Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: 2000 and 2001 budget


I used your attendence numbers in generating the budget (and am greatful for
them).  I reviewed the WG attendence against actual registration and found a
difference for Montreal.  Adjusting for that, the attendance forecast
averages 16+ more than registration.  I decreased the numbers further for
the reasons cited by Buzz.  If attendance comes in on your forecast rather
than my attenuated numbers, it will have a beneficial but not overwhelming
effect.  With my expense forecasting model, the CY 2000 deficit would be cut
in half using your attendence numbers.  (My model uses registration
projections to calculate copying, credit card fees, IPF, refreshments and
social. The multiplier for copying, refreshments and social are selected by
inflation adjusted historical data and estimated differently for each site;
other multipliers are fixed or statistically valid.)

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 10:31 AM
To: Grow, Bob; ''
Subject: Re: 2000 and 2001 budget 


Nice job.  However your attendance projections and the ones I have been
keeping based on estimates from the WG chairs are slightly low.  

My estimate for FY '00 averages to approximately 455 attendees per meeting
(versus your estimate of ~412), and for FY '01 around 390 attendees per
meeting (versus your estimate of 375).  See attached data--you may want to
ammend your budget projections.

If any WG chairs see a significant discrepency in the estimates I have
recorded, please notify Bob, Buzz and I with the corrected estimates.


--Paul Nikolich

At 12:27 PM 10/20/99 -0700, Grow, Bob wrote:
>Attached for your preview, please find below a proposed LMSC budget for the
>next two years, which I am required to submit to the Computer Society (I
>have promised it following the November meeting).  (Thanks to Buzz for his
>contribution to the detailed CY 2000 budget.)  I propose to submit the
>CY 2000
>Meeting Fees            320,625
>Other Income                600
>Total                   321,225
>Meeting costs           209,450
>Document Distribution     1,500
>IPF to ANSI/IEEE        110,200
>Other Expenses               75
>Total                   321,225
>ESTIMATED TOTAL               0
>CY 2001
>Meeting Fees            320,625
>Other Income                450
>Total                   321,075
>Meeting costs           218,185
>Document Distribution     1,700
>IPF to ANSI/IEEE        101,800
>Other Expenses               90
>Total                   321,075
>ESTIMATED TOTAL               0
>The above proposed submission is based on the attached detailed budget.
>will note differences.  The detailed budget is used to manage the operating
>reserve and assure solvency.  Notes to the budgets follow:
>1.  The above budgets are based on the income projections found in the
>detailed budgets.  In operation, expenses are managed to income, and to a
>large extent proportional to income (i.e., both based on meeting
>2.  The CY 2000 budget assumes current meeting fees.  The CY 2001 budget
>assumes a meeting fee increase of $25.  The CY 2000 starting operating
>reserve includes a projected 10.2k operating loss from our November 1999
>3.  The detailed budgets are not in conformance with LMSC Operating Rules,
>Procedure 2, item 6.  This rule would require maintenance of an operating
>reserve of approximately $80,000.  This deviation from the rules is
>recommended because of our relationship with our sponsor.  The Computer
>Society has adopted a policy (from which they will exempt us) of
>confiscating any bank balance over $10,000.  To maintain our independence,
>it is felt best to keep the operating reserve below $40,000.
>4.  The detailed projection of operating reserve is sufficient to cover a
>planned shutdown of LMSC operations, but the projected reserve is
>insufficient for worst case meeting cancellation expenses (a financial
>exposure to our sponsor).
>5.  The CY 2000 budget forecasts a larger than desired operating loss.
>November meeting expenses are expected to be lower than budget, but Tampa
>a new meeting site so budget is intentionally high.  The CY 2000 operating
>loss is equal to the largely discretionary meeting equipment budget.
>could also be improved by increasing fees earlier than CY 2001.
>6.  The detailed budgets include IPF payments per current practice (~31% of
>expenses).  The anticipated change in ISO liaison status, as well as
>different internationalization tracks for some of our Working Groups
>a reallocation of this expense to other uses.  This significantly changes
>the budget.  
>7.  The detailed budgets do not include some proposed expense items.
>equipment is budgeted, the costs for suggested meeting networking are
>unknown and consequently may not be possible within the budget.  The
>for addition of cookies to the afternoon refreshments has not been budgeted
>(it would raise refreshments approximately $12.50 per attendee, requiring a
>fee increase). 
> <<00 Budget.pdf>>  <<01 budget.pdf>> 
>Attachment Converted: "c:\My Documents\Documents\Email_temp_storage\00
>Attachment Converted: "c:\My Documents\Documents\Email_temp_storage\01