Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I hope you don't mind if I speak to your concerns one issue at a time. I also view the dues increase in an ill light and have some of the same concerns you do. However, I am not sure exactly who you speak of as "AMA management" since I know the EC cut their own budget this year.

I cannot begin to tell you or your club what you SHOULD do, but I can tell you the risks you run if the decision is made to be outside the 'umbrella' provided by membership and charter. I might suggest that you review them with your club before any final decision is made.

If you are not an AMA member and an incident occurs involving a visitor, who is going to pay the medical bills? Worse yet, are you willing to give up your home because little Sammy tripped over your tent tie down and broke his arm? Each and every member of the club can and probably will be held liable for any injuries that occur at the field, even if they are NOT flying related.

The liability is not limited to club assets because as you know the land is of low value. That means your possessions are at risk unless you have inadequate insurance coverage. Actually if any member of your club does not have current coverage and is involved in something expensive, you and your possessions are at risk again unless someone (he or you) is a member of the AMA.

The AMA card just proves Frank Flightpack has specified insurance coverage in effect for a specific time. That can be accomplished through other means if your club has people with nothing else to do but validate the strengths of insurance coverage and the officers don't mind keeping track of who is current in their insurance premiums and who is not. The risk you take is much worse when you evaluate the cost of protection - AMA membership.

To date the largest settlements AMA did not even involve aircraft but 'trip and fall' injuries at some AMA Chartered Club field. I suppose you could not charter the club, but that would lower the insurance coverage available to you and I don't see that as a reasonable approach, but you and your club may see it differently.

J_R

Have you ever sanctioned an event and turned in the paperwork? That is required to have received an earned membership. A CD that does not sanction an event each year was never entitled to an earned membership. He does, however, maintain his status as a CD if he pays his dues.

I am somewhat surprised that you didn't know that. It was required reading to become a CD in the first place. You can find the information in the Membership manual that AMA sent every year until this year. It is available on the AMA web site if you want to peruse it. The EC perceives the CD program as a whole, to have flaws in it. Your not knowing what the program is makes their point. Why did you become a CD in the first place? Apparently, it was not to sanction events.

The reason you got the e-mail was to solicit your opinion about the move by the EC to reduced the earned membership to half credit on your dues, taken last year. Personally, I support it. If I were to have a say, I would eliminate earned memberships for CD's and, instead give them to club presidents.

It seems everyone has something of a different view of what the AMA should be. You want contests, others do not. Some want a national flying site, others do not. The AMA is, and will be, what is stated in the bylaws. That makes some happy and some unhappy. That's usually the sign that something is being done right.

JR
AMA 732
CD/LM

Borzak

My Feedback: (2)

The AMA is the "crutch" for insurance now tho. When I first visited the local chartered AMA club the only thing I heard about the AMA was "insurance".

Now if the people on the ground are telling you as a beginer it's just for insurance - what does that say?

If you ask the old timers out there (we don't do any "sacntioned" events - it's just a fun fly field) you get insurance and insurance IS the reason to join the AMA. If my club/field could get insurance outside the AMA that is competitive I think they would jump on it.

Recently on the OLN channel they had a tour of the National flying field/musuem of the AMA. It looked really nice but I'll never go there - what amazed me was that it was 1,000 acres. Of course they had a lot of nice stuff inside and outside and it was open the day the camera was there but there were like 2 people there.

Unless there are going to be national type events like ToC/Top Gun there what's the point? So the people located nearby get the benefits of a world class flying field financed by everyone else outside the area?

J_R

Borzak

For a little different perspective, take a look at what Dave Brown has to say about Muncie:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...066#post609938

JRR

bobfox

My Feedback: (1)

JR

I read DB's notes. Both you and he missed the whole point of the original post.

AMA is not and has never been in defecit financing, at least not for any period of time. If AMA really was in defecit financing, the cash (And assets equivalent to cash) would go down. (That means lower, less posiitive). Instead they went up. (Higher, more positive) by $400K. Proof. Look at the AUDITED statements, cash flow. The balance went up about $400K, Dec 2001 to Dec 2002. Oh, it also happened in 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 more or less. That's where the $10M we spent on Muncie came from. It sure didn't come from running a defecit of $400K annually!!!! (Sure, I'll take my credit card bill to Wal-Mart and get some merchandise for it- try that sometime if you really think we got $10M for Muncie by running a defecit!)

The "defecit" is an accounting not a cash defecit. The insurance cost increase doesn't even come close to justifying the amount of dues increase.

There is a real and positive benefit of us socking away $400K a year toward future issues and there are some disadvantages. We currently have about $8M in cash or near-cash and $3M in debt, for net cash of $5M. Members need to understand the financials and understand them accurately, then decide for ourselves whether we need to continue to save $400-500K cash annually. Currently, my opinion is that this critical decision is being made by a few leaders at AMA and most members don't know (and perhaps don't care) or simply take the words of people like DB at face value. No, he's not lying- he's just being deliberately imprecise.

Bob

J_R

bobfox

I pointed Borzak to the post not to reference the financing. That was a different issue. At the time it was taken from statements in the EC Minutes. If you wish, look back and see the statements that were made in those minutes. Ultimately, the EVP said that he had used the term in an improper manner to make a point to the EC and that the person taking the minutes used them as well. Very much the position that you take. There were several items unrelated to this current discussion addressed in my e-mail exchange with Dave Brown. It was an election based discussion and off topic for this discussion.

The AMA does have a budget. The budget has been altered during the year, in most of the years that you reference, basically, in order to make sure there has not been deficit financing.

The reason that I did point Borzak there, was DB's statement about the reason the money was put into Muncie to begin with. The last line of Borzak's post was a lament about Muncie.

Recently, I asked an EC member "Tell me, why does the AMA need so much money?" His statement was that there is approximately 3/4 of a million outstanding on negotiated settlements and another potential 3/4 of a million on claims that have not yet been negotiated/settled. That leaves a surplus of 3.5 million to reassure the insurance company and banks that the AMA will remain solvent. Those numbers do not show in the financial statement from 2002, they are more current.

Unfortunately, what the membership does or does not understand has little value. The only input that the membership has is to vote. I do agree with you that the information should be available to the membership, and it is.

I have never seen or heard anyone at the EC or HQ level claim that the entire dues increase was due to, or for, increased insurance. Many members assumed that it was. To some extent, the EC hoped to be able to restore some of the spending cuts they made to keep the budget balanced. They have also said that it was raised more than necessary so that anticipated future insurance increases could be funded without having to raise dues again soon. That now appears to have been a fairly accurate projection, as higher insurance costs eat at the marginal difference each year.

The current EVP begs off e-mail and the net as not being a typist. If you have questions, he does pick up the phone if you call him. I have found most of the leadership quite accessible.

JR

Hossfly

>>>>>>>
I have never seen or heard anyone at the EC or HQ level claim that the entire dues increase was due to, or for, increased insurance.

J_R

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hossfly
[B]>>>>>>>
I have never seen or heard anyone at the EC or HQ level claim that the entire dues increase was due to, or for, increased insurance.