Admin Wiki - User contributions [en]

2022Q1 Reports: PCC

2022-03-01T08:01:57Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "= Membership = The PCC has 30 active members (including the 2 co-chairs). The full list of PCC members can be found at https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Profe..."

= Membership =

The PCC has 30 active members (including the 2 co-chairs). The full list of PCC members can be found at https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Professional_Conduct_Committee

On 1 January 2022, Donia Scott replaced Emily M. Bender as co-chair, following Emily's resignation upon her election to the ACL Executive Board. Graeme Hirst's term as co-chair ends on 31 December 2022, so we will be looking to recruit a replacements in time for a smooth hand-over.

= Cases =

In Q3–4 2021, the PCC dealt with two cases, which were reported to the Exec. At present, the PCC has one open case, which will result in a report to the Exec in due course.

= Communication and Procedures =

The PCC co-chairs are also considering updates to the procedures document based on experiences so far. These will be communicated when complete.

= Conflict of Interest Policy =

Conflicts of interest (CoI's) arise from previous collaborative or personal relationships. ACL's [[ACL_Conference_Conflict-of-interest_policy|Conflict of Interest policy]] requires all reviewers, area chairs, and program chairs to determine and disclose potential CoI's in reviewing and decision making, and to not review or participate in the acceptance decision of any paper for which they have a conflict of interest.

Last year, we asked the Exec to verify that the COI policy is efficiently implemented for TACL, the CL Journal, and the new Rolling Review set up, and we asked that the Exec inform the PCC when this is complete. This request is still outstanding.

= Record Keeping =

We have learned that ACM has established a ‘violations database’ which tracks information about sanctions that is critical in their implementation of their anti-harassment policy. We propose that ACL should ask ACM for details of how they have set this up, to see what we can adopt. Further details: https://sigchi.org/2021/05/the-new-acm-violations-database/

= Inter-Society Information Sharing =

We think that ACL should consider whether to establish information sharing relationships with ACM (or other societies) and whether or under what circumstances sanctions imposed by another professional society should be mirrored by ACL (with or without further investigation) and whether or under what circumstances ACL should share information about sanctions with other professional societies.

Professional Conduct Committee

2022-02-09T01:10:40Z

GraemeHirst: /* Membership */

= Professional Conduct Committee =

The ACL has established a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), responsible for responding to complaints raised under the [[Anti-Harassment_Policy|Anti-Harassment Policy]].

== Membership ==

PCC members serve (renewable) 3-year terms, with the co-chairs serving 5-year terms in that position, and have all received training in mediation. The current PCC members are as follows:

* [http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~drs22/ Donia Scott] member 2018-2021, co-chair 2022-2026 (English, Português)
* [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gh Graeme Hirst], co-chair 2018-2022 (English)
* [https://ai.google/research/people/DanielMBikel Daniel Bikel] 2020-2022 (English)
* [https://beckdaniel.wordpress.com/ Daniel Beck] 2018-2023 (English, Português)
* [https://www.inf.uni-hamburg.de/en/inst/ab/lt/people/meriem-beloucif.html Meriem Beloucif] [she/her] 2021-2023 (English, Français,عَرَبِيَّة)
* Chris Brew 2018-2023 (English, Deutsch)
* [https://www.linkedin.com/in/ann-clifton-a539b696 Ann Clifton] 2018-2022 (English)
* Hal Daumé III [he/him] 2021-2023 (English)
* [http://luciadonatelli.georgetown.domains Lucia Donatelli] [she/her] 2021-2023 (English, Español)
* [https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-drury-18249a/ Brett Drury] 2021-2023 (English, Português)
* [https://www.cs.hhu.de/en/research-groups/dialog-systems-and-machine-learning/our-team/team/cv-gasic Milica Gašić] 2021-2023 (English, српски, Deutsch, русский)
* [https://europe.naverlabs.com/people_user/Matthias-Galle/ Matthias Gallé] 2018-2023 (English, Español, Deutsch, Français)
* [http://www.dirkhovy.com/ Dirk Hovy] 2018-2023 (English, Deutsch, Nederlands, Dansk, Svenska, and Italiano)
* [https://nlp.fi.muni.cz/~xjakub/ Miloš Jakubíček] 2021-2023 (Čeština, Slovenčina, English, Deutsch)
* [https://dipteshkanojia.github.io Diptesh Kanojia] [he/him] 2021-2023 (English, हिन्दी, ਪੰਜਾਬੀ)
* [https://sites.google.com/site/annakorhonen/ Anna Korhonen] [she/her] 2021-2023 (English, Suomi)
* Lori Levin [she/her] 2021-2023 (English)
* [https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-yunyaoli Yunyao Li] 2020-2022 (English, 普通话)
* [https://www.shaynelongpre.com Shayne Longpre] 2021-2023 (English)
* Margot Mieskes 2020-2022 (English, Deutsch)
* [https://smontariol.github.io/ Syrielle Montariol] 2021-2023 (English, Français)
* [https://jiaxin-pei.github.io/ Jiaxin Pei] 2018-2023 (English, 普通话)
* [http://arakilab.media.eng.hokudai.ac.jp/~ptaszynski/ Michal Ptaszynski] 2018-2023 (English, polski, 日本語)
* [https://uom.lk/staff/Ranathunga.S.php Surangika Ranathunga] [she/her] 2021-2023 (English, සිංහල)
* Priscilla Rasmussen, ex-officio (English)
* [https://in.linkedin.com/in/kartsank Karthik Sankaranarayanan] 2020-2022 (English, हिन्दी)
* Siavosh Sepanta 2021-2023 (فارسی, English, Deutsch, Italiano)
* [https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~zy249/ Zheng Yuan] [she/her] 2021-2023 (English, 普通话)
* Laura Zanella [she/her] 2021-2023 (Español, English, Français)
* Xiaojun Zhang 2021-2023 (English, 普通话)

ACL members who have a complaint to raise under the anti-harassment policy are invited to approach any PCC member. The PCC will act to protect the privacy of both Complainants and Respondents, to the extent feasible and reasonable. Complaints are strictly confidential and the PCC will never reveal any information without explicit consent from the Complainant. However, the PCC cannot take action without revealing the complaint to the Respondent. In some cases, it may be possible to do that without revealing the identity of the Complainant, but often not. Complainants will be advised before information regarding their complaint is shared and their identity will not be revealed without their explicit consent.

Information will not be shared beyond the PCC and Respondent by PCC members, ACL Exec members approached by the Complainant, or ACL staff. The only exception is in cases where the PCC decides that formal consequences are required and even in such cases information will only be shared to the extent necessary to implement the formal sanctions.

The PCC's procedures are described here: [[Enforcement of the ACL Anti-Harassment Policy - Implementation]]

== Further Information ==

* [[PCC_July2019_Statement|Statement on the Role of the PCC, July 2019]]

2020Q3 Reports: Professional Conduct Committee notes on virtual conference

2020-07-11T21:15:00Z

GraemeHirst:

== ACL Professional Conduct Committee Report on Virtual Conference Organization ==

The change to the virtual format brought challenges at all levels of conference organization. Based on our experience with ACL 2020, we have the following recommendations:

# Involve the PCC early in discussions of conference format. It was unclear to us until June 24 that there would be one Q&A session per paper and no equivalent to session chairs, leaving open the possibility of an author having to manage a harassing or otherwise disruptive participant one-on-one and without assistance. This left us only four workdays in which to come up with some sort of plan that could be communicated to authors in their instructions.
# Insist on customer support from the vendors in the contract. We had a lot of questions about specific Zoom settings, but (according to the virtual infrastructure chairs), Zoom was not responsive. Somehow this meant that the SlidesLive representative kept being approached with these questions and purporting to answer them ''even though he had zero knowledge of Zoom functionality''.
# Make the transparent-name policy more prominent in the online venue/registration process (see below for more info).
# Impress upon authors, and everyone else, that Zoom links must not be made public in any venue outside the perimeter of the virtual conference (e.g., not on Twitter or personal blogs), as there are trolls who comb social media for such links in order to invade and disrupt meetings. (Authors can instead publish a link to their paper in the ACL Anthology, which will also subsequently include the video of their talk.)
# Remind participants that the public chat channels are for polite conference-related discussions only, and must not be used for personal remarks or personal arguments.
# It is critical that all associated events (workshops, sponsored socials, etc) use uniform software with uniform settings so that the anti-harassment and anti-disruption procedures can be implemented.

We ended up with the following procedures:

# Authors and other Zoom room hosts were instructed that they could
## Mute individual participants and change the setting to one where individual participants cannot unmute themselves;
## Move disruptive participants to a waiting room;
## Remove disruptive participants all together from that Zoom session.
# Authors could do this themselves, or ask for assistance in the #incidents channel where conference volunteers, set up with appropriate Zoom permissions (co-host on each of the rooms, I believe) were on-call to come in and take these actions should authors not be prepared to do so.
# We asked that any Zoom room hosts or volunteers that invoked any of these actions report the incident to the PCC via a Microsoft form. We have received one such report, relating to an incident where an outside party Zoom-bombed one session.
# We asked that all participants ensure that their name as it appeared in Zoom and RocketChat be transparently relatable to the name with which they registered for ACL (to avoid anonymous harassment or impersonation of other attendees).
# We set up a channel where members of the PCC were available for private consultation, and we set up a rota of PCC members to ensure that someone would be on duty at all times during the live parts of the conference.

These procedures were documented in the PDFs shared with authors, volunteers, and other hosts.

2020Q3 Reports: Professional Conduct Committee notes on virtual conference

2020-07-11T21:04:44Z

GraemeHirst:

== ACL Professional Conduct Committee Report on Virtual Conference Organization ==

The change to the virtual format brought challenges at all levels of conference organization. Based on our experience with ACL 2020, we have the following recommendations:

# Involve the PCC early in discussions of conference format. It was unclear to us until June 24 that there would be one Q&A session per paper and no equivalent to session chairs, leaving open the possibility of an author having to manage a harassing or otherwise disruptive participant one-on-one and without assistance. This left us only four workdays in which to come up with some sort of plan that could be communicated to authors in their instructions.
# Insist on customer support from the vendors in the contract. We had a lot of questions about specific Zoom settings, but (according to the virtual infrastructure chairs), Zoom was not responsive. Somehow this meant that the SlidesLive representative kept being approached with these questions and purporting to answer them ''even though he had zero knowledge of Zoom functionality''.
# Make the transparent-name policy more prominent in the online venue/registration process (see below for more info).
# Impress upon authors, and everyone else, that Zoom links must not be made public in any venue outside the perimeter of the virtual conference (e.g., not on Twitter or personal blogs), as there are trolls who comb social media for such links in order to invade and disrupt meetings.
# It is critical that all associated events (workshops, sponsored socials, etc) use uniform software with uniform settings so that the anti-harassment and anti-disruption procedures can be implemented.

We ended up with the following procedures:

# Authors and other Zoom room hosts were instructed that they could
## Mute individual participants and change the setting to one where individual participants cannot unmute themselves;
## Move disruptive participants to a waiting room;
## Remove disruptive participants all together from that Zoom session.
# Authors could do this themselves, or ask for assistance in the #incidents channel where conference volunteers, set up with appropriate Zoom permissions (co-host on each of the rooms, I believe) were on-call to come in and take these actions should authors not be prepared to do so.
# We asked that any Zoom room hosts or volunteers that invoked any of these actions report the incident to the PCC via a Microsoft form. We have received one such report, relating to an incident where an outside party Zoom-bombed one session.
# We asked that all participants ensure that their name as it appeared in Zoom and RocketChat be transparently relatable to the name with which they registered for ACL (to avoid anonymous harassment or impersonation of other attendees).
# We set up a channel where members of the PCC were available for consultation, and we set up a rota of PCC members to ensure that someone would be on duty at all times during the live parts of the conference.

These procedures were documented in the PDFs shared with authors, volunteers, and other hosts.

2020Q3 Reports: Professional Conduct Committee notes on virtual conference

2020-07-11T21:03:05Z

GraemeHirst:

== ACL Professional Conduct Committee Report on Virtual Conference Organization ==

The change to the virtual format brought challenges at all levels of conference organization. Based on our experience with ACL 2020, we have the following recommendations:

# Involve the PCC early in discussions of conference format. It was unclear to us until June 24 that there would be one Q&A session per paper and no equivalent to session chairs, leaving open the possibility of an author having to manage a harassing or otherwise disruptive participant one-on-one and without assistance. This left us only four workdays in which to come up with some sort of plan that could be communicated to authors in their instructions.
# Insist on customer support from the vendors in the contract. We had a lot of questions about specific Zoom settings, but (according to the virtual infrastructure chairs), Zoom was not responsive. Somehow this meant that the SlidesLive representative kept being approached with these questions and purporting to answer them ''even though he had zero knowledge of Zoom functionality''.
# Make the transparent-name policy more prominent in the online venue/registration process (see below for more info).
# Impress upon authors and everyone that Zoom links must not be made public in any venue outside the perimeter of the virtual conference (e.g., not on Twitter), as there are trolls who search such links in order to invade and disrupt.
# It is critical that all associated events (workshops, sponsored socials, etc) use uniform software with uniform settings so that the anti-harassment and anti-disruption procedures can be implemented.

We ended up with the following procedures:

# Authors and other Zoom room hosts were instructed that they could
## Mute individual participants and change the setting to one where individual participants cannot unmute themselves;
## Move disruptive participants to a waiting room;
## Remove disruptive participants all together from that Zoom session.
# Authors could do this themselves, or ask for assistance in the #incidents channel where conference volunteers, set up with appropriate Zoom permissions (co-host on each of the rooms, I believe) were on-call to come in and take these actions should authors not be prepared to do so.
# We asked that any Zoom room hosts or volunteers that invoked any of these actions report the incident to the PCC via a Microsoft form. We have received one such report, relating to an incident where an outside party Zoom-bombed one session.
# We asked that all participants ensure that their name as it appeared in Zoom and RocketChat be transparently relatable to the name with which they registered for ACL (to avoid anonymous harassment or impersonation of other attendees).
# We set up a channel where members of the PCC were available for consultation, and we set up a rota of PCC members to ensure that someone would be on duty at all times during the live parts of the conference.

These procedures were documented in the PDFs shared with authors, volunteers, and other hosts.

2020Q3 Reports: Professional Conduct Committee notes on virtual conference

2020-07-11T20:58:48Z

GraemeHirst:

== PCC Report on Virtual Conference Organization ==

The change to the virtual format brought challenges at all levels of conference organization. Based on our experience with ACL 2020, we have the following recommendations:

# Involve the PCC early in discussions of conference format. It was unclear to us until June 24 that there would be one Q&A session per paper and no equivalent to session chairs, leaving open the possibility of an author having to manage a harassing or otherwise disruptive participant one-on-one and without assistance. This left us only four workdays in which to come up with some sort of plan that could be communicated to authors in the author instructions.
# Insist on customer support from the vendors in the contract. We had a lot of questions about specific Zoom settings, but (according to the virtual infrastructure chairs), Zoom was not responsive. Somehow this meant that the SlidesLive representative kept being approached with these questions and trying to answer them ''even though he had zero knowledge of Zoom functionality''.
# Make the transparent-name policy more prominent in the online venue/registration process (see below for more info).
# It is critical that all associated events (workshops, sponsored socials, etc) use uniform software with uniform settings so that the anti-harassment and anti-disruption procedures can be implemented.

We ended up with the following procedures:

# Authors and other Zoom room hosts were instructed that they could
## Mute individual participants and change the setting to one where individual participants cannot unmute themselves;
## Move disruptive participants to a waiting room;
## Remove disruptive participants all together from that Zoom session.
# Authors could do this themselves, or ask for assistance in the #incidents channel where conference volunteers, set up with appropriate Zoom permissions (co-host on each of the rooms, I believe) were on-call to come in and take these actions should authors not be prepared to do so.
# We asked that any Zoom room hosts or volunteers that invoked any of these actions report the incident to the PCC via a Microsoft form. We have received one such report, relating to an incident where an outside party Zoom-bombed one session.
# We asked that all participants ensure that their name as it appeared in Zoom and RocketChat be transparently relatable to the name with which they registered for ACL (to avoid anonymous harassment or impersonation of other attendees).
# We set up a channel where members of the PCC were available for consultation, and we set up a rota of PCC members to ensure that someone would be on duty at all times during the live parts of the conference.

These procedures were documented in the PDFs shared with authors, volunteers, and other hosts.

2020Q3 Reports: PCC Co-Chairs

2020-06-30T00:42:04Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "= Membership and Communication = The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) presently consists of 15 regular members, serving their initial t..."

= Membership and Communication =

The [[Professional_Conduct_Committee|Professional Conduct Committee]] (PCC) presently consists of 15 regular members, serving their initial three-year terms, and two co-chairs. This includes five new members who were trained at ACL 2019 in Florence. Because of the online conference format in 2020, no new members were trained, but we expect to resume in 2021.

We maintain a mailing list for communication amongst PCC members about general policies but avoid using email for discussion of any specific cases.

= Confidentiality =

In order for the policy to achieve its long-term goal of providing a harassment-free environment, due process and appropriate safeguards for confidentiality are essential. Accordingly, before each ACL-affiliated conference, we are contacting the organizers as well as ACL and chapter exec members who may be approached by individuals wishing to raise a complaint to remind them that if someone comes to them with a complaint, to direct them to a member of the PCC, to not try to collect any detailed information from the Complainant, and to keep any information they do learn (including the existence of the complaint) in the strictest confidence.

= Anti-harassment procedures for online conferences =

Online conferences bring new ways for harassing and disruptive behavior to occur. The PCC was consulted by the chairs of ACL 2020 to assist in developing procedures to deter, prevent, and respond to harassment and disruption in online sessions.

= Cases =

The PCC handled a small number of cases this year; confidentiality requirements preclude giving details here.

= Conflict of Interest Policy =

Conflicts of interest (CoI's) arise from previous collaborative or personal relationships. ACL's [[ACL_Conference_Conflict-of-interest_policy|Conflict of Interest policy]] requires all reviewers, area chairs, and program chairs to determine and disclose potential CoI's in reviewing and decision making, and to not review or participate in the acceptance decision of any paper for which they have a conflict of interest.

To help prevent inadvertent or intentional violations of the policy, the PCC has worked with the ACL Reviewing Committee and Softconf, the provider of the START paper-submission system, to improve automatic detection of CoI's in the reviewing of conference and workshop papers. This includes maintaining a database of co-authors of present and past submissions, and also self-declared CoI's (e.g., two members who are married to each other).

So far, the system has worked reasonably well, but there is still room for improvement.
The system is intricate, and because institutions, email addresses, and exact forms of names may change, it is not always easy to reliably identify individuals who may be in CoI. In addition, some CoI's went undetected due to software bugs; we are grateful to the members who reported them. It is not possible, however, to make any such system fully foolproof against someone who intends to maliciously subvert it.

= Academic Misconduct Policy =

After fielding multiple complaints which were not about harassment but rather about academic misconduct, such as misrepresentation of results, malicious reviewing, or plagiarism, the PCC asked the ACL Exec to develop a policy on academic misconduct, which is now under way. Once a draft is ready it will be released for discussion to the ACL Exec and the ACL community.

2017Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2017-07-12T22:02:10Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "=='''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2016-12-31'''== '''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''' ''July 2017'' ACL has continued to grow financially as our conferences..."

=='''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2016-12-31'''==

'''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer'''

''July 2017''

ACL has continued to grow financially as our conferences increase in size. In 2016, our largest conference ever gave us our largest surplus ever, although this was mostly due to good luck with currency movements and we will use some of this windfall to hedge against future adverse currency movements.

A problem that has been rare until last year, but which occurred several times in 2015 and then again in 2016, is companies or organizations that commit to a sponsorship not following through with payment, possibly after having received the benefits of sponsorship such as display of logos. It's not clear why this has increased. Possible causes include an overall increase in the number of sponsors, and hence in the number who are flaky; less aggressive chasing up of pledges by Priscilla because she lacks the time to do so; and changes in economic conditions or corporate strategy that take us out of consideration. (I will spare the offending sponsors the embarrassment of being named here in the hope that we might yet receive future fulfilled sponsorships from them.) Nonetheless, sponsorship of our conferences is up overall.

More details are shown in four linked files summarizing our financial results for 2016.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2016.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2016-12-31:

On 2016-12-31, we had about $1.57 million in cash and investments and another $122,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences. Against this, we had liabilities of $118,000, which includes multi-year memberships and projected expenses of year-end bookkeeping and audit.

In sum, our equity is $1.57 million, up from $1.12 million last year.

A substantial proportion, around 29%, of ACL's equity is in the discretionary subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. At year end NAACL's subaccount balance was $73,500, and EACL's was €20,000. SIGs collectively had $353,000, of which $224,000 is SIGDAT's and $42,000 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity -- ideally $1.5–2 million -- for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. In particular, we need to be well hedged against adverse currency-exchange fluctuations (see below). (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $500,000 or more of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large five-figure and six-figure deposits for venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2016.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits), with a comparison to 2015:

Note that some lines on this sheet are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the cost of conference bags or coffee breaks summed across all conferences), and some are artifactual (in particular, category 4540, chapter revenue, is actually just an internal transfer of funds from the surplus of a NAACL conference to the NAACL chapter). The category names and their usages have changed slightly from 2015 to 2016, so a complete alignment is not possible.

Our gross revenue in 2016 (including artifacts) was $2.44 million, well up from $2.02 million in 2015. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.95 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $490,000. This is not the exact surplus on our operations for the year, because it doesn't take into account various liabilities incurred in 2016 that had not been paid at year end nor payments in 2016 for 2015 liabilities. Our liabilities at year-end were approximately $85,000, including large amounts awaiting invoices from MIT Press for the Computational Linguistics journal and to Weyond Conferencing for video recording at our conferences.

Nonetheless, it is clear that we had a healthy surplus on operations in 2016. This surplus will help restore our assets to a higher level, and give us some breathing space for new initiatives.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2016.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

Note: The "bottom line" figures on this spreadsheet include only 2016 transactions, and do not take into account expenses that were incurred in years prior to the conference nor belatedly paid sponsorships that were not received until 2017. Both of these factors are, however, incorporated into the figures below.

Of our three major conferences in 2016, two had surpluses and one suffered a loss.

(a) ACL 2016 Berlin made an extraordinary surplus of $490,000 (48% of revenue), far larger than any previous conference surplus. The reasons for this were the following: The conference was much larger than expected, and so we achieved some economies of scale. And it was relatively cheap to put on. Humboldt University did not charge us for the space we used, and the catering at the coffee breaks and welcome reception (although not of high quality) was also rather cheaper than usual as we were not paying the premiums that hotels and conference centers charge. (Catering at the social event and poster sessions was at the more-usual cost, however.) The conference was particularly notable in attracting many unusually large sponsorships.

The biggest single factor, however, was favourable movements in currency exchange rates. The cost of the euro, in which most of our expenses were incurred, dropped 22% against our reference currency, the USD (in which registrations were collected), between the time that the conference was planned and the time that most of the bills had to be paid.

It should be noted that much here was good fortune or dumb luck. Conference registrations might have been merely at, or lower than, the levels that we originally anticipated, especially if some event (terrorism, volcanic ash clouds) kept people away. And, in particular, the currency exchange fluctuations that, on this occasion, reaped a windfall for us could have just as easily gone the other way and led to a deficit for the conference. For example, in 2010, a USD 50,000 surplus at ACL 2010 Uppsala was completely wiped out by adverse changes to the SEK / USD exchange rate just in the short period between the time that the conference ended and the time that the bills had to be paid.

It would be foolish, then, to simply regard the entire Berlin surplus as general revenue to use for whatever we like. Rather, we need to use much of it carefully hedge ourselves against future adverse currency events by establishing an account for that purpose in euros while the euro is still relatively cheap. The ACL Exec has approved the establishment of a $350,000 currency hedge account to be drawn from the surplus, to be held in euros in Europe and watched over by the European Treasurer. The remainder of the surplus will be shared between central ACL, the SIGs that sponsored workshops at the conference (prorated on a person-day basis), and the EACL Chapter as per our usual practice for ACL conferences in Europe.

(b) NAACL 2016 San Diego had a surplus of $31,313 (5.2% of revenue), shared between NAACL and SIGLEX (sponsor of SemEval).

(c) Unfortunately, EMNLP 2016 Austin had a deficit of $7695 for SIGDAT (-1.4% of revenue).

Overall, the result was a surplus for the organization as a whole. These results -- both an unexpectedly large surplus and an unexpected loss -- demonstrate the difficulty of predicting attendance, and hence income, and costs despite our best efforts at budgeting and prognostication. Sponsorships too are highly variable and unpredictable.

In addition (not on the spreadsheet), I have near-final results for EACL 2017 Valencia, which made a small surplus of around €12,250. Initially, it appeared that the conference had made a deficit of about €5000, despite being much bigger than originally planned (and hence spreading the fixed cost of the venue over many more registrations), as registration fees had been set lower than usual. Fortunately, international sponsorships received directly by the ACL made up for the deficit and more.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2016.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no direct income any more. The costs, about $44,400 in 2016, are covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) The costs of TACL are also covered from membership fees and conference surpluses. Mostly for its paid editorial assistant, TACL had a cost of $18,700. TACL's costs will rise considerably in 2017 as additional professional services are engaged.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. We grossed $231,000 in memberships in 2016; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $27,000 (two-thirds of which is credit-card fees), leaving a net income of $204,000 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and realized gains or losses from changes in the value of currencies. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the costs of maintaining the ACL Portal and ACL Anthology. Our net operating cost was $68,600. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $135,000 for the costs of the two journals ($63,000) and our other activities.

Not shown on these spreadsheets, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards to student members and to outside organizations. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and sponsorship of CL- and NLP-related events held other organizations. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts (in particular, NAACL's support of NACLO and of South American CL and NLP events), by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2016, these awards totaled $123,500, made up of $8000 in support by chapters for other events, $70,400 in support for student travel and conference registration, and an additional $45,100 in waived conference registration fees for student volunteers.

2017Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2017-01-31T20:52:34Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "'''ACL Treasurer's report, February 2017''' ''Graeme Hirst'' Because of various problems that I detailed in my August 2016 report in getting full financial data for 2015 con..."

'''ACL Treasurer's report, February 2017'''

''Graeme Hirst''

Because of various problems that I detailed in my August 2016 report in getting full financial data for 2015 conferences, including some missing sponsorships, bookkeeping for 2015 was not sent to the accountants until late October 2016, and we were able to submit our IRS return only at the last moment, on 15 November (the deadline for extended extensions). The return was sent to the Exec at the time for information and approval.

Our bookkeepers (Young Associates), Priscilla, and I have now begun the work of reconciling and closing the books for 2016, but it will be some time before the work is complete. We are aiming to have the results ready for in time for our accountants and auditors (Nisivoccia LLP) to file our U.S. IRS and New Jersey returns by the regular unextended deadline of 15 May.

When the work is complete, we will make a full report to the ACL Exec, including the results of our 2016 conferences, and a report to the membership at the business meeting at ACL 2017 in Vancouver.

2016Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2016-07-31T04:19:09Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "== '''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2015-12-31''' == '''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''' ''August 2016'' This report is late, and is still not as fully deta..."

== '''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2015-12-31''' ==

'''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer'''

''August 2016''

This report is late, and is still not as fully detailed as I would wish, due to a confluence of circumstances that prevented the completion of the 2015 financial reports from our bookkeeper until the end of July. These circumstances included getting, once again, a new bookkeeper from our service, who required more education about the peculiarities of ACL's structure and organization than I had initially realized. And complete data was even later coming in than usual, including information and details about income and expenditure in Beijing for ACL 2015. As an extreme example: the invoice for the video recording of EMNLP 2015 Lisbon was not received from the company until the last week of July 2016, and then only because we asked for it.

Among the bookkeeping mysteries that took some time to resolve were several missing conference sponsorships. A problem that has been rare in the past, but which occurred several times this year, is companies or organizations that commit to a sponsorship not following through with payment, possibly after having received the benefits of sponsorship such as display of logos. It's not clear why this has increased. Possible causes include an overall increase in the number of sponsors, and hence in the number who are flaky; less aggressive chasing up of pledges by Priscilla because she lacks the time to do so; and changes in economic conditions or corporate strategy that take us out of consideration. (I will spare the offending sponsors the embarrassment of being named here in the hope that we might yet receive future fulfilled sponsorships from them.) Nonetheless, sponsorship of our conferences is up overall.

More details are shown in four linked files summarizing our financial results for 2015.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2015.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2015-12-31:

On 2015-12-31, we had about $1.16 million in cash and investments and another $104,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences. Against this, we had liabilities of $140,000, which includes multi-year memberships and projected expenses of year-end bookkeeping and audit. An additional liability is the share of the surplus of ACL 2015 Beijing, not yet precisely determined but expected to be around $68,000, that we owe to AFNLP (see below).

In sum, our equity (prior to the sharing with AFNLP) is $1.12 million, up from $815,000 last year.

A substantial proportion, around 36%, of ACL's equity is in the discretionary subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. At year end, taking conference results into account, NAACL's subaccount balance was $25,000, and EACL's was €25,000. SIGs collectively had just over $333,000 (NOT taking into account distributions from ACL 2015), of which $232,000 is SIGDAT's and $48,500 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity -- ideally around $1 million -- for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $200-500K or more of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large five-figure and six-figure deposits for venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2015.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the cost of conference bags or coffee breaks summed across all conferences), and some are artefactual (in particular, revenue of $46,685 in category 4540, chapter revenue, is actually just an internal transfer of funds from the surplus of ACL 2015 to the NAACL chapter; it is counterbalanced by the inclusion of the same amount as administrative miscellaneous expenses in category 6599).

Our gross revenue in 2015 (including artefacts) was $2.02 million, well up from 2015. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.72 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $303,700. This is not the exact surplus on our operations for the year, because it doesn't take into account various liabilities incurred in 2015 nor payments in 2015 for 2014 liabilities. In particular, it does not take into account the approximately $68,000 share of the surplus of ACL 2015 Beijing that we owe to AFNLP (see below). Nonetheless, it is clear that we had a healthy surplus on operations in 2015. After some earlier years of losses, or tiny surpluses, on conferences, this surplus will help restore our assets to a higher level, and give us some breathing space for new initiatives.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2015.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

Note: The "bottom line" figures on this spreadsheet include only 2015 transactions, and do not take into account expenses that were incurred in prior years. These expenses are, however, incorporated in the figures below.

Of our three major conferences in 2015, two had notable surpluses and one suffered a considerable loss.

(a) ACL 2015 Beijing, which was combined with AFNLP's IJCNLP, had a surplus of $147,900. The surplus will be shared with the SIGs that held workshops or co-located events on a person-day pro rata basis and then with AFNLP (50% of the remainder, estimated at $68,000).

(b) EMNLP 2015 Lisbon had a surplus of $73,250 for SIGDAT.

(c) Unfortunately, NAACL 2015 Denver had a loss of $36,300, which will be borne by the North American chapter.

But overall, the result was a surplus for the organization as a whole. These results -- both unexpectedly large surpluses and a large unexpected loss -- demonstrate the difficulty of predicting attendance, and hence income, and costs despite our best efforts at budgeting and prognostication. Sponsorships too are highly variable and unpredictable; ACL 2015 Beijing was particularly notable in attracting large sponsorships that contributed significantly to its large surplus.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2015.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no direct income any more. The costs, about $47,000 in 2015, are covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) With the recent addition of a paid editorial assistant, TACL had a cost of $7000.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (However, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years, including from when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $204,000 in memberships in 2015; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $22,200 (including credit-card fees), leaving a net income of $181,800 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and realized gains or losses from changes in the value of currencies. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal and ACL Anthology. Our net operating cost was $52,000. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $130,000 for the costs of the two journals and our other activities.

Not shown on these spreadsheets, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and sponsorship of events organized by other CL and NLP organizations. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts (in particular, NAACL's support of NACLO and of South American CL and NLP events), by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2015, these awards totaled $21,800 in support by chapters for other events, $34,900 in support for student travel and conference registration, and an additional $22,100 in waived conference registration fees for student volunteers.

2016Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2016-02-22T18:36:29Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "ACL Treasurer's report, February 2016 Our bookkeepers (Young Associates), Priscilla, and I have begun the work of reconciling and closing the books for 2015, but it will be s..."

ACL Treasurer's report, February 2016

Our bookkeepers (Young Associates), Priscilla, and I have begun the work of reconciling and closing the books for 2015, but it will be some time before the work is complete. We are aiming to have the results ready for in time for our accountants and auditors (Nisivoccia LLP) to file our U.S. IRS and New Jersey returns by 15 May.

When the work is complete, we will make a full report to the ACL Exec, including the results of our 2015 conferences, and a report to the membership at the business meeting at ACL 2016 in Berlin.

2015Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2015-07-10T18:47:05Z

GraemeHirst: Updated subaccount figures with ACL 2014 distribution.

'''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2014-12-31'''

July 2015

''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''

After several years in which most of our conferences made losses -- some of them quite substantial -- or barely broke even, ACL had a much better year in calendar year 2014, with healthy surpluses at all three major conferences. The difference was largely due to greatly increased sponsorship at our conferences, including an incredibly generous sponsorship of $67,000 for EMNLP 2014 Doha by the Qatari National Research Fund and many large corporate sponsorships for ACL 2014 Baltimore. These surpluses will help to restore our financial reserves, and allow us to increase our spending.

More details are shown in four linked files summarizing our financial results for 2014.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2014.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2014-12-31:

On 2014-12-31, we had about $768,000 in cash and investments and another $139,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences and the return from the local organizers in Doha of the surplus from EMNLP 2014 (see below). Against this, we had liabilities of $40,000, which includes multi-year memberships and projected expenses of year-end bookkeeping and audit. But this year, we also saw a large decrease in the nominal value of our euro-denominated assets in Malta due (solely) to the increase in the value of our reference currency, the U.S. dollar, against the euro; these losses are unrealized at present, and may be mitigated by future corrections in the value of the dollar and by no increase occurring in expenses that we incur in euros.

In sum, our equity is $866,000, up from $746,000 last year.

A substantial proportion, about 42%, of ACL's equity is in the discretionary subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance is $82,000, and EACL's is €25,000. SIGs collectively have just over $254,000, of which $159,000 is SIGDAT's and $42,500 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity -- ideally approaching $1M -- for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K or more of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large deposits for many venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2014.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the cost of conference bags across all conferences).

Our overall revenue in 2014 was $1.567 million, well up from 2013. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.447 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $120,000. This is not the exact surplus on our operations for the year, because it doesn't take into account various liabilities incurred in 2014 nor payments in 2014 for 2013 liabilities. Nonetheless, these amounts roughly balance, and it is clear that we had a healthy surplus on operations in 2014. After some earlier years of losses, or tiny surpluses, on conferences, this surplus will help restore our assets to a higher level, and give us some breathing space for new initiatives.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2014.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

Note: The "bottom line" figure on this spreadsheet reports only 2014 transactions, and does not take into account deposits on conference facilities and advances to local organizers that were paid in 2013 nor sponsorships that were received in 2013. These are, however, incorporated in the figures below.

(a) The ACL 2014 conference in Baltimore made a surplus of $101,000 (11%) on $913,000 gross revenue. The surplus will be shared with NAACL and on a person-day basis with SIGs that ran workshops at the conference, including SIGNLL for CoNLL. This outcome was largely due to many generous sponsorships, without which the event would have resulted in a substantial loss.

(b) EACL 2014 in Gothenburg had a 14% surplus of €21,000 ($25,000) on revenue of €151,000, which will restore EACL's previously dwindling subaccount.

(c) EMNLP 2014 in Doha had a 12% surplus of $34,000 on revenue of $282,000. This outcome was largely due to QNRF's generous sponsorship, without which the event would have resulted in a substantial loss.

(d) Not shown on the spreadsheet are SIGDIAL 2014 and INLG 2014, which were co-located in Philadelphia. This was a financially complex event, as it was organized through a third party (ETS, the Educational Testing Service) and because SIGDIAL is a semi-independent group. SIGGEN suffered a loss of $5,200 on INLG, and SIGDIAL had a surplus of $9,000.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2014.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no direct income any more. The costs, about $54,000 in 2014, are covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) Our new journal, TACL, does not appear in the spreadsheet as it had not yet started incurring significant costs in 2014; but with the recent addition of a paid editorial assistant, it has now done so.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years, including from when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $162,000 in memberships in 2014; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $27,000 (including credit-card fees), leaving a net income of $135,000 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and realized gains or losses from changes in the value of currencies. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our net operating cost was $50,000. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $84,000 for the costs of the two journals and our other activities.

(e) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP organizations. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2014, these awards totaled $57,000 in cash and an additional $10,000 in waived conference registration fees for student volunteers.

2015Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2015-07-09T17:09:00Z

GraemeHirst:

'''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2014-12-31'''

July 2015

''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''

After several years in which most of our conferences made losses -- some of them quite substantial -- or barely broke even, ACL had a much better year in calendar year 2014, with healthy surpluses at all three major conferences. The difference was largely due to greatly increased sponsorship at our conferences, including an incredibly generous sponsorship of $67,000 for EMNLP 2014 Doha by the Qatari National Research Fund and many large corporate sponsorships for ACL 2014 Baltimore. These surpluses will help to restore our financial reserves, and allow us to increase our spending.

More details are shown in four linked files summarizing our financial results for 2014.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2014.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2014-12-31:

On 2014-12-31, we had about $768,000 in cash and investments and another $139,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences and the return from the local organizers in Doha of the surplus from EMNLP 2014 (see below). Against this, we had liabilities of $40,000, which includes multi-year memberships and projected expenses of year-end bookkeeping and audit. But this year, we also saw a large decrease in the nominal value of our euro-denominated assets in Malta due (solely) to the increase in the value of our reference currency, the U.S. dollar, against the euro; these losses are unrealized at present, and may be mitigated by future corrections in the value of the dollar and by no increase occurring in expenses that we incur in euros.

In sum, our equity is $866,000, up from $746,000 last year.

A substantial proportion, about 36%, of ACL's equity is in the discretionary subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance (NOT taking into account distributions from ACL 2014) is $36,000, and EACL's is €25,000. SIGs collectively have just over $245,000 (NOT taking into account distributions from ACL 2014), of which $159,000 is SIGDAT's and $42,500 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity -- ideally approaching $1M -- for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K or more of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large deposits for many venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2014.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the cost of conference bags across all conferences).

Our overall revenue in 2014 was $1.567 million, well up from 2013. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.447 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $120,000. This is not the exact surplus on our operations for the year, because it doesn't take into account various liabilities incurred in 2014 nor payments in 2014 for 2013 liabilities. Nonetheless, these amounts roughly balance, and it is clear that we had a healthy surplus on operations in 2014. After some earlier years of losses, or tiny surpluses, on conferences, this surplus will help restore our assets to a higher level, and give us some breathing space for new initiatives.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2014.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

Note: The "bottom line" figure on this spreadsheet reports only 2014 transactions, and does not take into account deposits on conference facilities and advances to local organizers that were paid in 2013 nor sponsorships that were received in 2013. These are, however, incorporated in the figures below.

(a) The ACL 2014 conference in Baltimore made a surplus of $101,000 (11%) on $913,000 gross revenue. The surplus will be shared with NAACL and on a person-day basis with SIGs that ran workshops at the conference, including SIGNLL for CoNLL. This outcome was largely due to many generous sponsorships, without which the event would have resulted in a substantial loss.

(b) EACL 2014 in Gothenburg had a 14% surplus of €21,000 ($25,000) on revenue of €151,000, which will restore EACL's previously dwindling subaccount.

(c) EMNLP 2014 in Doha had a 12% surplus of $34,000 on revenue of $282,000. This outcome was largely due to QNRF's generous sponsorship, without which the event would have resulted in a substantial loss.

(d) Not shown on the spreadsheet are SIGDIAL 2014 and INLG 2014, which were co-located in Philadelphia. This was a financially complex event, as it was organized through a third party (ETS, the Educational Testing Service) and because SIGDIAL is a semi-independent group. SIGGEN suffered a loss of $5,200 on INLG, and SIGDIAL had a surplus of $9,000.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2014.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no direct income any more. The costs, about $54,000 in 2014, are covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) Our new journal, TACL, does not appear in the spreadsheet as it had not yet started incurring significant costs in 2014; but with the recent addition of a paid editorial assistant, it has now done so.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years, including from when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $162,000 in memberships in 2014; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $27,000 (including credit-card fees), leaving a net income of $135,000 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and realized gains or losses from changes in the value of currencies. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our net operating cost was $50,000. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $84,000 for the costs of the two journals and our other activities.

(e) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP organizations. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2014, these awards totaled $57,000 in cash and an additional $10,000 in waived conference registration fees for student volunteers.

2015Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2015-07-09T17:07:41Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "'''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2014-12-31''' July 2015 ''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer'' After several years in which most of our conferences made losses -..."

'''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2014-12-31'''
July 2015

''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''

After several years in which most of our conferences made losses -- some of them quite substantial -- or barely broke even, ACL had a much better year in calendar year 2014, with healthy surpluses at all three major conferences. The difference was largely due to greatly increased sponsorship at our conferences, including an incredibly generous sponsorship of $67,000 for EMNLP 2014 Doha by the Qatari National Research Fund and many large corporate sponsorships for ACL 2014 Baltimore. These surpluses will help to restore our financial reserves, and allow us to increase our spending.

More details are shown in four linked files summarizing our financial results for 2014.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2014.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2014-12-31:

On 2014-12-31, we had about $768,000 in cash and investments and another $139,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences and the return from the local organizers in Doha of the surplus from EMNLP 2014 (see below). Against this, we had liabilities of $40,000, which includes multi-year memberships and projected expenses of year-end bookkeeping and audit. But this year, we also saw a large decrease in the nominal value of our euro-denominated assets in Malta due (solely) to the increase in the value of our reference currency, the U.S. dollar, against the euro; these losses are unrealized at present, and may be mitigated by future corrections in the value of the dollar and by no increase occurring in expenses that we incur in euros.

In sum, our equity is $866,000, up from $746,000 last year.

A substantial proportion, about 36%, of ACL's equity is in the discretionary subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance (NOT taking into account distributions from ACL 2014) is $36,000, and EACL's is €25,000. SIGs collectively have just over $245,000 (NOT taking into account distributions from ACL 2014), of which $159,000 is SIGDAT's and $42,500 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity -- ideally approaching $1M -- for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K or more of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large deposits for many venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2014.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the cost of conference bags across all conferences).

Our overall revenue in 2014 was $1.567 million, well up from 2013. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.447 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $120,000. This is not the exact surplus on our operations for the year, because it doesn't take into account various liabilities incurred in 2014 nor payments in 2014 for 2013 liabilities. Nonetheless, these amounts roughly balance, and it is clear that we had a healthy surplus on operations in 2014. After some earlier years of losses, or tiny surpluses, on conferences, this surplus will help restore our assets to a higher level, and give us some breathing space for new initiatives.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2014.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

Note: The "bottom line" figure on this spreadsheet reports only 2014 transactions, and does not take into account deposits on conference facilities and advances to local organizers that were paid in 2013 nor sponsorships that were received in 2013. These are, however, incorporated in the figures below.

(a) The ACL 2014 conference in Baltimore made a surplus of $101,000 (11%) on $913,000 gross revenue. The surplus will be shared with NAACL and on a person-day basis with SIGs that ran workshops at the conference, including SIGNLL for CoNLL. This outcome was largely due to many generous sponsorships, without which the event would have resulted in a substantial loss.

(b) EACL 2014 in Gothenburg had a 14% surplus of €21,000 ($25,000) on revenue of €151,000, which will restore EACL's previously dwindling subaccount.

(c) EMNLP 2014 in Doha had a 12% surplus of $34,000 on revenue of $282,000. This outcome was largely due to QNRF's generous sponsorship, without which the event would have resulted in a substantial loss.

(d) Not shown on the spreadsheet are SIGDIAL 2014 and INLG 2014, which were co-located in Philadelphia. This was a financially complex event, as it was organized through a third party (ETS, the Educational Testing Service) and because SIGDIAL is a semi-independent group. SIGGEN suffered a loss of $5,200 on INLG, and SIGDIAL had a surplus of $9,000.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2014.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no direct income any more. The costs, about $54,000 in 2014, are covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) Our new journal, TACL, does not appear in the spreadsheet as it had not yet started incurring significant costs in 2014; but with the recent addition of a paid editorial assistant, it has now done so.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years, including from when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $162,000 in memberships in 2014; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $27,000 (including credit-card fees), leaving a net income of $135,000 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and realized gains or losses from changes in the value of currencies. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our net operating cost was $50,000. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $84,000 for the costs of the two journals and our other activities.

(e) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP organizations. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2014, these awards totaled $57,000 in cash and an additional $10,000 in waived conference registration fees for student volunteers.

2015Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2015-02-11T19:29:57Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "'''''Graeme Hirst, ACL Treasurer''''' '''(1) 2013 finally finalized''' The 2013 books, which were much delayed, are now finally complete. The primary reason for the delay..."

'''''Graeme Hirst, ACL Treasurer'''''

'''(1) 2013 finally finalized'''

The 2013 books, which were much delayed, are now finally complete. The primary reason for the delay was that there were many errors in the membership payment files from our software (I hope that this is now fixed), and these all had to be individually sorted out by hand by Chiaki, our bookkeeper. So even though the books were about 97% complete in time for my report last June, the final 3% was very time-consuming, and we had to ask for an extension of our U.S. IRS filing deadline from 15 August to 15 November. Chiaki finished the work by mid-October, which enabled our accountants, Nisivoccia, to complete our U.S. IRS and New Jersey state filings by the new deadline.

The final part of the 2013 work, determination of conference results and allocation of surpluses to SIGs who sponsor workshops, was unfortunately further delayed by a couple of months of extensive travel on my part (largely for family reasons) just as the data became available. This part is my job, not Chiaki's, as it involves recategorizing some of the data in an unofficial way. (For example, in the formal books, for a SIG workshop, income from registration fees may be attributed directly to the workshop, whereas the corresponding expenses of the room, AV, and coffee breaks will be part of the package attributed to the conference as a whole.)

I have now completed this task, with the following results:

(a) NAACL 2013 Atlanta made a modest surplus of $10,164 (2.8% of gross revenue), of which $2043 goes to SIGs, leaving $8121 for NAACL.

(b) ACL 2013 Sofia made a very modest surplus of $20,134 (3.7% of gross revenue), of which $2082 goes to SIGs, leaving $18,051 for central ACL.

(c) EMNLP 2013 Seattle broke even for SIGDAT, with an epsilon loss of $198 (.09% of gross revenue).

'''(2) 2014 so far'''

It will be some time before we have complete books for 2014 (but much earlier this year, I hope!). However, we already have results for EACL 2014 Gothenburg: a surplus of €21,200 (15.5% of gross revenue) for EACL -- which is the level of surplus that we'd like to see at all our conferences in order to fund our other activities. In addition, partial data from EMNLP 2014 Doha sent to me just a few days ago suggests that it made a substantial surplus for SIGDAT, but I have not yet verified this.

'''(3) New bookkeeper'''

Our long-time bookkeeper, Chiaki Nemoto, resigned from Young Associates, the company with whom we contract for bookkeeping services. The company has assigned us a new bookkeeper, Samantha (Sam) Zimmerman, whom I will be meeting later this month to give her an introduction to the wondrous complexities of ACL. Chiaki had already done considerable work on 2014 before she left, but obviously it will take some time and effort for Sam to learn our structure and pick up from where Chiaki left off; this is the busiest time of year for bookkeepers here (the Canadian tax season), and she and others at Young Associates have this problem for all of Chiaki's other clients as well. So while I hope we aren't late with the books again this year, it's unlikely that we will be early.

Bid Guidelines

2014-09-15T15:20:07Z

GraemeHirst: /* Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet */

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-2014-06-23.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell,along with the date on which the exchange rate was valid.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that attendance drops off, which pushes the per-person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer, Graeme Hirst, gh =a= cs.toronto.edu.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of expense projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

2014Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2014-06-18T20:43:13Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
June 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

The ACL bookkeeping for calendar year 2013 is not yet complete, and this report contains only interim results. Normally, my report (like the ACL conference itself) would be given in late July or early August. I have no reason to expect the final figures to be greatly different from those reported here. The areas of greatest uncertainty are memberships (due to problems in getting coherent membership payment data from PlugNPay) and final conference results (due to the remaining task of allocating expenses and income for SIG events). Attached are four files summarizing these interim results.

FILE 1: Our [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL/ACL-interim-balance-sheet-2013.pdf interim balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2013-12-31:

On 2013-12-31, we had about $756,000 in cash and equities and another $75,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences. Against this, we had liabilities of $97,000. This number includes multi-year memberships and money owed to The MIT Press for Computational Linguistics (see below).

Thus our net equity is just under $744,000, up from $673,000 last year; ideally, it would be substantially even higher.(*)

A substantial proportion, about 35%, of ACL's equity is in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance (NOT taking into account the conference results below) is $42,000, and EACL's is €7950. SIGs collectively have just over $200,000 (NOT taking into account the conference results below), of which $124,000 is SIGDAT's and $39,000 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

(*) We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large deposits for many venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL/ACL-interim-P+L-2013.pdf interim overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are misleading because they are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the sum across the conferences at Sofia, Atlanta, and Seattle of the costs of each component of the banquets).

Our overall revenue in 2013 was $1.334 million, which is roughly the same as in 2012, even though we had one conference fewer. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.263 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $71,000. However, this is not a surplus on our operations for the year, because it does not take into account various unpaid bills, such as what we owe The MIT Press for the CL journal (see below), nor payments in 2013 for 2012 debts.

FILE 3: [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL/ACL-interim-P+L-conferences-2013.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

(a) The ACL 2013 conference in Sofia made a modest (percentage-wise) surplus of $22,000 on a $560,000 event. The surplus will be shared on a person-day basis with SIGs that sponsored events at the conference, notably SIGNLL for CoNLL.

(b) NAACL 2013 in Atlanta made an even more modest surplus of about $5600 on revenue of $357,000. The surplus will be shared on a person-day basis with SIGs that sponsored events at the conference, notably SIGSEM and SIGLEX for *SEM.

(c) EMNLP 2013 in Seattle had a small deficit of $4700 on revenue of $226,000.

FILE 4: [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL/ACL-interim-P+L-core-services-2013.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no income any more. The costs, about $53,000 in 2013, are supposed to be covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) Our new journal, TACL, does not appear in the spreadsheet as it had not yet started incurring costs in 2013; but it has recently started to do so, with the addition of a paid editorial assistant.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $154,000 in memberships in 2013; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $14,300, leaving a net income of $139,500 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and unrealized gains (which in some other years have been losses) from changes in the value of the euro against the U.S. dollar. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our operating cost was $54,300. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $85,000 for the costs of the journals and our other activities.

(e) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP groups. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2013, these awards totaled $49,300 in cash and $xxxx [figure not yet available] in forgone conference income from fee waivers for volunteers.

OTHER MATTERS:

Investment policy: Although ACL has significant amounts of reserve funds in short-term and long-term investments, we do not have any formal written investment policy. Rather, the Treasurer, European Treasurer, and Business Manager have simply used an ad hoc commonsense approach, which is not necessarily optimal. In particular, we are not at present getting good returns for our U.S. reserve accounts. And our specific investment goals and degree of risk-tolerance are not codified.

This situation needs to be improved; we need a written investment policy. I have studied a number of model policies for U.S. non-profit organizations, but none adequately took into account our needs as a de facto international organization. I will continue to work on the issue and hope to soon have a draft policy for consideration by the Executive Board.

2014Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2014-06-18T20:12:32Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31 June 2014 Graeme Hirst, Treasurer The ACL bookkeeping for calendar year 2013 is not yet complete, and this repo..."

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
June 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

The ACL bookkeeping for calendar year 2013 is not yet complete, and this report contains only interim results. Normally, my report (like the ACL conference itself) would be given in late July or early August. I have no reason to expect the final figures to be greatly different from those reported here. The areas of greatest uncertainty are memberships (due to problems in getting coherent membership payment data from PlugNPay) and final conference results (due to the remaining task of allocating expenses and income for SIG events). Attached are four files summarizing these interim results.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-interim-balance-sheet-2013.pdf interim balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 2013-12-31:

On 2013-12-31, we had about $756,000 in cash and equities and another $75,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences. Against this, we had liabilities of $97,000. This number includes multi-year memberships and money owed to The MIT Press for Computational Linguistics (see below).

Thus our net equity is just under $744,000, up from $673,000 last year; ideally, it would be substantially even higher.(*)

A substantial proportion, about 35%, of ACL's equity is in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance (NOT taking into account the conference results below) is $42,000, and EACL's is €7950. SIGs collectively have just over $200,000 (NOT taking into account the conference results below), of which $124,000 is SIGDAT's and $39,000 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2700 deficit).

(*) We need to maintain very substantial cash reserves and equity for three reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass. (c) Even with this credit, we still have to pay large deposits for many venues well in advance of any revenue from the event.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-interim-P+L-2013.pdf interim overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are misleading because they are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the sum across the conferences at Sofia, Atlanta, and Seattle of the costs of each component of the banquets).

Our overall revenue in 2013 was $1.334 million, which is roughly the same as in 2012, even though we had one conference fewer. Overall expenditure in the year was $1.263 million, giving a net surplus in the calendar year of $71,000. However, this is not a surplus on our operations for the year, because it does not take into account various unpaid bills, such as what we owe The MIT Press for the CL journal (see below), nor payments in 2013 for 2012 debts.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-interim-P+L-conferences-2013.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

(a) The ACL 2013 conference in Sofia made a modest (percentage-wise) surplus of $22,000 on a $560,000 event. The surplus will be shared on a person-day basis with SIGs that sponsored events at the conference, notably SIGNLL for CoNLL.

(b) NAACL 2013 in Atlanta made an even more modest surplus of about $5600 on revenue of $357,000. The surplus will be shared on a person-day basis with SIGs that sponsored events at the conference, notably SIGSEM and SIGLEX for *SEM.

(c) EMNLP 2013 in Seattle had a small deficit of $4700 on revenue of $226,000.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-interim-P+L-core-services-2013.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no income any more. The costs, about $53,000 in 2013, are supposed to be covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press.

(b) Our new journal, TACL, does not appear in the spreadsheet as it had not yet started incurring costs in 2013; but it has recently started to do so, with the addition of a paid editorial assistant.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $154,000 in memberships in 2013; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $14,300, leaving a net income of $139,500 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and unrealized gains (which in some other years have been losses) from changes in the value of the euro against the U.S. dollar. Expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our operating cost was $54,300. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $85,000 for the costs of the journals and our other activities.

(e) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences, the waiver of registration fees at conferences for student volunteers, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP groups. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL through the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence may appear as conference income and expenses). In 2013, these awards totaled $49,300 in cash and $xxxx [figure not yet available] in forgone conference income from fee waivers for volunteers.

OTHER MATTERS:

Investment policy: Although ACL has significant amounts of reserve funds in short-term and long-term investments, we do not have any formal written investment policy. Rather, the Treasurer, European Treasurer, and Business Manager have simply used an ad hoc commonsense approach, which is not necessarily optimal. In particular, we are not at present getting good returns for our U.S. reserve accounts. And our specific investment goals and degree of risk-tolerance are not codified.

This situation needs to be improved; we need a written investment policy. I have studied a number of model policies for U.S. non-profit organizations, but none adequately took into account our needs as a de facto international organization. I will continue to work on the issue and hope to soon have a draft policy for consideration by the Executive Board.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:55:23Z

GraemeHirst:

'''''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31'''''

'''Interim report, February 2014'''

''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''

== 1. Introduction ==

This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

== 2. Conference results ==

The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained errors. The quality of the data has since been much improved, but key questions still remain. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

== 3. Accountant ==

After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

'''AUDIT:''' The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

'''SUCCESSION PLANNING:''' The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

==4. ACL's unsustainable financial relationship with chapters and SIGs ==

I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

==5. New pro forma policies ==

Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us. [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/DocPolicy.pdf Records retention], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/CIPolicy.pdf Conflict of Interest 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_and_Statement.pdf Conflict of Interest 2], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/WBPolicy.pdf Whistle-blowing]

In the case of the first template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we would use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

'''INVESTMENTS POLICY:''' A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, the second of which was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below). [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/InvPolicy.pdf Investment policy 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Sample_Investment_Policy_2.pdf Investment policy 2]

'''CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY:''' According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

==6. Maltese investments ==

About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:54:10Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

== 1. Introduction ==

This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

== 2. Conference results ==

The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained errors. The quality of the data has since been much improved, but key questions still remain. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

== 3. Accountant ==

After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

'''AUDIT:''' The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

'''SUCCESSION PLANNING:''' The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

==4. ACL's unsustainable financial relationship with chapters and SIGs ==

I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

==5. New pro forma policies ==

Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us. [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/DocPolicy.pdf Records retention], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/CIPolicy.pdf Conflict of Interest 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_and_Statement.pdf Conflict of Interest 2], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/WBPolicy.pdf Whistle-blowing]

In the case of the first template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we would use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

'''INVESTMENTS POLICY:''' A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, the second of which was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below). [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/InvPolicy.pdf Investment policy 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Sample_Investment_Policy_2.pdf Investment policy 2]

'''CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY:''' According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

==6. Maltese investments ==

About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:52:54Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

== 1. Introduction ==

This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

== 2. Conference Results ==

The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained errors. The quality of the data has since been much improved, but key questions still remain. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

== 3. Accountant==

After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

'''AUDIT:''' The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

'''SUCCESSION PLANNING:''' The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

==4. ACL's unsustainable financial relationship with chapters and SIGs==

I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

==5. New pro forma policies==

Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us. [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/DocPolicy.pdf Records retention], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/CIPolicy.pdf Conflict of Interest 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_and_Statement.pdf Conflict of Interest 2], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/WBPolicy.pdf Whistle-blowing]

In the case of the first template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we would use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

'''INVESTMENTS POLICY:''' A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, the second of which was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below). [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/InvPolicy.pdf Investment policy 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Sample_Investment_Policy_2.pdf Investment policy 2]

'''CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY:''' According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

==6. Maltese investments==

About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:50:52Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

== 1. Introduction ==

This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

== 2. Conference Results ==

The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained many errors. The quality of the data integrity has since been much improved, but key questions still remain; elements of both income and expenses appear to be missing. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

== 3. Accountant==

After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

'''AUDIT:''' The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

'''SUCCESSION PLANNING:''' The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

==4. ACL's unsustainable financial relationship with chapters and SIGs==

I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

(5) NEW PRO FORMA POLICIES: Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us. [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/DocPolicy.pdf Records retention], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/CIPolicy.pdf Conflict of Interest 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_and_Statement.pdf Conflict of Interest 2], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/WBPolicy.pdf Whistle-blowing]

In the case of the first template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we would use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

INVESTMENTS POLICY: A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, the second of which was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below). [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/InvPolicy.pdf Investment policy 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Sample_Investment_Policy_2.pdf Investment policy 2]

CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY: According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

(6) MALTESE INVESTMENTS: About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:48:26Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

(1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

(2) CONFERENCE RESULTS: The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained many errors. The quality of the data integrity has since been much improved, but key questions still remain; elements of both income and expenses appear to be missing. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

(3) ACCOUNTANT: After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

AUDIT: The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

SUCCESSION PLANNING: The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

(4) ACL'S UNSUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHAPTERS AND SIGS: I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

(5) NEW PRO FORMA POLICIES: Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us. [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/DocPolicy.pdf Records retention], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/CIPolicy.pdf Conflict of Interest 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_and_Statement.pdf Conflict of Interest 2], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/WBPolicy.pdf Whistle-blowing]

In the case of the first template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we would use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

INVESTMENTS POLICY: A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, the second of which was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below). [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/InvPolicy.pdf Investment policy 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Sample_Investment_Policy_2.pdf Investment policy 2]

CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY: According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

(6) MALTESE INVESTMENTS: About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:45:25Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

(1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

(2) CONFERENCE RESULTS: The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained many errors. The quality of the data integrity has since been much improved, but key questions still remain; elements of both income and expenses appear to be missing. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

(3) ACCOUNTANT: After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

AUDIT: The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

SUCCESSION PLANNING: The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

(4) ACL'S UNSUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHAPTERS AND SIGS: I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

(5) NEW PRO FORMA POLICIES: Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us. [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/DocPolicy.pdf Records retention], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/CIPolicy.pdf Conflict of Interest 1], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_and_Statement.pdf Conflict of Interest 2], [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/WBPolicy.pdf Whistle-blowing]

In the case of the template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we use use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

INVESTMENTS POLICY: A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, one of which (Sample Investment Policy 2.pdf) was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below).

CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY: According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

(6) MALTESE INVESTMENTS: About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:37:40Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

(1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

(2) CONFERENCE RESULTS: The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained many errors. The quality of the data integrity has since been much improved, but key questions still remain; elements of both income and expenses appear to be missing. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

(3) ACCOUNTANT: After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

AUDIT: The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also attached [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/usr/gh/ACL-Financials-2012.pdf attached] to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

SUCCESSION PLANNING: The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

(4) ACL'S UNSUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHAPTERS AND SIGS: I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

(5) NEW PRO FORMA POLICIES: Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us.

In the case of the template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we use use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

INVESTMENTS POLICY: A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, one of which (Sample Investment Policy 2.pdf) was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below).

CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY: According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

(6) MALTESE INVESTMENTS: About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:32:30Z

GraemeHirst:

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

(1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

(2) CONFERENCE RESULTS: The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained many errors. The quality of the data integrity has since been much improved, but key questions still remain; elements of both income and expenses appear to be missing. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

(3) ACCOUNTANT: After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

AUDIT: The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also attached to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

SUCCESSION PLANNING: The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

(4) ACL'S UNSUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHAPTERS AND SIGS: I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

(5) NEW PRO FORMA POLICIES: Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us.

In the case of the template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we use use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions])

INVESTMENTS POLICY: A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, one of which (Sample Investment Policy 2.pdf) was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below).

CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY: According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

(6) MALTESE INVESTMENTS: About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, [http://www.anacapfp.com].) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2014Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2014-02-14T19:31:31Z

GraemeHirst: Created page with "Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31 Interim report, February 2014 Graeme Hirst, Treasurer (1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 wi..."

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2013-12-31
Interim report, February 2014

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

(1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2013 will not be completed until perhaps May 2014. We aim to have things ready in time to allow our new accountant (see below) make our U.S. IRS return by the deadline of 15 May.

(2) CONFERENCE RESULTS: The first reconciliation that we received from Sofia contained many errors. The quality of the data integrity has since been much improved, but key questions still remain; elements of both income and expenses appear to be missing. I am actively working with Svetla Koeva to resolve these problems. The present indications are that we might have made a modest surplus on the conference, but this is still very uncertain; a deficit remains possible but a better-than-modest surplus seems quite unlikely.

I do not yet have any indications of the results of NAACL-2013 Atlanta or EMNLP-2013 Seattle.

(3) ACCOUNTANT: After long dissatisfaction with the accounting services that we had been getting from the firm of Regan, Levin, Bloss, Brown, & Savchak, last year we sought a replacement. In July 2013, the Exec ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. We accepted Mr Dartnell's recommendation that he begin his service with an audit, which we have not had for years, with the subsequent filing of returns for calendar year 2012. We (barely) managed to complete this task by the (doubly extended) IRS deadline of 15 November.

AUDIT: The audit was satisfactory (i.e., we passed), and copies of the audit document were submitted to the Exec in November 2013. For the benefit of new members in 2014, it is also attached to this report. Nonetheless, the auditors' investigation into our policies (or absence of policies) made me realize that there are some things that we could be doing better, and, following some suggestions from Mr Dartnell's assistant Steven Cimino, I make a number of recommendations below (section 5).

SUCCESSION PLANNING: The audit, and our issues with regard to our European assets (see below), are also a reminder that we need to be more mindful of the need for succession planning. This is a difficult problem in an organization that is partly virtual and internationally distributed, as succession difficulties often relate not only to organizational knowledge but also to geographic ties -- for example, my use of a bookkeeper who is necessarily in Toronto, our European investments in Mike Rosner's home country of Malta, Priscilla's physical office and records, and even the fact that we are legally a U.S. and New Jersey organization. We need to keep the problems of succession for all key administrative positions in mind, and think about mechanisms for eventual transitions to new people.

(4) ACL'S UNSUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHAPTERS AND SIGS: I have commented in past years that we need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances, but no action has been taken. The matter is becoming urgent, as the (albeit uncertain) ACL conference results for 2013 show. It seems that, regardless of the final outcome of ACL 2013 Sofia, we at best made little or no income in 2013 beyond that needed for basic operations; any surplus from the NAACL and EMNLP conferences goes solely to the NAACL chapter and SIGDAT. For some years, central ACL has been getting poorer while the proportion of the organization's assets that are held in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGs has been increasing.

Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and not joint with IJCNLP does ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the large loss that NAACL made a few years ago in Los Angeles, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from such losses. I therefore propose that we make a new arrangement with chapters, including (a) a sort of levy on chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. It is quite reasonable to assume that participants in NAACL and EACL conferences wish to support central ACL as well the host chapter. The chapters' income would be reduced, but, in compensation, the income stream would be more reliable. Similarly, I propose that large SIG events (primarily EMNLP) should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

(5) NEW PRO FORMA POLICIES: Our position as a U.S. non-profit organization requires us to ideally(*) have and declare (in our IRS filing) certain administrative policies for records retention, financial conflicts of interest, and whistle-blowing. Templates for policies for non-profit organizations to use without encumbrance are available from several support organizations. I have reviewed a number of these and have attached copies of those that I recommend that we consider for adoption. I don't think that any of them will be controversial. We just need to choose one of each and parameterize them to us.

In the case of the template for a financial conflicts of interest policy, I am proposing that we use use Sample A; the issues mentioned relating to California don't seem to affect us. Note that Code Section 4958, referred to in the sample, is the section of the U.S. tax code that provides penalties for people and non-profit organizations that engage in "excess benefit" transactions (i.e., hands in cookie jar). To find out more, you can read the gory details in the Wikipedia entry on intermediate sanctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_sanctions)

INVESTMENTS POLICY: A policy for allowable investments, which we also need, may require a little more thought. I attach two of them, one of which (Sample Investment Policy 2.pdf) was suggested to us by our accountants. Most of what they say merely codifies our present implicit understanding, but there are serious parameters to be set about allowable investments and diversification. Also, they are implicitly U.S.-centric, which we would need to alter (see also section 6 below).

CHEQUE-SIGNING POLICY: According to our accountant, it's normal for an organization like ours to require two signatories, or some kind of two-person sign-off, on all cheques [or checks, in the U.S.] and online transactions over perhaps $2000 or $5000 or so. We have never had anything like that, even though we routinely deal with some very large amounts to pay hotels and conference centers. Implementing this idea could be difficult; although there are apparently various online mechanisms to facilitate it, it still requires the (or a) second authorized person to be readily available. We need to investigate further how to implement this without it becoming a serious administrative difficulty.

(*) "Ideally" means that while the IRS doesn't *require* that we have these policies, they ask whether we do. More generally, they care about proper governance of bona fide non-profit organizations, and having these policies is helpful in reassuring them.

(6) MALTESE INVESTMENTS: About half of ACL's assets are kept in longer-term euro-denominated investments in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner, of the University of Malta. (But they are ACL, not EACL assets; however, EACL's euro-denominated subaccount is included in these assets.) Last year, I commented that our exposure to a single small economy, however well-managed, is probably not a good idea, and that we need to diversify; and this is also a geographic issue for succession planning. In addition, managed investment funds in Malta seem to be expensive because they are relatively small. However, diversification is somewhat difficult because most of the investments are term deposits and bonds of limited liquidity. So when an investment matures, it just gets rolled over to something else in Malta. Also, there may be tax consequences of investments in other jurisdictions (we were at one point apparently in danger of being taxed in Malta, but that seems to have been dealt with).

Mike has recently suggested moving some of our assets from the Bank of Valletta to another Maltese bank named Mediterranean Bank, which appears to offer better opportunities for investment in non-Maltese entities, with lower charges and online trading. They claim to be claim to be a "specialist bank" focusing on the "affluent" sector, not a regular retail bank. (They are a component of a London-based group named AnaCap Financial Partners, http://www.anacapfp.com.) I propose to the Exec that we consider this.

2013Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2013-07-25T16:58:17Z

GraemeHirst: New page: '''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2012-12-31''' '''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''' July 2013 Attached are four files summarizing the ACL's finances for the calendar...

'''Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2012-12-31''' 
'''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''' 
July 2013

Attached are four files summarizing the ACL's finances for the calendar year 2012.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2012.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 31-Dec-2011:

On 31-Dec-2012, we had about $701,000 in the bank and another $184,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences. Against this, we had liabilities of $213,000. This number is anomalously high, as it includes substantial then-unpaid bills from the ACL 2012 Jeju conference for which the invoice was sent only in late November 2012; normally the invoices would have been sent to us much earlier and paid well before the end of the year. Other liabilities include multi-year memberships and money owed to The MIT Press for Computational Linguistics (see below).

Thus our net equity is just under $673,000, up a little from $658,000 last year; ideally, it would be substantially even higher.(*)

A substantial proportion, about 37%, of ACL's equity is in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance (taking into account the conference results below) was $54,000, and EACL's was €9600. SIGs collectively have just under $180,000, of which $114,000(**) is SIGDAT's (surpluses from EMNLPs are piling up) and $39,000 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2800 deficit).

(*) We need to maintain very substantial equity for two reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year, as in 2010. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass.

(**) This figure does not include SIGDAT's share of the surplus from the Jeju conference, which is not yet computed; see below.

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2012.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are misleading because they are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the sum across the conferences at Jeju, Montreal, and Avignon of the costs of each component of the banquets).

Our overall revenue in 2012 was $1.37 million, which is substantially more than in 2011. The primary reason for the increase is, of course, that we had three *ACL conferences in 2012 instead of the more-usual two (and under the new conference calendar, two per year is now our steady state). Overall expenditure in the year was $1.35 million, giving a net income in the calendar year of $15,000. However, this is not a surplus on our operations for the year, because as noted above, it does not take into account various unpaid bills. In fact, our activities for 2012 made a loss overall. See below for details of major expense and income classes.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2012.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

(a) The EACL 2012 conference in Avignon made a surplus for EACL of €2850 on gross revenue of €159,300 -- a razor-thin margin. (The statement shows a slightly larger surplus, but the local organizers' own accounting in euros produced the smaller amount and this is what they remitted as an absolute final payment; the difference is apparently due to some late registrations not being counted.)

(b) The NAACL 2012 conference in Montreal made a moderate surplus of about $22,000 for NAACL on gross revenue of $371,500. This includes a windfall tax rebate of $17,300 from the Canadian government under a program that encourages international conferences to locate in Canada. SIGs that sponsored events at the conference will share in the surplus; I have not yet completed the allocation of costs and income to the individual components of the event.

(c) The ACL 2012 conference in Jeju, including the co-located EMNLP/CoNNL conference, posted a surplus of $51,000 for ACL on gross revenue of $571,000. SIGs that sponsored events at the conference will share in the surplus; I have not yet completed the allocation of costs and income to the individual components of the event.

(d) In addition, two independently-located SIG-sponsored events, INLG-2012 and SIGDIAL-2012, each made a comfortable surplus for its SIG.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2012.pdf Profit and loss statement for the journals, membership, and operations]:

(a) The CL journal, of course, has no income any more. The costs, about $50,500 in 2012, are supposed to be covered by membership fees and surpluses from the ACL conference. They comprise the cost of the editor's part-time assistant and services (copyediting, typography, online distribution) by The MIT Press. Because of erratic billing by The MIT Press, by the end of 2012, we owed them a large amount of money ($85,400) for past services dating back to 2010 that we were just waiting for them to invoice us for. (This has since happened and the debt has been paid.) The amount of $65,596 shown includes not only the portion of this debt that was accrued in 2012 ($38,500) but also approximately $27,100 of the costs for 2011 that were unknown and hence not included in last year's statement. The additional $19,800 of our debt to The MIT Press was accrued in 2010.

(b) Our new journal, TACL, has not yet started incurring costs. This journal has been designed to be cheaper than CL by forgoing both the quality enhancements of professional copyediting and typography and online distribution through a publisher. Moreover, the editors are presently working without any paid editorial assistance.

(c) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and many people do not pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $97,700 in memberships in 2012; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $14,400, leaving a net income of $82,300 in this class.

(d) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our net operating cost was $52,100. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $31,000 for the costs of the journal, giving it a deficit of about $19,500 for 2012, to covered from conference surpluses.

(e) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences and the annual Johns Hopkins Summer School, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP groups. These awards are made by the chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL from the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops at conferences from funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and some of the conference sponsors (and hence appear as conference income and expenses). In 2012, these awards totaled $94,500.

OTHER MATTERS:

ACCOUNTANT: We rely on the services of an accountant to take the books produced by our bookkeeper, Chiaki Nemoto, and turn the data into our required annual filings with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the State of New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (which oversees non-profit organizations registered in that state, including us). We have been increasingly dissatisfied over the last few years with the service rendered by our accountant. After a search for a suitable replacement, the Exec has ratified the engagement of Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP, who has extensive experience with U.S. federal and state filings for non-profit organizations in New Jersey. He will begin his work next month with an audit and the filing of returns for calendar year 2012.

THE SAFETY OF OUR EUROPEAN ASSETS: About half of the ACL's assets (€268,000 as of 2013-06-30) are held in euros in investments and accounts in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner. (But they are nonetheless ACL's assets, not EACL's; EACL's relatively small subaccount is contained therein.) The recent bank failure in Cyprus, with partial confiscation of large deposits to help pay for a bail-out, has understandably made people nervous about the safety of bank deposits and other investments in other small eurozone nations on islands in the Mediterranean.

Obviously, the government of Malta is concerned about this perception, and asserts that Malta is not at risk. Mike Rosner writes: "Obviously, anything can happen, but I have seen several articles in the press claiming that the case of Malta is quite unlike that of Cyprus (see quoted article below). More significant is that the results a recent study on imbalances commissioned by the EU (published April 2013) did not find that Malta had any significant imbalance and praised the Maltese Central bank and the Maltese banking system for its prudent approach."

---------
''The Times of Malta, 2013-03-27''

Central Bank Governor Josef Bonnici has dismissed as “misleading” any comparison between Malta’s banking system and that of Cyprus.

He said the size of the Maltese banking sector relative to GDP was strongly influenced by institutions that virtually had no economic or financial links with the economy. He insisted that assets of the all-important banks amounted to “just below 300 per cent” of GDP, which was within normal limits.

Unlike Malta’s core banks, the large Cypriot banks were also very active internationally with a high dependence on foreign sources of funds and high exposure to losses on foreign assets.

“The problems facing Cypriot banks included losses made on their holdings of Greek bonds, whereas Maltese domestic banks have limited exposure to securities issued by the programme countries,” he said.

''end of quotation from Times of Malta''
-------------------

Mike groups our Maltese assets into four risk groups as follows (where 0 is the lowest risk):

0. Insured current bank deposits €52,000* 
0. Guaranteed bank term deposits €76,000* 
1. Government bonds €20,000 
2. Bank bonds €15,400 
3. Company bonds €104,700 
*Jointly covered up to €100,000.

It should be understood that category 3 is not a high risk in absolute terms. Mike notes that "all these companies are 'gilt-edged' in local terms -- well established and backed as well as being economically successful. They are generally felt to be pretty safe provided they are held to redemption. There is not much of a market for buying and selling them mid-term."

Nonetheless, as they mature we should consider diversifying our bond investments into other economies. The maturity dates cover the period from 2014 to 2020.

As context for the above discussion, it should be noted that the other half of our assets (around $300,000 as of 2013-06-30) is held in U.S. dollar bank deposits in the United States. In 2008, that country also suffered a number of failures of banks and other investment houses, including the bank in which our deposits were held, Wachovia Bank. Fortunately, no deposits were lost when this bank was merged with another, Wells Fargo, which now holds our accounts.

Bid Guidelines

2013-07-24T13:48:32Z

GraemeHirst:

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-2013-07-17.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell,along with the date on which the exchange rate was valid.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that attendance drops off, which pushes the per-person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer, Graeme Hirst, gh =a= cs.toronto.edu.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of expense projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

2013Q1 Reports: Treasurer

2013-04-26T15:09:31Z

GraemeHirst: New page: Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2012-12-31 Interim report, April 2013 Graeme Hirst, Treasurer (1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2012 are not yet comple...

Treasurer's Report to ACL Executive for year ended 2012-12-31
Interim report, April 2013

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

(1) This is an interim report, as the books for 2012 are not yet completed. There are two reasons for this.

(a) The PCO's account for the ACL conference in Jeju in July 2012 was not received until late November 2012. Ordinarily, had it been received in a more timely manner, our bookkeeper, Chiaki Nemoto, would have been working on it during the quieter parts of the late summer and fall; instead it arrived close to the year-end, just as things start to get busy for her with many of her clients.

(b) Chiaki has been out of action, or slowed down, for several weeks recently due to two eye operations. She is now back at work and starting to up with the backlog. She is aiming (but not promising) to have our 2012 books complete by the end of May.

(2) Nonetheless, I can give the following preliminary information; (b) and (c) are based on some interim figures that Chiaki has computed.

(a) The EACL 2012 conference in Avignon made a surplus of €2850 on gross revenue of €159,300 -- a razor-thin margin.

(b) The NAACL 2012 conference in Montreal appears to have made a marginal loss of about $1700 on gross revenue of $312,000. [These are preliminary figures; they may change!!] However, this figure does not take into account our application to the Canadian government, presently in process, for a rebate under the Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive Program (FCTIP), which, if successful, will refund 50% of the federal and provincial taxes paid on catering at the conference and 100% of the taxes paid on AV -- a total of CAD 18,800 (about US$18,300 at recent rates).

(c) Early indications are that ACL 2012 and EMNLP 2012 in Jeju will collectively record a surplus, but the figures are so preliminary that this cannot be assured. Costs have not yet been allocated between ACL and EMNLP, and while it appears that the total income of both exceeds the total expenses, I cannot yet rule out the possibility that some income has been double-counted. Also, even if the events collectively have a surplus, it does not follow that each has done so individually.

(d) Two independently-located SIG-sponsored events, INLG-2012 and SIGDIAL-2012, each made a comfortable surplus for its SIG.

(3) The safety of our European assets:

About half of the ACL's assets (€268,000 as of 2013-03-31) are held in euros in investments and accounts in Malta, where they are overseen by the EACL Treasurer, Mike Rosner. (But they are nonetheless ACL's assets, not EACL's; EACL's relatively small subaccount is contained therein.) The recent bank failure in Cyprus, with partial confiscation of large deposits to help pay for a bail-out, has understandably made people nervous about the safety of bank deposits and other investments in other small eurozone nations on islands in the Mediterranean.

Obviously, the government of Malta is concerned about this perception, and asserts that Malta is not at risk. Mike Rosner writes: "Obviously, anything can happen, but I have seen several articles in the press claiming that the case of Malta is quite unlike that of Cyprus (see quoted article below). More significant is that the results a recent study on imbalances commissioned by the EU (published April 2013) did not find that Malta had any significant imbalance and praised the Maltese Central bank and the Maltese banking system for its prudent approach."

--------- The Times of Malta, 2013-03-27 -------------
Central Bank Governor Josef Bonnici has dismissed as “misleading” any comparison between Malta’s banking system and that of Cyprus.

He said the size of the Maltese banking sector relative to GDP was strongly influenced by institutions that virtually had no economic or financial links with the economy. He insisted that assets of the all-important banks amounted to “just below 300 per cent” of GDP, which was within normal limits.

Unlike Malta’s core banks, the large Cypriot banks were also very active internationally with a high dependence on foreign sources of funds and high exposure to losses on foreign assets.

“The problems facing Cypriot banks included losses made on their holdings of Greek bonds, whereas Maltese domestic banks have limited exposure to securities issued by the programme countries,” he said.
-------- end of quotation from TOM -------------------

Mike groups our Maltese assets into four risk groups as follows (where 0 is the lowest risk):

0. Insured current bank deposits €52,000*
0. Guaranteed bank term deposits €76,000*
1. Government bonds €20,000
2. Bank bonds €15,400
3. Company bonds €104,700

*Jointly covered up to €100,000.

It should be understood that category 3 is not a high risk in absolute terms. Mike notes that "all these companies are 'gilt-edged' in local terms -- well established and backed as well as being economically successful. They are generally felt to be pretty safe provided they are held to redemption. There is not much of a market for buying and selling them mid-term."

Nonetheless, as they mature we should consider diversifying our bond investments into other economies. The maturity dates cover the period from 2014 to 2020.

As context for the above discussion, it should be noted that the other half of our assets (just on $300,000 as of 2013-03-31) is held in U.S. dollar bank deposits in the United States. In 2008, that country, like Cyprus, also suffered a number of failures of banks and other investment houses, including the bank in which our deposits were held, Wachovia Bank. Fortunately, no deposits were lost when this bank was merged with another, Wells Fargo, which now holds our accounts.

2012Q3 Reports: CL Journal Editor

2012-07-01T12:06:03Z

GraemeHirst:

CL Journal Report for 2011-2012

Robert Dale, Editor

Wednesday 13th June 2012

1 Summary

Raw submission numbers continue to move upwards, but as noted in the
previous report, much of the increase is accounted for by papers which
are inappropriate for consideration in CL, either because (a) they are
more like conference papers in length; (b) they appear a little naive;
or (c) they would be more at home in a journal that represents a
different community (for example, we get quite a few papers that would
be better in a corpus linguistics journal). In 2011 we received 107
first submissions, compared to 78 in 2010, for an increase of 37%; 42
of these were considered inappropriate for CL. For 2012 to date, we
have received 46 first submissions, of which 24 were considered
inappropriate for CL; so the problem appears to be increasing. We
have updated our submission guidelines in an attempt to improve the
self-selection process.

Our average time to first decision for 2011, not including papers deemed
inappropriate by the editor, was 57 days, compared with 58 days in
2010. For papers handled so far in 2012, the average time to first
decision is 66 days.

2 Submissions

2.1 Articles

See the numbers at the end of this report for a detailed breakdown of
statistics regarding submissions. In 2011 and 2012 we handled
submissions for two special issues: one on 'Modality and Negation' and
one on 'Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages'. The former will
appear later this year; the latter will appear in 2013.

2.2 Squibs

[Provided by Pierre Isabelle, Squibs Editor]

At the beginning of year 2011, there were three submissions in the
squibs pipeline pending from 2010. In the course of year 2011, 8
additional papers were (re-) submitted. At the end of 2011, there were
no submissions left in the pipeline. Thus, 11 decisions were made over
the year.

The results were as follows:

* 1 paper accepted
* 6 papers rejected
* 4 invitations to revise and resubmit

The mean time taken for those decisions was 70 days.

In the course of 2011, I also served as associate book review editor
for three different books.

Concerning the current year (2012), thus far I have received 2 new
squib (re-) submissions plus one new book to be reviewed.

2.3 Book Reviews

[Report by Graeme Hirst]

Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of the loop.

3 Administrative Matters

3.1 Editorial Assistance

Suzy Howlett continues to do an absolutely exceptional job as
editorial assistant. Michael Olney has been carrying out some work
modifying the Open Journal Systems manuscript management software that
we use.

3.2 Author Support

As noted in the previous report, for some time we have been using a
LaTeX class file, called clv2.cls, provided to us by the typesetter.
In part to remove this dependence, and in part to overcome some
occasional compatibility problems we have found, Suzy has developed a
replacement class file that is simpler, and works in conjunction with
a number of recommended packages for various specialised purposes. We
have been testing and refining this over the last six months.

4 Issues and Points of Note

4.1 LaTeX Copyediting

During 2011, MIT Press had intended to switch to a new production
workflow, where the copy editor would make changes to the source LaTeX
files. Unfortunately, the LaTeX-aware copy editor we had identified
decided against working with us when he saw the extent of the work
required. MIT Press has now identified a candidate copy editor, who
is in the process of editing some samples for us.

4.2 Journal Size

As noted in previous reports, the journal is getting bigger, largely
as a consequence of us publishing papers as soon as they are ready,
rather than waiting for space to be available within page limits.
While this is good for authors and the community overall, it does mean
that our annual costs are increased.

5 Statistics

Here are the raw statistics referred to above.

First submissions in 2011

Special Issue on Modality and Negation
--------------------------------------

Total: 23

Revise and resubmit: 6

Reject: 17

Special Issue on Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages
-------------------------------------------------------

Total: 10

Revise and resubmit: 6

Reject: 4

Survey proposal
---------------

Total: 3

Reject: 2

"No review: resubmit as article": 1

Articles
--------

Total: 107

Accept: 1

Revise and resubmit: 20

Reject: 42

Reject (not suitable): 42

"No review: resubmit as squib": 1

SI intro, not reviewed: 1

Average time to decision: 38 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 61 days

Resubmission of an article from 2010 or before

Total: 23

Accept: 14

Accept with revisions: 1

Revise and resubmit: 5

Reject: 3

Resubmission of an article from 2011

Special Issue on Modality and Negation
--------------------------------------

Total: 6

Accept with revisions: 5

Reject: 1

Articles
--------

Total: 14

Accept: 6

Accept with revisions: 2

Revise and resubmit: 6

Totals (All submissions in 2011, including special issues and survey proposals)

Total: 186

Accept: 21

Accept with revisions: 8

Revise and resubmit: 43

Reject: 69

Reject (not suitable): 42

"No review: resubmit as article": 1

"No review: resubmit as squib": 1

SI intro, not reviewed: 1

Times for all submissions (incl. special issues and survey proposals)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time to decision: 54 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 70 days

Times for all article submissions
---------------------------------
Average time to decision: 41 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 57 days

Country of first author

(New submissions and resubmissions from 2010 or before)

Articles
--------
Algeria 1

Argentina 1

Australia 1

Azerbaijan 1

Basque Country 1

Belgium 1

Brazil 3

Canada 6

China 9

Denmark 1

Finland 2

Germany 11

Hong Kong 2

Hungary 1

India 9

Iran 4

Ireland 2

Israel 4

Italy 4

Japan 1

Kazakhstan 1

Lithuania 1

Malaysia 6

Morocco 1

Netherlands 4

New Zealand 1

Pakistan 1

Portugal 1

Russian Federation 1

Saudi Arabia 1

South Africa 1

Spain 10

Sweden 2

Switzerland 1

Taiwan 1

Tunisia 2

UK 8

US 22

TOTAL 130

SI Mod Neg
----------
Austria 1

Canada 1

China 1

Germany 3

Hong Kong 1

Italy 1

Korea 2

Norway 1

Spain 3

Sweden 2

UK 2

US 5

TOTAL 23

SI PMRL
-------
Bulgaria 1

Czech Republic 2

Germany 3

Israel 1

Pakistan 1

US 2

TOTAL 10

Survey proposals
----------------
Australia 1

France 1

US 1

TOTAL 3

2012 up to 10 June
-----------------

First submissions in 2012

Survey proposal
---------------

Total: 3

Revise and resubmit: 1

Reject (not suitable): 1

No decision: 1

Articles
--------

Total: 46

Revise and resubmit: 8

Reject: 4

Reject (not suitable): 24

No review, no file submitted: 1

No decision: 9

Average time to decision: 23 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)"): 66 days

Resubmission of an article from 2011 or before

Special Issue on Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages
-------------------------------------------------------

Total: 5

No decision: 5

Articles
--------

Total: 16

Accept: 3

Accept with revisions: 1

Revise and resubmit: 8

No decision: 4

Resubmission of an article from 2012

Survey proposal
---------------

Total: 1

Reject: 1

Articles
--------

Total: 3

Accept: 1

Revise and resubmit: 1

No decision: 1

Totals (All submissions in 2012, including special issues and survey proposals)

Total: 74

Accept: 4

Accept with revisions: 1

Revise and resubmit: 18

Reject: 5

Reject (not suitable): 25

No review, no file submitted: 1

No decision: 20

Times for all submissions (incl. special issues and survey proposals)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time to decision: 29 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 54 days

Times for all article submissions
---------------------------------

Average time to decision: 31 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 57 days

Country of first author

(New submissions and resubmissions from 2011 or before)

Articles
--------
Basque Country 1

Canada 1

China 3

France 2

Germany 3

India 4

Iran 5

Italy 2

Japan 1

Jordan 1

Lebanon 1

Malaysia 3

Netherlands 1

Pakistan 1

Portugal 1

Saudi Arabia 1

Spain 11

Sweden 3

Switzerland 1

Tunisia 1

UK 3

US 12

TOTAL 62

SI PMRL
-------
Germany 3

Israel 1

US 1

TOTAL 5

Survey proposals
----------------
Austria 1

Malaysia 1

US 1

TOTAL 3

2012Q3 Reports: CL Journal Editor

2012-07-01T12:05:37Z

GraemeHirst: Added book reviews section

CL Journal Report for 2011-2012

Robert Dale, Editor

Wednesday 13th June 2012

1 Summary

Raw submission numbers continue to move upwards, but as noted in the
previous report, much of the increase is accounted for by papers which
are inappropriate for consideration in CL, either because (a) they are
more like conference papers in length; (b) they appear a little naive;
or (c) they would be more at home in a journal that represents a
different community (for example, we get quite a few papers that would
be better in a corpus linguistics journal). In 2011 we received 107
first submissions, compared to 78 in 2010, for an increase of 37%; 42
of these were considered inappropriate for CL. For 2012 to date, we
have received 46 first submissions, of which 24 were considered
inappropriate for CL; so the problem appears to be increasing. We
have updated our submission guidelines in an attempt to improve the
self-selection process.

Our average time to first decision for 2011, not including papers deemed
inappropriate by the editor, was 57 days, compared with 58 days in
2010. For papers handled so far in 2012, the average time to first
decision is 66 days.

2 Submissions

2.1 Articles

See the numbers at the end of this report for a detailed breakdown of
statistics regarding submissions. In 2011 and 2012 we handled
submissions for two special issues: one on 'Modality and Negation' and
one on 'Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages'. The former will
appear later this year; the latter will appear in 2013.

2.2 Squibs

[Provided by Pierre Isabelle, Squibs Editor]

At the beginning of year 2011, there were three submissions in the
squibs pipeline pending from 2010. In the course of year 2011, 8
additional papers were (re-) submitted. At the end of 2011, there were
no submissions left in the pipeline. Thus, 11 decisions were made over
the year.

The results were as follows:

* 1 paper accepted
* 6 papers rejected
* 4 invitations to revise and resubmit

The mean time taken for those decisions was 70 days.

In the course of 2011, I also served as associate book review editor
for three different books.

Concerning the current year (2012), thus far I have received 2 new
squib (re-) submissions plus one new book to be reviewed.

2.3 Book Reviews
[Report by Graeme Hirst]
Book reviews are edited by Graeme Hirst. We publish two or three reviews in each issue. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of books in the Morgan & Claypool series that Hirst edits are coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Hirst out of the loop.

3 Administrative Matters

3.1 Editorial Assistance

Suzy Howlett continues to do an absolutely exceptional job as
editorial assistant. Michael Olney has been carrying out some work
modifying the Open Journal Systems manuscript management software that
we use.

3.2 Author Support

As noted in the previous report, for some time we have been using a
LaTeX class file, called clv2.cls, provided to us by the typesetter.
In part to remove this dependence, and in part to overcome some
occasional compatibility problems we have found, Suzy has developed a
replacement class file that is simpler, and works in conjunction with
a number of recommended packages for various specialised purposes. We
have been testing and refining this over the last six months.

4 Issues and Points of Note

4.1 LaTeX Copyediting

During 2011, MIT Press had intended to switch to a new production
workflow, where the copy editor would make changes to the source LaTeX
files. Unfortunately, the LaTeX-aware copy editor we had identified
decided against working with us when he saw the extent of the work
required. MIT Press has now identified a candidate copy editor, who
is in the process of editing some samples for us.

4.2 Journal Size

As noted in previous reports, the journal is getting bigger, largely
as a consequence of us publishing papers as soon as they are ready,
rather than waiting for space to be available within page limits.
While this is good for authors and the community overall, it does mean
that our annual costs are increased.

5 Statistics

Here are the raw statistics referred to above.

First submissions in 2011

Special Issue on Modality and Negation
--------------------------------------

Total: 23

Revise and resubmit: 6

Reject: 17

Special Issue on Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages
-------------------------------------------------------

Total: 10

Revise and resubmit: 6

Reject: 4

Survey proposal
---------------

Total: 3

Reject: 2

"No review: resubmit as article": 1

Articles
--------

Total: 107

Accept: 1

Revise and resubmit: 20

Reject: 42

Reject (not suitable): 42

"No review: resubmit as squib": 1

SI intro, not reviewed: 1

Average time to decision: 38 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 61 days

Resubmission of an article from 2010 or before

Total: 23

Accept: 14

Accept with revisions: 1

Revise and resubmit: 5

Reject: 3

Resubmission of an article from 2011

Special Issue on Modality and Negation
--------------------------------------

Total: 6

Accept with revisions: 5

Reject: 1

Articles
--------

Total: 14

Accept: 6

Accept with revisions: 2

Revise and resubmit: 6

Totals (All submissions in 2011, including special issues and survey proposals)

Total: 186

Accept: 21

Accept with revisions: 8

Revise and resubmit: 43

Reject: 69

Reject (not suitable): 42

"No review: resubmit as article": 1

"No review: resubmit as squib": 1

SI intro, not reviewed: 1

Times for all submissions (incl. special issues and survey proposals)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time to decision: 54 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 70 days

Times for all article submissions
---------------------------------
Average time to decision: 41 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 57 days

Country of first author

(New submissions and resubmissions from 2010 or before)

Articles
--------
Algeria 1

Argentina 1

Australia 1

Azerbaijan 1

Basque Country 1

Belgium 1

Brazil 3

Canada 6

China 9

Denmark 1

Finland 2

Germany 11

Hong Kong 2

Hungary 1

India 9

Iran 4

Ireland 2

Israel 4

Italy 4

Japan 1

Kazakhstan 1

Lithuania 1

Malaysia 6

Morocco 1

Netherlands 4

New Zealand 1

Pakistan 1

Portugal 1

Russian Federation 1

Saudi Arabia 1

South Africa 1

Spain 10

Sweden 2

Switzerland 1

Taiwan 1

Tunisia 2

UK 8

US 22

TOTAL 130

SI Mod Neg
----------
Austria 1

Canada 1

China 1

Germany 3

Hong Kong 1

Italy 1

Korea 2

Norway 1

Spain 3

Sweden 2

UK 2

US 5

TOTAL 23

SI PMRL
-------
Bulgaria 1

Czech Republic 2

Germany 3

Israel 1

Pakistan 1

US 2

TOTAL 10

Survey proposals
----------------
Australia 1

France 1

US 1

TOTAL 3

2012 up to 10 June
-----------------

First submissions in 2012

Survey proposal
---------------

Total: 3

Revise and resubmit: 1

Reject (not suitable): 1

No decision: 1

Articles
--------

Total: 46

Revise and resubmit: 8

Reject: 4

Reject (not suitable): 24

No review, no file submitted: 1

No decision: 9

Average time to decision: 23 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)"): 66 days

Resubmission of an article from 2011 or before

Special Issue on Parsing Morphologically Rich Languages
-------------------------------------------------------

Total: 5

No decision: 5

Articles
--------

Total: 16

Accept: 3

Accept with revisions: 1

Revise and resubmit: 8

No decision: 4

Resubmission of an article from 2012

Survey proposal
---------------

Total: 1

Reject: 1

Articles
--------

Total: 3

Accept: 1

Revise and resubmit: 1

No decision: 1

Totals (All submissions in 2012, including special issues and survey proposals)

Total: 74

Accept: 4

Accept with revisions: 1

Revise and resubmit: 18

Reject: 5

Reject (not suitable): 25

No review, no file submitted: 1

No decision: 20

Times for all submissions (incl. special issues and survey proposals)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time to decision: 29 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 54 days

Times for all article submissions
---------------------------------

Average time to decision: 31 days

Average time to decision (excluding "reject (not suitable)" and "no review"): 57 days

Country of first author

(New submissions and resubmissions from 2011 or before)

Articles
--------
Basque Country 1

Canada 1

China 3

France 2

Germany 3

India 4

Iran 5

Italy 2

Japan 1

Jordan 1

Lebanon 1

Malaysia 3

Netherlands 1

Pakistan 1

Portugal 1

Saudi Arabia 1

Spain 11

Sweden 3

Switzerland 1

Tunisia 1

UK 3

US 12

TOTAL 62

SI PMRL
-------
Germany 3

Israel 1

US 1

TOTAL 5

Survey proposals
----------------
Austria 1

Malaysia 1

US 1

TOTAL 3

2012Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2012-06-22T15:15:33Z

GraemeHirst: New page: ACL Treasurer's Report to Membership, June 2012 ================================================= Graeme Hirst, Treasurer Attached are four files summarizing the ACL's finances for t...

ACL Treasurer's Report to Membership, June 2012
=================================================

Graeme Hirst, Treasurer

Attached are four files summarizing the ACL's finances for the calendar year 2011.

FILE 1: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2011.pdf balance sheet], which shows a snapshot of our assets and liabilities at 31-Dec-2011:

On 31-Dec-2011, we had about $576,000(*) in the bank and another $127,000 in abstract assets such as deposits and advances that we have prepaid for future conferences. Against this, we had liabilities of $46,000 (largely multi-year memberships and money owed to The MIT Press for Computational Linguistics), giving us equity of about $658,000. That's substantially up from last year, when we fell below $600,000, a dangerously low level; ideally, it would be substantially even higher.(**)

(*) This is $200,000 less than the year before. However, our bank balance on 31-Dec-2010 was artificially high because we still had substantial unpaid bills from ACL 2010 Uppsala at that point. Our accounts payable at the end of 2010 was $218,000; this year, it's $7500.

(**) We need to maintain substantial equity for two reasons: (a) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year, as in 2010. (b) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-400K of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to have sufficient assets to pass.

A substantial proportion, about 40%, of ACL's equity is in the subaccounts of chapters and SIGS. NAACL's subaccount balance (taking into account the conference results below) was $75,000, and EACL's was €7500 on 31-Dec-2011. SIGs collectively have $180,000, of which $114,000 is SIGDAT's (surpluses from EMNLPs are piling up) and $33,500 is SIGDIAL's. Other SIGs have balances ranging from a few thousand dollars down to zero or less (SIGPARSE has a $2800 deficit).

FILE 2: Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2011.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are misleading because they are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the sum across conferences of the costs of each component of the banquets at Portland and Edinburgh). See below for the more-interesting details of major expense and income classes.

FILE 3: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2011.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

(a) ACL 2011 Portland was large and successful, and the net surplus was $90,750 on gross revenue of $580,000 (including sponsorships, registration, and banquet tickets), which is the 15% that we aim for to support our other activities. The surplus is divided between SIGs that sponsored workshops at the conference (on a per-person-day basis) ($12,750), NAACL ($39,000), and central ACL ($39,000). One less-happy note is that the banquet lost $12,250; our goal of making banquets a revenue-neutral activity is not being achieved.

(b) EMNLP 2011 Edinburgh achieved a surplus for SIGDAT of $22,700 on gross revenues of about $164,000, about 14%.

FILE 4: [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2010.pdf Profit and loss statement for the CL journal, membership, and operations]:

(a) The journal, of course, has no income any more. The costs, estimated to be about $70,000 in 2011, are supposed to be covered by membership fees and surpluses from conferences. The actual amount paid in 2011, shown in the spreadsheet, is much less because of erratic billing by The MIT Press; we owe them a large amount of money for past services that we are just waiting for them to invoice us for.

In 2012, our new journal, TACL, will start incurring costs. This journal has been designed to be cheaper than CL by foregoing both the quality enhancements of professional copyediting and typography and online distribution through a publisher.

(b) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and not many people pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $79,400 in memberships in 2011; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $13,700, leaving a net income of $65,700 in this class.

(c) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Business Manager's time not allocated to other specific classes, and the cost of maintaining the ACL Portal. Our net operating cost was $52,500. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with about $13,000 for the costs of the journal, giving it a deficit of about $57,000.

(d) Not shown on this spreadsheet, because they cut across a number of categories, are scholarships, sponsorships, and other awards. These include awards to students to attend conferences and the annual Johns Hopkins Summer School, and contributions to the cost of events organized by other CL and NLP groups. These awards are made by chapters from their subaccounts, by central ACL from the Walker Fund, and by the organizers of student research workshops with funds that flow to us specifically for this purpose from sources such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. In 2011, these awards totaled $41,400.

GENERAL COMMENTS: Our conference surplus for 2011 is a sign of hope after the losses that we sustained in 2010 (ACL 2010 Uppsala just broke even, and NAACL 2010 Los Angeles lost $67,000, $8500 of which was due to a reneged sponsorship). But to sustain our other activities, we need a greater and more-reliable income from conference surpluses and perhaps from continuing organization-level sponsorships and from page charges.

At present, ACL, unlike many other open-access publishers, does not ask authors to cover any of the costs of publication. Although revenue models weren't considered at all when we switched to open-access for the journal, publication without charge to authors is now an explicit policy of ACL. Indeed, it was felt that authors used to the former reader-pays model would not tolerate an author-pays system. However, it is not clear that an ACL-pays model is sustainable in the long term, and as author-pays open-access journals are now gaining acceptance, the policy should be revisited.

I have commented before that we also need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter and SIG finances. Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of *ACL conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia and is not joint with AFNLP can ACL get 100%.

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations, especially publications, require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surpluses that we aim for. Equally, in view of the NAACL Los Angeles results, the chapters and SIGs might wish to be more insulated from large losses.

Last year, I therefore proposed that ACL should make a new arrangement with chapters and SIGs, including (a) a contribution from chapter conferences of perhaps 50% of any surplus in return for a picking up, say, 30% of any loss and (b) reducing the chapter's cut of any ACL conference surplus from 50% to perhaps 20% but not passing on to them any losses. The explicit goal is to make chapters poorer and central ACL richer, because this is necessary for the organization's goals. But in compensation, the chapters will have a more-reliable stream of income. Similarly, large SIG events should be expected to contribute some part of any surplus to central ACL's activities such as journals. This proposal remains on the table for further discussion and parameter-setting.

Bid Guidelines

2011-08-12T18:47:19Z

GraemeHirst:

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-20110807.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell,along with the date on which the exchange rate was valid.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that attendance drops off, which pushes the per-person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer, Graeme Hirst, gh =a= cs.toronto.edu.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of expense projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

Bid Guidelines

2011-08-12T18:46:47Z

GraemeHirst: Updated pointer to revised expenses spreadsheet

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-20110708.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell,along with the date on which the exchange rate was valid.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that attendance drops off, which pushes the per-person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer, Graeme Hirst, gh =a= cs.toronto.edu.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of expense projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

Bid Guidelines

2011-06-15T23:51:36Z

GraemeHirst: Updated spreadsheet, so change the link. Minor textual updates.

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-20110615.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell,along with the date on which the exchange rate was valid.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that attendance drops off, which pushes the per-person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer, Graeme Hirst, gh =a= cs.toronto.edu.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of expense projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

2011Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2011-06-06T18:24:19Z

GraemeHirst: New page: '''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer''' Attached are four files summarizing the ACL's finances for the calendar year 2010. (1) Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2010.pdf ba...

'''Graeme Hirst, Treasurer'''

Attached are four files summarizing the ACL's finances for the calendar year 2010.

(1) Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2010.pdf balance sheet], which shows our assets and liabilities:

Because our base currency is the ever-shrinking US dollar, but much of our assets are in euros, our bank-balances appear to have increased as of the end of 2010, compared to 2009, even though we spent more USD than we took in. Of course, from a euro perspective, our bank-balances have decreased.

Moreover, our bank balance on 31-Dec-2010 was artificially high because we still had substantial unpaid bills from ACL 2010 Uppsala at that point.

In fact, our actual equity -- assets minus liabilities -- dropped markedly in 2010 to under $600,000 (see line "Total equity" near the bottom of the balance sheet). We can't let it get much lower than that. We need to maintain substantial equity for two reasons: (1) We need to be able to survive disastrous losses on conferences, perhaps two in the same year [see below]. (2) When we sign contracts with hotels and convention centers for $100-200K of conference services, these businesses are extending us a very large amount of credit (even though we also pay big deposits), so we undergo credit checks which, obviously, we need to pass.

(2) Our [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-2010.pdf overall profit and loss statement] (technically so-called even though we are a non-profit organization and therefore have surpluses, not profits):

Note that some lines on this sheet are misleading because they are horizontal sums that aren't particularly meaningful (such as the sum across conferences of the costs of each component of the banquets at Uppsala and Los Angeles). See below for the more-interesting details of major expense and income classes.

(3) [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-conferences-2010.pdf Profit and loss statement for conferences]:

We had a very bad year for conference finances.

(a) ACL 2010 in Uppsala only just broke even (actually a $2000 loss on a $460,000 event). This was almost entirely due to the rapid decline in the value of the US dollar against the Swedish krona (which was even greater than the dollar's loss against the euro). We priced registration for the conference and sponsorship in USD, but we had to pay our bills in SEK. When it came time to pay those SEK (in September 2010 and March 2011), they cost us USD 57,000 more than on the dates the expenses were incurred. In other words, what would otherwise have been a reasonable conference surplus of about 12% (we aim for about 15%), had the values remained stable, was completely wiped out by adverse changes in currency values.

(b) NAACL 2010 in Los Angeles had a large loss, more than $59,000 (and no currency exchange was involved). Moreover, $9,750 in promised sponsorships from two companies is still outstanding (we are chasing them); if these have to be written off as bad debts, then the loss would climb to $69,000.

The key reason for the loss was simply that the conference attracted far fewer people than we planned for -- about 550 registrants for the main conference instead of 650 -- so income was markedly less than anticipated. But expenses did not drop correspondingly; many expenses are largely or wholly independent of conference size. Some expenses were higher than budgeted.

One high expense worth particular note was the banquet, which suffered from a surprisingly large number of gate-crashers -- about 60 of them, due to very poor security. Moreover, although it was an open-air banquet on the library lawns, the gate-crashers seem to have been almost wholly conference guests, not random people walking over from the street. Security was supposed to be the caterer's responsibility. We ended up paying for 30 extra people, and the caterer took the expense of the other 30.

(c) One good note: EMNLP 2010 in Cambridge, Mass., made a substantial surplus for SIGDAT, $34,000. The key factor in this was the extremely low cost of the venue compared to what we would normally have to pay, thanks to MIT.

(4) [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-P+L-core-services-2010.pdf Profit and loss statement for the CL journal, membership, and operations].

(a) The journal, of course, has no income any more. The costs, about $71,000 in 2010, are supposed to be covered by membership fees and surpluses from conferences.

(b) Membership is required for attendance at any ACL conference, and not many people pay for memberships any more except when registering for their first conference each year. (Also, we still have many multiple-year memberships current from past years when we "gave away" one-year memberships, or membership extensions, with HLT registration.) We grossed $68,000 in memberships in 2010; the cost of processing and other membership services was about $15,000, leaving a net income of $53,000 in this class.

(c) Miscellaneous income and operating expenses: Income here includes such things as interest on our bank accounts and bonds, and expenses include office rent and utilities, insurance, bookkeeping and accounting, Priscilla's time not allocated to other specific classes, and, notably in 2010, the cost of developing the ACL Portal. Some artifactual items turn up in this class too. This year, there is the reversal of a liability for an annual bill for MIT Press (their erratic billing leads to this kind of thing), and a notional foreign exchange loss (in USD) arising from a renewal or reinvestment of some of our euro assets. Setting the artifactual expenses aside, the excess of "real" expenses over income this year was about $48,000. Covering these expenses from membership fees leaves us with $5000 for the costs of the journal.

(5) General comments: Obviously the current situation is unsustainable. We need substantially more income from such sources as conference surpluses and perhaps from continuing organization-level sponsorships.

This year's conference losses were, to a great extent, just bad luck. Conference budgeting is necessarily full of guesses and probabilities, and currency variations (which can just as often be favorable as adverse, and sometimes have been) just add to that. We try to be cautious in our projections of attendance, but budgeting with a too-low break-even point may lead to registration fees that are too high and that by themselves risk lowering the attendance rate. Nonetheless, it is clear in hindsight that we should have been much more pessimistic about the Los Angeles conference and built in a larger buffer.

I have commented before about the tendency to ever more expensive conferences (in grander venues with grander banquets), because every local organizer naturally wants to put on The Best Conference Ever. But this leads to an unsustainable escalation, and registration fees cannot keep pace. We need to rein this in. Our conferences must of course be pleasant and enjoyable to attend, but they must also become more economical. Unfortunately, the size of our conferences limits our ability to use low-cost venues; we are spending more time in large hotels and convention centers and less time on university campuses with consequent diseconomies of scale.

We also need to rethink how conferences interact with chapter finances. Under the present arrangement, it is the chapters, not top-level ACL, that take most of the surplus or loss of our conferences. Specifically, the chapters get 100% of the surplus or loss of their own conferences, and 50% of that of the international conference when it is held in their territory. Only when the ACL conference is held in Asia can ACL get 100% (and in 2009 we shared with AFNLP, who jointly sponsored the Singapore conference as an IJCNLP).

The rationale for this arrangement made sense at the time it was made. Central ACL and the journal were largely self-supporting, and this arrangement gave the chapters a little revenue for Good Works. This is no longer the case; central ACL operations, especially publications, require more funds, and, arguably, the chapters require less -- or, at least, they do not require half or all of the 15% surplus that we must assiduously aim for in future conferences. Equally, in view of the NAACL Los Angeles results, the chapters might wish to be more insulated from large losses. I have therefore made a proposal to the ACL Exec for changes to these arrangements, which will be discussed at the Exec meeting in Portland.

2011Q3 Reports: Book Reviews for CL Journal

2011-06-06T15:15:49Z

GraemeHirst:

We continue to publish several book reviews in each issue of the journal. In order to avoid a conflict of interest in the case of a series of CL books edited by Graeme Hirst, reviews of these books are being coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Graeme out of the loop.

2011Q3 Reports: Book Reviews for CL Journal

2011-06-06T15:15:07Z

GraemeHirst: New page: We continue to publish several book reviews in each issue of the journal. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, for reviews of a series of CL books edited by Graeme Hirst, reviews of...

We continue to publish several book reviews in each issue of the journal. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, for reviews of a series of CL books edited by Graeme Hirst, reviews of these books is being coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Graeme out of the loop.

Bid Guidelines

2010-08-11T01:26:16Z

GraemeHirst:

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-20100810.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that the numbers drop off, which pushes the per person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of expense projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

Bid Guidelines

2010-08-11T00:48:35Z

GraemeHirst: Graeme adds new expenses template, with concomitant changes, evaluation guidelines.

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev-20100810.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that the numbers drop off, which pushes the per person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of budget projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

Bid Guidelines

2010-08-11T00:46:18Z

GraemeHirst:

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev20100810.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using both conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference and optimistic (upper-bound) assumptions, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities, only upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions will reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that the numbers drop off, which pushes the per person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

If you find any problems or bugs in the spreadsheet, please notify the ACL Treasurer.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we supply a [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet]. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

== Evaluation of Bids ==

Evaluation: Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (unordered):

* Experience of local arrangements team
* Local CL community support
* Local government and industry support
* Accessibility and attractiveness of proposed site
* Suitability of proposed dates
* Adequacy of conference and exhibit facilities for the anticipated number of registrants
* Adequacy of residence accommodations and food services in a range of price categories and close to the conference facilities
* Adequacy of budget projections
* Geographical balance with regard to prior ACL and other CL meetings in the region.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

Bid Guidelines

2010-08-11T00:40:41Z

GraemeHirst:

This page provides guidelines for preparing a bid for hosting the ACL conference. The guidelines link to two additional spreadsheets, explained further below: a detailed site-specific expenses spreadsheet to be filled as part of the submission, synchronized with the bid document; a task-list spreadsheet, which details many of the tasks involved in hosting the conference and suggests several options for delegating a varying amount of the work to the ACL office and/or to a professional conference organizer.

== Preliminary and Final Bids ==

You are first requested to submit a preliminary bid. Promising bidders will be asked by the Conference Coordinating Committee to provide additional information and turn their bid into the final one, according to the schedule published in the Call for Bids. The purpose of a '''preliminary bid''' is to give the committee a detailed description of the organization, venue, and setting. The first round of review will help bidders to create a stronger bid, which is better tailored to the needs of the ACL. The purpose of the '''final bid''' is to convince the committee that the organizers are capable of running a large scientific conference with considerable professionalism and attention to detail.

== Covering Letter ==

Include a cover letter addressed to the ACL, naming venue and possible dates, identifying contact person(s) and contact details, signed.

== Organization ==

; Local Organizing Committee
: Please name the members of the local organizing committee, including titles and affiliations. For each person, provide a statement about their activities in the CL community and their experience in organizing scientific events (and the number of participants at those events).

; Local CL Community
: Describe the profile of the local CL community, including any research groups, graduate programs, professional bodies, companies.

; Professional Conference Organizer
: It is typically advisable to involve a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) for the local organization, while the amount of work delegated to the PCO might vary. Where geographically appropriate, Priscilla Rasmussen, from the ACL office, might take responsibility for typical tasks of a PCO, as coordinated directly with her.
: Specify (roughly) the intended split of tasks between the local organizers, a PCO and/or the ACL office (see the Task List Spreadsheet section below for detail).
: Identify the organization that will be responsible for such tasks as local arrangements, including venues, catering, accommodation, the social program, and finances. What is the scale of their operation? List major scientific meetings organized recently by the PCO and their size.

; Dates
: Bidders should indicate one or more options for the conference dates. Sometimes, additional alternatives might be explored when negotiating with the committee. When planning the dates please check first with the conference committee chair for the latest known constraints for that year, such as dates of related conferences.

== Venue ==

; Conference
: Describe the main auditorium, theatres for four parallel sessions, spaces for tutorials and workshops, and an option for meeting rooms on-demand. Describe capacity, seating style, A/V facilities, sloping vs level floor, availability of (fold-out) tables in theatres, ceiling height (especially in the smaller workshop and tutorial rooms).
: Workshops - capacity for 2 two-day workshops, and 8 one-day workshops (6 per each day)
: Tutorials - six is typically the optimal number, but proposers should desirably be prepared for up to eight (4 rooms, for morning and afternoon tutorials).
: Dates for which the venues have been booked.

; Accommodation
: List categories of accommodation, considering students as well, and their approximate capacities and prices. State the proximity of the accommodation to the conference venue, and the means of access.
: Dates for which room blocks have been tentatively reserved, or are available.

; Food and Social Program
: Describe plans for breaks (2 per day, mid-morning and mid-afternoon), student lunch (can be off-site; for at least 100-150 students), welcome reception (for about 50-60% of expected attendance), and banquet (typically 40-50% of expected attendance). Provide a preliminary plan of the types/quantities of foods per participant to be provided at each of these events, matching their cost in the site-specific expenses spreadsheet. ACL encourages a tradition of some form of dancing for participants at the banquet.

; Estimated Costs Summary
: Provide a one-page summary of the site-specific expenses spreadsheet (see below), specifying approximate total cost for each component of the conference (main conference, tutorials, workshops, banquet, overheads) and the VAT situation (or similar taxes – see comment in expenses spreadsheet). Please give figures in both local currency and US dollars, and specify the exchange rate. Include any further relevant explanations for your expenses spreadsheet.

== Setting ==

; Map
: Provide a detailed map showing positions of venues and accommodation, and other relevant locations (if any – e.g. food courts, subway/bus stops).

; Food
: Describe the eating options within and near the conference venue.

; City
: Describe the city and region, and the principal attractions. What is the climate at this time of year? Any optional social program. List public cultural events scheduled for the conference period.

; Transportation
: Describe the air and ground transportation that provides access to the city. What is the commute time from regional airport(s) and railway stations to the venue?

== Extras ==

(Not needed for preliminary bid)

* Letters of support
* Photographs of venues and regional attractions
* Evidence of sponsorship
* Information about visa, driver licenses

== Site-Specific Expenses Spreadsheet ==

Site-specific expenses should be detailed in a separate [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-conference-bid-template-Rev20100810.xls Expenses spreadsheet] with which the bid document should be consistent. The spreadsheet includes only items which vary from one venue to another. Costs which are largely fixed across venues (such as proceedings and invited speakers) are omitted, and so are all aspects of income except for local sponsorships. The final budget will be coordinated with the ACL Treasurer and business office.

Do not change the spreadsheet in any way, except to populate the yellow and blue cells with your local data. It is important that all bidders submit comparable spreadsheets (as live .xls files, not .pdf). If for some reason you feel that you need to modify the spreadsheet to fit your local conditions, please seek the advice of the Coordinating Committee Chair and the Treasurer before doing so.

Most items in the spreadsheet are self-explained or include explanatory comments. Here are some additional guidelines:

* Some expenses will have both a constant component and a per-person component, and each line of the spreadsheet includes both components. For example, the banquet might have a base cost for the venue rental plus a per-person cost as well. In most cases, however, only one component will be non-zero.
* Complete the spreadsheet in your local currency, and provide a multiplicative conversion factor for USD in the appropriate cell.
* The spreadsheet total costs are computed using conservative (lower-bound) assumptions for the size of the conference, as specified in the first lines of the spreadsheet. However, when considering venue and accommodation capacities upper-bound assumptions should be made, as specified in the relevant spreadsheet lines (there might be some flexibility here according to actual conditions, e.g., possibly not all rooms for parallel sessions should reach the maximal session capacity).
* With respect to overall banquet cost, the banquet ticket price should typically not exceed USD 75. Beyond that the numbers drop off, which pushes the per person cost even higher because of constants such as venue rental, risking a serious loss.
* Equipment-related costs should include security arrangements, if relevant.

== Task List Spreadsheet ==

As mentioned above, the organizers may choose to delegate a varying amount of the organization work to a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO) and/or to the ACL Office (Priscilla Rasmussen). As auxiliary information for your task planning, we attached the [http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~dagan/ACL-2011/tasklist.xls Task List spreadsheet] used for the NAACL 2010 call for bids. The spreadsheet lists many of the organization tasks and specifies three prototypical models for sharing the organization load. Option A represents the maximum amount of work for the local organizers, while Option C is the least amount of work. B is in between. Please indicate, in the PCO section of the BID, which of these three models captures best your preferred model and include relevant explanation as needed. The precise details of who does what will be further discussed with promising bidders, you are not committing to specific tasks at this point.

The expenses items under the administration section, and particularly Conference Management Fees, should correspond to the cost of work planned for a PCO and/or Priscilla. Please discuss directly with Priscilla the plans and costs for her roles.

== Additional Information ==

Further relevant information may be found at the ACL [http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook Conference Handbook] and [http://www.aclweb.org/policies/index-policies.html Policies]. Successful sample bids for previous conferences may be found at the
[http://www.aclweb.org/archive/bids.html Bids Archive] (follow the current guidelines when preparing your bid). For any queries please contact the Coordinating Committee chair.

[[Category:Conference Handbook]]

2010Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2010-06-20T20:30:49Z

GraemeHirst:

[All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.]

(1) [http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2009.pdf Current assets]: At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros in Malta (at the exchange rate on 2009-12-31). Although this is an increase of $50K since 2008-12-31, we are actually poorer than we were last year because our liabilities have increased by more than that.

Our primary liability is to The MIT Press for publishing the journal. For some reason, they don't like to actually bill us for their work very often, but the bills, when they come, are rather large. We still haven't paid them for 2008 let alone 2009, and that adds up to about $75K. In addition, at year's end we had a liability for the cost of our new Web portal (as well as normal carryovers: accounting and bookkeeping fees and December office expenses).

On the other hand, we have assets such as prepaid expenses and deposits such as advances to conference organizers and deposits on catering and venues. For example, we had $20K out for NAACL 2010. Funds paid in 2009 for organizing 2010 events are also counted in this category (e.g., our office manager's advance work and site-visit travel).

In sum, our equity is $57K is less than last year. We are poorer, having spent or incurred liabilities adding up to more than we took in.

(2) Conference income: ACL relies on conference surpluses to cover its office expenses and to help fund some of its other programs. A deficit at a conference can be a serious problem for the organization, but in practice conference income and expenses are very hard to predict. We therefore try to budget for a surplus of about 10% (on the $250,000 to $350,000 cost of a conference) even in reasonable circumstances with conservative assumptions, in the hope that even in the worst case there will not be a deficit. However, our surpluses for 2009 conferences were very thin.

** EACL 2009 Athens essentially broke even: a surplus of about €3000 in Athens, which became a small loss when some additional costs were taken into account.

** NAACL 2009 Boulder had a surplus of about $9000.

** ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Singapore, a joint conference with the Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) had a surplus of about $18,000, of which half belongs to AFNLP.

Comments: Our conference margins were so close this year that we were at serious risk of loss at each of them -- despite initial budgets that seemed quite reasonable and attendance that met or exceeded projections. Factors include reduced levels of sponsorship (the budget projections are necessarily just informed guesses), the inevitable unexpected or escalated expenses, and adverse changes in currency exchange rates. Other risk factors in conference planning (none of which occurred in 2009, but it was touch-and-go for a while for the first two) include economic downturns, pandemics, volcanos, and terrorist attacks.

(3) 2010 so far: The recent decline of the euro has reduced the USD value of our Maltese assets. As long as we use them only for euro-expenses, this is somewhat theoretical. However, the decline of the euro and the pound also makes our 2010 conferences more expensive for many of our European members (the Uppsala conference registration fees are priced in USD).

2010Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2010-06-20T20:30:01Z

GraemeHirst:

[All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.]

(1) [[http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2009.pdf Current assets]] : At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros in Malta (at the exchange rate on 2009-12-31). Although this is an increase of $50K since 2008-12-31, we are actually poorer than we were last year because our liabilities have increased by more than that.

Our primary liability is to The MIT Press for publishing the journal. For some reason, they don't like to actually bill us for their work very often, but the bills, when they come, are rather large. We still haven't paid them for 2008 let alone 2009, and that adds up to about $75K. In addition, at year's end we had a liability for the cost of our new Web portal (as well as normal carryovers: accounting and bookkeeping fees and December office expenses).

On the other hand, we have assets such as prepaid expenses and deposits such as advances to conference organizers and deposits on catering and venues. For example, we had $20K out for NAACL 2010. Funds paid in 2009 for organizing 2010 events are also counted in this category (e.g., our office manager's advance work and site-visit travel).

In sum, our equity is $57K is less than last year. We are poorer, having spent or incurred liabilities adding up to more than we took in.

(2) Conference income: ACL relies on conference surpluses to cover its office expenses and to help fund some of its other programs. A deficit at a conference can be a serious problem for the organization, but in practice conference income and expenses are very hard to predict. We therefore try to budget for a surplus of about 10% (on the $250,000 to $350,000 cost of a conference) even in reasonable circumstances with conservative assumptions, in the hope that even in the worst case there will not be a deficit. However, our surpluses for 2009 conferences were very thin.

** EACL 2009 Athens essentially broke even: a surplus of about €3000 in Athens, which became a small loss when some additional costs were taken into account.

** NAACL 2009 Boulder had a surplus of about $9000.

** ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Singapore, a joint conference with the Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) had a surplus of about $18,000, of which half belongs to AFNLP.

Comments: Our conference margins were so close this year that we were at serious risk of loss at each of them -- despite initial budgets that seemed quite reasonable and attendance that met or exceeded projections. Factors include reduced levels of sponsorship (the budget projections are necessarily just informed guesses), the inevitable unexpected or escalated expenses, and adverse changes in currency exchange rates. Other risk factors in conference planning (none of which occurred in 2009, but it was touch-and-go for a while for the first two) include economic downturns, pandemics, volcanos, and terrorist attacks.

(3) 2010 so far: The recent decline of the euro has reduced the USD value of our Maltese assets. As long as we use them only for euro-expenses, this is somewhat theoretical. However, the decline of the euro and the pound also makes our 2010 conferences more expensive for many of our European members (the Uppsala conference registration fees are priced in USD).

2010Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2010-06-20T20:29:15Z

GraemeHirst:

[All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.]

(1) [[http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2009.pdf Current assets]] : At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros in Malta (at the exchange rate on 2009-12-31). Although this is an increase of $50K since 2008-12-31, we are actually poorer than we were last year because our liabilities have increased by more than that.

Our primary liability is to The MIT Press for publishing the journal. For some reason, they don't like to actually bill us for their work very often, but the bills, when they come, are rather large. We still haven't paid them for 2008 let alone 2009, and that adds up to about $75K. In addition, at year's end we had a liability for the cost of our new Web portal (as well as normal carryovers: accounting and bookkeeping fees and December office expenses).

On the other hand, we have assets such as prepaid expenses and deposits such as advances to conference organizers and deposits on catering and venues. For example, we had $20K out for NAACL 2010. Funds paid in 2009 for organizing 2010 events are also counted in this category (e.g., our office manager's advance work and site-visit travel).

In sum, our equity is $57K is less than last year. We are poorer, having spent or incurred liabilities adding up to more than we took in.

(2) Conference income: ACL relies on conference surpluses to cover its office expenses and to help fund some of its other programs. A deficit at a conference can be a serious problem for the organization, but in practice conference income and expenses are very hard to predict. We therefore try to budget for a surplus of about 10% (on the $250,000 to $350,000 cost of a conference) even in reasonable circumstances with conservative assumptions, in the hope that even in the worst case there will not be a deficit. However, our surpluses for 2009 conferences were very thin.

** EACL 2009 Athens essentially broke even: a surplus of about €3000 in Athens, which became a small loss when some additional costs were taken into account.

** NAACL 2009 Boulder had a surplus of about $9000.

** ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Singapore, a joint conference with the Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) had a surplus of about $18,000, of which half belongs to AFNLP.

Comments: Our conference margins were so close this year that we were at serious risk of loss at each of them -- despite initial budgets that seemed quite reasonable and attendance that met or exceeded projections. Factors include reduced levels of sponsorship (the budget projections are necessarily just informed guesses), the inevitable unexpected or escalated expenses, and adverse changes in currency exchange rates. Other risk factors in conference planning (none of which occurred in 2009, but it was touch-and-go for a while for the first two) include economic downturns, pandemics, volcanos, and terrorist attacks.

(3) 2010 so far: The recent decline of the euro has reduced the USD value of our Maltese assets. As long as we use them only for euro-expenses, this is somewhat theoretical. However, the decline of the euro and the pound also makes our 2010 conferences more expensive for many of our European members (the Uppsala conference registration fees are priced in USD).

2010Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2010-06-20T20:27:12Z

GraemeHirst:

[All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.]

(1) [http:// ftp.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL-balance-sheet-2009.pdf Current assets]: At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros in Malta (at the exchange rate on 2009-12-31). Although this is an increase of $50K since 2008-12-31, we are actually poorer than we were last year because our liabilities have increased by more than that.

Our primary liability is to The MIT Press for publishing the journal. For some reason, they don't like to actually bill us for their work very often, but the bills, when they come, are rather large. We still haven't paid them for 2008 let alone 2009, and that adds up to about $75K. In addition, at year's end we had a liability for the cost of our new Web portal (as well as normal carryovers: accounting and bookkeeping fees and December office expenses).

On the other hand, we have assets such as prepaid expenses and deposits such as advances to conference organizers and deposits on catering and venues. For example, we had $20K out for NAACL 2010. Funds paid in 2009 for organizing 2010 events are also counted in this category (e.g., our office manager's advance work and site-visit travel).

In sum, our equity is $57K is less than last year. We are poorer, having spent or incurred liabilities adding up to more than we took in.

(2) Conference income: ACL relies on conference surpluses to cover its office expenses and to help fund some of its other programs. A deficit at a conference can be a serious problem for the organization, but in practice conference income and expenses are very hard to predict. We therefore try to budget for a surplus of about 10% (on the $250,000 to $350,000 cost of a conference) even in reasonable circumstances with conservative assumptions, in the hope that even in the worst case there will not be a deficit. However, our surpluses for 2009 conferences were very thin.

** EACL 2009 Athens essentially broke even: a surplus of about €3000 in Athens, which became a small loss when some additional costs were taken into account.

** NAACL 2009 Boulder had a surplus of about $9000.

** ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Singapore, a joint conference with the Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) had a surplus of about $18,000, of which half belongs to AFNLP.

Comments: Our conference margins were so close this year that we were at serious risk of loss at each of them -- despite initial budgets that seemed quite reasonable and attendance that met or exceeded projections. Factors include reduced levels of sponsorship (the budget projections are necessarily just informed guesses), the inevitable unexpected or escalated expenses, and adverse changes in currency exchange rates. Other risk factors in conference planning (none of which occurred in 2009, but it was touch-and-go for a while for the first two) include economic downturns, pandemics, volcanos, and terrorist attacks.

(3) 2010 so far: The recent decline of the euro has reduced the USD value of our Maltese assets. As long as we use them only for euro-expenses, this is somewhat theoretical. However, the decline of the euro and the pound also makes our 2010 conferences more expensive for many of our European members (the Uppsala conference registration fees are priced in USD).

2010Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2010-06-20T20:24:36Z

GraemeHirst:

[All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.]

(1) [http:// ftp.cs.toronto.edu/~gh/ACL-balance-sheet-200.pdf Current assets]: At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros in Malta (at the exchange rate on 2009-12-31). Although this is an increase of $50K since 2008-12-31, we are actually poorer than we were last year because our liabilities have increased by more than that.

Our primary liability is to The MIT Press for publishing the journal. For some reason, they don't like to actually bill us for their work very often, but the bills, when they come, are rather large. We still haven't paid them for 2008 let alone 2009, and that adds up to about $75K. In addition, at year's end we had a liability for the cost of our new Web portal (as well as normal carryovers: accounting and bookkeeping fees and December office expenses).

On the other hand, we have assets such as prepaid expenses and deposits such as advances to conference organizers and deposits on catering and venues. For example, we had $20K out for NAACL 2010. Funds paid in 2009 for organizing 2010 events are also counted in this category (e.g., our office manager's advance work and site-visit travel).

In sum, our equity is $57K is less than last year. We are poorer, having spent or incurred liabilities adding up to more than we took in.

(2) Conference income: ACL relies on conference surpluses to cover its office expenses and to help fund some of its other programs. A deficit at a conference can be a serious problem for the organization, but in practice conference income and expenses are very hard to predict. We therefore try to budget for a surplus of about 10% (on the $250,000 to $350,000 cost of a conference) even in reasonable circumstances with conservative assumptions, in the hope that even in the worst case there will not be a deficit. However, our surpluses for 2009 conferences were very thin.

** EACL 2009 Athens essentially broke even: a surplus of about €3000 in Athens, which became a small loss when some additional costs were taken into account.

** NAACL 2009 Boulder had a surplus of about $9000.

** ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Singapore, a joint conference with the Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) had a surplus of about $18,000, of which half belongs to AFNLP.

Comments: Our conference margins were so close this year that we were at serious risk of loss at each of them -- despite initial budgets that seemed quite reasonable and attendance that met or exceeded projections. Factors include reduced levels of sponsorship (the budget projections are necessarily just informed guesses), the inevitable unexpected or escalated expenses, and adverse changes in currency exchange rates. Other risk factors in conference planning (none of which occurred in 2009, but it was touch-and-go for a while for the first two) include economic downturns, pandemics, volcanos, and terrorist attacks.

(3) 2010 so far: The recent decline of the euro has reduced the USD value of our Maltese assets. As long as we use them only for euro-expenses, this is somewhat theoretical. However, the decline of the euro and the pound also makes our 2010 conferences more expensive for many of our European members (the Uppsala conference registration fees are priced in USD).

2010Q3 Reports: Treasurer

2010-06-20T20:21:20Z

GraemeHirst: New page: [All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.] (1) Current assets: At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros ...

[All "$" amounts are USD and all "€" amounts are euros.]

(1) Current assets: At the end of 2009, we had $703K in the bank, of which about $362K was in the US and $341K was in euros in Malta (at the exchange rate on 2009-12-31). Although this is an increase of $50K since 2008-12-31, we are actually poorer than we were last year because our liabilities have increased by more than that.

Our primary liability is to The MIT Press for publishing the journal. For some reason, they don't like to actually bill us for their work very often, but the bills, when they come, are rather large. We still haven't paid them for 2008 let alone 2009, and that adds up to about $75K. In addition, at year's end we had a liability for the cost of our new Web portal (as well as normal carryovers: accounting and bookkeeping fees and December office expenses).

On the other hand, we have assets such as prepaid expenses and deposits such as advances to conference organizers and deposits on catering and venues. For example, we had $20K out for NAACL 2010. Funds paid in 2009 for organizing 2010 events are also counted in this category (e.g., our office manager's advance work and site-visit travel).

In sum, our equity is $57K is less than last year. We are poorer, having spent or incurred liabilities adding up to more than we took in.

(2) Conference income: ACL relies on conference surpluses to cover its office expenses and to help fund some of its other programs. A deficit at a conference can be a serious problem for the organization, but in practice conference income and expenses are very hard to predict. We therefore try to budget for a surplus of about 10% (on the $250,000 to $350,000 cost of a conference) even in reasonable circumstances with conservative assumptions, in the hope that even in the worst case there will not be a deficit. However, our surpluses for 2009 conferences were very thin.

** EACL 2009 Athens essentially broke even: a surplus of about €3000 in Athens, which became a small loss when some additional costs were taken into account.

** NAACL 2009 Boulder had a surplus of about $9000.

** ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Singapore, a joint conference with the Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) had a surplus of about $18,000, of which half belongs to AFNLP.

Comments: Our conference margins were so close this year that we were at serious risk of loss at each of them -- despite initial budgets that seemed quite reasonable and attendance that met or exceeded projections. Factors include reduced levels of sponsorship (the budget projections are necessarily just informed guesses), the inevitable unexpected or escalated expenses, and adverse changes in currency exchange rates. Other risk factors in conference planning (none of which occurred in 2009, but it was touch-and-go for a while for the first two) include economic downturns, pandemics, volcanos, and terrorist attacks.

(3) 2010 so far: The recent decline of the euro has reduced the USD value of our Maltese assets. As long as we use them only for euro-expenses, this is somewhat theoretical. However, the decline of the euro and the pound also makes our 2010 conferences more expensive for many of our European members (the Uppsala conference registration fees are priced in USD).

2010Q3 Reports: Book Reviews for CL Journal

2010-06-04T21:19:05Z

GraemeHirst: My report

Book Reviews Report

Graeme Hirst, Book review editor

We continue to publish one or two reviews in each issue, a smaller number than in the past as fewer books overall are being published in computational linguistics nowadays.

However, a new series of CL books edited by Graeme Hirst is now in publication. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, reviews of these books will be coordinated by our squibs editor, Pierre Isabelle, with Graeme out of the loop.