| |
October 2002
Volume 66 |
Number 10
|
| |
ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE
|
|
ASA's Budgetary Process: A Series
of Checks and Balances
Roger A. Moore, M.D.
Assistant Treasurer
|
It is said that the weak of stomach should never view the
making of sausage and legislative bills. I am happy to report
that the ASA budgetary process does not lead to gastric
distress, at least for the outside observer! Over the past
few years, the budget process has been tightened and turned
into an efficient and, for the most part, effective machine.
Though more tinkering will be needed in order to ensure
a yearly balanced budget for ASA, the basic framework is
now in place and running smoothly.
The budgetary process may be of remote interest for most
ASA members, yet its importance for ensuring adequate funding
for diverse activities make it an extremely important component
in the whole of ASA's function. This report will try to
provide an overview as well as a behind-the-scenes look
at the complex budgetary process.
Developing a yearly budget begins one full year prior to
the year under budgetary consideration, and it extends throughout
the budgeted year. For example, the 2003 budget begins in
January 2002 with letters going out to each ASA committee
chair as well as section chairs from the Executive Office.
These letters request the development of an itemized budget
with both continuing expenses as well as new budgetary requests
being justified in writing. An example of a typical budget
request from a committee chair would be the projected expenses
to support one or two meetings per year in order to fulfill
the responsibilities and expectations of that committee.
The formal budget requests are returned by March 1 to the
Executive Office, where ASA Executive Director Glenn W.
Johnson and Director of Finance Susan M. Rogowski collate
and categorize them before sending them to the respective
section chairs.
Since each committee falls under one of four sections overseen
by a section chair, the next step is review by the section
chairs, adding another layer of checks and balances to ensure
appropriate budgetary requests. The job of the section chair
is then to evaluate all the requests in his or her section
and prioritize the requests based on what are felt to be
the most urgent and important functions in that section.
In addition, the section chair is asked to identify at least
10 percent of the monetary requests that could be cut out
if the need for prioritization occurred. Of course, this
means that some funding will be eliminated, thereby goring
someone's ox. Unfortunately, the occurrence of a deficit
budget for the past few years has necessitated such action.
The section chairs' prioritized list of budgetary requests
is then reviewed in April or May in a meeting of the president,
president-elect, first vice-president, treasurer, assistant
treasurer and the executive staff. I have had the privilege
to attend these meetings for the past four years as your
Assistant Treasurer and have observed an evolution from
a mostly informational exchange with little intervention
concerning the budgetary requests to a hard-nosed, no-nonsense
examination of each individual request. There are no sacred
cows during this process, and the goal is a balanced budget.
At our last meeting, which was chaired by President-Elect
James E. Cottrell, M.D., more than $600,000 was cut from
the requests.
Following the April/May meeting, the entire budget package
is sent to the Administrative Council for further prioritization
of requests and approval. This budget then goes to the Board
of Directors at its August meeting for consideration with
further additions or deletions based on itemized recommendations.
Final approval is given at the October meeting of the House
of Delegates – again with adjustments based upon individual
itemized recommendations for which the House votes up or
down. As I mentioned, this whole process occurs the year
prior to the budget going into effect.
The budget process is still not over, however, because
during the year that the budget is in effect, changes can
be made in two ways. For emergency situations, the Administrative
Council can approve funding as long as the funding does
not encroach upon the restricted assets of ASA. (Restricted
assets are equal to the 1.5 multiple of the previous year's
total budget.) For emergency funding of programs that do
require the use of restricted funds or for nonemergency
requests for funding, a majority vote of the Board of Directors
is required. Such considerations of nonemergency requests
normally occur during the March or August Board of Directors
meetings. Should restricted assets have to be used (this
has never occurred), the Board of Directors will have to
consider reducing or eliminating previously approved budgetary
items as recommended by the Administrative Council.
As you can see, the budgetary process is complex and time
intensive. However, the series of checks and balances allows
all budget requests to get a fair hearing.
The will of the ASA members, through their representatives
in the House of Delegates, is the final word in how ASA
funds are prioritized. In addition, continued fiscal integrity
depends on continued maintenance of these budgetary mechanisms.
return to top
|