I never have understood the reasoning of some people who seem to take the approach of "It's not much money, so you aren't entitled to question how it's used". If $58 per year is not enough to allow members to question how their money is spent, just how much is ? $158 per year ? $580 per year ? Can someone please tell me where the threshold is, that permits members to ask how the money is being used, without some others trying to dismiss them as cheapskates ?
Your AMA dues were raised $10 for the year 2003 and until they will be raised again.
I have questioned this one item several times on the forums and also from AMA. NO ONE will address the question other than JR who runs and sticks his nose into the HISTORICAL documents called auditor's report, which is, IMO, about as valuable as the last toilet flush. Makes for a temporary good feeling but the same old stuff will come back again.
Now look at an issue of "Model Aviation" for 2003 after about the Mar. issue. (Any issue prepared in 2003)
Look on page 6 in the fine print on the lower left first paragraph beginning with "Model Aviation..." At the end of that paragraph you are informed, "$18 of the dues are for the subscription." Now look at a 2002 issue of MA and you find that figure was $12.
Regardless of how Holland thumbs his PAID-HELP OUTSIDE-AUDITOR's reports, SIX, that is 6, dollars of your $10 dues increase (SIXTY PERCENT) was allocated to the magazine which is now more colorful, and more of a carnival so Mr. Hunt can present his ideas of how a magazine should be done, from his home rather than in the office.
Insurance is not AMA's problem. Insurance makes a good shield for all that is going on otherwise. Until I have an opportunity to find out -- other than being told by someone -- I will never be sitting on the perch squawking, "Slip and Slide, Slip and Slide." If I am not afforded that opportunity then so be it. If I am afforded that opportunity and I find myself wrong, then I will be the first to say so.