SOS 2016
State of the Society, 2016, presented by Consul Bruce A. Metcalf, OAE
>>>not for public release<<<
Last year at this time, I wrote that The Augustan Society was fast approaching a series of crossroads when the Directors will be obliged to make important and fateful decisions. We have nearly arrived at one such, with the date being the end of either this year or next. At that time, your Consuls will step down from that role, and advise that it be discontinued. (Note: This happened on 31 December 2017.)
We do intend to keep all our other elected and appointed offices and to continue as the Society’s landlord until it finally moves out, but it is time for our service as the moral compass and nagging conscience of the Society to come to an end (as best I can stifle myself).
This brings to focus the problem of Board performance that I have been harping on for some time now. A Board of Directors has only three jobs, and you are at present only taking care of one of them. These three jobs are:
- Governing the Society
- Developing Membership
- Generating Sufficient Revenue
One could say that the Board is governing the Society, but in reality you have delegated most of that task to the Consuls (and a few others). This will soon end, so you should begin the process of assuming this responsibility more directly, or of finding new members to whom it may be delegated.
As for the second job, the Board has failed completely at developing membership. The number of members today is fewer than that when the Consuls first assumed their posts in 2007. This is a large problem as we cannot find enough willing hands to support the programs of the Society, or even to fill the seats on the Board. There is as yet no Membership Chairman, no Membership Committee, no membership campaign, no program or policy designed specifically to encourage people to join. This is a failure, and one that will cause our Society to evaporate if not corrected.
At the third job — developing sufficient revenue — the Board has also failed. This is partly due to the failure to develop membership, but that’s not the only cause. Where previous Boards had established Annual Fundraisers and assessments, the small size of our membership now makes this an unreasonable approach. Worse, last year the Board walked away from a $10,000 matching grant for lack of interest (and I’m still smarting from the reaction of the donor to this rejection of his generous offer). Some new program; some new approach will be required to keep our Society afloat without curtailing operations or raiding the investments, especially as it now seems we have reached the limit of what dues our members are willing to pay.
These failures would not be so bad if the Society’s expenses were constant, but they are not. Our storage units’ rent has been rising faster than our dues, and the rent for the use of the Metcalfs’ home as Headquarters has and will continue to double each year. If naught else, this alone will soon financially cripple the Society.
This then is the nature of the next crossroad ahead. Unless the Board takes decisive action or we enjoy a large (and presently unexpected) bequest, the options available at that crossroads will be:
- The Board could start doing jobs II and III — membership recruitment and fundraising — either directly or by naming active and effective chairmen and committees.
- The Board could hire someone to do jobs II and III, which will require the Board to find the funds to pay that someone — perhaps out of their own pockets — as we likely aren’t large enough that anyone would take on these tasks on spec.
- The Board could reduce expenses by giving away our collections and other physical assets to another worthy non-profit organization, with the resultant loss of purpose and capacity.
- The Board could sell off the collections and other assets as necessary to fund continued operation of the rest, which will likely prove but a short-term remedy.
- The Board could deliberately disband the Society.
- The Board could, through inaction, allow the Society to dissolve.
None of these options are appealing. Even the first would require substantial additional effort by the Board. It may also take substantial time to make measurable progress on those jobs. Still, the Board must begin now if dissolution is to be avoided.
Appreciate please that in a few years, the fees paid to us for Headquarters rent will become the majority of the Society’s expenses; in a few years more they will grow until they are larger than the Society’s net worth. If the Board makes reasonable progress on their obligations, the Metcalfs are quite willing to moderate the rate at which rent increases, but any failure or fall-back will result in a resumption of the present fee increases. Know that we do this because it is our only means of holding the Society’s shoulder to the wheel.
One option floated last year to general acceptance was a cap on Headquarters rent equal to 4% of the Investment Fund per annum, contingent on the Board depositing 10% of gross revenues into that Fund and making no other withdrawals. This would prevent Headquarters' expense from exceeding the Society’s ability to pay, and the Metcalfs will be satisfied with this limit on rent as it would mean the balance of the Investment Fund would rise at an achievable rate. But this proposal would require firm and continuing action by the Board of a type not recently seen. It would also require the Board to generate the rent for the storage units from the General Fund. And it makes the perhaps unreasonable presumption that our situation will dramatically improve before the Metcalfs are no longer able to host the Society.
Another option that may have to be considered, particularly if the Society cannot elect a full Board or the Directors cannot elect a slate of working Officers: Creating the office of Executive Director who would serve in place of the Board and Officers, relegating the Board to annual meetings to confirm the Executive Director. This has potential to work only to the degree that the perfect Executive Director can be found. Choosing the wrong one could quickly become fatal, and for this reason this option is to be considered high-risk.
I cannot offer my recommendation to the Board about which choices to make. This is only partly due to a conflict of interest. The big question you will have to answer for yourselves is, “How hard am I willing to work to ensure that The Augustan Society survives?” If the answer is the same as the present level of effort (especially considering our failure to muster a quorum for the August meetings), you need to chose a course of action that minimizes Board involvement. However, if you are willing to rise to the challenge — and it is a non-trivial challenge — then you should chose a course that calls for a significant and a significantly larger level of commitment from the Board, both collectively and individually. Your decision does not have to be taken today, but with each day’s delay your options become ever more limited.
