Division iv director s report
Download
1 / 16

Division IV Director’s Report - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on

Division IV Director’s Report. Peter Staecker July 2001. BoD meeting: Beijing. Core Function History Dues Increase Challenge budget mandate Future Meetings of BoD/OUs. Core Function History.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Division IV Director’s Report' - tansy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Division iv director s report

Division IV Director’s Report

Peter Staecker

July 2001


Bod meeting beijing
BoD meeting: Beijing

  • Core Function History

  • Dues Increase

  • Challenge budget mandate

  • Future Meetings of BoD/OUs


Core function history
Core Function History

  • Background: request by TAB to see history of core function growth. Dan Senese previews to BoD in Beijing.

  • Summary:

    • Function categories and list

    • Financial History

    • Discussion


Sidebar oar
Sidebar: OAR

  • Syntax: Overhead Allocation Recovery, AKA the Findlay model, = a revised New Financial Model.

  • Purpose: Distribute income and expenses in fair & equitable manner

  • Revenue streams to support Infrastructure expenses:

    • OU Reserve income, IP revenue, Conference registrations, Dues

    • Don’t forget cost-cutting

  • Further recommendations:

    • Direct Core Function (Infrastructure) costs be paid by users

    • Indirect Core Function (Infrastructure) costs should be allocated

  • Result: Costs will be visible to all OUs at time of budget preparation. Core function cost reduction will be a shared exercise.


Core functions 48m total
Core Functions ($48M* total)

Member services

Controllers/Admin & Payroll

Human resources

Business admin & financial planning

In-house investing & procurement

Information technology

Sales & marketing

Customer services

Financial services

Corp activities, awards & facilities

Executive

Constituent communications

SPC & research

* ~ 20% of IEEE budget

Direct

Mostly Direct

Indirect


Core function categories
Core Function Categories

Direct ($11.8M)

  • Shared services supporting all IEEE

  • Direct charge (= pay-by-the-drink)

    • (Time sheets, headcount, equipment usage, sq ft, # of orders, etc)

    • Member services

    • Controllers/Admin & Payroll

    • Business admin & financial planning

    • Human resources

    • In-house investing & procurement


Core function categories1
Core Function Categories

Mostly Direct ($26.1M)

  • Shared services supporting most of IEEE

  • Direct charges as above; Indirect allocated by committees (OAR, IEEE FinCom, ExCom)

  • Mixture? Stay tuned

    • Information technology

    • Customer services

    • Financial services

    • Sales & marketing


Core function categories2
Core Function Categories

Fully indirect ($10.1M)

  • Shared service supporting all IEEE

  • Indirect charges allocated by committees (OAR, IEEE FinCom, ExCom)

    • Corp activities, awards & facilities

    • Executive

    • Constituent communications

    • SPC & research


Core function history1
Core Function History

  • Overall Core Function spending meaningful:

    • $26M (1996) -> $48M (2002B)

    • 10.7% CAGR

    • IT largest ($17M) by factor of 3

    • Some high growth categories, but…

  • Category level trend data not meaningful

    • Need for restated historical financials

  • Need to link closely to OAR


Next steps
Next steps

  • Cost center definition consistent with requirements of overhead recovery process (Findlay committee)

  • Provide restated multi-year history (number of years to be defined)

  • Create budget standards that are IEEE Finance Committee approved

  • Create new budget format that is easier to understand


Bod meeting beijing1
BoD meeting: Beijing

  • Core Function History

  • Dues Increase

  • Challenge budget mandate

  • Future Meetings of BoD/OUs


Dues increase
Dues Increase

  • Passed: Dues increase from $86 to $101

    • R1 Assessment of $2

    • R1-R6 USA Assessment of $4

    • Agreed in principle: annual dues increase

  • Comments:

    • Bad timing (economics; double hit to members if S/C dues rise also)

    • Necessary to avoid additional $3M shortfall


Bod meeting beijing2
BoD meeting: Beijing

  • Core Function History

  • Dues Increase

  • Challenge budget mandate

  • Future Meetings of BoD/OUs


Challenge budget mandate
Challenge Budget Mandate

Motion: IEEE FinCom recommends that the BoD require that the IEEE OUs, including the Societies as tiered down by TAD meet the challenge budgets recommended by the IEEE ED.

This recommendation was passed.


Bod meeting beijing3
BoD meeting: Beijing

  • Core Function History

  • Dues Increase

  • Challenge budget mandate

  • Future Meetings of BoD/OUs


Meetings of the bod
Meetings of the BoD

Motion: ExCom recommends that future meetings of the BoD and OUs be held in locations close to Headquarters.

  • Against: Violates a “rule” stating that 1 meeting every other year must be held outside R1-6. Make the selection $ based rather than location based.

  • For: It will save money.

  • Motion failed (by 1 vote).


ad