Thursday, December 10, 2009

Membership Dues

Change: Increase in membership dues in accordance with increase plan presented at Creating Change 2009.
The following fee schedule is proposed:

current: individual $25; institutional $150
2010-2011: individual $30; institutional $175
2011-2012: individual $30; institutional $175
2012-2013: individual $35; institutional $200

Occurrence: Article II, § 3, a.

Rationale: The increase, spread over 3 membership years, allows for the growth of the Consortium as an organization and, eventually, as a registered and recognized 501(c)3 entity. Increased financial commitment is necessary to adjust to the increased strain on resources and as benefits of membership increase.

New proposed text:

Article II. Membership
§ 3. Dues
a. Membership dues are determined according to a sliding scale based upon the
institutional and/or individual member situation. The fee schedule for membership dues to the Consortium are as follows:
2010-2011: individual $30; institutional $175
2011-2012: individual $30; institutional $175
2012-2013: individual $35; institutional $200

Other relevant notes:
- any increase to dues will take effect for the 2010-2011 academic year


  1. I strongly oppose the raising of Institutional Dues at all.

    Most centers who pay the $150 rate are not using fully the opportunity to include 6 members. In some cases, it is one 1 person, and yet they choose to pay the $150 to support the Consortium.

    Currently, there is no real benefit to any center being an Institutional Member except supporting the Consortium's mission and the ease of adding and dropping up to 6 people.

    Philosophically, you are asking centers to pay more for no new benefit, since they are already over-paying compared to individual memberships.

    Practically, I predict many centers will react like UCR: I will choose not to be an institutional member and I will pay for two individual members, and no longer support the payment of a colleague in Residence Life.

    (Once i go to individual memberships, I cannot justify covering a ResLife person.)

    The Consortium will, instead of gaining $25, lose $90 and a member.

    On the other hand, if you choose to raise individual memberships but keep the $150 Institutional membership covering 6 ppl, it becomes more attractive as a membership rate and more people may choose it.

    This is not an option, however, of the Bylaws proposed.

    I'll be consulting with other UCR members about how our Institution will vote, but I know how I feel.

    This is NOT a Bylaws revision I can personally support.

    Nancy Tubbs
    Director, UC Riverside LGBTRC
    former Membership Chair for the Consortium

  2. To provide a bit more context on this bylaw change:

    At last year's business meeting we discussed with the membership who were able to attend our financial planning process. Last February, before the current membership drive, we were particularly concerned about the Consortium's ability to sustain our coffers given the economic climate. In the course of that discussion we were encouraged by the membership to raise dues.

    Dues are currenntly the only way we have to generate the revenue which maintains the website, supports the institute at Creating Change, and allows us to administrate resources like the LGBTArchitect and our monthly conference calls.

    In addtion to drastically cutting our costs, raising dues ensures the financial solvency of the organization over the long haul. The Consortium was founded as a Limited Liability Corporation, not a non-profit. This means we are not eligible for most grant funding.

    To ensure that the organization continues to thrive, and to help us make the transition to a non-profit which would open up new opportunities for funding the executive board believes that these increases are neccesary. I think Nancy Jean makes an excellent point about the Institutional membership levels, and I'd be interested in hearing from other members if they feel the same way. Certainly creating ways to incentvize Institutional membership levels is something we're very much interested in.

    I should also note that these membership dues while set by the bylaws are never the final word. Consortium membership is on a sliding scale, and we want to work with any individual or organization to help ensure that membership is not a personal or budgetary burden.

    Michael Brown
    Treasurer, Consortium of Higher Education Resource Professionals