People complain about AMC travel and point to that over and over as something to reduce in order to increase the black at the bottom of the budget.
Most people agree that:
• The AMC needs to meet face to face now and then.
• We need officers from different parts of the country.
• AMC meetings should be in different places so more members have opportunities to attend.
• AMC officers need to eat and sleep.
• Volunteering should not be limited to only those rich enough to afford it.
I do think there are ways to reduce AMC meeting costs, and I would support a few of the obvious suggestions such as having fewer AMC members and choosing locations that are overall cheaper to get to for most AMC members.
Please don't take this post as just another defensive whine. What I'm really wondering about is if there is some psychological or social phenomenon at play because the travel is an expenditure members can see with their own eyes.
The lease on the copier and postal machines in the office are more than twice the price of an AMC meeting. Credit card fees I've already mentioned. Running an election in which only 11% of the membership participates costs nearly three times what an AMC meeting costs. Postage for mailing things to Local Groups is close to equal the cost of an AMC meeting, as is the cost of insurance for Groups.
There are perks and inequities to many volunteer jobs. Editors and Webmasters get awards for their work; LocSecs and Membership officers do not. RG Chairs get comped rooms; regular attendees do not. MindGames Chief Judges get dinners paid; regular judges do not. Some proctors get paid for their efforts; some don't. RVCs have funding to attend gatherings; Development officers and Secretaries do not.
Yes, AMC members get to travel, sleep in hotels, and eat nice meals while other members do not. It comprises about 1% of the annual budget. There is no denying that fact. Is the zeal for reducing that particular area of expenditure, while never mentioning other larger line items, at all motivated by some dog-in-a-manger human emotion?
5 comments:
I've been (or still am) LocSec, Membership Officer, Local Area Coordinator, and Proctor. Granted, this is a pretty small group, but I'm quite sure that the people on the AMC spend WAY more volunteer time for Mensa than I did on any of those jobs.
I think travel is something most people see as a "disposable income" luxury item in their own budgets, so they tend to view it as that with the AMC too, when it's really a business expense. It makes sense that AMC members need to be from different parts of the country, and need to meet face to face at least part of the time, so I think the travel expenses are necessary!
The reason why the conversation may seem so zealous about cutting AMC meeting expenses is because of the simple lack of acknowledgment by some that those meetings, like so many other parts of the budget, are an area that should be considered for reductions.
True, the biggest line items are more often the likeliest places where "considerable" savings can be made, but what frequently seems to be ignored or pooh-poohed is just how considerable multiple small savings can add up to being.
As for the examples given: there's no way for the members to know what "Equipment Rental & Leasing Exp" actually references (as there's no corresponding footnote - is a lease really needed? Has stamps.com been considered to replace the postal machine lease?) let alone be able to suggest a way to decrease it; credit card fees are exorbitant, but I'm unclear how to reduce those fees except by not accepting credit cards (and I don't know anyone who would suggest that); elections are necessary even with paltry turn-out (though we could, in theory, shop around for a cheaper service for counting the ballots); not sure much else can be done re: the actual postage costs or the insurance cost you mention.
People will suggest cutting expenses in categories where they 1) understand what is being talked about without need to look at footnotes or dig for other information, and 2) can easily come up with ideas for how to cut without doing much, if any, research. And, sure, there are some who see the AMC as getting too many perks and are happy to try to slash those as much as possible.
>>lack of acknowledgment by some that those meetings, like so many other parts of the budget, are an area that should be considered for reductions. <<
How do you know who acknowledges that it is an area to be considered for reduction and who doesn't? While the specific question of "Who thinks we should look at AMC travel more closely? Raise your hands" has never been said aloud at a meeting or on the elist, the gestalt impression I've gotten in 6 years is that all AMC members feel that ALL areas of the budget are important to examine for ways to trim.
>>what frequently seems to be ignored or pooh-poohed is just how considerable multiple small savings can add up to being.<<
Again, you don't actually know that little things are being ignored. Hmmm.. Can members see budgets which include Budgeted-Actual-Previous Budgeted-Previous Actual? Maybe not seeing where we do come in under budget and cut is what makes you think we don't try.
>>As for the examples given: there's no way for the members to know what "Equipment Rental & Leasing Exp" actually references (as there's no corresponding footnote - is a lease really needed? Has stamps.com been considered to replace the postal machine lease?)<<
In my mind, communicating the answers to such a question is the job of the Treasurer. Keeping the books and writing checks is what we hire a professional to do. The Elected Treasurer should be mainly an explainer, I think. For what it's worth, I can usually answer those questions-- under what category is the Equip and Rental you're wondering about? As for Stamps.com, I've never heard of it, so I don't know. I can mention it when I get to the office this afternoon.
>>(though we could, in theory, shop around for a cheaper service for counting the ballots)<<
Did this year. I have in my budget binder the bid proposal from a new company.
>>People will suggest cutting expenses in categories where they 1) understand what is being talked about without need to look at footnotes or dig for other information, and 2) can easily come up with ideas for how to cut without doing much, if any, research. <<
Excellent points. I agree. What irks me is when it is assumed that those of us charged with the task don't do the research and digging necessary to find ways to trim in the "mysterious" categories. When I say I put in hours and hours going over everything line by line and writing pages and pages of questions every year (and this in addition to 9-10 hours of sitting in a meeting staring at spreadsheets on the screen)… do you think I'm lying?
True, not all 21 AMC members are as thorough They don't have to be—they appointed a Finance Committee to be that through for them. And we are, Jared, really.
Parkinson's Law of Triviality is at work. Everyone is familiar with dinners and how their prices range. Everyone has experience of such sums as $40. Few are familiar with credit card fees, leasing office space, or sending 50,000 pieces of mail at once.
If it were an organization of smart people, then they might trouble themselves to learn first, or remain silent.
And how do you expect people to learn without them asking questions? *Some* things can be found on the AML website - for those who have the patience to navigate it (which I usually do).
There are enough things that aren't visible or explained there, though. So discussion and questioning is necessary if we're to find out the answers we seek, either with explanations or URLs pointing the way.
Post a Comment