I commend your attitude concerning the release of conference data. I'd
like to point out that in many countries, especially in "the West",
there are "information access" rights that might cover conferences.
Typically these rights/laws give the general public access to
information deemed "in the public interest". That normally includes most
government activities (with certain exceptions such as "security"
things), as well as private activities that are mostly funded with
public money. Those of us who have attended PIMRC and most ComSoc
conferences KNOW that the vast majority of attendees are researchers
funded with grant money. Additionally, most are based in state-supported
institutions, which means their salaries if not charged to grants, also
come from public funds.
So, in fact, these conferences are tax-payers funded events.
Yes, yes, there is a small percentage of attendees coming from industry,
but that percentage is far too low to support the event. The information
access law of France may MANDATE that this budget be released. This of
course is a technical legal matter. However from a common-sense,
reasonability point of view, it is clear that the regular tax payer
should have access to the financial information of an activity that is
predominantly funded with tax money.
Additionally, it is worth pointing out that in an academic conferences
there are two important sides: the academic/technical, and the
administrative.
The academic side controls 100% of the technical content (papers), But
that involves ZERO money. TPC people normally have no idea what happens
to the money. Any question about money should go elsewhere, because
money never touches their hands. Now, it is conceivable that some at the
very top of the TPC might get a refund for their expenses from the
event. If they do, it would seem perfectly reasonable. It would be
ridiculous that after the massive amount of work they put into
organising the technical side of the event, they also have to charge
their expenses to their own grants or institutions. Even then, if a
large event such as Globecom were to spend $3000 refunding a top
organiser expenses (I have no idea if they do or don't, but they
SHOULD), that still would amount to about $1,50 (one dollar and a half)
per top-organiser, per-registration. Obviously that is NOT where the
money goes.
The academic side may also form a "local organising committee".
Basically this is a group of local researchers that provides some
logistic support. In a sense these people are the ones who get the LEAST
possible personal benefit. The conference is in their city, or nearby,
so they get no "tourism" benefit, if their transportation costs were
refunded, these would be very low or negligible, and they may even stay
at home during the conference (not hotel). So,the only significant
benefit they might get is the registration, and compared to the value of
their support to the event, this is more than reasonable. This is NOT
where the money is.
The above ENDS the participation of the academic side.
Further evidence of this, see a direct quote from Prof. Roy previous
message:
"I was Vice-Chair of a Comsoc Conference, I did not see a full budget. I
asked recently the TPC Chair(s) for upcoming ComSoc conference as to
whether he had seen a full budget, and the answer was no."
So, obviously, the academic side has very little or nothing to do with
money. If there is a money/budget problem, one has to look elsewhere.
It is beyond me, why aren't the people who actually manage the money
being the ones addressing money issues.
Virgilio
Mischa Dohler wrote:
> Dear Sumit, all,
>
> I would love to see the PIMRC conference budget published but I do not
> have the authority to do so. The IEEE and, in the case of PIMRC08, the
> SEE in France need to agree to release these data. Apart from the
> transparency issue, other advantages of having these budgets public are
> 1) that future conference organizers can use them as templates to
> prepare their budgets; and 2) the general audience sees how much we
> sweat for more than a year hoping the budget to break even.
>
> A great festive season to everyone and a good start into 2010!
>
> Mischa.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> sroy@u.washington.edu wrote:
>
>> All:
>> First off, I wanted to appreciate Joe's commendable spirit in keeping this
>> thread alive with his level-headed diligence and the many other posters who have contributed to this thread (there have been several other equally valid inter-twined threads, but I wanted to refocus on a core - the relationship of conference costs to the broader matter of transparency). Also, I would like to acknowledge Mischa's recent post with PIMRC expenses data, found that very useful. Noticeably, Mischa's breakdown differs from Joe's assertions about costs in some significant way: e.g. Joe stated that ``food" was 70% of the budget (a statement that I found difficult to comprehend) whereas Mischa's estimate for food was more like 30% (Perhaps Joe meant "food + conference premises rent").
>>
>> Perhaps there are very legitimate reasons for these differences; but until we (the paying members) get some public data that is verifiable, the *perception* will persist that ComSoc is running an inefficient operation at the benign end, or there is misuse at the not-so-benign end.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for Joe to get and publish concrete data delivered by ComSoc, and I'd like to invite Mischa and anyone else to do same. The reason this is important is simple: when I was Vice-Chair of a Comsoc Conference, I did not see a full budget. I asked recently the TPC Chair(s) for upcoming ComSoc conference as to whether he had seen a full budget, and the answer was no. The bottom-line issue that I get stuck on: the lack of ANY public and verifiable data about conference budgets (i.e. no audit report, no URL ...) without which we are generally behaving like the blind with an elephant. What ComSoc does with any "surplus", what "overhead" or how "contingency" costs are factored in - very few of us (members) have any real clue.
>>
>> We are at a time globally when the activities of the governing elites of many institutions (banks, accounting firms, hedge funds ...) are being scrutinized precisely on these accounts - notably, transparency and oversight. I think many of us also believe that ComSoc (and generally IEEE) needs more accountability in general; the above is just ONE example of a general problem that is directly perceived by many.
>>
>> As some (Petri et al) have pointed out - we need to be constructive and figure out how. Certainly getting people dedicated to pushing greater transparency and accountability into positions of influence (Board of Governors, TAC etc.) is , and perhaps it's time to move the discussion in that direction.
>>
>> In that spirit, best wishes for the holidays to all. Perhaps in the New Year - we can drive this discussion towards some constructive action.
>>
>> cheers;
>>
>> Sumit Roy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment