8. Coping with finances

Discussions on financial matters in organisations (and elsewhere!) easily uncover interweaving of finances with the organisation’s history, visions, different expectations, interests, understanding of purposes and options how to allocate money to tasks. The Academy − one of the IFF main projects − has always been in the centre of financial debates. The Academy Committee was lucky to be equipped by two high skilled former IFF treasurers presenting well thought detailed and chart-accurate Academy budgets year after year (Rob Black and Markus Riesen).

The IFF Academy follows a “mixed” financial concept:

1) A minimum of paid staff (Academy Coordinator). 2) Combinations of non paid and moderately paid services like setting up a Research List, doing translations or co-organising Academy Days. 3) Self-funding of Academy projects’ workshops: participants pay a fee to ensure at least minimum honorarium or refunding of presenters’ expenses. This policy meets Practitioners’ needs to make a living, honours symbolically the professional character of the work done and limits people’s overload. Some Member Organisations assisted in reimbursing travel costs for presenters/participants of Competency Project or other Academy activities held at Annual National Meetings.

 Examples of financial controversies

§       The Academy heard complaints on its high budget line. Compared to free market prices for similar high professional expertise provided for free by Academy Committee and other Academy members, the Feldenkrais Community has been best served for the money spent in professional development of the Method.

§       For years IFF did accumulate high assets related in particular to IFF Board’s decision in 2002/2003 not to employ a general manager. Searching, introducing and supervising would have swallowed a full year’s time and energy. IFF Board and Academy Committee prioritised working on the Quality & Competency mandate as its acceptance by the Community was a question of timeframe, too. Decentralised staff located close to Board and Academy Committee members turned out to be a more suitable solution than a general manager. In 2006 the Assembly decided after heavy disputes to keep the assets, but entrust the IFF Board again to hire a general manager. Several IFF Board and all Academy Committee members opposed in a tight ballot anticipating the consequences. Except the Competency Profile project, funded for finalising, Academy projects were cut down tremendously.

§       Therefore in 2007 to 2008 there was little chance for performing Academy tasks. Even budgeted programmes could not be realised due to reorganisations in IFF Board and book keeping systems. Nevertheless the Assemblies 2007 and 2008 criticised lack of attractive Academy achievements.

Personal experiences

• The Academy felt comfortable to meet requirements of formal budgeting in time.
• Once in a while we observed how Member Organisations’ interest in mere figures was higher than in the Academy Model, its progress and the expertise provided. Respective discussions lacked reference to the Model’s content
• The 2006 Assembly’s decision to retain more or less all assets was depressing. Having been IFF Board and Academy members for several years we had managed the IFF and run the Academy at the same time utilising little staff but with huge personal dedication. Contrary to our expectations, the assets saved by these extra efforts did not flow back into the Academy to maintain its standard, but were retained.