Proposed Conference Fee Arrangement
IFSW General Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, 10-12 July 2002
Agenda item 10.4
We have been seeking a negotiated resolution of this delicate problem for a number of years.
In practice many conferences do not add the 4% up front but subtract it after the conclusion of the conference. This creates and income problem and, more than not, we fail to receive the 4%.
In reality they have also not received the expected level of income on all occasions. For IASSW the implications are even more severe than for IFSW as they rely to a significant degree on the income from conferences for operating expenditure.
The proposal is based on profit share, and is as follows:
"Both IASSW and IFSW and the national organisers of joint World Conferences will aim at reasonable surplus as financial outcome from the conference. The surplus is to be divided between the global and national partners, with 50 % to the national organisers and 50 % to the global partners IASSW and IFSW. The share for the national organizers would normally be divided equally between the social worker organisation and the educator body unless otherwise decided. The share for the global partners shall be divided equally between IASSW and IFSW."
This is certainly a more equitable system than what exists at present. Unlike our system, which sought to give host organisations some control over the process, this is based solely on profit. We must accept however that our system has rarely worked. Where profit is made this seems to be a reasonable process. What is likely to be debated will be the percentage figures rather than the principle itself.
Imelda Dodds Tom Johannesen Anne Worning
Agenda item 10.4
Background
As you may know IFSW and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) have used different methods of calculating income from World Conferences. This has caused some problems and tension over a number of years. Host organisations have experienced difficulty with dual arrangements and at times have found it difficult to meet the requirements.We have been seeking a negotiated resolution of this delicate problem for a number of years.
IFSW System
IFSW has utilized the 4% levy system, which, if operated correctly, should see a process of managed income. In theory each conference should calculate the registration fee based on estimated costs and then add 4% to the fee which would cover the IFSW income levy.In practice many conferences do not add the 4% up front but subtract it after the conclusion of the conference. This creates and income problem and, more than not, we fail to receive the 4%.
IASSW System
IASSW on the other hand has negotiated for a set level of income at each Conference. In recent years the figures were; Hong Kong US$ 50,000; Jerusalem US$35,000 and at the Montreal Conference US$35,000In reality they have also not received the expected level of income on all occasions. For IASSW the implications are even more severe than for IFSW as they rely to a significant degree on the income from conferences for operating expenditure.
Proposal
At the latest Joint Planning and Action Committee meeting of IASSW & IFSW the IASSW President Lena Dominelli brought a proposal from her Board.The proposal is based on profit share, and is as follows:
"Both IASSW and IFSW and the national organisers of joint World Conferences will aim at reasonable surplus as financial outcome from the conference. The surplus is to be divided between the global and national partners, with 50 % to the national organisers and 50 % to the global partners IASSW and IFSW. The share for the national organizers would normally be divided equally between the social worker organisation and the educator body unless otherwise decided. The share for the global partners shall be divided equally between IASSW and IFSW."
This is certainly a more equitable system than what exists at present. Unlike our system, which sought to give host organisations some control over the process, this is based solely on profit. We must accept however that our system has rarely worked. Where profit is made this seems to be a reasonable process. What is likely to be debated will be the percentage figures rather than the principle itself.
Imelda Dodds Tom Johannesen Anne Worning
page last updated on 10.10.2005