[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Computerbank] Funding Proposal
i've tried analyising Trish's mighty proposal before, but according to last
night's committee meeting it seems i failed to distribute it, so i'll have to
give it another go (if anybody did get my last analysis i would be most
gratefull if they forwarded me a copy back). I admit that i don't understand
it all and so i have a few points i wouldn't mind clarified.
My personal analysis hinges on this: that CAI affords liaison twixt two
groups of peoples (who will often overlap), those that are driven by a need
to contribute to society, and those who have a need for help acquiring access
to and understanding IT technology and the benefits it is claimed to afford.
(no, i'm not re-entering that debate, except possibly with Grant over a case
of Dimple :) CAI is a great vehicle for this noble endeavour and can
continue to be, growing from strength to strength, without compromising its
volunteer based people approach.
This proposal presents (and very well i might add) the possibility of
increases in efficiency and productivity that would completely overhaul CAI
and launch it up there with the big guns. By my reckoning, this is almost
approaching efficiency and productivity for its own sake, and i would hate
for us to lose sight of why we started this in the first place.
"The basic premise of this proposal is that CAI would
like to grow revenue streams to the point where the
organisation can hire administrative staff to perform
all required daily functions as well as staff to
implement policy and process in an executive manner,
as decided by the Committee(s) of the organisation."
The economies of scale afforded by paid central administration can come at
costs not only financial. The most important question we must ask ourselves
is what do we want, the administrative staff, or the money to pay for it? If
the former, then i propose we go about it in a fashion appropiate to CAI the
charity rather than CAI the corporate venture.
One last aside, i sincerely hope we do not end up creating structures that to
any great extent exist to support themselves.
The following are not personal opinion as such, and merely raise points that
need consideration and / or clarification.
Current CAI Financial Situation - Rent: When we think of the meaning of
barely, it's a little like "almost late", i.e. on time. It could be argued
that CAI-VIC's office space could be better exploited and i am confident that
the space currently available, or spaces similair to it, will not merely
suffice but eventually be used well.
Organisational chart: i could see no labelling of the nodes in this hierachy
tree (may be the fault of my install). If this is deliberately left open for
future work then there's really not much room for comment either way. If
not, i would like to see what the nodes represent. If much of corporate
funding requires such organisational charts, it would be prudent to study in
detail structures of other organisations who have successfully sued for
Projected costs - executive: the possible affordability of paid executive
poses in no way whatsoever an argument supporting the usefullness or even the
desirability of such.
Projected costs - by branch: this is a proposal for more than just a few paid
offices of computerbank, involving monies which approximate to much greater
revenue and expenditure streams than currently exist. That's what it's for,
to propose changes. The changes here neccessarily imply a complete overhaul
of the very nature of computerbank "corporate culture". I commend to the
consideration of members and volunteers the possiblities these changes
Projected costs - space requirements: as per Projected Costs - by branch.
Projected costs - transport costs: checking costs with transport companies
does not sound like a usefull analysis considering the natures of our
volunteer based venture. (It may be worth noting that some transport
companies have expressed interest in the idea of ad hoc donations of
transport services twixt states and even countries).
Projected costs - utilities: the proposal suggests moving from expenditure of
$7,000 for utilities and internet to $24,000. Why so?
Projected costs - insurance: the proposal suggests moving from $9,000 to
$20,000. Why so?
Regarding utilities and insurance, comparing current costs with the proposal's
projected costs, it almost looks like the efforts of the proposal are to an
extent paying for themselves.
Projected costs - volunteer expenditure and marketing: these do not appear to
be represented in current expenditure. Are there no current figures for
these expenditures or is there no such expenditure?
Projected costs - travel: use of the imperative is interesting here; exactly
why must the chief executive travel regularly twixt states?
Suggested CAI-generated revenue streams - training: we currently provide
extremely cheap computers and basic training. It would be a pity to lose the
golden opportunity, which will present itself All in good time, to provide
extremely cheap and accredited advanced training.
Corporate Sponsorship - current corporate donors: From the fourth paragraph
after the list onwards and into other headings, we find unfortunate instances
of the perpendicular pronoun, and i commend we ignore these mistakes for what
they are rather than jumping recklessly to the conclusion that Trish assumes
an accomplished feat her position in the proposed hierarchy of paid
executive. In her opening paragraph Trish has volunteered her services, and
she can be forgiven for anticipating so keenly her future role.
Corporate Sponsership - proposed search for more corporate sponsors: that the
choosing of corporate sponsors solely on the basis of shared ethics doesn't
make sense should not blind us to the importance of this consideration.
Corporate Sponsership - methods: no matter what protection records keeping may
provide the fundraising worker from suspicion of funds mishandling (and this
could be argued to be little of any consequence), it will not afford CAI any
such protection against the real thing.
The argument that it is crucial to the proposed fundraising effort that CAI
make and review the decisions about projects to be sponsored and operational
funding to be sought is not clearly supported (this is merely an issue of
logic and may or may not be of importance. While i'm at it, that this will
enable proper planning is like arguing: proposition A, therefore A.)
In this proposal so far i've noticed the Chief Executive would add donors
over time after the initial work is done, make decisions with the committee
regarding projects to be sponsored and operational funding to be sought, and
must travel twixt states. I'm not suggesting it's a quango, but is this the
Chief Executive brief? Who is/are the Chief Executive and what is the
relationship twixt this office and the Committee?
Next steps: the feedback, proposal revision and re-circulation cycle need not
stop merely when no aggreement can be made with Trish. The ideas can (i.e.
it is technically possible) to continue with another proposal co-ordinator.
I would be suprised if Trish did not embrace this posibility in the spirit of
Trish declares she considers paid employees taking as much of the load of the
organisation's personnel as possible, as a fundamental principle (it would
seem a fundamental principle of the proposal, please feel free to disabuse me
should i be misguided on this point). That our personnel are stretched to
capacity is not a point i wish to argue on at this point in the debate,
although will join in if anyone really wishes to kick it off. That such
relief neccessarily be by paid employees is the crux here. Why paid in
I've definitely overdrawn on my tuppence worth there, it's a big beastie and
there's a lot to consider. While i'm sorry that it's taken this much to
appraise it (or more correctly, fail to appraise it), better still that we
ensure we fully understand what we're voting about than even consider the
alternative; don't let me be the only one to discuss this, read Trish's
proposal and argue against me and / or bring up your own points on it, it
represents a most important step in CAI's development so now is the time to
voice your concerns or contribute to it. I'm looking forward to hearing your
input, 'till then,
Volunteer and WFTD Co-ordinator
Computerbank Australia Incorporated, SA Branch
Computerbank Australia Incorporated
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the individual, and do not
express the opinions of Computerbank Australia Incorporated (CAI) in any way.
computerbank mailing list
Web page: http://www.computerbank.org.au