PDA

View Full Version : Finance - USMS Budget



breastroker
August 31st, 2004, 02:33 PM
Please look at the Finance Committees report, page 33 of the 2004 Convention packet.

The 2005 budget currently projects to a $95,000 deficit. USMS is committed to funding the up front costs of the 2006 World Championships. There may be the additional costs of an Executive Director. The income from ads in the "New USMS magazine" are not certain. Current registrations are flat and so if revenue.

Any major terrorism in the world prior to next years World Championships could be a major financial downfall for USMS.

Where I work I often use the term "Risk Management". If a $330,000,000 project shuts down because of the lack a $1,000 instrument, I am totally responsible. I try to always have at least 3 back up provisions and plans for everything.

I think that the Finance Committee has done a great job and is sending a warning to us.
It is expected that this years' Finance Committee meetings will be most challenging

breastroker
September 1st, 2004, 11:27 PM
Hasn't anyone else had the time to read the Finance report? I thought someone would have responded to the $35,000 for the Assistant Webmaster.

Here it is:
ANNUAL REPORT During 2004, the Finance Committee was asked to deal with several over-budget requests. Most notable was the request from Communications Committee to add $35,000 for an Assistant Webmaster. A subsequent ruling by the Legal Counsel took the decision out of the over-budget process and the request was approved by vote of the Board of Directors. While the result may have been in the best interest of the organization, the methodology was questionable.

The 2005 budget currently projects a deficit of almost $95,000. The Finance Committee is charged with the responsibility of bringing a balanced budget to the House of Delegates. USMS is experiencing flat registrations for the current year, on top of a similar pattern last year. In addition, the commitment to fund the up-front expenses for the 2006 Worlds Championships is placing a financial burden on the organization that it has not experienced in a number of years. It is expected that this years’ Finance Committee meetings will be most challenging.

Conniekat8
September 2nd, 2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by breastroker
Hasn't anyone else had the time to read the Finance report? I thought someone would have responded to the $35,000 for the Assistant Webmaster.


My understanding is that the assistant webmaster will be a full time paid position in order to make the USMS website more functional and better looking and better functioning.
Being familiar wit the websiote and some of the things that they are hoping to do, $35,000 for a full time webmaster position is reasonable.

Having said that, I would expect to see drastic improvements on the website.

As far as I understand the title 'assistant webmaster' may be a bit of a misnomer... I think the 'assistant webmaster' will be expected to do all the work, under the direction of current powers to be that make decisions regarding the website.

I have considered submitting a bid for this position myself, but $35,000 for a full time job for me is not feasible.

Betsy
September 2nd, 2004, 05:30 AM
Connie,
I believe the $35,000 was for a temporary position for 6 months. i'm not sure for how many months the position was actually filled. I think the position will have to be approved by the HOD if it is to continue. I'm not sure if the Communications Committee or the Executve Committee will make the recommendation.
Betsy

PMiller
September 2nd, 2004, 04:09 PM
Just wanted to comment on any confusion that may have been created by the excerpt from the Finance report that Wayne quoted. The $35,000 request did go through the over-budget process.

The EC went to the Finance Committee first with the request under FOG and Finance denied it, with a couple of members commenting that a policy decision should be made about the need for the position. Subsequently, the Communications Committee approved a motion to recommend the hiring of an Assistant Webmaster for 6 months. Under the PMG, the EC submitted that recommendation to the Board of Directors, as well as a request for a waiver of the PMG requirement to advertise the job in SWIM (since that would've taken too long.) The BOD approved the recommendations. An over-budget request was then submitted to Finance and approved.

No biggie and I'm not commenting one way or the other on the cost -- just wanted to clear up the process.

Patty

breastroker
September 2nd, 2004, 05:54 PM
I know that the USMS web site has grown so large and continues to expand after taking over the swimgold job of Top 10 and All Americans. It is in need of a facelift. I would assume the assistant web master has not been on the job very long. I wonder if Jim Matysek has a timeline foe this work?

Fritz
September 2nd, 2004, 06:13 PM
Is there going to be a recommendation to raise fees this year?

breastroker
September 2nd, 2004, 10:19 PM
recommendation to raise fees this year I hope not. We (USMS) must do a better job managing our money and our risks.

We are committed to the 2006 World championships, about all we can do is limit the risks with great planning. The PMS Chairman is experienced and a good (no, great) leader. They will make it work and work better than any of the others outside of the USA. There won't be any "Italian jobs" if you know what I mean.

The web site needs the facelift, a web site should be completely redone every three years. Look how nice Swiminfo and USA-Swimming look now. I think any money spent will be a wise investment. 18-19 year olds probably think our site is "not cool", and we need to attrack them as well as our core masters ages.
We need to get them for a lifetime of swimming, and keep them with great services.

We could possibly be going away from a sure thing with our relationship with Swim magazine. Or we can stick our necks out and hope for a greater share of the ad income from our own USMS magazine. This could require a dues raise. Or we could lower contributions to endowments. I would not want to do either.

All our convention delegates will have to decide if taking this recomendation of a new magazine is the correct one.

From a strictly business sense, is this a great risk or just a small risk. I am hoping to see more information before convention specifically of possible income from ads. I look at it this way. Change can be good. If we were guarranted $90,000 additional income for the next year, it would be an easier decision.

We have many CEOs and CFOs who can see through the figures and come to clear decisions. But we need information first.

Rob Copeland
September 3rd, 2004, 08:20 AM
Wayne, I guess I see the “National publication” issue different than you. From what I have seen to date the recommended proposal saves USMS a significant amount of money, it doubles the number of publications geared towards Masters Swimming and it provides USMS with more control of content.

I miss the old days when we had Fitness Swimmer, Swim Swim and Swim Master. I now get to look forward to getting 2 Masters Swimming publications!

Hopefully, a significant number of Masters will choose to continue to subscribe to Swim, so that Sports Publications International will continue to provide us with their wonderful selection for information and features. I know I’m planning to subscribe.

Conniekat8
September 3rd, 2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by breastroker
I know that the USMS web site has grown so large and continues to expand after taking over the swimgold job of Top 10 and All Americans. It is in need of a facelift. I would assume the assistant web master has not been on the job very long. I wonder if Jim Matysek has a timeline foe this work?

My understanding is that Jim has a 'to do' list for the website that will most likely keep couple of people busy for a year. There's a lot to be done.
The assistant webmaster is a brand new thing, I'm not sure if they already have one or are in the process of selecting one.... I don't believe any website work by the assistant webmaster has started yet.

With so many people using internet and electronic communications I think it is essential to have quality and up to date website. Being that I'm a webmaster myself (for my team, and other commercial entities) I understand completely the volume of work a website of the size USMS should have to be effective can create a mountain of work.

I would appeal to all of you to not fall victim to a 'sticker-shock' and underestimate the value of the website... especially in light of the recent criticisam that the communications comittee seems to have recieved.
I have to say.. it doesn't add up... you want them to function well, but you deny them one of the most essential tools because of lack of understanding the volume of work. Please rethink this issue and let's not shoot ourselves in a foot by understimating the value of this service.
And no, it is logistically impossible to maintain the website the size of USMS on strictly volunteer basis, and still have a quality product.

Okay, I'm off the sopapbox!

breastroker
September 3rd, 2004, 01:56 PM
Connie, I absolutely agree with you. That makes other decsions on our budget more important. I believe it will take more than a year to complete the web site revision as well as all the other requirements Jim has on his plate. Not everyone knows all of what Jim is doing, I would hope he could list it all so that people could grasp his workload.

Right now I would vote at convention to add at least another 6 months to the assistant webmaster position. Note that that is another $35,000 in the RED. Add that to the $95,000 over budget the Finance Committee has identified.

breastroker
September 3rd, 2004, 02:42 PM
Rob,
I too would love to see many publications all viable within the Masters swimming world. I see many advantages to having our own USMS magazine. Call me selfish, but the Sports Medicine, Coaches and History and Archives would all be better represented.

But now that the Executive Committee has released all the documentation I have a better picture of the financial impact of this. We just got through raising our dues. We would look awful going back to our members saying we failed in our commitment to them and have to raise the dues again.

I do not see this as revenue neutral. Right now we receive some income from Swim magazine. But in the document released today under Cost, page three I quote

The major difference is on the advertising revenue side. Both association publishers gave us the industry standard quote for splitting ad revenue – we get 75% of the revenue and they get a 25% commission. Recognizing that it would take some time to establish long-term relationships with advertisers, both publishers independently told us they believe USMS could have enough advertising revenue within three years to completely cover the costs of publishing the magazine. That is, we would break even while providing this valuable member benefit!


This is just spin to say we will loose money until at least the third year. How much more will we have to pay the new position of USMS National Publication Coordinator? Will we seek out the best person for this position? How much more will we have to pay to have someone do searching for advertisers? Swim magazine has full time staff just for that purpose. I don’t see advertisers knocking down the doors to give us their business.

Just how much do we have to stick our necks out? We don’t have two necks as someone I trust said. We are sticking our neck out with the 2006 Worlds and will not receive income from Worlds until late 2006. Yes, we are all hoping to have increased membership in that year. But we need a balanced budget now.

I notice that LMSC newsletters are “Negotiable with LMSC—minimum circulation 2,000 copies” with no price quoted I am concerned about our SPMA newsletter. And what about smaller LMSCs?

I did not see the following question Mary Bolster was to ask “What additional responsibilities would this involve, including any changes in editorial/staffing
requirements?” I specifically want to know how many more positions USMS will need, not what the publisher has. I can easily find the size of Sports Publications staff, knowing that it seems to me we would need at least two other positions.


Writers will finally be paid for their hard work “$350–$700/article/issue”

breastroker
September 3rd, 2004, 02:52 PM
I want to thank the Executive Committee, Mary Bolster, and the Board of Directors for all their hard work. Releasing these documents before convention is the correct thing.

I would now like to ask the Finance Committee to start commenting on impacts to our budget. They are in best position to see "what if" the HOD votes for the new USMS magazine as recommended by our leadership.

Are there any other possible overbudget requests?

What would be the costs of an USMS Executive Director?

What additional costs could be coming from the 2006 Worlds?

What is the progress and additional costs of the History and Archives needs and the database conversion projects?

Yes, I think "Finance Committee meetings will be most challenging"

Conniekat8
September 3rd, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by breastroker
Connie, I absolutely agree with you. That makes other decsions on our budget more important. I believe it will take more than a year to complete the web site revision as well as all the other requirements Jim has on his plate. Not everyone knows all of what Jim is doing, I would hope he could list it all so that people could grasp his workload.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Right now I would vote at convention to add at least another 6 months to the assistant webmaster position. Note that that is another $35,000 in the RED. Add that to the $95,000 over budget the Finance Committee has identified.

couple of things come to mind:
- membership to the USMS is very inexpensive.
- We could do a better job at popularizing swimming and USMS, and with that increase membership.
- other ways of making money???

This is the way I look at things... As long as there is no frivolous overspending (in general), I think the solution to cash flow issues is to look at ways to make more money, not to cut spending that would benefit the organization.

breastroker
September 3rd, 2004, 07:45 PM
Connie,
You should get more involved in masters swimming. We need fresh young talent and ideas.

You should come to convention. You should contact your LMSC chairman and get more involved in the local committees.

lucyj
September 3rd, 2004, 08:28 PM
Wayne,

Hellllooo! - Connie is in our LMSC, was at the SPMA meeting last week, and, I understand, will be coming to the convention this year (at her own expense).

breastroker
September 3rd, 2004, 10:57 PM
Lucy,

Come on Lucy, I am not senile yet:rolleyes:

I have been egging Connie on for a while, hoping she would get involved in our LMSC. She is young, quite articulate, and talented.
And best of all, like us, she loves Kats, big Kats.

She has created a website second to none for Mission Viejo. She will be a great help to all the other fine volunteers at Mission Viejo for next years Long Course Nationals.

I enjoy talking to her, her perspective on masters swimming is great to hear.

Conniekat8
September 7th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Uh oh, great!
Now how do I live up to Wayne's opinion of me! :rolleyes:

craiglll@yahoo.com
September 8th, 2004, 10:57 AM
;;

jroddin
September 8th, 2004, 11:35 AM
Connie,

Well, hopefully you don't have to live up to Wayne's opinion of himself. :D

Sorry Wayne, she set that one up to make it much too hard to sit back and not say anything!

Jeff

breastroker
September 8th, 2004, 01:02 PM
Heh, I'm easy. Take your best shots, I will grin and bear it.

Connie has set the bar high for herself.

I am always of the opionion that if you want to get a job done, give it to a busy person.

Conniekat8
September 8th, 2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by breastroker
Connie has set the bar high for herself.


me? Huh?
Where, how?

matysekj
September 8th, 2004, 11:48 PM
The 2005 USMS Budget Proposal from the Finance Committee is now available at http://www.usms.org/admin/conv04/budgetproposal.pdf.

jerry clark
September 11th, 2004, 12:33 PM
Wayne, I belive Jim Miller's writeup about the income/costs of a new magazine said that right off the bat, our cost for a magazine will be less than it is currently, then after 3 years there is a good chance the cost will be zero if our share of advertising revenue is equal to the cost to produce the magazine. I think I read in your post above that we're now making a little income now, but I think what was said is that there is a small amount of income from our share of advertising income presently, but its substantially less than what the cost is. We are therefore incurring a substantial net cost for providing susbscriptions to SWIM for our members. Jerry

breastroker
September 11th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Jerry,
I came to the same initial conclusion that you did.
then after 3 years there is a good chance the cost will be zero if our share of advertising revenue is equal to the cost to produce the magazine

But no Exec came forward to support this, in fact further scrutiny makes it difficult so see any positive income for the first two years. The sponsors are just not locked in. I have requested on the other forum the financial projections for each of the first three years. Only 25% of existing USMS sponsors also advertise in Swim magazine (Total pages).

We have to look at this in the big picture of the USMS Budget. We are "out on a limb" with the 2006 Worlds. So far USMS have spent $141K in 2003 and another $37K in 2004. I believe this will be a huge success. But this country is a war, let no one forget it. Two Olympics were cancelled before, major terrorism in this country could happen again.

I am having trouble understanding the latest budget released in PDF. Under Liabilities & Equity it shows 2004 Actual as of 6/30/04.
But under the Income Statement, there is no date shown for 2004 Actual (4000). I assume it is of 6/30/04 which would account for the $122,000 loss in registrations as at least 10% come during the summer months. Also there is less income under 4171 Medal Sponsor, all most $24K. Will this match projections by end of budget?

Now on to my pet peeve, Insurance. I see a $20K Insurance Brokers fee under 5010 that did not show up in the 2001, 2002, and 2003 budgets. I thought we paid a $15K bonus two years ago, for great service and low price. Yet teams are able to purchase insurance for less, and leave USMS. I will leave conclusions to others.

To the plus side I see the $28K under 5760 is ending with the expired contract. Will we be using this to gather more ads for the USMS magazine? We are already spenting $20K under 5670 Sponsor Liason.

michaelmoore
September 12th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Whoa nellie,

We are "out on a limb" with the 2006 Worlds. So far USMS have spent $141K in 2003 and another $37K in 2004.

Wayne, you will be happy to know that we spent about $41,000 in 2003, a savings of $100,000. $25,000 was the bid fee and about $16,000 to prepare the bid.

michael
mchael moore, chairman
XI FINA World Masters Championships, LOC

breastroker
September 12th, 2004, 12:28 PM
michael

I can only go by what the budget sheet shows, line 1450
Prepaid Expenses -2006 World Champs

For 2003 Actual $141,804.21
For 2004 Actual $37,382.98


you will be happy to know that we spent about $41,000 Then this make me unhappy if the budget sheet is wrong?

michael, have you given up your previous handle? Used to LoD.
What is LOC:confused:

michaelmoore
September 12th, 2004, 10:43 PM
Wayne,

LOC = Local Organizing Committee

Margaret Bayless, USMS Controller said that the $141,000 is the total of Prepaid expenses, of which $25,000 is attributable to the XI FINA Masters World Championships. (Thanks to Barbara Thomas, LOC Committee member and Finance Committee member for getting that information).

Michael

I forgot what LoD was. Tell me at convention.

lucyj
September 12th, 2004, 10:51 PM
Michael,

$16,000 to PREPARE the bid????? How on earth did it cost so much to prepare the bid?