The so-called "flat rate" proposal is actually for a banded, income-based 
system capped at approximately £150 at today's prices (£138 with discount). The 
top rate will be payable by everyone earning more than £17,000. The £138/£150 
subscription will be increased by the rate of inflation, but there is no 
proposal to raise the £17000 threshold in line with inflation. Subscriptions at 
all levels will be lower than in 2003/2004, and cuts will be largest for high 
earners, due to the £150 cap. Those who earn less than £17k (34% of 
subscription-paying members at present) can pay at the top rate by default or 
opt to pay at the banded rate. It is hard to see any low earners opting to pay 
more than they have to, except through embarrassment or error, and although 
Cilip have not admitted that this is part of the design I can think of no other 
reason for introducing an opt-out process. A little extra income may be gained 
this way, but there may also be people who believe that flat rate means flat 
rate (a reasonable supposition), and leave or decline to join Cilip because the 
rate appears too high for the benefits on offer (remember that Cilip refuses to 
act as a trade union and does not provide workplace representation or access to 
qualified lawyers, thus denying itself the 3 strongest reasons for joining! 
Cilip is also losing its advocacy role to MLA, a generously grant-aided quango 
that does not have to worry about members and subscriptions).

The sums don't work ...

Assuming that membership remains at the same level as this year, I have 
calculated using figures provided by Tim Buckley Owen that capping 
subscriptions at £138/£150 will produce a reduction in Cilip's annual 
subscription income of between £101,295 and  £216,087, depending how many 
people choose to receive the discount. 90% take-up seems a conservative 
estimate, and on that basis, with the same membership, Cilip's income will fall 
by £204,608.

Even assuming that Cilip members cost the organisation nothing, a 10% increase 
in the number of members earning over £17k would be needed to make up the loss 
through subscription cuts. I was not able to discover what members actually 
cost, but estimating (very conservatively, I suspect) that it is £39 per year, 
a 14% increase in such members would be needed to maintain income. To increase 
income by 10%, members paying the top rate would have to increase by 20%. 
Obviously larger increases in members would be needed if some new members earn 
less than £17k, which seems almost certain.

Tim does not dispute my calculations, but says that his are based on a margin 
of risk, not actual membership, and that forecast figures are within the margin 
of risk. In reality it is actual members who pay, and we will need a lot more 
of them. Cilip believe that increases can be achieved by cutting subscription 
rates, by releasing staff from subscription-chasing duties to concentrate on 
recruitment, and by reducing the number of defaulters. They are probably right, 
but no research seems to have been done on how many extra people can be 
recruited and retained in this way. We do not lose thousands of members 
accidentally every year; most of them are simply late payers, their money is 
received during the year, and they pay more because they pay late. The policy 
seems to be: close your eyes, cut subscriptions and hope for the best.

According to Guy Daines, the AGM is "sovereign" in deciding subscriptions. 
Consequently, if this year's AGM (or now the postal ballot) agrees a 3 year 
plan, next year's AGM is at liberty to discard it and do anything else it wants 
to do. This being so, it seems to me that what we need this year is evidence to 
show that the "transitional" subscription plan for 2004/2005 (cuts across the 
board) is sustainable in itself, and not just as part of a 3 year plan, but no 
such evidence is forthcoming.

I think the blind faith approach is reckless and likely to damage Cilip. I 
would reject the current proposal on grounds of fairness and economic 
sustainability. I would also request that Cilip break out of their blinkered 
obsession with the subscription structure, and look at all the other relevant 
factors, especially the issue of value for money raised by Gillian Edwards and 
others.

Regards, Aran Lewis.

----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net