<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget
I have
intentionally not participated in this discussion in order to
encourage the on-line conversation about the budget for next year to
evolve.
Bruce
is correct and the Committee will have a recommendation but before I put
anything forward, I like to see if any other members of the Committee have a
view.
Thanks,
Roger
Cochetti
Chair
Names
Council Budget Committee
Bruce, not all constituencies can be measured by the "size" of the
membership. But I think that your suggestion to think about association
membership needs to be considered in the following light. Companies do pay
higher dues to associations who provide specific membership services to
them... Companies also join, at lesser fees, groups and coalitions, which
represent specific needs or interests. The latter would not generate the same
dues which the former would.....
Fees
should be left to the constituencies; but there is some need to set a
threshold of sustainability, and I agree with that. Otherwise, we could have a
"sugar daddy" model where a company or foundation could be asked to
"fund" a constituency, and it essentially is a sham operation. Even if
innocently so, on the part of the participants.
So,
there needs to be some degree of self funding. and, no, I don't think that
individuals can expect to be subsidized to participate. Individuals fund
groups that they care about. They pay in smaller amounts than companies, but
they do pay... There might be a provision for a "kick start" of
financial support from a third party who is truly neutral for the
establishment of an infrastructure, but without sustainable contributions by
the members, there cannot be a "constituency".
That
doesn't mean that scholarships to attend meetings are out of order... just
that the structure of the constituency needs to be self
supporting...
If
at all possible I would like the budget committee to agree on a number that
it can recommend to the NC for decision.
We
don't have time on the NC call to debate the detail.
From my personal point of view, constituencies to
be viable should be raising at least this level of funding to be viable
constituencies in their own right (ie to cover administration,
teleconferences etc associated with running any non-profit
organisation). Constituencies should be thinking about the level of
funding they need to operate as a whole, and the DNSO fees are just part of
their costs. A focus on DNSO costs will get a constituency nowhere -
as it then starts becoming a political argument which usually revolves
around whether we should pay anything at all.
The total per constituency costs of the DNSO are
less than most medium size companies pay other trade associations for
membership (e.g it is less than Melbourne IT pays for membership of the
Internet Industry Association http://www.iia.net.au in
Australia). A constituency budget might be based on say 50
members paying $500 each, or 500 members paying $50
each.
Regards,
Bruce
I support Philip's recommendations. It is clear that the
constituencies will have difficulties in raising funding, and this is a
much more achievable objective. Philip, thanks for doing this extra work!
Can other constituency reps comment?
Marilyn
Budget Committee,
Time pressures meant that all voting members of the
Budget Committee left before the end of the November 20 call, leaving
Roger in the uncomfortable position of no one else to vote
on the budget! Unfortunately, also the idea agreed to earlier in
the call, to adjust the reserves in light of the end of the DNSO and a
six month budget was not done. The Budget was left
at something over USD 9000 per constituency for six months - ie 25% up
on last year pro-rata. This seems unachievable, given our payments
history.
Please see attached a revised proposal for your
consideration. I have checked with Glen and got a new conservative
figure for the reserves expected at the end of 2002 (USD 25,000). The
assumption of the budget is:
- Six months costs based on 2002 actuals
provided by Glen.
- (As in 2002, Indicate but do not budget for
task force telephone conferences - they continue to be sponsored until
July 2003).
- Deduct the USD 25, 000 surplus cash in
hand.
- ADD a cash-flow contingency of USD 10,000 to cover
any late payment by up to 2 constituencies.
The net result is a call per constituency of USD 4950
per constituency.
I hope you can support this. The figure is
conservative and I believe achievable to collect. Please indicate to
Roger and the Budget Committee if you support this.
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|