Interesting data on 2014 AMA Financial/tax statement
08-15-2016, 10:02 AM
#151
But whether or not DAV or WWP accept a donation isn't a measure of how well the event was conceived, organized, structured, promoted, or executed.
08-15-2016, 10:05 AM
#152
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I don't know why someone would take issue with comparing public statements with formal filed documents, but apparently some do. Should we not question when we're told X dollars of our money was spent on something, then we find IRS documents that show only 1/4 of that was spend as they said? Should we not expect them to represent accurate numbers to the members? Apparently not.
08-15-2016, 10:09 AM
#154
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, allowing people to opt out of the magazine with an appropriate cost savings would be a good way to measure the perceived value to members. A great way actually.
As for being a CD, LM, etc. Tough to do that when I'm not member of a club, nor do I expect to me.
PP? Maybe an option after December, as I now know CBO membership isn't a requirement. Since I really don't value the insurance coverage anyway (mostly because it'll come after all my own), whether or not I'm covered for things over the PP limit is really immaterial.
As for being a CD, LM, etc. Tough to do that when I'm not member of a club, nor do I expect to me.
PP? Maybe an option after December, as I now know CBO membership isn't a requirement. Since I really don't value the insurance coverage anyway (mostly because it'll come after all my own), whether or not I'm covered for things over the PP limit is really immaterial.
As for the opt out/ cost savings...perhaps one of the candidates can run with that as a platform agenda item .
08-15-2016, 10:11 AM
#155
I said: "The magazine is of little use of a communication tool except for those items where timeliness is not an issue."
You said: "That is a complete bull**** statement. I shouldn't have to explain why and I won't."
Please explain what I said that was inaccurate?
You said: "That is a complete bull**** statement. I shouldn't have to explain why and I won't."
Please explain what I said that was inaccurate?
08-15-2016, 10:12 AM
#156
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
It's actually about 8 weeks old. That information has to be submitted to the publisher about 2 months before printing so what. Are you saying that this information is not relevant or timely just because it's older? Are the stories and articles not relevant? Are the calendar items in the back of the magazine talking about events in the coming months not relevant?
08-15-2016, 10:12 AM
#157
Nope. Dropped the $100 a year some time ago.
As for the platform idea, perhaps it's time to consider such an approach. Give people a chance to weigh in with their dollars and get a direct measure of the value as perceived by members.
08-15-2016, 10:20 AM
#159
DAV helps provides assistance to any disabled vet - and doesn't require membership. So how much goes toward non-required E5 and below memberships is irrelevant.
08-15-2016, 10:22 AM
#160
It's actually about 8 weeks old. That information has to be submitted to the publisher about 2 months before printing so what. Are you saying that this information is not relevant or timely just because it's older? Are the stories and articles not relevant? Are the calendar items in the back of the magazine talking about events in the coming months not relevant?
So yes, I maintain that it's of value in communicating things only if timeliness is not a factor.
08-15-2016, 10:46 AM
#162
For content that isn't time sensitive, it's a great medium. For everything else though, I'd argue online is better.
In thinking about this, you know what I read every day? My email. That is if they're ones with much more content than ads. Load it up with ads or a bunch of eye candy (photos, logos, banners, etc.), and it goes straight to the trash.
08-15-2016, 05:21 PM
#164
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
For content that isn't time sensitive, it's a great medium. For everything else though, I'd argue online is better.
In thinking about this, you know what I read every day? My email. That is if they're ones with much more content than ads. Load it up with ads or a bunch of eye candy (photos, logos, banners, etc.), and it goes straight to the trash.
In thinking about this, you know what I read every day? My email. That is if they're ones with much more content than ads. Load it up with ads or a bunch of eye candy (photos, logos, banners, etc.), and it goes straight to the trash.
08-15-2016, 07:07 PM
#165
I think this is one of the things that the "anti-AMA" (YOUR label) crowd is unhappy about. It's pretty common knowledge that print readership is on a rapid decline, (http://fortune.com/2015/06/01/print-...ship-paywalls/) yet the AMA continues to publish a print magazine at a great financial loss to its members. Now, you can spin and argue the point all you want, but that is BLACK AND WHITE! I would hope and expect that the elected leaders of the AMA would already be taking measures to stop the bleeding where a large portion of their members $$ are concerned!
I really don't see how that can be defended? Just good business.
Regards,
Astro
08-15-2016, 07:55 PM
#166
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I'm sure glad you said that with all of the talk about "embracing change and technology"
I think this is one of the things that the "anti-AMA" (YOUR label) crowd is unhappy about. It's pretty common knowledge that print readership is on a rapid decline, (http://fortune.com/2015/06/01/print-...ship-paywalls/) yet the AMA continues to publish a print magazine at a great financial loss to its members. Now, you can spin and argue the point all you want, but that is BLACK AND WHITE! I would hope and expect that the elected leaders of the AMA would already be taking measures to stop the bleeding where a large portion of their members $$ are concerned!
I really don't see how that can be defended? Just good business.
Regards,
Astro
I think this is one of the things that the "anti-AMA" (YOUR label) crowd is unhappy about. It's pretty common knowledge that print readership is on a rapid decline, (http://fortune.com/2015/06/01/print-...ship-paywalls/) yet the AMA continues to publish a print magazine at a great financial loss to its members. Now, you can spin and argue the point all you want, but that is BLACK AND WHITE! I would hope and expect that the elected leaders of the AMA would already be taking measures to stop the bleeding where a large portion of their members $$ are concerned!
I really don't see how that can be defended? Just good business.
Regards,
Astro
It's BLACK AND WHITE and can't be defended, but you want me to spin and argue the point? You're trying to hard to fill some shoes here, just stop, lol. I like the paper edition, some like the digital one. I'd hold off on our resident accountant's personal interpretation of one or two sets of figures. I know it's the latest talking point, but I see it as yet another empty tempest in a teapot. The mags doing fine, but I suspect you'll feel otherwise, that's cool too.
Say, any reason why this magazine that has allegedly been bleeding all this money for so long has never been a point of discussion among any of the EC at any of EC meetings over the past say, 4 years? Given that it represents 26% of our dues, how is it that this has never come up before? Even from Tougas or Tiano? Why aren't they talking about this, or any of the other candidates noting that as an issue either? Don't they read Fortune, don't they know this is black and white?
Wait..if Tougas was on the EC all this time when the mag was losing money, and didn't do anything about it...would that not be an issue for him to address in his run as president? I don't know how that could be defended.
08-15-2016, 08:52 PM
#167
Really? can you qualify that statement? Expound a bit? It's doing fine by what standards? Are you saying that the figures provided by the AMA and the IRS and posted here are not factual? Can you back that up?
It really does not matter how you or I FEEL, the magazine is either sinking or it's not. It's a matter of fact, not feelings.
Any answer I would have would be a WAG. It is my opinion that if the numbers presented are accurate, that the EC have been absolutely remiss if they haven't at least discussed it. You say, "has never been a point of discussion among any of the EC at any of the EC meetings". How can you make that statement? Do you KNOW it has not been discussed, or are you just saying that it has not been discussed (even though you do not know for sure) to seemingly diminish its validity as an issue?
I don't have a definitive answer, but my WAG would be that nobody had looked into it before now. Does it somehow diminish the importance of this (assumed until proven otherwise) issue because it (presumably) has not been brought up until now?
Why not include the other two candidates in that statement? have THEY brought it up?
I don't have an answer for that, but you have an opportunity to ask them now that Ken has set up a campaign forum, UNLESS you are just trolling.....
Again, if you are interested what magazines they do read, if that helps you decide on what candidate you want to vote for, there is a forum set up to ask them yourself, why ask me? UNLESS you are just trolling.....
Is this a REAL question, or a troll, meant to elicit an emotional response?
Astro
but I suspect you'll feel otherwise, that's cool too.
Say, any reason why this magazine that has allegedly been bleeding all this money for so long has never been a point of discussion among any of the EC at any of EC meetings over the past say, 4 years?
Given that it represents 26% of our dues, how is it that this has never come up before?
Even from Tougas or Tiano?
Why aren't they talking about this, or any of the other candidates noting that as an issue either?
Don't they read Fortune, don't they know this is black and white?
Wait..if Tougas was on the EC all this time when the mag was losing money, and didn't do anything about it...would that not be an issue for him to address in his run as president? I don't know how that could be defended.
Astro
08-16-2016, 04:36 AM
#168
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Really? can you qualify that statement? Expound a bit? It's doing fine by what standards? Are you saying that the figures provided by the AMA and the IRS and posted here are not factual? Can you back that up?
It really does not matter how you or I FEEL, the magazine is either sinking or it's not. It's a matter of fact, not feelings.
It's making money, and those figures have been presented previously in other threads. Incidentally nobody had issues with those figures at the time they were presented, but hey, folks are free to say the mag is bleeding, sinking, failing, etc etc.
Any answer I would have would be a WAG. It is my opinion that if the numbers presented are accurate, that the EC have been absolutely remiss if they haven't at least discussed it. You say, "has never been a point of discussion among any of the EC at any of the EC meetings". How can you make that statement? Do you KNOW it has not been discussed, or are you just saying that it has not been discussed (even though you do not know for sure) to seemingly diminish its validity as an issue?
There are these things called EC meeting notes, you might want to familiarize yourself with them. Not revolutionary or novel in any way. Knowledge is power.
I don't have a definitive answer, but my WAG would be that nobody had looked into it before now. Does it somehow diminish the importance of this (assumed until proven otherwise) issue because it (presumably) has not been brought up until now?
See above, it will help you from making WAG's.
Why not include the other two candidates in that statement? have THEY brought it up?
I did, in your zeal to defend your candidate you missed it. Go back and read it again.
I don't have an answer for that, but you have an opportunity to ask them now that Ken has set up a campaign forum, UNLESS you are just trolling.....
#yawn. Try harder. But hey, it's a great idea, I wonder who suggested that to Ken?
Again, if you are interested what magazines they do read, if that helps you decide on what candidate you want to vote for, there is a forum set up to ask them yourself, why ask me? UNLESS you are just trolling.....
Yawn again. You're working the troll angle way to hard. It hasn't worked out to well for others, why keep it going?
Is this a REAL question, or a troll, meant to elicit an emotional response?
zzzzzzzzz
Astro
It really does not matter how you or I FEEL, the magazine is either sinking or it's not. It's a matter of fact, not feelings.
It's making money, and those figures have been presented previously in other threads. Incidentally nobody had issues with those figures at the time they were presented, but hey, folks are free to say the mag is bleeding, sinking, failing, etc etc.
Any answer I would have would be a WAG. It is my opinion that if the numbers presented are accurate, that the EC have been absolutely remiss if they haven't at least discussed it. You say, "has never been a point of discussion among any of the EC at any of the EC meetings". How can you make that statement? Do you KNOW it has not been discussed, or are you just saying that it has not been discussed (even though you do not know for sure) to seemingly diminish its validity as an issue?
There are these things called EC meeting notes, you might want to familiarize yourself with them. Not revolutionary or novel in any way. Knowledge is power.
I don't have a definitive answer, but my WAG would be that nobody had looked into it before now. Does it somehow diminish the importance of this (assumed until proven otherwise) issue because it (presumably) has not been brought up until now?
See above, it will help you from making WAG's.
Why not include the other two candidates in that statement? have THEY brought it up?
I did, in your zeal to defend your candidate you missed it. Go back and read it again.
I don't have an answer for that, but you have an opportunity to ask them now that Ken has set up a campaign forum, UNLESS you are just trolling.....
#yawn. Try harder. But hey, it's a great idea, I wonder who suggested that to Ken?
Again, if you are interested what magazines they do read, if that helps you decide on what candidate you want to vote for, there is a forum set up to ask them yourself, why ask me? UNLESS you are just trolling.....
Yawn again. You're working the troll angle way to hard. It hasn't worked out to well for others, why keep it going?
Is this a REAL question, or a troll, meant to elicit an emotional response?
zzzzzzzzz
Astro
08-16-2016, 05:22 AM
#169
Originally Posted by porcia83
There are these things called EC meeting notes, you might want to familiarize yourself with them. Not revolutionary or novel in any way. Knowledge is power.
It's making money, and those figures have been presented previously in other threads.
See above, it will help you from making WAG's.
I like how you dismiss and deflect the trolling comments with #yawn and zzzzz.....right out of the playbook of someone else we know!
Astro
08-16-2016, 06:00 AM
#170
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Me too! No better way to put an end to all the wild speculation and unanswered questions, than be able to ask and receive right from the comfort of RCU.
Right? I was hopeful that the suggestion would get the response it did. But ya, since it didn't look like Tiano was taking any questions and didn't have a website set up, and the only real way to communicate with him was on a FB page that appeared to be for friends only, it seemed difficult to get any lines of communication going. So I think it would be good for him and the other candidates to get their message out here too. I'm preparing my questions for him today.
It's pretty difficult to read between your lines sometimes. I will assume that this has not been discussed by the EC because you stated so and then brought up the meeting minutes, which I also assume you've read in their entirety. It would be more efficient to qualify your statements up front instead of beating around the bush.
Don't spend time trying to read between the lines, I pretty much lay it right out there. The meeting notes are always available and I absolutely read them, as should anyone who wants to have the best idea of what's going on. It's about transparency, and yet another way that the AMA communicates with it's members. It of course shouldn't stop anyone from communicating with their regional reps as well if they want more information, or have questions.
Are you saying the numbers that were presented in this thread are incorrect? If so, would you kindly point us to the other figures that you are talking about? again, it would be helpful to keeping this thread factual and on track.
I'm saying what I said, and I'm not inclined to go dig back through month's of posts when you can do the same. Take the comments at face value, or no value at all, it is what it is. I can tell you the numbers weren't disputed then by the main number cruncher, that has to say something right?
Actually, I could read every last EC meeting note and it would not answer the question of WHY the EC had not discussed this!
But you appear to have not read any. Go do so, then many of your questions might be answered. At a minimum you'll have a better understanding of how the AMA is run, and how all involved parties operate. I would suggest everyone who wants to be more involved do so. It doesn't answer all of the questions, but gives more insight. That the suddenly pressing issue of the magazine solvency has never been brought up in the past is an indicator, at least to me.
Astro
Right? I was hopeful that the suggestion would get the response it did. But ya, since it didn't look like Tiano was taking any questions and didn't have a website set up, and the only real way to communicate with him was on a FB page that appeared to be for friends only, it seemed difficult to get any lines of communication going. So I think it would be good for him and the other candidates to get their message out here too. I'm preparing my questions for him today.
It's pretty difficult to read between your lines sometimes. I will assume that this has not been discussed by the EC because you stated so and then brought up the meeting minutes, which I also assume you've read in their entirety. It would be more efficient to qualify your statements up front instead of beating around the bush.
Don't spend time trying to read between the lines, I pretty much lay it right out there. The meeting notes are always available and I absolutely read them, as should anyone who wants to have the best idea of what's going on. It's about transparency, and yet another way that the AMA communicates with it's members. It of course shouldn't stop anyone from communicating with their regional reps as well if they want more information, or have questions.
Are you saying the numbers that were presented in this thread are incorrect? If so, would you kindly point us to the other figures that you are talking about? again, it would be helpful to keeping this thread factual and on track.
I'm saying what I said, and I'm not inclined to go dig back through month's of posts when you can do the same. Take the comments at face value, or no value at all, it is what it is. I can tell you the numbers weren't disputed then by the main number cruncher, that has to say something right?
Actually, I could read every last EC meeting note and it would not answer the question of WHY the EC had not discussed this!
But you appear to have not read any. Go do so, then many of your questions might be answered. At a minimum you'll have a better understanding of how the AMA is run, and how all involved parties operate. I would suggest everyone who wants to be more involved do so. It doesn't answer all of the questions, but gives more insight. That the suddenly pressing issue of the magazine solvency has never been brought up in the past is an indicator, at least to me.
Astro
08-16-2016, 07:22 AM
#171
Isn't that a non-profit venture and to break even you only need to allocate more money devoted to the magazine. So better to be in the hole than to show a profit.
08-16-2016, 07:54 AM
#172
"I'd hold off on our resident accountant's personal interpretation of one or two sets of figures."
"I'm saying what I said, and I'm not inclined to go dig back through month's of posts when you can do the same. Take the comments at face value, or no value at all, it is what it is. I can tell you the numbers weren't disputed then by the main number cruncher, that has to say something right?"
"I'm saying what I said, and I'm not inclined to go dig back through month's of posts when you can do the same. Take the comments at face value, or no value at all, it is what it is. I can tell you the numbers weren't disputed then by the main number cruncher, that has to say something right?"
Why is it that when confronted with IRS filings you turn to disparaging comments like "....resident accountant?"
Why is it that you're unwilling to post the source documents to support your comment that "...It's making money?"
And just because we didn't challenge the numbers when AMA first published them doesn't mean they're any more valid now. There's no statute of limitations on the reporting to members.
Whether you like it or not, the AMA's IRS filings are a matter of record. They've given the IRS one set of numbers, and they've given the AMA members another. Same for the lobbying effort. They've told the IRS one thing, and told members something else.
You may not find this troubling, but those who do find it troubling shouldn't be mocked with terms like "...resident accountant" for asking legitimate questions.
08-16-2016, 09:50 AM
#175
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Why is it that when confronted with IRS filings you turn to disparaging comments like "....resident accountant?"
Why is it that you're unwilling to post the source documents to support your comment that "...It's making money?"
And just because we didn't challenge the numbers when AMA first published them doesn't mean they're any more valid now. There's no statute of limitations on the reporting to members.
Whether you like it or not, the AMA's IRS filings are a matter of record. They've given the IRS one set of numbers, and they've given the AMA members another. Same for the lobbying effort. They've told the IRS one thing, and told members something else.
You may not find this troubling, but those who do find it troubling shouldn't be mocked with terms like "...resident accountant" for asking legitimate questions.
Why is it that you're unwilling to post the source documents to support your comment that "...It's making money?"
And just because we didn't challenge the numbers when AMA first published them doesn't mean they're any more valid now. There's no statute of limitations on the reporting to members.
Whether you like it or not, the AMA's IRS filings are a matter of record. They've given the IRS one set of numbers, and they've given the AMA members another. Same for the lobbying effort. They've told the IRS one thing, and told members something else.
You may not find this troubling, but those who do find it troubling shouldn't be mocked with terms like "...resident accountant" for asking legitimate questions.
As for the mag stats, they are out there somewhere. They too were taken from financial reports and were discussed here (in the AMA threads). I'll seek apologies for not going back to find a single data point so as to re-argue the issue. I know it's out there, where is the question. Someone can look it up I'm sure, or just completely discount it. As for what I find troubling, it's not troubling to see folks asking questions or looking for more information. Recently this is the narrative you are shifting too, as if that's ever been something I've said. It's not, but that's a tactic that seems to be employed now. It's often done by the conspiracy minded bloggers/Youtubers and even presidential candidates when they want to distract.
No, what's troubling is a decades plus long diatribe, and the chronic manufacturing of one alleged or purported AMA issue over the next via a scattershot approach. Eventually something will stick right? That whole smoke/fire thing? Management irregularities, bylaw irregularities, grant awarding irregularities, IRS reporting irregularities, etc etc ad nauseam, all without any objective findings. And so as not to offend you, this isn't directly at you, it's a general comment that is derived from reading these AMA forums going back 10 plus years. It's all there in black and white.
As I've noted, I haven't seen any concern raised in any of the EC meetings over the past 4 years, and I trust that if there were these huge issues, someone would have brought it up, say perhaps someone who was on the EC who wanted to run for the presidency. Or perhaps someone who just wanted it on the record that they were concerned. But not one mention of it, ever. Like I said, I'll take their word (or lack thereof) and those of experts in the field rather than a comment or two from threads. ymmv, that's cool too.
