Abolish the Event Budget

Forum to discuss business matters, commerce and the economy of the CDS

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: Abolish the Stipends

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

So the stipends have gone from 1.5% of income to 4.5% of income? That's quite a substantial uprating.

My point in raising this was to encourage debate so we take a considered view on how we spend our money. This seems to have been successful. Some agree with me that abolition is right and all work of this kind (rather than DJing etc, other professional skills) could be done by unpaid volunteers.

I'm happy to compromise on a reduction, perhaps limiting this portion of the budget to 1.5% of income. But I think we need to give Trebor a steer so he can consult with those affected. None of want to cut these stipends and then find we have no volunteers!

I propose the RA debate this issue, at today's meeting if possible, and that we ask Trebor to report back with a revised proposal after consultations with those affected at the next RA meeting.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Abolish the Event Budget

Post by Sudane Erato »

Beathan wrote:

We also are not really setting aside funds for expansion or reconstruction, and we need to be. When that is considered, I don't see that we are making a profit at all. Rather, I see that we are reserving less than 10% for expansion and redevelopment. I would rather see that number be 15% or even 20%.

Beathan, please. I've asked this now a number of times in these forums. If you're going to comment on our finances, please read the financial reports. They are NOT complex, especially for a RL attorney.

We have a considerable reserve fund "set aside" for expansion and other investments in our community. Not six months ago the extent of this fund, and the magnitude of its monthly growth, was subject to a lengthy and heated debate over whether the fund was too large (about US$10,000) and over whether we should reduce tier and thus reduce the fund's growth. I argued that having such a fund was a reasonable and conservative strategy to enable safe expansion as well as insurance against hard times, which of course are never anticipated. But Trebor and others spearheaded a move to reduce tier. They succeeded, thus slowing... but not so far reversing... the growth of this fund. That said, the fund is still there (utterly obvious in any current financial statement) and so far continues to slowly grow. Tier reductions or not, my position has always been that the reserves are there for investment in the community and insurance for the community. Either of those uses might temporarily cause the reserve fund to drop, and that would be an entirely appropriate thing.

Statements such as yours look pretty foolish when seen against reality, which when it concerns money in as simple a structure as this is, is pretty clear. Please... for your own sake... study the financial reports (and I for one am entirely willing to discuss them and answer questions) before wading into position statements such as this. I'm sure good attorney practice demands suitable research before taking positions.

Beathan wrote:

Rather than provide stipends indiscriminately to government officials, I would rather provide tier waivers to citizens with demonstrable need -- a CDS version of social housing, if you will.

Ha!...so we'll require copies of citizens' tax returns in order to establish "demonstrable need"? Ahh... law-makers. They can dream up such wonderful concepts so long as they don't have to administer them!

Sudane...............................................

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
Rose Springvale
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:29 am

Re: Abolish the Event Budget

Post by Rose Springvale »

I wish we had the option to "like" a post here. well said Sudane.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Abolish the Event Budget

Post by Beathan »

Sudane,

I recognize that we have a reserve. I was not commenting on past practices or on the absence of a reserve, but rather on Trebor's post and his budget. Trebor's post referred to a profit margin of 9% which is calculated from a budget that does not have a line item for a reserve. My point was that I want to reserve funds at a higher rate for major projects. I don't think that you and I disagree on the value of a reserve -- both a general reserve and an additional earmarked reserved, with earmarking occurring only to funds in surplus of a needed reserve.

Any surplus in revenue will, over time, create a reserve. A higher surplus will create a reserve faster. I know that you, and the others who have worked with you on the budget, have been disciplined and, as a result, we have a reserve. I applaud you for that. I just don't think Trebor's proposed budget does that sufficiently, and I think that official stipends are one place we can repair that imbalance.

I also want to start earmarking the reserve so that it is "spoken for" money that can't be treated as found money for haphazard projects or as an example showing that the CDS is charging too much.

I also wasn't advocating my needs test as a fully-fleshed out policy that you have to administer any time soon. I stated it as a preference for official stipends. As a preference, I am not saying that we should have such a policy. I'm only saying that we should have such a policy BEFORE we pay stipends. I would be fine with having neither. I would also be fine with changing the rules requiring that citizens pay their own tier to allow for needs tested charities who can assist citizens with their tier, although such a rule change would require some mechanism for preventing someone from bringing in and paying for truckloads of ringers, a la Manen. In the end, we would probably be advised to leave well enough along and just have an up/down vote on budget items -- with events and stipends being the two categories that could face total or partial cuts.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “Business, Commerce and the Economy”