🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4989@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>The bottom line is that there is approximately $200k available
>for the organisation and execution of the AUUG winter conference.

>My proposal is that the AUUG hire a "General Manager",
>who has the following, (non-exclusive) responsibilities:
>- Organise AUUG Winter conference;
>- Market the AUUG;
>- Organise and market the AUUG Exhibition;
>- Run the day-to-day AUUG activities;
>- Liase with the AUUGN editor to ensure a timely service
>  for the subscribers.
>- Provide assistance to the AUUG summer conference organisers,

This is just what AUUG did at the start of this year, alibet on a
part-time basis initiall, with many of the responsibilities you describe
(plus others).  The title given was "Business Manager".

>This person would be given a budget for these activities and
>provide an all year focus for the group, unlike ACMS who,
>quite rightly, keep their own interests above those of the AUUG
>members.

ACMS actually have two roles within AUUG, one the conference management
and the second being the running of the AUUG secretariat.  Your comments
only relate to the conference part, you would still require someone to
take the secretariat function.  There are many routine clerical
functions which would be a waste of money for the Business Manager to
do.

>I would envisage that the ~$200k currently spent on the management
>expertise offered by ACMS would be better spent on a AUUG staffer
>who was genuinely following the interests of the AUUG membership.

>The General manager should probably command a wage of ~$70k
>and require some allocation for an office and related expenses,
>which would still leave quite a deal of profit.

You should also add the cost of clerical support.

>The benefits that I see from this arrangement go further than
>fixing the Winter conference profitability, it will allow
>the AUUG committee (which is well known to meet infrequently)
>to take up a role that is more like a board of directors,
>who set a direction for the AUUG general manager to take
>the organisation. At least it will no longer rely on a group
>of volunteers to follow up their own decisions (not wanting
>to mention this years election fiasco :-)).

This is certainly the role that the committee wants to move to, and have
been working at for at least the last two years.  Where possible we have
been hiring professional services to give continuous support.

Also which groups of volunteers?  Previously the committed most often had
to followup their own decisions.

>Of course these calculations are based on the returns of the
>1991 conference, I would not doubt that a talented and well-focussed
>person knowledgable about the budgetary constraints of the
>AUUG could have done a lot better in many aspects of the
>organisation of this event and have lead to either a larger
>profit, or a similiar result based on a reduced conference
>admission charge.

I'm not so sure that anyone could have made a major change.  Remember
that hindsight alway identifies the wrong choices.  Many of the
decisions were made by the committee, and any manager would still have
to follow such directions.  Also no matter what is claimed after the
act, most of the decsions were based on 450 paying attendees.

>Comments, criticisms (well mild ones ...) welcome.

These comments shouldn't be taken as criticism as all such comments are
welcome.  The (last) committee was aware of many of these points and had
taken a number of steps to address them (although not necessarily those
that you suggest).

Now when do you want to start on AUUG92's budget. :-)

							Frank Crawford
							AUUG Treasurer