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?
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. When non-anticipated events drive the accumulated saving
significantly below the "prudent" level, then surplus generation should
be re-started but maintained only until the desired level of savings is
reached once again, and so on. Doesn't this sound reasonable, and
appropriate for a not-for-profit institution?
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?
In fact, as technology (in particular telecommunication technology and
the Internet) continues to change our lives, it is certainly conceivable
that certain social tele-institutions (perhaps along the lines of the
likes of facebook, or others we cannot now envision) may render the
professional societies of today obsolete (in which case their
perpetuation would be non-optimal and hence socially undesirable).
With my best regards,
Virgilio
Manoj B. S. wrote:
> Habib, Joe, and others:
>
> A surplus of close to $10M over an approximate revenue of more than
> $100M is not very huge. Infact, minor issues or even rumors can wipe
> out the entire surplus. We also need to consider that not all
> conferences and not all societies contribute to a surplus. The
> accumulated surpluses over many years will be our only option left if
> we don't have a surplus in any year. I am sure all of us know about
> it.
>
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
No comments:
Post a Comment