Question Resulting from Reading 2023 Financial Statement

[Highlander]

In the most recent Journal, or whatever it is called, consulting expenses for 2023 were $54,688.00.

$54,688.00?

Absent a convincing explanation, I wonder how that is possible.  For actual consulting.  I must also ask why IPMS needs consultants.  And who they are.  And what they did.  I will check in from time to time for the answer.

 

[SkyKing]

I would like the answer to this as well.

[Highlander]

Checking back for an answer.

Just because I do stuff like this, I went to the trash (literally) and recovered my Imperial Union of Jurisprudence (IUJ) publication.  And:

$54,688.00 (Consulting)/$388,995.52(Total Expenditures)=14.06%[rounded] (Percentage of total expenditures for consulting).  Roughly one in every seven dollars of expenditure went to consulting.

$54,688.00 (Consulting)/$392,236.23 (Total Revenue)=13.94% [rounded] (Percentage of total revenue that was allocated to consulting).  Again, roughly one in seven dollars of revenue went out again for consulting.

To give the devil  his due, consulting is not defined.  It could be a number of things or a combination of a number of things; we don't know.  But I am eager to learn.

An anecdote.  Many years ago, whilst in the military, two of us idiot Captains were approached for help by the senior nurse in the Base Hospital -- a Lt Col.  As an additional duty, she was the head of the board that "managed" the Officer's Club.  In that position, she received periodic financial statements that she could not understand; nor could she obtain reasonable answers to her financial questions.  She decided to ask two junior officers, who worked for the Group Comptroller, to analyze the statements to see if they made sense.

We did.  And deduced that the Club's Dining Room was being subsidized by the Club Bar, in violation of various regulations and procedures.  In short, in order to keep the Dining Room, which was losing money, open, the accounting service combined Dining Room losses with the Bar's hefty profits -- showing a wash.  Armed with our analysis and a suggested list of questions, the Lt Col revealed all at the next Officer's Club Board Meeting.  When asked where her questions came from, the Lt Col gave us full credit.

We two enterprising Captains received a call the next morning from the Group Deputy Commander to report posthaste to his office.  Not being given the opportunity to speak, we listened while the Colonel explained, in soft and understanding language, that our jobs were not to analyze the Officer's Club financial statements.  He tutored us on the importance of having dining at the Officer's Club and indicated that the methods used to provide that dining were not something we should be involved in.  We were then encouraged to return to our duties and perform them well.

So ... I am a bit loathe to get involved in analyzing financial statements these many years later.  But then, I not longer must respond to various Colonels.

 

[Ron Bell]

I think at the business meeting they mentioned using a consultant in regards to our social media presence, but I can't imagine that alone costing $54K.

[ghodges]

While I recall the mention of IPMSUSA using a consultant for social media at the business meeting as Ron cited, I do not recall them saying how much they spent (and wisely so, it seems). If all of that money went to that one area, we need to know that and have an explanation as to why it's so high. We also need to know exactly who (what firm or company) was used for that consulting. Lastly, we need to know WHAT IPMS got for its money.... ie what report/recommendations/etc.. THAT should also be released for the members to see.

 

Gil 

[Highlander]

Dropping back in.  No answer?

Gil, as I stated, "Consulting" is not defined.  Rather than leaping to assumptions and speculations, I am willing to wait for a comprehensive and clarifying answer.  Your expansion of my question, however, is interesting.  My idle interest was piqued when I saw that the consulting was 1/7 of IPMS's 2023 expenses.  It was also about 9% (or 1 in 11 dollars) of the 2022 expenses.  The expense burden for 2022 seems disproportionate; for 2023 -- well, it catches one's attention.

Hmmm, cause this is the way my mind works, the combined expenditure for consulting for 2022/23 was $82,352.00.  At this point, I would like to expand my question to include the year 2022.  If I am not completely off base, I think the answer might be of interest to the general membership.

 

Edited August 24, 2024 by Highlander

[Schmitz]

If you look at the report from the business meeting - https://ipmsusa.org/sites/default/files/minutes/files/2024ipms-usaannualbusinessmeetingfinalv15jul2024approved.pdf - they show the consulting numbers for the first 6 months of both 2023 and 2024. The consulting numbers are $25,888 and $28,800, if you add those together (bear with me) you get that $54,688 number for 2023.  Interestingly, 28,800/6 is a nice round 4800, that suggests it is a regular monthly payment for a service contract, where the price increased halfway thru 2023.

If you look at the 2022 full year number (from the Journal), you see $27,644 - just about half of the 2023 full year number, so we probably just started paying for whatever it was halfway thru 2022. Hmm, what did IPMS start doing differently in 2022?  Looking back through my email, we started using the WildApricot membership system in January 2022, and in Oct. there was a mention of changes in WildApricot (the URLs changed). Total guess work, but I'd bet this is a service contract for WA.

 

[Highlander]

Sounds like reasonable reasoning.   Are you a forensic accountant?  Of course, it leads to other questions. 

Why would one call a membership system "consulting"?  And, is $54K a reasonable price for a membership system?

An answer, I'm sure, is forthcoming.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Highlander

[Circuitrider]

If you aren't already familiar with it, the info below might be helpful regarding financial inquiries. While many might find it advisable to have an E-Board member monitor to the forum, I don't see it recorded anywhere as a requirement. Hope this helps!

Mike Oberholtzer - Treasurer

IPMS/USA Fiscal Affairs

Email: treasurer@ipmsusa.org

 

 

[MikeOberholtzer]

Sorry to be late to the party- I just found out about this question. The answer is pretty simple. We have two people who do a huge amount of work for IPMS/USA, Nancy Kennedy-Hackney and Marie Van Schoonhoven. Nancy and Marie are our consultants- our Member & Event System Admin and our Office Manager, respectively. Nancy is our MyIPMSUSA.org (Wild Apricot) guru, manages convention registration and vendor registration, and handles our email blasts for the convention and other contests around the country.  Marie handles all things membership related and our special products like name badges. We are very lucky to have two such dedicated consultants taking care of our needs! It works out better for us and for them to have them as consultants rather than employees. 

[Highlander]

Now, I am being educated.  So, rather than salaries, IPMS pays consulting fees.  If we define consulting as pseudo-salaries, things make sense.  I understand that consultant (or contractor) status has several legal, tax, insurance, liability, and other advantages.

Correct?

[MikeOberholtzer]

Yes, that is correct!

[SkyKing]

6 hours ago, ghodges said:

While I recall the mention of IPMSUSA using a consultant for social media at the business meeting as Ron cited, I do not recall them saying how much they spent (and wisely so, it seems). If all of that money went to that one area, we need to know that and have an explanation as to why it's so high. We also need to know exactly who (what firm or company) was used for that consulting. Lastly, we need to know WHAT IPMS got for its money.... ie what report/recommendations/etc.. THAT should also be released for the members to see.

 

Gil 

Absolutely!

[MikeOberholtzer]

I can shed some light on this also. We did have a consultant (who is a member) volunteer to work with us on our mission and vision for the future. The Eboard met with him one time, and is considering how, or if, we should move forward. In any case, this is a very kind offer from a person who has experience in the field and is willing to volunteer their time. We could use more members like him! 

[SkyKing]

I did not realize that the Wild Apricot came with an ongoing monthly “consulting” fee and don’t recall ever seeing any mention that one was necessary. In the wake of recent events, perhaps we should find a volunteer to oversee Wild Apricot for free and put the money saved toward hiring a consultant to produce the Journal.

[ghodges]

Mike O.... thanks for chiming in and clarifying things! To my knowledge you're the first Eboard member to do so and your participation here has quelled some serious qualms. 

I too now wonder about IPMSUSA using a system that has such a high price going forward every year, especially if that's only to "monitor" they WA system. Or, do we get the benefits of technical repair expertise as well as system expansion abilities too as part of their "consultation" fees paid? It would seem extravagant to buy a system where you to keep paying for it unless that payment comes with some sort of warranty and more future capabilities provided by that consultant. 

I understand Marie's duties as office manager. Can you clarify why we need to continue to consult with Nancy? What changes in the system month to month and year to year are there where her personal services are still needed?

I agree having volunteers is ideal, but also the need to pay for professional help. I just don't follow why we bought a computer system or operating system we can't use without continuing help.

And you're right about there being no requirement to be here by Eboard members. But doesn't it make sense that at least the IPMSUSA Social Media Monitor should be checking in here to alert Eboard members to questions they need to tackle? How is it not THAT person's "job"? And if that person is relying on monitors here to let them know what's going on, then why aren't the monitors doing so? And IF the monitors ARE doing so, why is it so hard to get other Eboard members HERE to answer questions unless their alerts are being generally ignored as we (posters) usually are? 

These are the questions we're left to wonder when the Eboard fails to chime in, so THANKYOU for your stepping up and doing so!

Gil 

[MikeOberholtzer]

Hi Gil, thanks for the thanks!

I guess I wasn’t clear about Nancy’s duties. Nancy is not a technical consultant. She is the day to day primary user of the system for events. In our case that means convention related. Her role includes setting up each convention in the system, managing online registration for both vendors and members, sending emails to members and vendors using the system both for conventions and local or regional shows as requested, and continuing to refine how we use the system to meet our needs. She also supports the Director  of Local Chapters with data requests, email blast support, and data clean up. For Madison she participated in the weekly Zoom meetings held by the convention team, managed all of the pre-registration support and questions, provided advice and support to the convention registrar and vendor coordinator, trained the registration staff in the tools we use to register and pay for registration, arrived two days early in Madison to help check in vendors and make sure we were ready to go with registration Wednesday morning, and then worked the entire convention to keep things running smoothly. She supports a minimum of two convention teams at any one time.  I would say she is really more of an IPMS convention operations expert than a Wild Apricot expert, and she has been great at finding ways to make Wild Apricot do more for us. 

We all need to remember that IPMS/USA is now a 5,000 member organization, and running it is a huge amount of work. The Eboard, RCs, Journal staff, and web/social media staff are all volunteers. But we do need the two part-time contractor/consultant folks that we have to do the day to day work in the trenches that keeps the Society functioning. 

We do pay Personify for the use of the system, a widely used, well supported non-profit membership and event management tool. The system is a bargain at about $360 a month.  If you would like to learn more about it please visit wildapricot.com. 
 

I would also point out that I am not the person who said there is no requirement for Eboard members to monitor the forums. I believe that was Circuitrider. I certainly respond when a forum moderator gives me a heads up though. I can’t speak for the others, but personally I just don’t have time to check the forums every day. However I do respond quickly to any emails, texts, or calls looking for more information about how IPMS/USA works. My contact information is below. I devote about 20 hours a week to managing the finances of the Society already, and I do want to spend some time with my family and my hobby! 

I hope this was helpful,

Mike

708-712-2322

treasurer@ipmsusa.org

[ghodges]

Thanks for the expanded info on Nancy's ongoing duties. In that light, it would seem that IPMS has taken the first step towards paying someone professionally for the Nats Convention; an idea that's been batted around in various forms in the past. As big and important as the Nats is to the success of IPMS it seems to be a prudent and needed consultant expenditure, especially when you lump in her work and aid to the Eboard and IPMS staff outside of the Nats.

Gil 

[noelsmith]

Fascinating reading.  IPMS UK has a similar membership and runs as a limited company to protect its members.

Comparing the IPMS UK with the USA's end of year statements of expenditure would probably make interesting reading. Both have high budget annual expenditure with Scale Modelworld and the US Nationals to fund as well as a quality magazine to publish and distribute, besides all the other sundry expenses like annual accountancy services etc.