Thursday, February 17, 2005
Imprint votes to raise its fee
I must say that it was not unforeseen that yesterday's Annual General Meeting would become long and tedious. Still, I must admit my surprise for the reasons that it did become lengthy.
Imprint's membership present at the AGM - largely, its volunteer staff - voted to raise the Imprint fee (currently $3.30) by about $0.13 next year. During the debate, which took the better part of an hour, the reasoning seemed to be that since the full-time staff did not receive a CPI increase on their salaries this year (approximately two per cent), and budget lines for volunteer honoraria and staff benefits decreased by a few thousand dollars each, the student fee should be raised to accommodate the difference.
It should be noted that the honoraria and benefits were not the only areas that were cut in next year's budget - many budget lines saw decreases on the order of five per cent for the 2005/06 year. Moving from a budgeted $30,000 deficit (2003/04) to a **balanced budget** (2005/06) required cuts, period.
As chair of the AGM, I was not allowed to offer my position on the issue. I am glad for this, as I strive to fulfill my role to the best of my ability. Still, I am glad for those who voiced opposition to the increase, from Paul Lehmann to Neal Moogk-Soulis to Tim Mollison. First, it's a budget - it can be worked around. The $10,000 or so that the fee was raised to provide could have been sought from other venues, notably advertising. Worst case scenario, a deficit could have been run. I do not think the increase was a wise choice.
More interesting is the fact that many of the members eligible for honoraria essentially just voted to give themselves more money than they were scheduled to get. Many claimed that the primary reason for the fee increase was to accommodate for the f/t staff CPI increase, but that amount represents 25 per cent or less of the increase (~$1-2,000) while the honoraria and benefits represents 75 per cent of more (~$7,500 or more). I do not think these figures support the stated reasoning.
In respect to the members' decision not to award director/officer honoraria, I find the fee increase little more than a slap in the face. The specious logic at the fall general meeting was bad enough, for example:
I am glad to say that policy amendment ratification was much less contentious, going down the chute in less than 15 minutes. Congratulations also go out to next year's board of directors - Dan, Sarah, Jeff, Kelly and Dursh - who appear to be on track as a solid team. It is my hope that they are not given reason to become as disgruntled as I appear in this post.
Imprint's membership present at the AGM - largely, its volunteer staff - voted to raise the Imprint fee (currently $3.30) by about $0.13 next year. During the debate, which took the better part of an hour, the reasoning seemed to be that since the full-time staff did not receive a CPI increase on their salaries this year (approximately two per cent), and budget lines for volunteer honoraria and staff benefits decreased by a few thousand dollars each, the student fee should be raised to accommodate the difference.
It should be noted that the honoraria and benefits were not the only areas that were cut in next year's budget - many budget lines saw decreases on the order of five per cent for the 2005/06 year. Moving from a budgeted $30,000 deficit (2003/04) to a **balanced budget** (2005/06) required cuts, period.
As chair of the AGM, I was not allowed to offer my position on the issue. I am glad for this, as I strive to fulfill my role to the best of my ability. Still, I am glad for those who voiced opposition to the increase, from Paul Lehmann to Neal Moogk-Soulis to Tim Mollison. First, it's a budget - it can be worked around. The $10,000 or so that the fee was raised to provide could have been sought from other venues, notably advertising. Worst case scenario, a deficit could have been run. I do not think the increase was a wise choice.
More interesting is the fact that many of the members eligible for honoraria essentially just voted to give themselves more money than they were scheduled to get. Many claimed that the primary reason for the fee increase was to accommodate for the f/t staff CPI increase, but that amount represents 25 per cent or less of the increase (~$1-2,000) while the honoraria and benefits represents 75 per cent of more (~$7,500 or more). I do not think these figures support the stated reasoning.
In respect to the members' decision not to award director/officer honoraria, I find the fee increase little more than a slap in the face. The specious logic at the fall general meeting was bad enough, for example:
- we (membership) want to use the money to purchase new computers (computers are paid from a capital budget, honoraria are paid from the operating budget, and besides new computers were about to be in the works anyways)
- the amount of the honoraria was too much (A - it was the amount that the membership chose at the Feb 2004 AGM, an amount they chose over an offered lower amount; B - the amount could have been easily amended)
I am glad to say that policy amendment ratification was much less contentious, going down the chute in less than 15 minutes. Congratulations also go out to next year's board of directors - Dan, Sarah, Jeff, Kelly and Dursh - who appear to be on track as a solid team. It is my hope that they are not given reason to become as disgruntled as I appear in this post.
Comments:
<< Home
Actually, I didn't think it was going to be that big of a deal. The Imprint fee is usually an afterthought - it was almost missed at the AGM, despite the bylaw. It was Phil Weiner and his "despite being Conservative, I support higher taxation" bit that started us off, and the membership just kind of ran with it from there.
I think you're a bit harsh on Imprint, Margie. I don't think there's too much bullshit, really - just a membership and a board that don't see eye to eye all the time. I don't believe that they should, in fact.
My thoughts on this are somewhere between a throwback to ancient Greek philosophy and modern-day management theory. Those who work for Imprint are specialists in their jobs - editorial work, article writing, story assignment, etc. They have their own needs and priorities, and are satified to represent them. Over time, they can excel at their tasks, moving into mastery, which can be quite self-fulfilling but often only serves to cement the narrow perspective.
Directors also becomes specialists at their jobs, but their jobs are to look out for the whole of Imprint, not just one part or another. While directors grow in experience, skill and wisdom, moving towards their own mastery, they look at different sets of needs and desires. It's a bit of irony that part of the directors' mastery, in my view, is to support the efforts of the volunteer base to move towards their narrower, specialized forms of mastery - a win-win situation, it banefits the individuals and the corporation.
In the case of the fee increase, the board was looking out for the whole of Imprint - the big picture, the entire scope affected by the fee and the budget - while the volunteer base appeared to be looking out for a much narrower goal. It's hard to fault a collective body that only gets together once or twice a year for not looking at the whole, where the board meets almost bi-weekly all year to do exactly that.
I believe it was Socrates who noted that ancient Greek society was like a statue made of gold, silver and bronze. The head was made of gold, representing thought/rationality and those who oversaw society. The torso was made of silver, and represented the military - those responsible for the strength of the society. The legs were bronze, representing the merchants and traders who were the 'base' of society. The gold was valued more than the bronze, but the statue would not have been complete without each part. Not too different from Imprint, except we have paid staff instead of a military and the 'gold' folks on the board aren't valued monetarily. I just wish that we were. Maybe we should get the military - that might help us to, ah, 'persuade' the hearts and minds of the membership. :)
I think you're a bit harsh on Imprint, Margie. I don't think there's too much bullshit, really - just a membership and a board that don't see eye to eye all the time. I don't believe that they should, in fact.
My thoughts on this are somewhere between a throwback to ancient Greek philosophy and modern-day management theory. Those who work for Imprint are specialists in their jobs - editorial work, article writing, story assignment, etc. They have their own needs and priorities, and are satified to represent them. Over time, they can excel at their tasks, moving into mastery, which can be quite self-fulfilling but often only serves to cement the narrow perspective.
Directors also becomes specialists at their jobs, but their jobs are to look out for the whole of Imprint, not just one part or another. While directors grow in experience, skill and wisdom, moving towards their own mastery, they look at different sets of needs and desires. It's a bit of irony that part of the directors' mastery, in my view, is to support the efforts of the volunteer base to move towards their narrower, specialized forms of mastery - a win-win situation, it banefits the individuals and the corporation.
In the case of the fee increase, the board was looking out for the whole of Imprint - the big picture, the entire scope affected by the fee and the budget - while the volunteer base appeared to be looking out for a much narrower goal. It's hard to fault a collective body that only gets together once or twice a year for not looking at the whole, where the board meets almost bi-weekly all year to do exactly that.
I believe it was Socrates who noted that ancient Greek society was like a statue made of gold, silver and bronze. The head was made of gold, representing thought/rationality and those who oversaw society. The torso was made of silver, and represented the military - those responsible for the strength of the society. The legs were bronze, representing the merchants and traders who were the 'base' of society. The gold was valued more than the bronze, but the statue would not have been complete without each part. Not too different from Imprint, except we have paid staff instead of a military and the 'gold' folks on the board aren't valued monetarily. I just wish that we were. Maybe we should get the military - that might help us to, ah, 'persuade' the hearts and minds of the membership. :)
Your throwback to Greece reminds me of my favourite silent film, Metropolis. The first title card reads,"There can be no understanding between the hand and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator." Besides its communistic overtones, essentially I see Metropolis as a plea to governing bodies over working bodies to take each other's feelings and intentions into consideration.
I was pretty hurt after the AGM, and a little angry when I posted last. This may be a small battle in the grander scheme of life but at least I feel passionately for an organization that has been my home for the last few years. It makes me sad that there is not enough understanding between the "brain" and "hand" of Imprint.
I agree that the membership and board shouldn't see eye to eye all the time... but I'm a volunteer too and no volunteer should feel the way I have. Hopefully my pending resignation will act as a sign more "mediation" is needed. Besides, if everything ran 100% smooth all the time and there was no one like me to stir things up, how would Imprint ever mature? Being harsh once in a while is part of volunteering.
I was pretty hurt after the AGM, and a little angry when I posted last. This may be a small battle in the grander scheme of life but at least I feel passionately for an organization that has been my home for the last few years. It makes me sad that there is not enough understanding between the "brain" and "hand" of Imprint.
I agree that the membership and board shouldn't see eye to eye all the time... but I'm a volunteer too and no volunteer should feel the way I have. Hopefully my pending resignation will act as a sign more "mediation" is needed. Besides, if everything ran 100% smooth all the time and there was no one like me to stir things up, how would Imprint ever mature? Being harsh once in a while is part of volunteering.
I'll post the same thing here I posted on Tim's blog: the reason I voted for the fee increase was because I thought it to be the lesser of two evils.
I see advertising as necessary, not desireable. I sure as hell do not want to give up cover space to ads. I actually wanted some sort of guarantee that increasing the fee would help prevent said ads, but unfortunately Mollison called the motion immediately before I had the chance to speak (something I dislike about Rob's rules).
SO I thought to myself, "if this motion doesn't go through, they're just going to pad the honoraria budget anyway by selling cover ads."
Personally, I don't care about honoraria. It's not why I'm there, and there are far more difficult jobs than board or edboard that don't get any sort of monetary reimbursement. (FOC, anyone?)
Yarg. I have other thoughts on the subject, but I need time to collect them...
I see advertising as necessary, not desireable. I sure as hell do not want to give up cover space to ads. I actually wanted some sort of guarantee that increasing the fee would help prevent said ads, but unfortunately Mollison called the motion immediately before I had the chance to speak (something I dislike about Rob's rules).
SO I thought to myself, "if this motion doesn't go through, they're just going to pad the honoraria budget anyway by selling cover ads."
Personally, I don't care about honoraria. It's not why I'm there, and there are far more difficult jobs than board or edboard that don't get any sort of monetary reimbursement. (FOC, anyone?)
Yarg. I have other thoughts on the subject, but I need time to collect them...
The budget we balanced did not factor in cover ads. There is no guarantee that cover ads will even happen. It was just something Laurie brought up at the last meeting for us to think about. There is no guarantee that raising the fee will prevent them either. But the fee increase calculation was specifically intended to replace the cut in the budget to CPI and honoraria. If you really don't want cover ads, go to the next board meeting and voice your opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home
