IAGA in Sapporo - Appendix 3
(to the minutes of the first meeting of the IAGA Executive Committee)
Appendix F
(to the minutes of the first meeting of the IAGA Conference of Delegates)
Report of the IAGA Finance Committee - Sapporo, Japan - June 30, 2003
In early May of 2003 the Chair of the IAGA Finance Committee, Robert McPherron, was contacted by both David Kerridge and Bengt Hultqvist with a response to our 2001 report and with details of financial transaction for the year 2002. This information was forwarded to the other two members of the finance committee - Richard Holme and Taksuki Ogino. The chair received return comments from Richard Holme. Comments and questions from our committee were sent to Bengt Hultqvist (see Appendix A to this report) whose response is given in Appendix B to this report.
According to Excel Spread Sheets (2002_IAGA_accounts.xls; (*web page)) provided to the finance committee by B Hultqvist, IAGA had an opening balance of $11,093.36 on January 1, 2002, and a closing balance of $30,603.24 on December 31, 2002. Most of the increase was provided by a grant from IUGG. Additional income included interest on accounts, sales of publications, a grant from ICSU for Intermagnet and a repayment on a previous grant by Intermagnet. Expenses during the year were primarily generated by an Executive Committee meeting in Prague necessitated by a change in the secretary general. The next largest expenditure was to four grants made to support IAGA meetings in different locations. The expenses appear to the committee to be justified and our questions to the secretary general were primarily concerned with the procedures for deciding on major allocations. The IAGA financial statement was audited by a professional service and found satisfactory (Audit_report.TIF).
In reply to questions from the finance committee the Secretary General noted that the current IAGA finances were in quite good shape and that increasing IAGA income was not a matter of immediate concern.
In 2001 the finance committee was charged with the responsibility of suggesting possible means of increasing IAGA income. The committee suggested several obvious possibilities and these were considered by the Executive Committee. The response to these by David Kerridge is summarized next (see Appendix C for details).
The suggestion that an abstract fee be imposed has been implemented in the form of a "head tax" of $30 per person. This money is returned to IAGA by the Local Organizing Committee (provided they are solvent at the end of the meeting). Most of the remaining suggestions made by the finance committee have either been tried or found to be dismal failures, or the implementation would cause undue hardship to some members of IAGA, particularly those from developing nations. It was agreed that a better effort be made to advertise IAGA publications that are for sale.
The finance committee is still of the opinion that an abstract fee and/or charge for a CDROM containing the meeting abstracts would be relatively easy to implement and would provide additional income. The abstract fee could be waived for any individual in a developing nation that signs a form stating that he/she is unable to pay the fee. The book of abstracts on CDROM would be an individual decision on whether to purchase. Web access provided by the LOC would allow individuals who cannot afford the CDROM to plan their meeting attendance. It might be possible to eliminate the printed book of abstracts in this way. Many individuals would rather carry home a CD than heavy books.
Appendix A
Questions to Bengt Hultqvist on the 2003 IAGA Financial Statement
I (R. McPherron) am preparing my report for the IAGA Business Meeting and have generated some questions on the IAGA Finance Spreadsheets you sent me. It seems to me that the expenditures last year were not large and quite appropriate. It appears that IUGG has made a large contribution that is now in the bank that will probably be spent on the meeting this July.
Questions:
Why are there two separate reports with identical categories, but with different entries in the cells? The first is a report to IUGG; the second seems to be a report to IAGA.
Why are there only two categories of receipts and expenditures: IUGG and Grants/Contracts? Are there no other types of these activities?
What is the reason for the loans to Intermagnet? How does Intermagnet generate repayments?
What was the nature of the meeting in Prague that generated a large portion of the expenses?
What is the procedure for determining which meetings will be supported by IAGA (such as the Induction Workshop), and how is the IAGA contribution decided?
What is your assessment of the status of IAGA funding?
Do you feel as did the previous secretariat that there needs to be additional effort to generate income for IAGA?
It seems from Kerridge's e-mail to me that most obvious methods of income generation have been tried, or that the Executive Committee does not feel that the suggested methods are appropriate. I personally don't see why a government, corporation, or individual should be motivated to voluntarily contribute to IAGA. IAGA's main purpose seems to be international meetings every two years. Only the attendees benefit from this meeting so probably they should be the ones that support it. Perhaps the national scientific organizations should be charged a membership fee proportional to their degree of participation. AGU charges for everything and seems to have generated substantial income for itself. However, I can't imagine that Fred Spilhaus would agree to such a membership fee even though he is trying to charge the UC library system a subscription fee that they have refused to pay for over a year now.. IAGA has a lesser role in establishing standards for our field. It seems to have played a strong role in the magnetic observatory system Intermagnet, and perhaps the World Data Center system. None of these activities can generate enough income to support themselves so they can't be charged.
Appendix B
Reply to Finance Committee Questions by B. Hultqvist
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your questions and comments. Here are some explanations:
1. The two different formats of the economic report are, as you mentioned, one intended for IUGG in the format requested by IUGG, the other in the format used by IAGA for its budgets since eternity. I present the final accounts also in that format in order that it shall be easier for the EC members to compare with budget figures.
2. For some reason, grants from outside sources like ICSU have their own budget lines in the IUGG format. Such grants go to special projects (like the most recent one about saving of old magnetograms). All other transactions are recorded under the IUGG title, also income from selling of books and bulletins.
3. The loan to INTERMAGNET was an advance payment before the grant was in the hands of IAGA. When the grant arrives the advance payment was deducted.
4. The meeting in Prague was an Executive Committee meeting called by the President because of a set of reasons. One was the change of secretary general.
5. All IAGA sponsoring of meetings involving IAGA money are decided by the EC in full either when it meets or, in between meetings, by mail. The size of the contribution is decided in each individual case after discussion. Generally the largest contributions are given to meetings or projects benefiting developing countries.
6. The budgetary situation of IAGA is presently rather good and we therefore have allotted a larger amount to grants for primarily participants in Sapporo from developing countries than any time before. It will probably not be possible to contribute so much next time. How much IAGA can contribute to grants in the future will be determined by the economic situation at the time.
7. There is no urgency in finding new financial sources and such sources should not jeopardize the present system with national memberships.
8. You should not forget that IAGA, besides holding meetings, organizes and funds projects of importance especially for the developing countries (like INTERMAGNET and EMSEV and the one mentioned about saving of old magnetograms). IAGA also channels major grants from primarily ICSU to special project within the IAGA sciences. The main difference between IAGA and other major organizations in the field is that IAGA does not only organize meetings but it also supports a number of projects and other activities directed especially to the developing countries. IAGA is important for the developing countries and the rich countries support the developing countries via their membership fees.
You are welcome with more questions. In any case I will see you soon
Bengt
Appendix C
Comments on the Finance Committee Report from Hanoi (2001) by D. Kerridge.
There are points of information relevant to comments in you report submitted in Hanoi, and responses from the IAGA Executive Committee to the suggestions made. I'll list these against the relevant extract from your report.
Point 1. "A significant fraction of the turnover in each two-year cycle is due to IUGG/IAGA meetings. It would seem appropriate for this committee to receive information on the finances of such meetings, particularly IAGA. We note there is often a complaint that the registration fee is unreasonably high compared with other meetings (e.g. AGU). A more detailed explanation to attendees of how the registration money has been spent might alleviate this impression."
Response: When a country agrees to host an IAGA Assembly a condition of the offer is that the local organizers bear the financial risk, otherwise there would be the danger of bankrupting the Association. IAGA specifies the facilities it requires for the Assembly and it is then up to the LOC to work out how to provide these and what the costs will be. So, IAGA is not deeply involved in the financial details of an Assembly, but encourages the registration fees to be kept as low as possible. The LOC has to work on the basis of an estimate of the number of scientists that will attend the Assembly and thus how much income will be generated, and so there is a real financial risk. In practice, the registration fee has not varied too much over recent Assemblies.
Point 2. "The previous finance committee recommended that the IAGA accounts be maintained in US$ accounts, in a country with favorable tax laws. The information provided to this committee does not show whether or not these actions have been taken."
Comment: A US dollar account cannot be set up in Sweden. Since the dollar account in Boulder was closed and the monies transferred to Kiruna and converted to Swedish Kroner, currency fluctuations have been to IAGA's advantage relative to both the dollar and the euro. This is, of course, fortuitous.
Point 3: "We have been told privately that the Internal Revenue Service of the US was concerned about the IAGA accounts, but seems satisfied that IAGA is non-profit."
Comment: I confirm that there have been no problems with the IRS and none are anticipated.
Point 4. "We have also been informed that IAGA has not billed those receiving IAGA Bulletin #32 for years 1993 and 1994 (distributed a year ago and several months ago respectively). This billing should be performed as soon as possible and the receipts will increase the IAGA accounts by several thousand dollars."
Comment: Bengt has worked with Michel Menvielle to clear up the backlog and all billing is now up to date.
Point 5: "Given that individuals and organizations are convinced that IAGA is important to their own objectives it should be possible to encourage small contributions to IAGA assets. For example, one mechanism would be to introduce an abstract submission fee of $10. This might also help alleviate the problem of multiple abstract submissions by authors who may have no realistic hope of attending the meeting."
Response: The suggestion of introducing an abstract fee was discussed at length by the Executive Committee but it was concluded that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. One factor in the discussions was that since the Uppsala Assembly in 1997 a "head tax" has been included in the Registration Fee. This will be USD30 in Sapporo. This is paid to IAGA by the LOC when the Assembly accounts are finalized, and the monies received are a substantial proportion of the funds used to support the attendance of under-represented groups at the following Assembly. The Executive Committee was not happy to "tax" twice.
Point 6: "Similarly, a more aggressive pursuit of exhibitors and the charge of a small fee of order $100-500 might bring additional income."
Comment: This is really a part of the LOC's budget.
Point 7: "As at the AGU it might be possible to encourage a few individuals or corporations to make voluntary contributions of a small amount to IAGA accounts."
Comment: This was tried once, but the response was dismal! Perhaps this was because there's no membership fee for IAGA.
Point 8: "It would also be possible to market available products better - for example, there was no opportunity to purchase IAGA publications at this meeting; for example the Observatory and Repeat Station Practices Guides. This meeting would provide the ideal sales opportunity."
Response: Agreed. The IAGA Guides will be advertised better in Sapporo.
