IPEd Review D irect M embership M odel A snapshot Alan Cummine CSE, Canberra, 30 Oct 2013

1. IPEd ReviewDirect Membership Model A snapshotAlan Cummine CSE, Canberra, 30 Oct 2013

2. Why DMM? • To be consistent with most other professional institutes/societies in Australia • Very few are federations • To not only ‘present’ a single national name/brand (eg IPEd or Editors Australia), but also to have a structure that reflects that apparent cohesion and professionalism • To reduce/eliminate duplication of services with state societies and reduce volunteer ‘burn-out’

3. Features of DMM (1) • A single national body to which editors belong directly • Societies (eg CSE) would be legally wound up, and instead become state/regional branches, and editors would belong to IPEd directly but through their branch • Name could remain IPEd or be changed to something like ‘Editors Australia’ • Names of societies (now branches) would change to reflect the single national brand • Individual members would directly own the national body and have direct communication and engagement with it, rather than only through their societies, as at present

4. Features of DMM (2) • National body would retain its six core functions (see Table 4, circulated), and also become responsible for, eg … • membership, financial management, administration • national newsletter and website, email list, and other communication media • a national freelance register • a national professional development strategy • the biennial national conference

5. Features of DMM (3) • Branches would be freed from most administration and could devote most of their volunteer time to … • networking opportunities and events • professional development • assisting with national conference • branch input to the national newsletter and website • communication with members • handling money and administration related to these events and activities

6. DMM – personnel and funding (1) • Proposal is to increase the membership fees to cover the cost of carrying out … • Core IPEd functions currently languishing (communications, promoting accreditation, promoting editors and editing, and public advocacy on relevant national issues) • all the transferred functions described above • The main cost would be for paid staff, such as … • Executive Director, communications /membership officer, finance officer • working in a ‘virtual office’

7. DMM – personnel and funding (2) • Budget estimates have been created, but will be subject to a lot of debate, whichever option is chosen • They are far from settled, and the assumptions are open to question • Branch activities would be financed directly from the national budget as needed • Maybe a ‘per member’ rebate to branches as a way of giving them some local control over their finances • Full professional membership fees are estimated to rise to around $240 a year

8. DMM … personnel and funding (3) • This is a very substantial increase in annual fees and will almost certainly lead to some attrition in membership • But the IFM budget proposes a fee increase not dissimilar in scale • Fees will need to increase under both options • How much and what for are the questions • There is much work to be done, and the budget/s can and should be challenged

9. DMM … Issues • By far the main ‘issue’ with DMM is the transition from the established structures and relationships between IPEd and state societies … see Table 4 (circulated). • Some believe this transition will be worth it to achieve the reality and the appearance of a truly national unified representative body worthy of the profession. • Others believe that most of what is needed and wanted can be achieved by tweaking and properly funding the federated structure, and avoiding the upheaval, extra voluntary effort, and legal matters that the change will involve. • THESE are fundamental considerations.