Hi All,
Here is some further financial information to help support this motion.
Estimated Registrar costs
Registrar Fee $9600 (the Lowes did not bill us for all of this last year, but we are paying their back fees now)
Est office Exp per John 900 (previously subsidized by the Lowes)
Printing of 2010 R&I 1382 (these costs are booked under the Storefront)
Total Est Annual Costs $11,882
The cost of the new computer, printer and software ($6,000+) will be deducted on the 9-30-11 financial statements as a one-time cost. The AIS is on the cash basis of accounting and we have not depreciiated office equipment purchases in the past.
Estimated Registration Income
From 9-30-10 $8890
Sales of R&I 3720 (per John Ludi's Storefront Rpt.5-10...254 + 118 per 10-10 report @ $10
Sales of Checklists 1632(per Storefront Report 5-10...56 + 40 per 10-10 report @ $17
Total Income/Sales $14,242
Now, it looks like we have a profit from the Sales of R&Is and Checklists each year compared to the annual printing cost of the R&Is, but as Cheryl mentioned in her post we don't sell all of the books we pay to print each year. Per John Ludi's 9-30-10 Storefront Inventory report AIS has back inventory of R&Is and Checklists valued at $105,797. Estimating that the cost of these books was half what we are charging, that is still $52,900 of unrecouped costs AIS has written off without matching income over the years.
Until those costs are recouped in income, AIS has not made a profit off of the R&Is and Checklists either. This added foreign registration fee will help cover our costs, not balance our budget.
Jill
-----Original Message-----
>From: John Jones
>Sent: Aug 19, 2011 10:44 PM
>To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
>Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Motion regarding foreign registrations
>
>I think we need to clarify some issues and put some things in perspective.
>
>
>1: While AIS was not receiving any money for registrations from foreign hybridizers, that does not mean that they were not paying a fee to register their iris (to their Country Associate Registrar). In fact, almost all foreign registrants paid a fee, as enumerated on one of my previous posts.
>
>
>2: AIS is not supposed to make a profit by charging for registrations. The ICRA allows Registrars to charge a fee to COVER COSTS. It was not the intent of the original motion to charge foreign registrants a fee in order to "balance the AIS Books."
>
>3: Because we were not charging foreign registrants, we were in a deficit condition based of current expenses, specifically:
>
>Registrar's salary (annual) $9600.00
>Approximate costs for shipping, postage, paper, toner, and other office costs: $900.00
>5 year depreciation schedule for Registrar's computer system: $1300.00 (aprox)
>
>Total annual costs: $11,800
>
>Assuming for the point of discussion that there are 600 registrations annually from North America and 700 from other countries.
>
>If the AIS were to receive $15.00 from each registrant that would generate $19,500 far exceeding out costs. And before anyone jumps in and says "yes but we have to print the R&Is and Checklists", that is true but we make a profit on that as well.
>
>Remember also that before the Board decided to charge foreign registrants we would only receive 600 X $15.00 or $9000.00 (less than our current costs.
>
>4: The real point of my current motion is to recognize that foreign registrants, under the current fee structure, would be paying more (in almost every case) than North American registrants (the AIS $15.00 AIS fee plus their country Associate fee). My current motion is an attempt to mitigate that issue.
>
>The foreign Iris Societies set the fee that the Associate Registrars charge. Whether that fee goes to the Associate Registrar or not is their business, not ours. Remember that the AIS pays their Registrar (me) a fee supported by the fee charged to registrants.
>
>As i detailed in a previous post, the Associate Registrars provide a valuable service to me, making my job much easier. (Note that that is a relative statement. The job of Registrar is still very difficult. Even dealing with some of the North American registrants is a challenge...)
>
>Before we worry too much about giving away $5.00 per foreign registration, remember that 45 days ago we weren't getting anything from them. We need to try to be as fair and even handed to everyone as we can. We also need to have a uniform approach to all foreign countries. We can't have different standards for different countries or people.
>
>In receiving $10.00 per foreign registration we will generate an additional estimated $7000.00 for a total registrations revenue of $16,000 which is still in excess (significantly) of our estimated costs. Even if we adopt my "fee sharing" approach, the fee foreign registrants pay will go up from what they are accustomed to paying and I believe that additional fee will cause the number of foreign registrations to diminish to some degree, but obviously I have no specific data to support that.
>
>Also if we don't allocate $5.00 of the $15.00 dollar registration fee to the associate registrar (thus reducing the total cost to the registrant) we may find that foreign registrants just stop registering irises (which is the antithesis of our purpose). There is also some concern that some other country may petition the ICRA to become the World Wide Registrar for non-Bulbous Irises and the all North American registrants would end up sending registration requests to some foreign country just as a result of our raising the fee at all.
>
>So far I have had two responses to a recent email to all foreign Associate Registrars describing my revenue sharing approach:
>
>Jean Peyrard of France: "I agree it's a good solution, I transfer to the French Society",
>
>Sergey Loktev of Russia: "I consider the suggestion logical".
>
>
>As to Susan's questions, my comments are interspersed below.
>
>John
>
>On Aug 19, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Susan Boyce wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Now that I am home from work, I can finally sit down and put my thoughts
>> into words about this.
>> In my opinion, I would like to find out some more information before I would
>> vote to send $5.00 to the associate registrars in other countries.
>> 1. Does the money the foreign associates receive go into their own pockets,
>> or does it go into their respective iris societies coiffers.
>
>answered above
>
>> I would really
>> hate to see us send an extra $5.00 just to end up in someone's pocket.
>
>Remember that AIS pays me to be Registrar from registration revenues. Foreign Associate Registrars are performing a service at the behest of their respective Iris Societies. They deserve, under the rules of the ICRA, to charge a fee to mitigate their costs. But because they do and because we have decided to charge foreign registrants a fee, the registrants are faced with paying a double fee. That is not particularly fair and it is what I am attempting to mitigate (among other reasons) with my motion. To as great an extent as possible, we should create an environment where by all registrants face the same fee structure. Granted given all the various economies and specific country variations, we will never have perfect uniformity, but we can do our best.
>
>> 2. What exactly does the foreign associates do?
>
>Described in an other email
>
>> Do they just forward the
>> registrations onto us? Do they translate effectively and/or correctly the
>> registrations before sending them to us?
>
>Some translate more effectively than others, but certainly better than I could. Plus they add experience as to how to describe an iris clone and correct/clarify the registrations.
>
>> All of these questions should be answered before we should vote on any
>> changes.
>> Susan Boyce
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Motion regarding foreign registrations
>>> From: jijones@usjoneses.com
>>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:55:46 -0700
>>> To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
>>>
>>> The whole point of having a discussion after a motion is made is to get
>> thoughts on the table and vet the subject.
>>>
>>> HOW ABOUT SPEAKING UP!
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Michelle Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Jones moved and Cheryl Deaton seconded the below motion. As such it
>> is open for discussion.
>>>>
>>>> "That each foreign registrant pay a fee of USD$15.00 (or its equivalent in
>> the country currency) per iris registration or iris name reservation to the
>> country Associate Registrar. That the country Associate Registrar keep
>> USD$5.00 (or its equivalent in the country currency) per iris registration or
>> iris name reservation and pay the AIS USD$10.00 per iris registration or iris
>> name reservation, such payments to the AIS to be made via a PayPal system or
>> such other arrangements as may be enumerated by the AIS Registrar-Recorder for
>> his convenience. All payments to the AIS registrar to be made in USD. The AIS
>> respectfully requests, but does not require, the country Associate Registrars
>> to accept the USD$5.00 stipend as full payment for their services as Associate
>> Register in managing iris registrations and iris name reservations. That the
>> services of the country Associate Registrar include, but may not be limited
>> to, iris name checking against the irisregister.com database, !
>>> translation (as appropriate), transliteration (as appropriate), and
>> description review ad editing.
>>>>
>>>> Michelle Snyder,
>>>> AIS Secretary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>__________________
>John I Jones
>Registrar-Recorder
>American Iris Society
>aisregistrar@irises.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
>
>The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
>http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/