Publishing the accounts is the single highest-return thing a festival committee does, and most do it badly — a photographed page of a register, sent four months late, showing two numbers. That is disclosure. It is not transparency, and residents can tell the difference.
Lead with the four numbers
Put these at the top, large, before any detail. Most people will read only this, and that is fine — the point is that they could have read more.
- Collected — and from how many units, out of how many
- Spent
- Balance — and where it is going
- Sponsorships raised, credited by name
Then itemise, and do not flinch
Under the headline numbers, every expense: date, category, vendor, amount. The instinct is to summarise so it looks tidy. Resist it. Detail is what makes the headline believable — a reader who can see that the sound system cost ₹18,000 on 3 September stops wondering what else you are not showing.
Credit the sponsors by name
This is the part of the report that is read most closely, by the people you most want to read it. Names, items, dedications. It costs a paragraph and it is most of what next year’s sponsorship conversation depends on.
Send it the week after, not the month before the AGM
Accounts published while the celebration is still fresh are received as generosity. The same accounts produced at an AGM under questioning are received as a defence. Identical information, opposite meanings — the only variable is who asked first.
In Kosh the report is assembled from what you already recorded, so publishing it is a tap rather than a project. That is the entire reason it can be sent in the same week.
Publish even when it went badly
Overspent? Collection fell short? Publish anyway, with the reason. A committee that reports a shortfall honestly gets support. A committee that goes quiet gets an investigation.