Once again: the Program Coordinator would be responsible for developing and offering all those programs we cannot presently do. We cannot presently do those programs because we can't afford to hire a program coordinator to develop them. The objective initially is to provide programs (which lead to more members, which leads to more "giving" and more program participation, all of which leads to more money), and at the same time, to bring in the money necessary to pay the Program Coordinator. This is not the same as "fundraising." In subsequent years, we would expect the programs to generate more than we pay the Program Coordinator (the multiplier effect). Then, maybe we can call it fundraising. It's sort of like the Department Store that expects its sales people to sell enough to pay for themselves and more. Can't sell clothes without a sales person so you hire one and make it a requirement that he/she sells enough clothes to pay the salary plus some. ------ Robert Handy Brazoria County Historical Museum 100 East Cedar Angleton, Texas 77515 (409) 864-1208 museum_bob [log in to unmask] http://www.bchm.org ---------- From: Alex Avdichuk[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 12:02 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Generating Own Salary I don't think that fundraising has existed in the "conventional sense" for a long time. Any method of raising revenue could easily be defined as "fundraising". The idea of looking in areas not traditionally examined (new user-pay programs, for instance) is probably one of the most necessary things that we are all doing today. But that's not news to anyone, and whether or not you wish to call it fundraising or not is not the issue. Many more institutions should be following the example of hiring staff to actively seek out revenue from whatever sources are out there. For convenience, I'll call it "fundraising". In a case where the "fundraiser" is asked to generate his or her own salary, the public relations issues might have a greater negative impact than not attempting to raise revenues at all. As others have pointed out, when the public finds out that their donation dollars are being spent on the exercise of fundraising, many will cease to donate in future years, as was the case with some charities whose operating expenses were revealed to eat up a large portion of their donations. What I don't understand is that asking a fundraiser to aim his/her fundraising activity on "100% of his/her salary the first year" begs the question of how can these additional revenues possibly benefit the institution if he/she is merely paying for him/herself, and very few, if any, dollars will find their way into museum coffers? While I realize that the long-term benefit to the museum exists (programs developed, membership increased, etc.) perhaps another approach should be tried? For example: I attended a conference session on fundraising, and the speaker was hired as a fundraiser for a major art museum. Her salary was based on a percentage of the funds she raised, so while her salary WAS dependent on her fundraising ability, and the success or failure of her attempts DID rest squarely on her shoulders, on the other hand, she could be very well-paid one year, and not so well paid the next, but the museum did not have the financial burden of paying her salary in good years or bad. There was the added incentive of the fundraiser generating as much revenue as possible both for the benefit of the institution and for her own personal gain. Maybe this is a naive view of the issue, as I can't claim a wealth of experience in fundraising. I just think it's an interesting issue that begs discussion. Alex Avdichuk City of Toronto Arts, Culture and Heritage Services [log in to unmask] This person would not be engaged in "fund raising" in the conventional sense. He/she would be developing revenue generating programs--lectures, festival, travel-study programs, etc. for which we will charge fees. We should be doing these things anyway but don't have the staff to do so. Our thinking is that we could do them with a staff person as long as we generate enough money to cover the staff person. Over time, we would want that to result in revenues in excess of the staff-person's salary.