 |
 |
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