RCU Forums - View Single Post - AMA, finances, and "agility"
View Single Post
Old 03-01-2021, 12:34 PM
  #12  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jester_s1 View Post
I was a pastor until about 12 years ago and saw a similar thing in the local Baptist association. We got a new ED who was boorish and out of touch with the churches. He put together plans that just wouldn't fly, and frankly let it be known passively that, in general, he didn't think highly of the churches that supported him. His overall strategy was to try and get churches to pay for new church plants in the city that he expected would then pull members from those existing churches and have pastors that were loyal to him for helping them get started. Predictably, the association's budget dropped as one church after another chose to withdraw. We're talking going from about $1.5 million a year to under $800k. Yet they didn't cut a single staff member or reduce a single salary. There was a push to fire the ED which failed, then contributions dropped to under $400k. Personnel became by far the biggest budget item. So churches that had stayed started saying that the only reason the association exists is to fundraise to pay the salaries of its employees. They did do more than that, but not a whole lot due to lack of funds. Eventually, the ED resigned, and the association has continued to barely exist and keep paying its personnel. The have kept the few churches who still contribute by touting their personnel as the service that they provide.
The AMA will probably follow a similar path. Programs will go away first, then services like the magazine, then maybe the flying site, and full-time personnel last. The branding will change as the AMA presents its paid staff as the benefit to membership. "We're working to preserve the hobby" will be the tagline with news items about government advocacy and organizing multi-club events and efforts.
A good explanation of how one person can bring down an organization. At AMA it's Pres. Rich Hanson, architect of AMA policy since 2008.
Hanson very early on decided drones were the future of AMA and he was behind the forced membership scheme, AMA's 2 most costly blunders.

The forced membership scheme didn't come into being until 2013, a year after 336 was passed. AMA wrote the CBO language in 336 assuming
a natural monopoly, not appreciating that drones don't need flying fields. Hence, the push for the law to require membership for RC. I never understood
how anyone could think forcing people to join AMA was a good idea, but some AMA diehards were actually on board with it.