Go to:
Discussion
Online Doc
File
Poll
Event
Meeting Request
Suggestion
John Blyberg's picture

Dues increase proposal/CPI

Some of you might have read or heard recently that inflation is currently at zero percent (See Ed Dolan's blog post for a pretty good analysis).  The recent proposal for dues increase put before the board pegs dues increases to the CPI starting in 2014.

I'd like to suggest that without any additional investigation and input from the financial strategies task force, the board is not in a position to make any decision on a dues increase, especially one that ties it to an index that may actually force us to decrease dues, as some economists are predicting deflation in the coming quarters.

So I am making a motion to table any further action on the part of the board until it has recieved it's final reccomendation on the issue of dues increases from the financial strategies task force.  The language for this motion would read something like this:

"LITA board will refrain on making a decision about dues increases until it has given the financial strategies task force an opportunity to examine the issue and make a formal reccomendation to the board, including breifing the board on any potential issues that may impact or compound the board's decision."

I'm looking for a second on this motion and opening this issue up for discussion now.  That might include changing the language of the motion or any other issues or concerns you all have regarding this motion.  I'll put up a poll after discussion.

J.

David King's picture

I'll second this... discussion?

Cindi Blyberg's picture

Missing for me in the dues increase discussion so far is any sort of analysis on what sort of revenue increase this will mean for LITA, and how long that will "last" before we are in the hole again--in other words, if we are not actively increasing other streams of revenue, a dues increase will eventually be overrun by increasing costs.  I realize that is what the link to CPI is trying to accomplish, but tying dues to the CPI now doesn't guarantee us any sort of additional increase for the immediate future.  

This should be one of the items taken up and researched by the Financial Strategies Task Force, and not immediately passed by the Board.  Passing a dues increase "because its time" seems unwise given the amount of time any of us has to devote to this research.  Passing it on our own would also undermine the TF - if I were a member, I'd not appreciate the Board taking action when a report from the TF is imminent. 

John Blyberg's picture

Since there is very little discussion on this topic, I've gone ahead and called for a vote on this.  Apparently connect does not like the length of my original language, so I've paired it down a little.  This may require another second--not sure.  Dale?

In any case, I agree with Cindi's comments regarding this issue.  We need to make an inofrmed decision and not just do what ALA or other divisions are doing as clearly it would box us in to a potentially harmful situation.  I agree that the dues structure needs to be examined, but when we address it, it ought to have been done with care and forethought.

J.

Rachel Vacek's picture

I agree with John and Cindi.  As much as I'd like us to move on this issue and come to a resolution, I think it wise to wait for the task force's report and recommendation.  

Rachel Vacek
rvacek@umich.edu

Cindi Blyberg's picture

The Word doc posted on Connect on Feb 15 right before our last meeting was worded as a motion.  There was no second or discussion, however.  But because it was offered as a motion, does it precede this one? Or because there was no second, does it die?

The poll for this one expires on Sunday. Do we need a complete vote, or does it constitute a motion to table the first motions?  Dale?
http://connect.ala.org/node/202056
connect.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-43
30522
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:JH4L7HNMS2A72Z6DYU22PIRKOCNEOFBK
<urn:uuid:7382a77b-4f71-4936-89d9-16f9dcb36469>
2017-10-20T10:22:45Z
74.63.40.8
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:7DJ47W7PIPV4YI6GT74KQPKJDDJXJVCA
<urn:uuid:71b0d6a4-0aae-4078-b651-cf01b9e74309>
http://connect.ala.org/node/202056
response
<urn:uuid:fe19955f-918b-4b3c-a2d1-6ce045d8c721>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-157-174-116.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-43
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf