IPG funding for dues

[latrease]

Hello Kim, Lee, Jetty, and Mitchell,
I'm looking for your insights and guidance about the question that came up at the Leadership Institute about using local section and/or IPG funds to pay for members' dues.  After the LI  Lee suggested:
the money for IPGs is dues money and I am told that there is a proscription against dues money being spent on dues.  A further problem with paying for memberships as an incentive to join is what happens in year 2?  Paying for registrations is not a problem, but dues becomes one.  Covering an officer’s dues is also a problem for non-profit status, I think, as they could be considered employees at that point.  Best to avoid it, and perhaps note that in the guidelines it seems to me.


So, we added a policy to our reviewing guidelines :  "Using IPG funds for ACS dues (for example to encourage student or teacher chemists to join ACS or to encourage members to run for office) is not allowed as we are told that there is a proscription against dues money (which IPG funds are) being spent on dues."

This policy is on our internal G & A policy document, not the guidelines for applicants published at the IPG web page.   I've started reading the 41 IPG proposals and quite a few (4 of 11) propose some kind of dues voucher incentive to get students, teachers or govt employees to join ACS.   According to the new policies these could not be funded even though I think most are reasonable programs and the "no dues" policy was not public for them to follow.  Also, in the past we have funded at least 1 IPG to be used for ACS dues for teachers.  The reason I'm sharing this with you is that I would like some guidance on this dues issue.
1.  In the short term can we fund the dues-requesting IPGs in this round?  They weren't proscribed in the published guidelines.
2. Can we come up with a dues -IPG policy.  I would like to propose that we allow such incentive programs as long as they don't fully fund ACS membership and  that there is clear accountability in the awarding and using of such dues awards.  If this is not allowed by ACS bylaws then we need to clearly state so in the published IPG guidelines.
3. These IPGs indicate that a top priority of local sections is to increase the participation of chemists in their section, diversify their local  active membership, and outreach to teachers to help them better teach Chemistry--all great objectives.  How can we help local sections with this problem if not by funding well-designed IPGs?

OK, thanks for listening.  Maybe we can talk about this in our conference call or in S. F. or online.  I notice that the LSAC exec. comittee doesn't have a private  "group" on the ACS Network where we could have such a discussion.

See you soon,
Carol

[duffy]

I would strongly agree with Carol that in the short term we fund the dues-requesting IPGs in this round.  As Carol mentioned they weren't proscribed in the published guidelines.

I also strongly agree with Carol's next two points - Jetty
2. Can we come up with a dues -IPG policy.  I would like to propose that we allow such incentive programs as long as they don't fully fund ACS membership and  that there is clear accountability in the awarding and using of such dues awards.  If this is not allowed by ACS bylaws then we need to clearly state so in the published IPG guidelines.
3. These IPGs indicate that a top priority of local sections is to increase the participation of chemists in their section, diversify their local  active membership, and outreach to teachers to help them better teach Chemistry--all great objectives.  How can we help local sections with this problem if not by funding well-designed IPGs?

[LeeLatimer]

I'm posting my email reply to Carol.  Still learning to go here! (Thanks to Carol for pointing out the need for this group)

Carol,

We covered this issue in Ft. Worth with guidance from Flint Lewis office in response to a question from the floor.  I think we need to follow that approach.  I am disappointed that the message did not seem to get through.

I am also of the opinion that if the teachers wouldn’t join before and have been active in working with the ACS, why would they continue membership after someone else paid their dues for a year?   

I think we can respond to them politely that using dues money to pay dues for other members is not allowed in the ACS, and encourage them, with suggestions, to reformat their proposal.  Using the money to initiate a program of subsidizing awards for attendance at meetings is allowed and would hopefully energize connections with ACS.

Let’s focus on your #3 and well designed proposals. 

This does give us an opportunity for continuous improvement in clarifying an oversight in our published guidelines right after the no honoraria or meals part. 

We can take a few minutes on Friday for others to comment.

Lee

[CarolLibby]

I'm not sure exactly what we covered from Fort Worth. Something might have been mentioned to the crowd of local section officers there but that doesn't mean the message was delivered back home.  Bribing-to-be-an-officer (advanced arm-twisting?) was brought up:  We'll pay your dues if you agree to be Chair-elect,"  which I agree is very unadvisable. 

Then there was Doris who did talk about a non-funded IPG which proposed paying dues for high school teachers, I think.  In my recollection the failure to fund was more for an inadequate proposal than the dues issue, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, right now G & A has a proposal that is a follow-up to a previously funded one that included paying dues for HS teachers. How can we say it is now not allowed?  They are applying lessons learned from their 1st go-around, which yielded 5 new ACS members.  The proposal is to give HS teachers a $300 voucher to be used to pay for an ACS item such as national or local dues, dinner meeting for self or students, division membership, or journals.  They have built in some accountability by having the voucher use be tracked and publicized monthly by treasurer.

Another IPG proposes vouchers for 50% off dues and divisional membership.  In this case the recipients still have to come with a chunk of change (~$90), which seems a reasonable proposal.

So there is a continuum on this theme of using ACS or IPG funds, from bribery to partial payment, with one extreme being distasteful and the other reasonable, in my opinion.  It could also be that sections have programs that pay dues for members that we (LSAC) just don't know about because they don't request IPG funds, just use their own and it doesn't fall out in their annual reporting.   So what exactly is the official legal Flint Lewis-Bylaws stipulation on local sections paying dues of members or to encourage new membership?  Is IPG money different from section allotments in this regard?  Perhaps this is already covered in a treasurer's manual, which I haven't read.  Do we need a best practices statement for local sections overall for subsidizing dues and the IPG restriction could naturally follow from that.? 

Lee also raised the question about whether these dues incentive programs would accomplish their gooal of getting teachers, students, etc. into the ACS as continuing dues-paying maembers.  I think they should be allowed, tried.  We often have IPGs that we fund that we think are faulty,that we think we could better design, but we approve anyway, not wanting to micromanage or judge that we know best when the particular dynamics in the local section could make the project go.

[CarolLibby]

Lee and others still getting used to the Network-- don't forget to hit "Post Message" after composing it.  I've been posting lots of comments when reviewing the IPGs and several times have lost them because I forgot to scroll down and click on "Post Message." 

[LeeLatimer]

Carol,

The IPG money is from dues and thus is not allowed to be used to pay for dues.  This applies to section officers as well as vouchers.

To a couple of the points, the one that is wanting to give $300 vouchers is a blantant pass-through of funds creating the section as a granting agency with the IPG money, which is out of bounds.  I would also note that this amount is twice the membership dues.  There are obvious problems with how recipients are chosen as well.  We have denied grants on these grounds or requested follow up on selection criteria.

There are creative ways around these problems such as using non-ACS derived funds, or addressing supplying materials which are purchased by the section, or covering registration fees at a meeting of some type.

I'm not sure how much more blantant we could have made the anser to Doris' question at the LI.  We did it specifically on Sunday morning in the Q&A.  Perhaps the sections asking for this did not attend this year, or the attendee did not participate in the grant application.  Either way, we did answer the question after consulting Flint.

We often have returned applications for improvement with a date for resubmit by, which then allows consideration and inclusion in the round of funding.  That might be the way to address these applications and provide positive guidance on improvements.

I agree that a partial funding for whatever is a best practice.  This could be done with the attendance fees for the LAB courses as well such as the ones in Ft. Worth, which is a value they could show to supervisors.

Lee