[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Computerbank] Funding Proposal

Greetings all;  
	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 
the FSF.
	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,

faithfully yours,


Cromwell Hooper
Volunteer and WFTD Co-ordinator
Computerbank Australia Incorporated, SA Branch
Vice President
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