarterly: review expenditure by category against last year, so a variance is understood while it is small.
- Monthly: check that approvals were actually recorded, not merely obtained. This is a five-minute audit-log query.
- Before the AGM: prepare the four predictable questions with their evidence, not a defence.
- After the AGM: write down which questions were asked. They will be asked again, and next year you will be ready for them.
Our take
Prepare the four questions members always ask — administrative costs, supplier selection, assets, thresholds — and prepare them with evidence created during the year rather than assembled in the fortnight before. A SACCO that can break down a 20% expenditure increase into its two real causes has a completely different AGM from one presenting a total.
See compliance evidence packs
Procurement approvals recorded against transactions, an asset register with verification history, expenditure by category and an audit trail behind all of it.
Explore audit readinessFrequently asked questions
Does this replace our core banking system?
No, and a SACCO should be clear about that before evaluating anything. Savings, shares, loans, interest, dividends and member statements belong to your core system. What this covers is the operational half — procurement, assets, expenditure, budgets and governance evidence — which is precisely the area most AGM questions come from and the area core banking was never designed to address.
Why does an asset register matter if we have a depreciation schedule?
Because they answer different questions. The schedule proves the accounts are internally consistent; it says nothing about whether an asset still exists, who has it, or where. When a member asks where the second branch vehicle is, or an auditor asks to see three items from the register, the schedule cannot help. Named custody and recorded verification dates can.
What is the most common governance finding in a SACCO?
The same officer raising and approving expenditure, usually because the approver was unavailable and the work was urgent — which is a real operational pressure rather than an intent to circumvent. It is also entirely visible in the records afterwards, which is why separating those permissions and keeping a named alternate approver matters more than the threshold policy itself.
How far in advance should AGM preparation start?
The preparation is a twelve-month rhythm rather than a date. Verify a portion of the asset register each quarter, review expenditure by category against last year quarterly, and check monthly that approvals were recorded rather than merely obtained. Done that way, the pre-AGM work is a morning of assembling evidence that already exists rather than a fortnight of reconstructing it.
How should we present an increase in administrative costs?
Broken into its two or three real drivers, with the decisions members themselves approved identified as such. A 20% increase presented as a total invites suspicion; the same increase shown as mostly a new branch the membership voted for, plus a system licence rise, plus 2% underlying, is a completely different conversation. This requires expenditure coded by category and cost centre throughout the year — it cannot be assembled from a ledger summary afterwards.
