On 15/12/2010 13:17, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Branches and Groups were told, as promised, the day after Nov Council
> (which set the budget this is part of). It's a one-year impact, and if
> anyone gets into real difficulties as a result of it then there is a fund
> of money set aside for that purpose that is available to them.
It depends what you mean by "told". The Branch and Group Treasurer
Instructions were only e-mailed after 5pm yesterday - treasurers are
cautious people and tend to react to actual instruction rather than
alarmist reports of panicky actions. The Instructions, incidentally,
include new guidnce on reserves - apparently we should have have a
minimum reserve to cover one year's expenditure in case someone cuts off
the income... *Now* they tell us!
We are told that it's a "one-year impact" - this is difficult to
believe. If there really is an underlying problem, then a "one-year
impact" won't solve it. If there isn't, why is a "one-year impact"
necessary?
> We all know this is far from ideal, but it is part of a much wider
> package of economies that are necessary as part of re-modelling CILIP
> activities (building on Defining our Professional Future outcomes of what
> members want) and it's financial model. This will increase CILIPs
> relevance to the needs and wants of its members and ensure it has the
> ability to advocate strongly for the sector.
Far from ideal? It's going to cause chaos! In fact, we won't be able to
plan anything until we know what finances are going to be available for
2012. (And as a "minimum reserve" is by definition money that can't be
spent, actual reserves will need to be higher than that.)
> There will be a piece in the January new member publication talking about
> the overall budget, some of individual components, and reasons for and
> plans for the future.
I'm tempted to ask "What future?"
John Briggs
|