A lot of the information is straight out of the EC minutes posted on the AMA website. Some is from questions that were raised in my mind from those minutes. Questions that were answered from time to time as the opportunity to ask them of the AMA leaders arose.

Keep in mind a couple of things. The AMA is a non-profit corporation. Although it can keep some of the excess income, it must have some pre-planned use for it. There is a fine line between not losing money and making a profit.

The EVP position has, over a period of time, evolved into the position of a CFO, rather than a secretary/treasurer that it was. One of the things some people would like to see is for the position to become that of an unpaid volunteer instead of an elected unpaid volunteer. Doug Holland, who holds the position now, has an accounting firm and is in a position to spend a lot of time doing the work of the AMA. He has proved to be very effective at investing the funds the AMA has, in spite of one down year. How many that have that kind of mindset want to go through the political process of being elected? Of course, the other way is to hire someone to fill the position. People like that don't come cheap.

That could go either way. It might be more restrictive. Ultimately, the risk must be determined and managed. Keep in mind that the captive would be a separate corporation with a separate board of directors, NOT responsible to the EC. That is as it must be by law. Some members of the boards could be one and the same, but they must do business at arms length. If the captive determined risk for an activity was high, the AMA would have the same situation it has now and have to find a way to reduce risk or pay the higher premiums.

I have seen the business plan changed several times. The problem seems to be that the magazine has to serve some very diverse interests. At the same time, it must act as the AMA's newsletter, which is apparently not conducive to advertising. All those pages are cost without potential revenue.

So do I... that is the reason that I occasionally call or e-mail the questions to those that have the answers. Some have said that is non-productive, but, I would like to think that I can tell when someone is telling me the truth or a story that masquerades as truth. If you feel that you can tell the difference, give it a try.

I won’t pick nits, but the AMA has about 175000 members, about 35,000 of which are kids. These numbers are approximations. 140,000 adults paying $58 is a little over $8 million. Out of that, before you even start, you have to subtract the cost of the memberships for the kids. Remember, the kids are subsidized by the adults. I no longer have a good estimation of the “hard cost” of a membership. It used to be about $38 when the dues was $48. If we assume it went up to say, $45, that means that the income of 8 million is immediately reduced by 35000 kids at $44, or $1,575,00 million. The amount that can be spent is not nearly as large as it appears at first blush.

The insurance, even secondary insurance, averages something on the order of $20 year per adult, including the SIR. I can not imagine what the premium for a primary policy might be per member. UMA might give some clue, but part of what UMA charges is profit, so it’s hard to guesstimate. It is also a $1 million policy as opposed to $2.5 million.

Although the EC is unpaid, we have something on the order of 60 people that are being paid in Muncie.

I have wondered if the AMA could, indeed make money, if it were not a non-profit corporation. I suspect it could.

It is almost impossible to have any idea of what the membership truly wants. This forum has under a hundred diehards and probably a couple of hundred occasional lurkers. I recently ran a poll in the Clubhouse, asking if the members there were interested in AMA discussions without the politics and personal attacks. The poll showed almost 90% wanted no part of AMA issues. It is the same thing that happens at most clubs and fields. A very few have interest in the goings on of the AMA. Most just want to fly. The AMA elections show the same thing.

I don’t see the AMA as maintaining the status quo. That is what is causing all the nastiness now. If the status quo was being maintained, most of the complaints would no be made. Some, like the magazine or Muncie, are the exceptions and have been issues forever. I see it as a matter of direction for the AMA, with the question being, where should the AMA be headed. Are we still an organization that should have competition as one of it’s highest priorities, or should that priority be lowered? Those are the types of issues that I see.

Agreed. Intelligent discussion, rather than attacks and innuendo, might lead to some ideas that bear fruit.

JR