Response to Subscription Increase Below are a selection of responses the Secretary has received. It is not too late to forward your views. 1, ‘If I might place my name against item 2 [raise subs in 2008] in order that we might move the branch on and in particular in the interests of younger members and those about to join NARPO’ 2, ‘With regard to the ongoing debate about subscriptions, I have to say that looking at matters objectively, any funding arrangement that allows NARPO both locally and Nationally to be financially independent and viable has to be of major benefit to the Association and to its members. On that basis, I would be happy to accept the funding arrangements as detailed in option 2 as presented in the latest newsletter. In addition to the proposed benefits listed, it would perhaps allow the association to be pro-active in seeking to enhance the welfare of the membership.’ 3. ‘With reference to the raising of subscriptions in 2008. I totally agree with the proposal to raise the yearly subscription by £4.80 plus inflation and to increasing the precept to 50%.’ 4. ‘ If the subscription is to go up by £4.20p. (Plus inflation) as requested, on top of this year's increase, the precept would, at 40%, increase by £1.46p. Per member.   I don't know how many members NARPO boasts, but I feel it would produce a substantial increase to HQ's coffers   To give a further 10% of the overall raised subscriptions in 2008 seem excessive. It is stated that this is required for the organisation to remain viable.   This suggests that without these increases, that NARPO would not be viable and therefore liable to collapse.   Have we had any previous indication that the organisation is in such dire straits?   Has there been any previous commitment to any of the five areas of expense listed, which would give cause for concern?   Why is an explosion of expense expected? It is stated that the raise in subscriptions in 2008 would result in increased income to branches.   If a further 10% of the overall subscriptions were given to H.Q. the increase to branches would be minimal. It is stated that the commission and advertising income could be used to reduce the costs of service to members - I would hope that this is the situation at the moment so that "promise" seems superfluous.   If it is not the case: where does that money go? It appears that "Empire Building" could be taking place at the top.   As with all organisations formed originally for the rank and file, eventually the 'raison d'etre' becomes the hierarchy and the administration.  If we are not careful that is how NARPO will end up, The present subscription for 2006 is £15.60p.    60% to branch = £9.36 per member.     40% to H.Q. = £6.24p. Proposed subscriptions for 2008 £19.80p. (+inflation but discount this as it is unknown) 50% to branch = £9.80. A rise of 44p. Per member. 50% to H.Q. = 3.56p. Per member. So much for the "carrot"  "- despite the precept change, would also result in increased revenue for Branches" If the proposed increase to £19.80p (+ inflation) was agreed and the precept remains as it is i.e. 60%/40% H.Q. and the administration would still get a substantial rise in income. After the rise, to branch 60% £11.88p. - rise to branch £2.52p. Per member.  To H.Q. 40% £7.92p. - Rise to H.Q. £1.68p. Per member. I feel that the rise to £19.80p + inflation for 2008 is acceptable but the proposed amendment to precept ratio should be opposed. Cash should not "Flow" upwards and "Trickle down"   The branches know where their membership’s needs are, on the ground.   They should have the finances to meet these needs.   Should there be an urgent need of money by the organisation hierarchy for any of the five areas listed, I'm sure a levy could be agreed if the case were put to the branches, the amount raised by the levy being 'ring fenced', for the specific purpose.  There could be a mechanism put in place to trigger such a levy where a specific need was identified. It need not be an individual branch-wide vote, merely the branch finance sub committees examining the need and acting accordingly.   As work expands to fill the time available for it, I would suggest that "expenses" expand to absorb the money available.  Too much money sloshing around would give rise to many "worthy" and "good" causes to use that money.   My thoughts - make of them what you will.   (I hope my maths is correct)’ 5. ‘ I support Option 2 - raising subscriptions in 2008 to £19.80p        Keep up the good work.’