Re: [Tccc] Questions on IEEE Cost/Benefit Analysis and Fiscal transparency

Dear Joe:
Thank you for your comments. Please, notice that I was responding to
previously made comments on the IEEE total yearly surplus, that is the
difference between *all* IEEE revenues and *all* IEEE costs (strictly
speaking the IEEE profit, which apparently is being called surplus to
make it technically consistent with the IEEE legal status (a
not-for-profit organisation)).

This is important because (most of) the surplus-uses you list do not
really apply to this surplus/profit in the sense that they have already
been considered before the overall surplus/profit is reported (for
example, money lost by some conferences, or by journals, as well as
money used grants have already been considered before the overall profit
is reported). We are talking about net overall surplus (profit).

Also please notice that it would be helpful to this debate and to the
community if specific values were provided for specific uses. For
example, how much money do money-losing events/journals actually lose,
and how much do surplus-making events make in a recent/typical? What
about this information on an event by event and journal-by-journal
basis? How much money is used for specific grants and subsidies? Is the
community allowed to have that information, and if not, why not?

Thank you, again.

Virgilio

Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, Virgilio,
>
> Some thoughts on the surplus issue...
>
> Virgilio Rodriguez wrote:
> > Dear Dr. Manoj:
> > I appreciate your thoughtful message, and agree with much of it.
> > However, I am also having difficulties with some of its content.
>
> > It appears to imply that surpluses should continue to be generated at a
> > significant rate (10% of revenues or more) at perpetuity, because
> > "The accumulated surpluses over many years will be our only option left
> > if we don't have a surplus in any year".
>
> > Please, correct me if I am wrong, but --- considering that IEEE purports
> > to be a not-for-profit institution --- isn't the main (or ONLY) purpose
> > of the "accumulated surpluses" precisely to serve as "rainy day" funds
> > in those years in which unanticipated events create some special
> hardship?
>
> Surpluses are used in a variety of ways in a non-profit such as the IEEE:
>
> - support a required buffer against unexpected conference losses
> some organizations require a buffer of 50% of
> conference costs
>
> - support meetings that operate at a loss
> a small surplus in any single year
> isn't necessarily that significant
>
> - self-sponsor
> student grants, resource-limited grants,
> grants for meetings on particular topics of
> strategic importance, etc.
>
> > If I am correct, then, the policy should be to generate surplus UP TO
> > the point in which savings reach certain level deemed prudent (and
> > adjusted by inflation, of course). As soon as that level is reached,
> > then budgeting/pricing policy should aim to generate close to zero
> > surplus.
>
> That is the general plan, FWIW.
>
> > On a related note, some comments (not necessarily yours) seem to say or
> > imply that IEEE should aim to perpetuate itself. While such aim sounds
> > in principle reasonable, it is by no means uncontroversial. The IEEE is
> > supposed to be a professional association integrated by individuals who
> > willingly decide to join it. In the hypothetical case that the IEEE
> > disappears because not enough individuals continue to believe that it
> > offers to them more value than it costs, it is difficult to see why that
> > would be a bad thing. Isn't that normal for a "free" society?

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc