First Ralph tells all his members that the frequency of InterLoc has been reduced. When I corrected him, he said, publicly, "I wouldn't count on what Robin said."
Then there was Nick's column last month wherein he told everyone that the budget had a $100,000 deficit. Nick has since retracted and corrected this information, by the way.
Now I see that Dave's column contains some pretty harsh and incorrect statements:
Unfortunately I have to report that a "spend as you go" attitude prevails within the AMC.
Really? Upon what do you base that belief? Have you forgotten that the AMC has done some belt-tightening this year: Paid advertising campaigns are limited. AMC meetings have been reduced to three in 2009, rather than four. Staff size is being kept consistent, despite expanding the services we offer to our members and officers. Every attempt is being made to use electronic communications where possible to save on printing and postage while ensuring that we don’t disenfranchise that segment of the membership that is not electronic.
Increasing spending in the name of providing marginally utilized services and programs and increasing dues to finance this spending is not fiscally sound nor sustainable.
The budget is an unimaginative "add 5% to the past unimaginative budget" and raise dues to do it. There is no evidence of fiscal restraint or attempt to reign in escalating costs in national office operations or general governance costs.
Even though I'm not the Treasurer, I am deeply offended by this.
Those of us on the Finance Committee put in many many hours of thought and number crunching and analysis of current programs/services and their effectiveness BEFORE we developed a preliminary budget. Then we asked and answered questions-- lots and lots and lots of questions. I myself tend to generate three or four typed pages of questions and concerns. Then we spent TWO DAYS going over the budget line by line.
Dave, why on earth do you think the Finance Committee just added 5% to last year's budget? Did you actually compare the numbers?
Last year's budget's income was $3,324,416. This year's income is $3,410,327.
That's an increase of 2.58% Not the 5% you published.
Last year's budget's expenses were $3,314,566. This year's expenses are $3,506,378.
That's an increase of 5.79%. Close, but not exaclty what you published.
Why do you say there is no evidence of fiscal restraint? How carefully did you compare this year's budget to last year's? You usually have wise observations and suggestions...what concerns did you raise that were not answered during the pre-vote discussion? Which programs and services do you see as marginally utilized? Upon what data do you base your conclusions? And why were you unwilling to share your insights with the rest of AMC before we set out to finalize the budget?
Between release of the proposed budget and the March AMC meeting, you posted exactly 6 times. Other than your opposition to hiring a consultant, you offered exactly zero suggestions about ways to be more fiscally responsible. You said nothing about services and programs you felt should be cut. You offered no thoughts about alternatives to raising dues. And yet, after the fact, you tar the rest of the AMC as being fiscally irresponsible.
A dues increase to $59 a year was passed (and must pass a second time at the next AMC meeting). This will be used to fuel the ever increasing cost of conducting Mensa business. You either act fiscally conservative or increase income, and your AMC is choosing to increase income.
The 13% dues increase is not being proposed because we're unwilling to cut spending. It's being proposed because:
The budget is always designed with a multi-year cycle of a dues increase resulting in a surplus, then a couple years of a balanced budget, then a year or two of deficit, followed by the next dues increase. How long a dues increase lasts is dependent largely on membership growth combined with investment performance. The last dues increase was in 2005. It's simply time in the cycle.
Groups are testing fewer prospective members, so the testing income was down by 16%. Decreased testing by Local Groups also means that membership growth is slower than we would like.
Funding to Local Groups has increased by 14% over the last year, and RVC funding has been increased by 32% for the next fiscal year.
The economy is in a slump, so we have been earning less income from our investments, which are invested conservatively so we can be sure to always maintain our principal in our 3, 5, and life funds.
The costs to protect the Mensa name and logo from misuse have increased dramatically as more and more commercial ventures attempt to infringe on our name to their advantage.
The rising fuel prices have caused trickle down increases in all areas of consumables from travel to food to office supplies.
Paper and postage costs have skyrocketed, so the Bulletin costs are up by nearly 12%.
You were there for the discussions-- how could you have missed these pieces of information?
Having the Mensa Foundation fund gifted children program grants makes perfect financial sense, especially since we give them a $50,000+ grant each year and pay them a hefty rent for our headquarters. This was easily approved. The down side is that Mensa relinquished control of how those grants are distributed. Nothing is free, as the saying goes.
Last I looked, the proposal included involvement from the AML Gifted Children Committee when distributing grants money. And I am pretty sure that everyone on the MENSA Foundation board are also Mensa members. "Mensa" comprises AML and MERF.
I've noticed the overall trend within Mensa is a strengthening of AML at the expense of local groups.
I just have to ask... what is the difference between AML and Local Groups? (if only we had some sort of way to clarify and codify that relationship!) How does strengthening the organization as a whole harm the individual components?
You do Mensa harm when you publish false, alarmist information. And your slap stings mightily to those of us who worked very hard, with virtually no input from you, to make the most of our members' money.
No comments:
Post a Comment