Hossfly

The AMA Charter Club exists mainly because of the AMA LIABILITY Insurance Program. The Clubs require it AMA membership to join a club to fly. Thus the club members join AMA thus AMA has the dues to operate on. AMA Chartered Clubs are the AMA Sales Force.
That do be a standing fact, Jack.

Previously, this standing fact gave AMA substantial growth mainly because the LIABILITY Insurance provided Chartered Clubs with an excellent bargaining power relative to obtaining flying sites both from private and public land-owners. In addition AMA had an excuse for demanding more from the clubs via Safety Code regulations because of the steadily increasing LIABILITY Insurance costs.

However in the past several years AMA's high deductibility for the Liability Insurance, low insurance company payouts, along with the lucrative premiums have provided an interest from more insurance companies creating competition and a significantly reduced premium. More companies are interested in the policy, especially when certain agents can see a nice fat easy commission check floating in their mind.

While I can see AMA's point of view with their payouts in the deductible range, I don't agree with those that are wanting more power over the membership with such a position of threat. Let's look at this discussion:

First: The Insurance Committee:
Insurance Committee: Mission Statement: To ensure that the Academy's insurance program meets the needs of its members and the organization. To meet with AMA's insurance broker, the claims adjustment agency, and AMA staff on a regular basis to oversee the Academy's insurance operation and recommend changes as required.
Members: Dave Mathewson, Chairperson; Doug Holland; Keith Sievers; Mark Smith; Insurance Representative.


AMA Executive Council Meeting 01/15/07 AMA Web site public information. Emphasis, bold and/or underline may be added.
>>>>>>>>>>>
COMMITTEE REPORTS

Insurance (Appendix II)
Renewal process for 2007 General Liability Policy—the current policy is up for renewal on March 31, 2007. The five brokers currently involved are CCR Insurance, Harry A. Koch, International Special Events and Recreation Association, Marsh USA, and United Insurance; each was provide a Broker of Record letter. An extensive RFQ was developed; they were asked what their interest would be if the safety code was added back into the policy; also, how they felt about going to a manuscript policy. Deadline for proposals from the brokers is February 6, 2007. A selection is hoped to be made by March 1 or earlier. Maroney indicated that it is a soft market right now and they do expect favorable premiums. This is an extensive process and does not happen every year. (Last time was two years ago.) A recommendation will be made to J. Cherry who will evaluate it and decide who needs to be involved in the final decision. The Insurance Committee would like to be kept informed in the process.

Year end report—premium on liability for 2006 was 891k; this premium was down 1% over previous year. Affect of this overall is that it affects our rate on cost-per-member. Expenses, legal and paid claims, were 458k, down roughly .03% from last year. Membership rate balanced out at about 46 cents less than the year before for cost of insurance per member. The annual report will be published in the magazine

( Ed. add. That's down from 1.2 mil. some 3 yeas ago. mbership rate .46 comparison not realistic because of less members.)

Minutes from conference call—the purpose of the call was to discuss the possibility of returning the Safety Code language back into the insurance policy for the 2007 renewal period; they could not come to a strong consensus on a recommendation to bring to Council. The committee recommends that nothing be done pursuant to this issue for the 2007 renewal period; the committee will investigate the issue in greater detail over the next year and present a firm recommendation for the next renewal. If the Safety Code language is put back in the policy, a code violation would be cause for denial of a claim. Comments included: until the Safety Code is revamped and Council/Headquarters find a better way to establish guidelines, the code as it is, is too convoluted and should not be part of the insurance policy.

(Ed. add: SAY WHAT???)

The chairman has had discussions with the President and is looking at restructuring the committee, possibly adding a member(s) with insurance expertise.

(Ed. add. now there's an idea. Doug Holland is always saying his replacement MUST be an accountant. Why has he not convinced the comm. chairman that he must have an insurance person on this committee? Heck, the guy that installed and maintains my driveway gate system has a doctorate in chemistry and 2 other bachelor degrees. He does gates. OTOH, Why is Mathewson wanting to change a committee that can't come up with a decision? WHO is holding up the decision? )

There was a brief discussion on Director and Officer Insurance for club officers; it was pointed out that the AMA Bylaws (Article III, Section II A) refer to this coverage. At this time it is unclear that AMA offers any additional insurance to club officers other than the regular insurance provided to all AMA members. The Insurance Committee should investigate this issue.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Someone, Somewhere wants the AMA Safety Code back into the Insurance Policy. Then when the EC wants to make your insurance even more difficult, a conference call, and WHAMMO, a Safety Code change and you, the AMA member, have been HAD!

BTW the AMA Director of Special Services, Insurance, et. al. is now Joyce Hager. [email protected]
Do you know your DVP? Get friendly.

Don't you want to use your opportunity, this election year, to make some real changes in your national organization?

Check with your club members. Discuss what's going on. Take an interest. MAKE a DIFFERENCE.

abel_pranger

Hoss-

Thanks for posting that, and I am pretty much in agreement with your commentary (imagine that!).

For years the insurance coverage has been vaguely tied to the SC by the (idle?) threat that violation of the SC may void your insurance. IMHO, that was already too much. I see 'safety' as being somewhat related, yet still distinct from 'liability avoidance' but some forces within AMA mulishly insist on equating these terms.
Exclusions from insurance coverage belong in the list of same in the insurance contract, not in the SC. Some SC no-noes are already contained in the list of exclusions in the contract; the number of exclusions pretty well uses up the alphabet. Some are stated quite differently, though - and this could cause somebody to fall into the pit of an uncovered liability situation. Compare for example what the SC says re use of authorized frequencies to the wording in the insurance contract that excludes you from coverage if you are using equipment on the FCC's list of obsolete radio gear. Have you ever seen such a list? I have not. This is where a clean-up of SC and/or insurance contract exclusions is needed - not adding to the insurance contract items in the SC that have nothing to do with either liability avoidance or safety. You as I have certainly been around long enough to have witnessed the EC screwing around with the SC and then backing out when their ill-considered changes hit the street and the member feedback began. Making the insurance coverage voidable because a SC rule had been violated would only serve to render the AMA insurance completely useless.

Abel

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

WOW!
I second that one...how'd that happen?



Why we… err…they/anyone would desire to install verbiage that could only be construed against us is beyond comprehension…For whatever reason, all too common in every circle…It seems a very hard lesson to teach…

JUGFLIER

And these people are dumb enough to think all this will equate to new members. As a person who has had experience thru the law, i can tell you the right does not always win. These things come down to exact wording and interpretation. Since AMA makes the rules, it also interprets them. A dangerous combination that WILL DEFINATELY lead to corruption.

abel_pranger

[quote]ORIGINAL: JUGFLIER


Jugflier-

That's a little more harsh and a bit misdirected from what I intended to say. The Insurance Committee did reach a consensus that tying the insurance coverage to the SC isn't a good idea, at least at this time. That's good, and the chair of the insurance committee has my respect, moreso than anyone else in a position to influence the future of AMA. I didn't intend knock their action; I took it more as an encouraging sign that there are some in the leadership of our organization that are level-headed and on the right track.

Abel

JUGFLIER

I stand corrected, Abel, i completely mis-understood.

abel_pranger

[quote]ORIGINAL: JUGFLIER

I stand corrected, Abel, i completely mis-understood.
[/quote

Then I failed to articulate my thoughts properly. Sorry 'bout that, I'm continuing to work on it.

Abel

ptulmer

My Feedback: (5)

Hmmm, would the savings be passed on or is this a way to increase available funds by decreasing services?

JUGFLIER

Good question.

Hossfly

While it goes against my grain to withold evidence and names, I will in this case.

Suffice it to say that I have recently received an email from a current AMA District Vice President chastising me for making this post.

(1) He says (paraphrase) that the Charter Clubs are no big thing in recruiting new AMA members. Most new members are recruiited othewise.
(2)He proved his point stating: >>>"Many AMA members are not even club members, in fact the numbers that have been quoted to me are in the neighborhood of 45-50%." <<<<

I suppose those figures are official AMA???

(3)He says (paraphrase) since the AMA provides the AMA clubs and members with the insurance program, the AMA has every right to demand the clubs and members perform to AMA's prescribed rules, i.e. Safety Code injected into the insurance policy.

(4)He said (paraphrase) the Insurance Committee already has lots of Insurance Expertise.

(What the _ell? So it does. I SIMPLY QUOTED THE MINUTES AS RECORDED ON THE AMA WEB SITE. YUP! Shoot the messenger! Works every time!)

(5)He commented on several of the other topics but was so far out of the actual context of the discussion, no additional tangents need be sent out from here.

Anyway that is how one DVP thinks.

abel_pranger

Interesting. Then, so is the way Pavlov's dogs think.

Abel

Kanain

My Feedback: (1)

I almost stayed out of this because;

1. I too am in agreement of the base assesment.

2. The original post as well as the initial replies did not seem to require anything else to be said.

THEN - Horrace pulls me in again !! "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in".

My question/comment relates to the 'unmentioned' DVP who states that Charter Clubs have no big impact on AMA membership. What exactly does that mean? Who is the face to the public, AMA? Is that because once "they" have an AMA member they think that person is locked in for life or is it because the have done such a WONDERFUL job at new membership growth that new membership doesn't really count. Just about EVERY potential new club member I interact with needs to be POINTED to the AMA to become a member. They know about R/C because they see our planes in the air or come to our community events and want to know more. The wouldn't know modelaircraft.org or even what AMA stands for until we (THE CLUBS) tell them.

I have pretty much always been a supporter of the organization and believe it should GET BACK to its original mandate, but every time I turn around lately, someone in an officer position goes to far.

dbl8ts

Excuse me folks, but I was always under the impression that we, the AMA members collectively, are the AMA. When did it become its own entity to dictate (make demands on) to the membership against the best interests of or mandates of the membership? What organization did this VP come from and where has he read that the AMA is not responsible to its members who, once again, collectively are the AMA.