09-12-2012, 10:16 PM
An interesting debate!
Budgetting should always be led by explicit aims and principles in advance of spend. There is no rocket science about this. CS should decide on what activities it would like to support and cut its actual allocations accordingly. Aims always come first, followed by finance - ask any financial manager or chartered accountant!
At present, CS de facto appears to supports the biennial Olympiad team's expenses fully (plus costs of a coach) but no playing fees. It also supports about one third of the team's expenses to play in the biennial European team championships. It has also committed for the first time in 2011-12 to fund a small element (the entry fee only) for one (only) of its entrants in either of the annual Senior European or World championships.
CS need only decide whether it is happy with this de facto set of principles. Personally I think it would be helpful (and it would certainly be in accordance with best budgetting practice) to make these principles (or any changes thereto) explicit in advance of a spending year along with corresponding estimates of the future in-year costs expected.
Of course, over- or under-spends are essentially inevitable, as future costs rarely ever work out exactly as forecast in any business endeavour. However, if these are materially significant (as the current 2011/12 underspend seems to be - it seems at about 15% plus on budgetted expenditure), efforts should either be made urgently within year to re-allocate these scarce resources elsewhere within the international adult budget or release them to other CS budgets, subject to their making a "better" claim.
It is completely up to CS directors to decide these matters, subject to accountability through the AGM for their decisions. They should as far as possible try to make their decisions taking into account their view of the sense of members as a whole (and not necessarily any particularly perceived vociferous minority interest).
What do CS directors think they should support? What do members generally think that they should take into account? Such decisions do have a bearing on choices by potential Scottish representatives to play in events on behalf of Scotland. Perhaps in Scotland we're lucky that we still have a small but not insignificant amount of funds to spend!
I think that Andrew's underspend can probably be carried forward in the overall CS budget (which I think still operates on an overall three year balanced cycle). Our new CS Finance Director can no doubt keep us right on this. It is, however, certainly true that material underspends will almost certainly eventually be met by questions from the Scottish Government about whether we really need the funds that they still award us. We should spend them!
Budgetting should always be led by explicit aims and principles in advance of spend. There is no rocket science about this. CS should decide on what activities it would like to support and cut its actual allocations accordingly. Aims always come first, followed by finance - ask any financial manager or chartered accountant!
At present, CS de facto appears to supports the biennial Olympiad team's expenses fully (plus costs of a coach) but no playing fees. It also supports about one third of the team's expenses to play in the biennial European team championships. It has also committed for the first time in 2011-12 to fund a small element (the entry fee only) for one (only) of its entrants in either of the annual Senior European or World championships.
CS need only decide whether it is happy with this de facto set of principles. Personally I think it would be helpful (and it would certainly be in accordance with best budgetting practice) to make these principles (or any changes thereto) explicit in advance of a spending year along with corresponding estimates of the future in-year costs expected.
Of course, over- or under-spends are essentially inevitable, as future costs rarely ever work out exactly as forecast in any business endeavour. However, if these are materially significant (as the current 2011/12 underspend seems to be - it seems at about 15% plus on budgetted expenditure), efforts should either be made urgently within year to re-allocate these scarce resources elsewhere within the international adult budget or release them to other CS budgets, subject to their making a "better" claim.
It is completely up to CS directors to decide these matters, subject to accountability through the AGM for their decisions. They should as far as possible try to make their decisions taking into account their view of the sense of members as a whole (and not necessarily any particularly perceived vociferous minority interest).
What do CS directors think they should support? What do members generally think that they should take into account? Such decisions do have a bearing on choices by potential Scottish representatives to play in events on behalf of Scotland. Perhaps in Scotland we're lucky that we still have a small but not insignificant amount of funds to spend!
I think that Andrew's underspend can probably be carried forward in the overall CS budget (which I think still operates on an overall three year balanced cycle). Our new CS Finance Director can no doubt keep us right on this. It is, however, certainly true that material underspends will almost certainly eventually be met by questions from the Scottish Government about whether we really need the funds that they still award us. We should spend them!