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

Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats


This is a practice 802 has used in the past.  Until maybe 3 years ago,
there was a closing Plenary meeting on Friday morning and deadbeats were
publicly identified at that meeting.

With the demised on the closing Plenary meeting (notable lack of
attendance), we have relied on a low profile method of collection in
which F2F contacts the suspected deadbeats by email and informs them of
their obligation to register and pay the registration fee and how to
complete the registration process.

This method, strongly advocated by Buzz, has been quite successful in
several ways.  It allows both sides to correct mistakes or
misunderstandings in private and without public embarrassment.  And it
has yielded a very high collection rate.  If I recall correctly, there
has no one who has failed to eventually pay up for well over a year,
until this July.  But in at least one instance, the individual, who
acknowledged being in attendance, still refused to pay after many email
contacts and two letters.  It took personally contacting an individual
with the same employer with the threat of public announcement that
finally resulted in the person becoming "motivated" to payup.  This took
a LOT of time and work.

As I indicated, we still have about 6 deadbeats from the SF session and
I just can't justify the time and effort it would take to continue the
drill of multiple email contacts, multiple letters and finally employer
contact to get each deadbeat to pay up.

Best regards,


"Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)" wrote:
> Works for me, unless IEEE legal determines that
> there could be some liability in doing so.
> Carl
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Quackenbush []
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:11 PM
> > To: IEEE 802 SEC
> > Cc: Dawn C. Slykhouse; Jennifer Hull
> > Subject: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
> >
> >
> >
> > Gentle people,
> >
> > There were about a dozen "unpaid attendees" at the July
> > plenary session
> > in SF.  All of them have been contacted and about half of them have
> > still not paid up.
> >
> > The amount of effort required to contact these individuals first by
> > email and then with several increasingly stern letters is significant
> > and in my opinion not worth the effort.
> >
> > Therefore I propose to introduce the policy that "unpaid attendees" of
> > an LMSC session that have been contacted by email and that
> > have neither
> > pay up by the deadline stated in the P&P nor been determined
> > to have not
> > attended any portion of a LMSC technical meeting that was scheduled as
> > part of the plenary session be publicly identified, along with their
> > corporate affiliation, at the LMSC EC meeting and the LMSC plenary
> > meeting on Monday morning.  Each such individual will be notified by
> > email that this identification will occur.
> >
> > Does anyone have a problem with such a policy?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > wlq
> >