MEMBER REWARDS PROGRAM
Somebody needs to do the organising for the organisation. āJosephine Brown
BrisLETS has a lot more potential than is currently obvious. The organisation needs to move forward to realise this potential; then it would thrive, rather than just survive.
In this article I will explain how the BrisLETS community would benefit if it introduces a member rewards program (MRP). I will also cite some funding models to support it.
Since last year, Simon Cole and I have been collaborating on the restructure proposal (Click Here). It has been partially implemented, with the MRP being the final, remaining phase to come on stream.
Not for profit and volunteers
In discussions on FaceBook and Slack, some members have questioned the need for an MRP, as our organisation is a not-for-profit. Itās therefore assumed that members (read, āother peopleā) should volunteer their time and talents for FREE to run and operate it.
However, other NFP organisations actually pay people to perform duties. This is despite such organisations also saying there is not enough money to go around; that they must rely on the government, or need to fundraise for $ handouts.
The big question is: why do we at BrisLETS assume that our volunteers should work for nothing?
Think about itā¦
Our organisation is based on the concept of mutual credit. This means we trade our time, goods and talents for units (of measure) so that we can exchange our units for other such commodities.
Why shouldnāt this apply to the organisers of the organisation?
Are your services FREE?
Some BrisLETS members are altruistic and do things for our organisation for free. That is very commendable.
However, is this really the best way to attract the necessary talent to carry out the functions needed for our organisation to grow and to benefit its members?
If we wait for every BrisLETS member to give their time and goods for free, we could be waiting a very long time!
Change mooted at AGM
At the last AGM, a change was proposed to the way in which volunteers are recognised for the work they perform on behalf of our organisationās members.
Previously, committee members would apply to be remunerated for work theyād performed, and others would be remunerated on an ad-hoc basis.
That would be approved by the MC (recorded in the minutes) and presented to the members at the next AGM.
A vote was passed at the last AGM that the Management Committee be remunerated as a percentage of the transactional levy.
President Simon Cole had calculated this as equivalent to 20 minutes work per week at the going rate of 35 units per hour.
Transaction levy
One issue that comes up frequently is that we already pay a transaction levy of 4% on each side of the transaction, thus making it effectively 8%, so why should we pay more?
Unfortunately, this levy doesnāt raise enough revenue to cover the amount of time/effort needed to properly reward all of the people supporting the organisation without relying on them to DONATE more time and talent.
A unique suggestion
It was proposed that the transaction levy be increased.
Personally, I would suggest it be ABOLISHED. I see it as a form of usury that impedes the growth of our exchange.
To me, itās a bit like the fee you pay every time you use the Eftpos or Paywave machine at the supermarket. The banks charge you this fee to use their credit/debit facility, and itās around 0.5% on the value of your transaction.
Regardless of the transactionās value, it doesnāt cost the banks any more to record it, so why is it a percentage of the value?
Getting back to BrisLETS, however, I canāt see us abolishing the transaction levy immediately ā not until we have a viable alternative.
Who is supporting our organisation?
Thatās our Management Committee, currently, PresidentĀ Simon Cole, SecretaryĀ Jeni Lewington, and TreasurerĀ John Tennock. These people are entrusted with carrying out the legal requirements to keep us incorporated.
We have several teams:
The Management Support Team is entrusted with managing the units and the CES side of our organisation, and guiding the other teams, being:
- Membership: Judith Shaw
- CES Website Admin: Simon Cole
- CES Australian Liaison: Paul Wildman
- PTS: Andrew Gaydon (BLCE1498)
Trading Team
- Trading Facilitator: Simon Cole
- Local Area Contacts: North ā VACANT, South ā Jessie Scott & Jeni Lewington , East ā Andrew Gaydon, West ā Judith Shaw
- Drop-Off Point Hosts: Hugh Dickson, Alison Bryant, Sylvia Blayse, Simon Cole, Amanda Farrelly, Jessica Macdonald
- Mediators: Michelle Maloney
- Librarian: Rosemarie Severin
Events Team
- Events Coodinator(s): Ā VACANT
- Events Onsite: Isabelle Derouet
- Events Online: Andrew Gaydon
- Events Update email publisher: Andrew Gaydon
- Special Events Organiser: Robert Vidovic
Promotion Team
- Coordinator: VACANT
- BrisLETS Website Administrator: Megan Simson
- Website Editors: Simon Cole, Secretary, Andrew Gaydon
- NewLETS Editor: Josephine Brown
- Mailchimp email assistant: VACANT
- NewsLETS copy editor: Jacob Saini
- Social Media Moderator: Ishka McNulty
- Graphic Artist & Marketing: VACANT
- Fundraising & Grants: Robert Vidovic
You can see that many people do various jobs to support the organisation ā and that many positions still need filling.
The burning question:
Should we NOT reward these people for their efforts?
Letās see some figures.
Expenditure budget
Based on the following assumptions ā¦
- having a basic rate or reward of 35 units per hour
- receiving income from a transaction levy, based on the previous yearās amount
- each member of the MST (Management Support Team) being allocated the same stipend as the MC (Management Committee)
- a budgeted amount is based on an estimate, but in most cases this would be a token amount because the actual amount of time expended would be exceeded
Take a look at the proposed budget [Click Here]. It is subject to change.
What needs extra funding?
TRADING DAYS: We could offer units to our workshop (and other) presenters. This should also extend to the events person who turns up in good time to open the hall and close it at the end of the day.
PROMOTIONAL EVENT: We could reward members who attend promotional stalls at festivals, expos and markets. For instance, Anne Tennock and Simon Cole attended the recent Woodford Festival to advertise the benefits of BrisLETS.
We could also reward members who recruit new members and further promote BrisLETS and the CES system.
MATERIALS: Letās also pay units to members for sundry expenses, marketing, graphic design and other ad-hoc costs involved in supporting our organisation.
Here is an incentive to get people actively involved in the organisation.
So based on the above assumptions and that we want to reward those who make a positive contribution to the organisation in order for it to grow and improve,
we need to fund it.
At last count there were 259 accounts. We have a funding deficit of about 7,800 units. If all of these accounts were active, it equates to about 30 units per account-holder. (We know that not all of the accounts are active.)
Funding models
We have found numerous funding models that could be adopted. Letās look at some.
- Compulsory annual levy (in addition to the transaction levy)
– Do we just debit everybodyās account, once per year?
- Volunteer donation of units (in addition to the transaction levy)
– Do we ask people to donate units and hope there will be enough?
- A combination of 1 and 2
– Do we charge every member a 25-unit levy and ask for donations to make up any shortfall?
- Increasing the transaction levy
– Do we really want to do this?
- Fund it from the transaction levy and rely on growth
– Raising an extra 7,800 units would require our total transaction amount to increase by 150% to 97,500. Last year, the total was 49,869.
Which funding model to support?
From the survey results, most respondents supported an annual levy of 20 units or more to support people organising the organisation.
I would advocate an annual membership fee of at least 35 units, due on July 31. This is the equivalent of just one hour of volunteering per year, if every member in the exchange (letās say 259) donated;
this would raise ~9,000 units.
As you can see, numerous people do many pro-bono jobs for the organisation without being recognised, and in many cases do far more work than is being funded.
While it would be great for people to be offered a stipend for the work they have done (an hourās work for an hourās pay), itās unlikely this can happen immediately.
Most likely a token payment will be made until we have sufficient income to cover the work actually carried out.
QUESTIONS (and some answers)
Q. What guarantee is there that, by supporting this, the organisation will grow and the number of members and trading will increase?
A.Ā No guarantee, but it will give us some resources and incentives to actively promote the organisation.
Q. I already do lots of trading and give more than 35 units in the transaction levy every year, so why should I give more?
A.Ā Thank you for being an active trader and using the system to full potential. Iām sure youād like to see the organisation thrive and more people involved.
Q. I donāt do a lot of trading and Iām already in debt, so 35 units will add to my negative balance.
A.Ā There are many opportunities to earn credits. Why not volunteer your time to bring your balance back to 0?
Q.Ā How do we know that the work will actually be done?
A.Ā People will still need to claim stipends by sending in a quarterly report to the MST (or units treasurer) detailing what they have actually done. You can keep a diary (online or digital) or a timesheet (Like this one)
Q.Ā What if I strongly object to paying volunteers?
A.Ā Volunteer for a job and donate your stipend back to the organisation. Otherwise you need to question your commitment to the organisation.
Summary
A member rewards program recognises those members who give their time and talents to assist the organisation.
Is it unreasonable to expect that every member of the organisation makes a contribution towards the success of the organisation?
Not every member has the time or skills to help the organisation, but you can show your appreciation by making a unit contribution and, by doing so, making a commitment to support the organisation.
An annual membership fee can be introduced to raise additional funds so the organisation can reward members for working to further the organisationās goals.
This fee would be due on 31 July, and the recommended amount would be at least 35 units.
Please support the organisation that supports you and your trading.
Consider applying for a vacant position, as numerous ones need to be filled. You will earn units for your efforts.
Conclusion
Letās not forget the bigger picture: we could become a model for other organisations (not just LETS) to copy.
Rewarding members who offer their time and talents to help organise and promote the organisational goals means not having to rely on the same set of volunteers (who would burn out) nor having to rely on government $s to fund activities.
— Andrew Gaydon (BLCE1498)
Thanks Andrew for writing this and contributing to the other articles – it does make sense in the way you have written. By paying an annual membership fee, it would trigger people to go into the site and update what they want to offer, need etc. But seeing the AGM is in July and you want people to take on positions, why not do it at 30th June, and include the explanation, that by charging the annual fee, you are funding a way for you to earn it back by taking on a position? Thanks for attaching the budget and list of all who are doing what – first time I realised that so many are doing so many things. So thank you everyone involved. I am totally lost now with all this technological change even though I have tried to be aware of what is happening.
Thanks Jessie for taking the time to comment, it is appreciated.
In answering your question, yes, a 30th of June renewal date would be desirable for the reasons that you mentioned. My suggestion of July 31 may change, primarily I put that date in to be after the AGM as I would like to see it as a resolution to be adopted by the members and implemented by the new MC & MST.
The date will also depends on how it will be collected and what the renewal process will be, this is yet to be decided.
I intend to hold Q&A sessions at the upcoming Trading days, to gather some more feedback from our members.
Trouble is Jessie the budget doesn’t work
we either end up with an estimated yearly deficit of 6,463 units
OR
We have to take an average of 20% off every transaction
Roy I think if you regard volunteerism as the moral high-ground, there’s no point talking numbers.
We’re trying something different here in Brisbane. We’re not doing this for ourselves (admin); we’re doing it for members who put their hand up for one of the jobs listed. We’re also doing it to bring mutual credit to more people in Brisbane. And we’re putting it to the vote repeatedly.
Not really, Simon, volunteerism is a complex subject we could discuss one day
I think the point of Andrews numbers is that the exchange doesn’t have the resources to put this scheme into action – can’t have no matter how we juggle the numbers
That would kind of be the end of it?
You’re right, Roy, it’s complex. I would consider discussing it in person if you promised to refrain from getting onto our Facebook group and posting insults and false allegations (which were printscreened before moderators deleted them). You can join the Q&As during our Trading Days, but I understand Noosa is a long way to come. Btw, as the Admin of the Noosa Exchange, I’m sure you’re aware of the ‘one account only’ policy of CES Australia’s T&Cs?
..and then
if you can only afford to pay MC as Andrews modelling indicates
whatever your motives, it looks like you are doing it for yourselves
whatever your motives, you ARE “doing it” for yourselves, I guess š
and you can’t demonstrate that paying yourselves is bringing mutual credit to more people in Brisbane
whatever the next MC philosophical leanings, I doubt this can go ahead?
I really love Jessie’s list, that’s probably what we should be working on..
How would we go about increasing the number of MC members?
I can’t follow how we reduced the number?
Andrew’s figures are projections. He favours abolishing the transaction levy, so 20% is hyperbole.
The transaction levy raises income from those who use it most, which has pros and cons. It is also a measure members can use to gauge the effectiveness of their work. In other words, if there isn’t enough trade resulting from their work, it’s a signal to change track. Keep in mind that trade levels may fluctuate due to seasonal effects (like holiday periods) and what’s going on in the dollar economy (falling prices). So I advocate keeping the transaction levy as an option for Admin.
Our proposals to change the T&Cs gives Admin the ability keep it’s account near zero.
It’s always awkard when people, especially Admins, suggest some sort of reward, but you’re ignoring the cap – no more than U11.16 per week, and the fact that we know Admin’s account must get back to zero, so if it goes into debit, options are: no rewards to anyone for a quarter or however long it takes.
Have a chat with Andrew, I’m pretty sure he gets it
He wrote “Raising an extra 7,800 units would require our total transaction amount to increase by 150% to 97,500. Last year, the total was 49,869.”
I’m sure he understands the significance of this to the scheme
Sorry Andrew, not hyperbole š
have a look at the total turnover of the exchange
compare it to how much Andrew’s model requires
The model requires (more) than 20% of the total turnover
have a look for yourself š
because I am sure getting sick of repeating the same thing
No matter how we wriggle turn – there just isn’t the turnover to support the scheme.
AND then
To repeat, if you ONLY pay the MC, it’s a really bad look.
So what do you do, now?
I’m not only all for paying ‘volunteers’, I don’t think there should be such a thing as volunteers in LETS. We are a trading organisation, not a charity. However, I do see a major problem in paying people to do work. How do we control what work is done, what is paid for it, and whether it is of a commensurate value to the members? We need jobs to be costed and competed for. Ex. Does the community think task A is worth paying 100 units for? Do we pay for 2 hours when someone else could do it in 10 minutes? What tasks are essential, what unaffordable? Is this task going to involve more than it is assessed at being worth? Individuals can easily think that what they are doing is important and necessary, and it can drink time. That does not make it something anyone else wants done. We need genuine market forces to apply so members get real value for units both individually when they contribute valuable work, and as a community getting work done and paying for it.
Hi Anne, Thankyou for your considered response and raising such points.
I will try to answer your questions:
1. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the MC & MST to ensure that value is being realised in the expenditure of resources.
2. A competitive tendering process would be appropriate when procuring goods and services for the organisation for ad-hoc expenditure.
3. Q&A point 4, for people to claim they would need to prove that they have actually done what they say that they have (Yes it is more administration, however we need something to keep people accountable)
Simon has put together an extensive Job Description document explaining responsibilities. We won’t go down the road of KPIs or performance reviews for such a small organisation and we are not talking about rewarding people with thousands of units per month.
It is easy to throw our hands up and say that this is too hard and ‘HOPE’ that things will happen.
Lets also not forget that, it is a starting point and the system will evolve, it is an iterative process. Like the mailchimp newsletter, I have been making subtle changes, over many months (hopefully improving it)
For the last year of doing the Stipend Payroll, I’ve had no reason to be concerned about keeping people who are working for BrisLETS and earning a Unit stipend accountable. They’ve all done more work than they’ve claimed for, some A LOT more.
The handy thing about the transaction levy is that it increases as trade goes up, so I often tell committee and team members that it’s in their interest to focus on that, because that’s where their pay is coming from.
I agree Anne
“Iām not only all for paying āvolunteersā, I donāt think there should be such a thing as volunteers in LETS. We are a trading organisation”
when you and I trade we exchange values and we do it voluntarily
when our “rulers” skim 20% off the top as is proposed, I can’t see any value coming from it and it’s not voluntary
some exchanges have a zero levy, it’s not hard to set up
PS
I am happy to volunteer, I get a lot of nontangible benefits
and most of the place I volunteer for can’t afford to pay me.
I think it’s the way the word is going, money is fading and there are new ways of exchanging
there is a conflict of interest when people decide their own jobs and their own pay from common funds – you are right
Well done on a well-thought-out proposal Andrew.
What I understand you’re proposing is that Trading, Events and Promotion Team members be paid on a monthly basis, between 20 mins to 2 hours, depending on the job (@U35/hr). This seems to suit the nature of their jobs very well.
We cannot do without the transaction levy, as you say. It cannot be a flat rate (it has to be a %) due to the limitations of the CES site.
Implementation: I would suggest using the same claim system I’m using for paying the MC, MST & other Team members. It’s worked well for 3 quarters now (that they understand it and are used to it) and I’m delighted with the honesty of my colleagues. Your budget spreadsheet for the non-MC & MSTeam members is much more in keeping with current revenue than the current MC & MST stipend payroll we’re using the pay them.
I would suggest trialling an annual donation levy on June 30th and see how much it raises.
My recap above can be instituted by the MST (it has the authority) without bothering the membership, who will not be affected in any adverse way. At the 2017 and 2018 AGM, payment of committee and team members was voted on and approved, conditional on there being a budget and that payments be kept within budget. The MST just needs to get on with the job.
Thanks for your comment Simon.
Just a couple points on your comment:
1. Yes the MST and the MC could implement this tomorrow, without consultation.
2. It is interesting that you suggest a Donation model, in some organisations members renew on an annual basis and a $fee is paid to assist with the costs of running the organisation. I believe that our our friends in FNQ charge a flat compulsory annual fee. I also believe that several years back the MC of BrisLETS imposed a fee on all of its members.
Simon the transaction levy can be set to zero
same exchanges have already done that?
is an “annual donation levy ” a donation or a levy?
some people are finding the idea that the MST can take units out of our accounts at will, disturbing
I agree with Anne: “Individuals can easily think that what they are doing is important and necessary” whereas it actually makes no positive difference at all to the Trading Activity or functioning of the LETS system. And then they submit that they have spent a lot of time and expect payment for it. I do not know how to avoid that happening.
Thanks for your comment Judith.
Measuring ROI is possible and a normal business practice
(Return on Investment)
Spending resource on stipend should result in a measurable increase in total active membership and trading.
The increase should exceed the costs
Maybe having a set ‘salary’ for each position would work, rather than payment by time spent? As Anne has pointed out, some are more efficient than others. We are usually all learning on the job anyway
Yes, that’s what is proposed.
We have a budget with set rates of reward.
I would only propose that some sort of accountability be introduced so that we can understand the work that is being performed.
I agree with an annual levy as suggested.
May I also make a further suggestion: all those who sign up as volunteers on committee & sub-committee roles be also exempt from the annual levy!
This strategy worked for my local equestrian sport club (Inc), whose committee was struggling to fill even Executive roles a few years ago when I came on board (as grants writer).
Background story of my own experience (a case in point for what it’s worth) as follows:
I can attest to ‘volunteer burn out’ from unforseen time commitments and ongoing project ‘obligations’ whilst serving on club committees. This work can potentially be very challenging at times, eating into one’s time and home life quite readily!
However we’re also keenly aware that without the committee, there is no club. Hence we soldier on, mostly optimistically, hoping to realise the ‘vision!’
Recruiting committee workers was/is especially difficult when these volunteers are obligated to run both club business AND events, often foregoing the fun of care-free participation.
Incentives were needed to not only recruit more people to share the current workload/ burden (& reduce burnout), but also to provide assistance and contingency associated with running events & comps almost weekly!
Our old “pretty please” approach of appealing to already busy members (i.e. largely time-poor working women) wasn’t overly successful. We needed to consider our ‘customer demographic’ and rethink our recruitment strategy.
We now waiver the $80 annual fee, grounds use fee AND event entry fee for committee workers. This initiative was enough to attract those extra volunteers we needed to create momentum! Our committee has more than doubled since I joined in 2016 along with the club’s bottom line.
Committee roles are now far less daunting for potential volunteers, so we’ve found it easier to attract candidates at our AGM & ongoing.
Conclusion:
Run the club like you would a business and REWARD those individuals that clearly build &/or benefit the org: INCENTIVES WORK!
Thanks Kath for your in-depth reply and sharing the experience with your sports club. I too was involved with a NFP Inc association where the annual membership fee was waved for members volunteering their time. Organisations do not run themselves and things don’t happen by magic.
I would argue one point of difference, these volunteers were not rewarded with any other type of remuneration. There only reward was some exemptions from fees being paid. My proposal is different.
An example would be that if a Federal public servant should be excluded from paying income tax because there employer levies the tax on the rest of the population. So is it OK for somebody to accept a reward if they are not willing to make a contribution themselves?
Let the discussion continue.
Getting the balance between the perception of the cost of annual fee plus a levy is ‘a lot of credits’ and ‘this is a good juicy workable plan’ is how well an individual understands lets and how active they are.
Having been in Lets awhile – No.95 – I have witnessed many stages of growth and I feel we are in good progressive and quite stable hands currently – rewarding this will only assist it to grow and prosper.
Yes I support both a levy and annual fee with the above goal and budget in mind.
Thank you Kath and Satyr for your supportive and helpful comments.
Andrew I’m not sure I understand your Public Servant example, if you could elaborate?
Everyone can see how BrisLETS pays workers in Units: Under the ‘About Us’ drop down menu is ‘Committee & Teams 2018/2019’. Below the list of Committees and Teams is a link to the latest ‘Stipend Payments’.
https://brislets.com/home-2/brislets-committee/stipend-payments-payroll/
The Stipends are very restricted, due to our limited budget.
Yes, Kath, exempting them from annual fees is appealing and sensible… possible, but technically difficult because of the nature of the CES software. Exemption from the transaction levy is impossible for the same reason. We could exempt them from other charges such as entry at the Market Day and other one-off event-related things. Maybe we can think of other incentives, but we hope the stipend appeals, and I know it’s drawn at least on member who is trying to return their account from debit to zero.
Re Public service analogy: Do you exempt public servants from paying income tax because they work for the organisation collecting the tax?
Good to hear from you Satya
Now that early numbers are being re-used, unfortunately (decision/instruction from ‘above’), noone can tell how long anyone has been a member by readingof their number. So – you might see a completely new user of BrisLETS with a lower membership number than yours
The policy/system of recycling account numbers began well before my tenure as CES Website Administrator since November last year and I have not had time to even look at how that function works.
One difficulty
from Andrews spreadsheet
Our income is 5000 units per year and the costs he has listed total 12,463 units.
This is based on skimming 8% off each transaction ā the numbers donāt work
A second difficulty
Is that if we were to increase the skim to 9900 units as Andrew is proposing from a total turnover of 49869 units (Andrews figures)
That means an average skim of about 20% on each transaction
People arenāt going to go for that unless Murdoch Press helps you in this campaign.
As Andrew says his scheme provides no guarantee of increased trade ā Trade has actually decreased.
āDonatingā an average of 20% of each transaction doesnāt encourage me and to be honest the idea that you are going to take units from my account without my consent gives me the willies
I have some philosophical issues with the proposal as well, perhaps later š
In Editors QLD we have a MRP but you’re only allowed to claim for ONE JOB, if you are doing multiple jobs