Originally Posted by
astrohog
He has a track record of not responding to the tough questions. I'm wondering if the AMA AVP's are the flying monkeys of the AMA. They hold the power to vote, yet claim they are not allowed to speak to the membership?
I find it really weird that elected representatives of a member-focused non-profit are not allowed to speak openly to the membership they supposedly represent????
Astro
I think you're right. BC says "ask your VP." So Mark Radcliff is my VP, and I ask him the questions and he doesn't answer them either. So when you look at history of not answering hard questions, combined with all the EC votes that are rarely close, what you see are indeed flying monkeys. They rubber stamp whatever the Hanson/Budreau cabal want to do. More recently, I questioned Budreau as to some financial stuff, and he did the smoke screen hand wave after my first follow up.
I encourage everyone to not put a lot of faith in the Brady-Ware reports. They're making sure the "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed and not a lot more. These reports make use of various accounting "methods" (legal ones) to make the organization look stronger financially than it may actually be. The IRS990s are as close to truth data as you can get. When you see a "revenue" number in the 990, it represents actual dollars coming in the door.