Finances, Dues and Meetings
Michael
real anomaly. The reality is that the annual dues barely cover the
cost of lunches. The anomaly is that the more members attending
lunch, the more trouble we are in. (This is because full members who
do not attend are really subsidizing the lunch costs for those who do
attend. If one attends every Tuesday, the real contribution to the
luncheon per member per week is about $8.35 while the restaurant
charges us $13 per diner per week, so there is over a $4 deficit.)
What to do? Raise dues again? Reduce the number of meetings? Find a
new meeting place? Roger, our treasurer, says that we can make it
through this quarter, but clearly we need some planning for the near
future. A few good ideas came up at the Board meeting.
What are your ideas?
Michael
Therese Brady Donohue
last three weeks each month. But if we are charged less for not meeting once
a month, our members would also expect to pay less so I guess its a wash out
to meet less. We don't need a dinner, but I understand that Hickory Ridge
isn't willing to provide a lunch spread instead. $13 is a lot to pay for
lunch considering most of us don't pile our plates and many just have the
salad and cold cuts. Is there any other place we can go that is more
reasonable? Tis a problem. If our membership fees go up again, we will lose
a percentage of people, including me. Getting more members doesn't help if
they charge $13 per meal. How is Rotary handling this?
Therese
Hubbard Smith
To: Future of The Amherst Club
Hubbard Smith
From: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Michael
Sent: Tue 11/3/2009 4:39 PM
To: Future of The Amherst Club
Subject: Finances, Dues and Meetings
Vivienne Carey
current financial problem; the other is how we see the role of the
club in the future.
The first question needs to be addressed right now. I cannot believe
that any of us would run our household or our business with as much
blithe disregard for its financial situation as we do our club. We
really have to face the fact that our quarterly payments cover less
than two thirds of the actual cost of the thirteen lunches that we
consider our due. Thirteen lunches at $13 each in fact total $169.
Discussions about having a smaller meal option, meeting less
frequently or moving to a different venue are circulating. However,
none of these address the present situation of an ever decreasing bank
balance having to cover a fixed charge.
I would suggest that for the immediate future we have a box on each
table that is labelled with a suggestion that all members who can
afford to do so deposit an amount of up to $5 each time they attend.
This could be accompanied by a general email describing our situation
and how this amount of $5 was decided on. Members who cannot afford to
pay more can quietly ignore the box, and as their fellow diners will
be contributing their offerings at various times during the course of
the meeting, who does and does not pay will not be noticed.
Submitted by your thrifty housewife, in training to be a bona fide
Yankee, Vivienne
Michael Greenebaum
Michael
Hubbard Smith
From: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Michael Greenebaum
Sent: Tue 11/3/2009 6:46 PM
To: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
Lorraine Desrosiers
lunch money to offset the club subsidy for members who attend regularly. It
seems very fair and has the added benefit of eliminating the dread (however
subtly it may exist in us) that a full house is costing us more money than a
less attended one. It is appropriate, simple, and discrete. Members can be
reminded that they will not be paying more than the well-published $13 per,
but that their additional contribution will merely bring their individual
payment up to the similar amount for everyone. I say we consider this
suggestion very seriously.
Lorraine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vivienne Carey" <vivien...@comcast.net>
To: "Future of The Amherst Club"
<future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
Citizen Wald
i.e. reading these serious and thought-provoking exchanges with
interest but not commenting. Others have longer histories and better
insight than I do. But here's my first comment:
The idea is in theory an admirable one, but in practice, I think, the
wrong way to go (though it does appealingly remind me of some
communal customs of the Middle Ages).
Problem:
The discussion to date has demonstrated we aren't sure of our raison
d'être, we aren't attracting enough new members to pay the bills, the
membership will not accept a policy that raises dues to the level
that even approximates covering costs (especially now that we have
learned from Hub that a year has 13 weeks :} --the preceding
typographical element, by the way, is an "emoticon" or a
"smiley" [view it sideways] indicating that I am joking). And we may
surmise that increasing dues still further would make it even harder
to attract new members.
Proposed solution, reduced to its bare essentials:
We are being asked to make our operating budget dependent on charity.
Conclusion: This is simply not a sustainable way to run an organization.
If we need to consider this suggestion very seriously, then I think
we need to consider very seriously whether the Club as we know it has
a future.
Jim
On 3 Nov 2009, at 22:03, Lorraine Desrosiers wrote:
>
> Vivienne, I really do like your idea of having a table box for
> additional lunch money to offset the club subsidy for members who
> attend regularly. It seems very fair and has the added benefit of
> eliminating the dread (however subtly it may exist in us) that a
> full house is costing us more money than a less attended one. It
> is appropriate, simple, and discrete. Members can be reminded that
> they will not be paying more than the well-published $13 per, but
> that their additional contribution will merely bring their
> individual payment up to the similar amount for everyone. I say we
> consider this suggestion very seriously.
>
> Lorraine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vivienne Carey"
> <vivien...@comcast.net>
> To: "Future of The Amherst Club" <future-of-the-amherst-
> cl...@googlegroups.com>
Lorraine Desrosiers
makes me cringe to hear this, even in the abstract.
Historically, as my faulty memory will permit, the club has always been on
the edge with respect to lunch costs/dues, although I refer the actual facts
of the matter to the arithmetic available to our treasurers past and
present. Even with a larger membership, there is always going to be a
problem, which is not really a dues problem but a cost-for-food problem,
since that cost is figured by the number of people who eat and the
restaurant's parameters, and not the number of people who belong and then
don't eat. If you pay, you can eat, and we wouldn't discourage that, would
we? (In this, the Board is considering other ways to offset costs, such as
a category of membership that doesn't ever expect to come to lunch -- more
ideas welcome.) The club has always struggled with what I can only call
niggling over dues but relied on the membership's being able and willing to
sustain a rise and this has proved effective. As you might infer from the
above, the issue of membership is closely related to dues and lunch
presence, but it is not a straightforward relationship. This year, however,
discussion has a more somber character. I could speculate as to why but I
want to wait a bit before I commit those thoughts to writing.
In the meantime, I have to ask why a small rise in dues creates such
resistance. As close to the bone as I am financially in my retirement
(though I hate to mention such personal details publicly and in writing) a
$13 weekly lunch does not bother me. If it went to $14, that wouldn't
bother me either, nor even higher. When we compare the cost of eating out
at various places, it seems modest, even for lunch. Eating out is
expensive. Shelling out $25 x 2 for our party is expensive. Love Notes
attendance is expensive. Everything is expensive. But the way I think about
expenses is in terms of priorities. I hold Amherst Club participation in a
very high place in relation to that because I believe in our reason for
being. I hope that doesn't change. But maybe it isn't the same for others.
Our reason for being has never been clearer. What is unclear about it?
Although membership in the club has had ancillary purposes that have shifted
a bit over the years, our overriding purpose is still exactly the same,
namely to support a community that offers so much to all of us, and to do it
in a way that brings the neediest members of that community into the realm
of being able to enjoy its benefits once their basic needs have been
addressed with the best help we can provide. I don't see any difference
today than I did decades ago when I first joined this wonderful club.
Tina Berins
What about the concept of an additional form of membership called
perhaps "supporting membership" at $175 per quarter. It could be
presented as an option on the quarterly bills and be less intrusive
than weekly envelopes. Those who are willing to pay this can do so
privately with only the treasurer in the know. It would be a polite
unobtrusive way to add to the club's funds. I think we would find
quite a few members willing to support the actual cost of our meals.
No coercion, it seems worth a try.
Tina
Lorraine Desrosiers
meeting.
Lorraine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tina Berins" <tbe...@comcast.net>
To: <future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Citizen Wald
seriousness of the situation as the Board members have presented it.
With regard to our sense of purpose, I was again echoing things I had
already been hearing for a few years: the tension or relation between
our role as an active service organization (do things, raise money)
and a more social one (hear talks, network, etc.). We actually do
well at the former, but the latter is consuming our energy and money
(and not getting enough of the latter).
The idea of a supporting membership is of course an excellent one,
which many organizations employ. However, my caveat is that, as a
rule, those extra funds go to some special purpose, e.g. to support
an activity associated with the core mission or to build an endowment.
Dues at present are $ 100. I would be cautious about hoping that
members will voluntarily take on a 75-percent increase in their
commitment just to subsidize everyone's lunch.
I also like the idea of the practical, the reality check: at present
our dues, as noted, are $ 100 (an increase from previous levels). The
form contains an option for additional gifts for endowment--$ 5, $
10, or any amount you'd care to give, or however it is phrased. I
wonder whether our Treasurer could tell us how many members
contribute how much by this means each year. I'm not on the Board
now, so I don't see the current reports, but I can bet that it is not
a huge number of members, and I can bet that the average additional
donation is nowhere near $ 75.
And then, we need to ask ourselves (see the other, earlier
discussion), what prospect do we have for building endowment (aside
from the prospect of an "angel" gift from outside, or bequests), when
we are asking people to dig so deep for lunch money.
I still come back to the problem that we have no good way to cover
operating costs.
The fact that it is the cost of lunch that is causing the crisis and
driving the discussion may help us to focus our minds as we review
the bigger issue of whether we are an active service organization or
a networking group.
Jim
>> To: "Future of The Amherst Club" <future-of-the-amherst-
>> cl...@googlegroups.com>
Hubbard Smith
From: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Tina Berins
Sent: Wed 11/4/2009 11:07 AM
To: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
pots...@comcast.net
Other clubs have a membership fees ($100) a year and member pay for the meals they eat.
Anne
----- Original Message -----
From: Hubbard Smith
To: future-of-the-amherst-club@googlegroups.com, future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: RE: Finances, Dues and Meetings
> To: "Future of The Amherst Club" > >
Lorraine Desrosiers
exactly what this discussion group is for. So you have raised the question
about whether we are an active service organization or a networking group.
We can be both, and more, but perhaps you can explain why this is a question
for you. We still network, but not so much for professional reasons, and we
do, of course, actively engage in service. I want to hear more about your
concern and I apologize if I am being too dense to recognize your meaning.
So please say more.
Note that our operating costs are pretty nil compared with the cost of
lunch. They include stationery, mugs, occasional gifts and cards, and
probably some service fees, nothing much, but others have better details on
that. Once again, some history. When the club started, I believe (I wasn't
one of the founding members) there was a concern not to have dues in the
regular sense, and that members would pay for their lunches and not much
else. Other monies would come from fundraising, which we could funnel to
others while keeping some for our operating costs, which mainly came to be
mounting the next fundraiser and not much else. Nearly all our money went
out to help others, leaving our lunches to be paid for by members in a fair
and simple way. It wasn't until later that we realized that as food costs
rose, those who attended weekly benefitted at the expense of those who put
in their regular dues but didn't come to eat. But it's important to note
that the cost for lunch was what dues was all about. I might venture to say
that if, in the beginning, we each paid separately for lunch, there might
have been virtually no dues at all except, perhaps, for the first year, but
I am speculating to make a point.
Lunch is not exactly an operating cost, yet the club pays with money from
members as a whole. And eating together does provide a context, offers
opportunity for building relationships of all sorts, and through our
speakers, connects us to the community at large. It cannot, in my opinion,
be done without; it is fundamental. So to ask for additional support from
members who can afford it or with a new category of membership that pays to
"belong" but without any other obligation or commitment, does not seem to be
outside our core mission. Yes, it's lunch, which we would be having anyway
if we were not at Amherst Club, but the Amherst Club lunch is more than just
the privilege of eating together. To have it subsidized in order to
stabilize or increase membership, or to make it easier for individuals to
contribute money to the endowment, or with unscheduled gifting to enhance
our mission (don't ask me for details as these gifts are private), seems to
be more than just meeting expenses outside our mission. There is
justification for it.
I have to say the following and mean no offense to you, Jim, or anyone else:
if some members feel that having their lunches subsidized more than it
already is (and recognizing that it is, in fact, presently subsidized) then
perhaps they do not realize the purpose of our lunch meetings, which is not
merely eating together. Much more happens at lunch than that.
I might add that one of the conditions for membership used to be, and
perhaps still is, attending lunch regularly and participating fully in
fundraising. We used to give out yearly prizes for attendance, a nice red
rose for those who attended every week or nearly so, ask Phyllis Lehrer, who
took on the task. We did this until we realized it was not in our interest
to reward attendance for the reasons already stated. Perhaps this was our
first mistake, a confusion that is now haunting us.
Lorraine
P.S. Apologies for being so long-winded.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Citizen Wald" <jjw...@comcast.net>
To: <future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Lorraine Desrosiers
----- Original Message -----From: Hubbard SmithSent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:11 PMSubject: RE: Finances, Dues and Meetings
Hubbard Smith
Michael Greenebaum
Anne M's idea: perhaps our quarterly dues could cover six meals (two
meals a month), with the remaining six or seven meals being charged at
the prevailing rate. This would require more tedious bookkeeping, but
members could monitor their costs.
Another variation: have dues at $30 a quarter and pay full freight for
lunches taken.
More ideas: rent the space and brown bag-it. Move to a late afternoon
wine and cheese format.
I think keeping a weekly schedule is important for the cohesiveness of
the Club but I am perfectly willing to consider less food, different
kind of meeting, different dues structure, etc.
Michael
Lorraine Desrosiers
is my first choice because it is the smallest departure from the status quo
regarding food and venue and would make the change faster and easier vis a
vis discussion. I agree with keeping to a weekly schedule.
Arthur Kinney
I've helped out some by attending twice since June and paying full
dues. But the clearest thing is a price rise. I doubt that we could
find another restaurant.
Arthur
Roger Webb
"I also like the idea of the practical, the reality check: at present our
dues, as noted, are $ 100 (an increase from previous levels). The form
contains an option for additional gifts for endowment--$ 5, $ 10, or any
amount you'd care to give, or however it is phrased. I wonder whether our
Treasurer could tell us how many members contribute how much by this means
each year. I'm not on the Board now, so I don't see the current reports,
but I can bet that it is not a huge number of members, and I can bet that
the average additional donation is nowhere near $ 75."
Answers:
In the last 5 quarters (July 2008 - September 2009), the endowment has had a
total of $691 donated (as part of the dues payments), which averages $138
per quarter. This consists of 92 separate donations, from 36 different
members. The average donation was thus $7.50, with the "average donor"
donating about half the time (though in fact a few donated every time and
more donated once or twice).
I would also like to point out that, although School Principals think there
are 12 weeks in a quarter, and Historians think there are 13 weeks in a
year, Treasurers appear to labor under the delusion that there are 13 weeks
in a quarter and 52 weeks in a year. Astrophysicists, of course, think they
know otherwise. :)
Roger
Citizen Wald
I am very busy and sleep-deprived this week--hence my apparent
typographical switching of "year" and "week" in reference to the
number 13, though, perhaps I am just a would-be astrophysicist, and
forgot to mention that I was referring to a different planetary
system--so I may not be expressing myself clearly.
I was merely struck by the extent to which the cost of our weekly
meetings/lunch has in this conversation overshadowed what we actually
do there and elsewhere. Our main/sole source of income goes to
finance (inadequately, as it turns out) the meals, which are a part
of our luncheon-talk component. I value this activity very much, and
indeed, this is how most of our members are engaged in the affairs of
the Club.
Alongside that is our other, charitable component, which requires a
great deal of our time (or of the time of some) for a small portion
of the year, but does not require much in the way of start-up or
operating funds.
If we saw ourselves primarily as a service organization that raises
funds for charity, we would not need the lunch meetings and expense.
However, we also would not really need a Club. We could be a Love
Notes committee that comes together for just a few months each year.
I know that other people, too, greatly value the luncheon talks and
the fellowship, but I am not sure that they value the lunch food at $
13 (or whatever the market price happens to be). There seems to be no
easy way to reduce the price of lunch under the current system, and
no very palatable way to raise the additional revenue (my earlier
point: voluntary contributions cannot be a permanent solution).
It is interesting that people are starting to discuss alternatives
that would allow us to continue the activity without having to take
on a huge dues increase. Decoupling dues and lunch payments would be
simple and rational from one perspective, though it would impose a
higher burden of record-keeping.
Jim
Lorraine Desrosiers
short funds. We'll see where that takes us. Perhaps there will be other
fallouts if we do it. For example, if we don't pay for lunches via
compulsory dues, some might not come so regularly, which would undermine our
fellowship and self-defeat once again. Our venue requires paying for a
minimum number of meals regardless of whether we actually have the
attendance. Probably wouldn't happen but it's something to keep in mind. I
hope we do not consider changing venues.
Once again, let me review the thinking of earlier days. It was thought then
that the good will and familiarity generated by members having weekly
lunches together would be fundamental to our working effectively as a group
toward common ends. I can't imagine having a successful yearly fundraiser
without meeting regularly all year as well as our other activities that
raise a bit of money and increase fellowship. I would not want to consider
changing our structure significantly in order to avoid paying for the actual
lunch food. As our discussions have shown, there are other alternatives. I
don't believe there would be a significant cost difference if we chose to
pay for lunch by redistributing payment responsibility. And we might be
able to solve this in a simple enough way to avoid record-keeping problems.
Lorraine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Citizen Wald" <jjw...@comcast.net>
To: <future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
>
> No offense taken.
>
> I am very busy and sleep-deprived this week--hence my apparent
> typographical switching of "year" and "week" in reference to the number
> 13, though, perhaps I am just a would-be astrophysicist, and forgot to
> mention that I was referring to a different planetary system--so I may
> not be expressing myself clearly.
>
> I was merely struck by the extent to which the cost of our weekly
> meetings/lunch has in this conversation overshadowed what we actually do
> there and elsewhere. Our main/sole source of income goes to finance
> (inadequately, as it turns out) the meals, which are a part of our
> luncheon-talk component. I value this activity very much, and indeed,
> this is how most of our members are engaged in the affairs of the Club.
>
> Alongside that is our other, charitable component, which requires a great
> deal of our time (or of the time of some) for a small portion of the
> year, but does not require much in the way of start-up or operating
> funds.
>
>
>
Vivienne Carey
Ridge compares unfavorably with, for instance, the cost of a lunch
special at any of our local restaurants. That may at first glance
appear to be true, but when we factor in the lovely setting, private
room, free parking, convivial company, social networking opportunities
and guest speaker, then Hickory Ridge offers us a wonderful deal. In
European cafes people customarily pay more for their coffee and food
if eaten at a pleasantly sited table rather then standing up inside at
the bar. Similarly, we should remember that our lunch time meetings
are far more than a mere meal time. I regard our meetings as one of
the highlights of my week and sincerely hope that we can use this
discussion process as an opportunity to renew our commitment to the
club in a positive and fruitful way.
Vivienne
>
> read more »
Lorraine Desrosiers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vivienne Carey" <vivien...@comcast.net>
To: "Future of The Amherst Club"
Michael Greenebaum
always be sensitive to the possibility that for some members $13 for
one lunch a week may be a difficulty, no matter how reasonable and
delightful it might be. Some of the ideas we are exploring here might
help, since individuals could decide for themselves how many lunches
they are able to attend.
Michael
Carlton Brose
I think that suggesting an extra $10-$15 add-on to the dues each quarter would be acceptable to many. The $175 does sound formidable…guess I agree with Hub re the extra amount each week. = NancyB.
Tina Berins
Arthur Kinney
Charging for individual lunches for those who come, in addition to some
minimal dues, is what Rotary does and it works with them. The
difficulty is that we must
guarantee the minimum number to meet the restaurant's weekly minimal
bill about which the much larger Rotary has no problem. The
hospitality fund, as I had set it up, which is the money left over from
the weekly raffle, has handled flowers for the sick, cards, etc., and
perhaps could handle much of the management expenses, lowering dues to
perhaps $15 a quarter.
Arthur
Arthur
Tina Berins wrote:
> Hi people,
>
> I was trying to be a rabble rouser, because it seems silly to me that
> we cannot ask for enough dues to cover our expenses. $169 each
> quarter cover lunch expenses for those who go to each meal. Can't we
> come to some simple agreement to cover expenses. We are almost there,
> but not quite. We should explain with the billing letter how much
> each luncheon costs. I think we have not made club members aware that
> $13 is the true cost of lunch, not just for guests.
>
> Tina
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Carlton Brose wrote:
>
>> I think that suggesting an extra $10-$15 add-on to the dues each
>> quarter would be acceptable to many. The $175 does sound
>> formidable…guess I agree with Hub re the extra amount each week. =
>> NancyB.
>>
>> *From:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com> [mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Lorraine Desrosiers
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:58 PM
>> *To:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
>>
>> Hub, this is certainly agreeable to me. But as to arithmetic, there
>> is little difference between dropping an extra $5 each week, and
>> paying $175 quarterly, and it might just as well be $150 to make it a
>> bargain. If you paid an extra $10 each week, it would equal a
>> quarterly dues of $230. Which would you rather? I think Tina had
>> her calculator out when she made the suggestion.
>>
>> Lorraine
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Hubbard Smith <mailto:hms...@amherst.edu>
>> *To:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com> ; future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:11 PM
>> *Subject:* RE: Finances, Dues and Meetings
>>
>> This member would balk at writing a check for $175, or anything
>> over $100, each quarter, but I'd freely open my wallet and put $5
>> or even $10 into a box on Tuesdays. ---Hub
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of
>> Tina Berins
>> *Sent:* Wed 11/4/2009 11:07 AM
>> *To:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
>> <vivien...@comcast.net <mailto:vivien...@comcast.net>
>> > >
>> > To: "Future of The Amherst Club"
>> <future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Hub Smith
sent a check for $175: $100 for dues and $75 as a contribution to the
regular checking account to help cover the overall lunch costs. So
this person has greatly reduced the Club's subsidy for 13 weeks of his
or her lunches. If this is made known generally, maybe others will
follow? ---Hub
Lorraine Desrosiers
From: "Hub Smith" <hms...@amherst.edu>
To: "Future of The Amherst Club"
<future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
Carlton Brose
troubling for a small handful of people, but if those of us who can handle
the "deficit" do as this kind soul did, the differential between what is
possible and what is not for those folks would be resolved. They do need to
make their circumstances known, and the one I spoke to is unwilling to do
so. So be it! At any rate, the issue is resolvable, I do believe.
I am also concerned that we refine our focus as a club, make sure that each
new member knows what our expectations are in serving the community as we
do, that participation on a committee is expected. Might it be possible for
us to have a greeter at each luncheon (I like the idea!) and assign the new
member to greet everyone. It is a wonderful way for all of us to know one
another better.
Hopefully,
NancyBrose
Roger Webb
charges.
1) My preferred suggestion is to change the method we use to pay
Hickory Ridge. Currently we pay them $13 per person, with a 35 person
minimum. We charge our members a flat fee, regardless of how many
times they come. It would seem to reduce the variation and risk, both
to Hickory Ridge and to the Amherst Club, if the amount we paid each
week did not vary so much. Hickory Ridge needs to receive a reasonable
payment for the rent of the room, to cover the wages of the cook and
server, and to cover the cost of the food (including a reasonable
profit). The cost to them of the food is considerably less than $13
per person - most of that covers wages and room rental, which are
fixed costs. We currently average about 40 people per week, including
the speaker and any guests (this is the average we have paid for over
the last 16 months since I became treasurer - the numbers I can most
easily extract). So we are paying about $520 per week. If instead, we
paid (for example) $320 fixed rate (for the room and personnel) plus
$5 per head (for the food costs), they would receive (on average) the
same total, but with less variation from week to week. I would think
that would make their planning easier. For us, such an arrangement
would minimize the conflicting incentives we have (where a larger
attendance gives us budget problems). It's true we would have a
problem if the total dues-paying membership continued to drop - but
that would be a problem anyway for us, threatening the survival of the
club. On the other hand, if we aggressively recruited new members and
were able to expand the size of the club, which I sense is what many
would like, any increase in membership would help our bank balance (we
receive 100% of the dues increase, but have to pay out only 5/13 of
the increase).
That sounds to me like a win-win situation. However, when I sounded
out Linda on whether she might be interested, and laid out various
options (such as $240 plus $7 per head - making it clear that this was
just an idea and did not have the board's endorsement), she was rather
luke warm to the idea. Her initial comment was that for the rate they
would need to charge, we probably wouldn't be interested. But I think
this idea is worth following up, perhaps with changes in the charging
formula. I am in England at the moment, but will talk to Linda again
after Thanksgiving. If Linda agreed, and the club decides it is a good
idea, we would need to decide how much to charge guests and associate
members (it could be some in-between amount such as $10, which gives
us a small profit).
2) There have been suggestions to charge for each meal, much as Rotary
does. In the past the board has considered and rejected that idea,
mainly because it would give people an incentive not to intend, and
thus probably lead to smaller lunches and perhaps a declining club. I
think that is a real concern. Another, lesser, concern the board had
was the additional administration of collecting the $13 (in cash?) at
each lunch. But it could be done. Currently our non-lunch expenses
(such as mailing bills and printing directories and letterhead)
averages about $150 per month. We also pay about $50 for lunch costs
for our speaker (and I assume we would cover this cost, rather than
expecting the speaker to arrive with $13 cash!). So this comes to
about $2400 per year. We could cover this with a litle to spare with
dues of $40 per year (i.e. $10 per month) for all members (80 members
- no difference between associate and full members). Those who attend
7 lunches per quarter would pay almost exactly the same as now (7 *
$13 + $10 = $101 per quarter). Those who attend more than 7 lunches
would pay more than now, those who attend less would pay less.
If we decide to use this charging method, my suggestion is to have
club dues make a small subsidy to lunches. For example, members could
pay $10 for lunch, and the club pay $3. This makes money collection
considerably easier, and $10 sounds better value for lunch than $13 -
so we might get better attendance. If the club subsidized 40 members
each week at a cost of $3 each, this would cost $120 per week ($1560
per quarter). For 80 members that would mean an additional $20 in
quarterly dues, which is $30 per quarter (the same as associates pay
now). With this method, the same as with paying the full $13 in cash,
the break-even point for members would be for attending 7 lunches per
quarter (7 * $10 + $30 = $100).
I have to point out that although $30 per quarter plus $10 per lunch
perhaps works well now, in the future lunch costs will inevitably rise
to $14 or $15. We would need to then either start collecting a messy
$11 or $12 per lunch, or else increase the subsidy and the $30
quarterly dues.
Roger
Lorraine Desrosiers
on is great. I believe you are trying to come up with a system that
distributes payment for lunches fairly while still retaining the high
purpose of congruence with incentive to attend. I must say I am very
appreciative of and impressed with your analyses. I wish they were easier
to sort through. Let's see what others have to say. Maybe a small
committee...?
Enjoy your holiday visits.
Lorraine.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Webb" <roger....@comcast.net>
To: "Future of The Amherst Club"
<future-of-the...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Finances, Dues and Meetings
Jer...@aol.com
Carlton Brose
Count me in. I’m in agreement with Lorraine and Cynthia. The concept is appealing.
NancyB.