I am a long time AMA member, a CD and a LM. I would like to address several of the posts in this thread.

1. 'Strength in numbers' should be the number one priority of the AMA. Simply put, the lower the dues, the larger the number of members will be.

2. The AMA is prohibited from lobbying because of it's non-profit status. The EC has looked at this. Forming a seperate entity may allow the AMA to get around this the same way the NRA does.

3. Taildragger's comments about the SFA are off base and correct at the same time. This was a situation that was bound to wind up in court.

His statement about losing money in the market is not without basis. If you want to know more, you need to contact the members of the EC. EVP Doug Holland's reports in Model Aviation are without enough information to determine the amount of the losses. Hint: Look at the Statement of Cash Flows in the latest MA. Remove the bond principal and see what the statement then says.

Since Mr Holland and he alone is responsible for the investments, it is not likely that he will disclose the results in a useful form any time soon. Especially right before the election he is in.

4. To Ramcharger: It is my impression that Muncie is a sink-hole for money, but, that is unsupported, unlike my other statements in this post. When you consider that .7 of 1 percent of the membership flew in the NATS this year, it is debatable how much value it has. The headquarters building and the museum are absolutely necessary, the rest is, well... debatable.

I have found the HQ staff to be very responsive and efficient. When you realize that I am something of an AMA activist, that says a lot. I am a thorn in the side of some on the EC and question many of their policies and decisions, yet, the staff responds very professionally.

5. Sorry, Easytiger, the losses are not a lie. Write or call your VP and ask. RCAdmin, your statement is correct. The AMA did not lose money last year, but... the investments did. Ask your VP.

6. My opinion here. AMA is anything but rotten to the core. You have a dozen guys out there doing a job that no one else seems to want (the EC) and not being paid to do it. I truly believe that each and every member of the EC has the best interests of the membership at heart. Having said that, I certainly do not agree with some of their decisions. I think they went left when I would have preferred right. The current move to divide the AMA into three corporations leads to a bunch of questions for which I have no answers yet.

7. D_Dawg. Your ignoring the largest growth models have had since the 30's. The park flyers are selling in huge numbers. If the AMA can tap into those new flyer's, the membership will grow like crazy. At $58 per year it is not going to happen. The EC is looking at what approach to take. It may require a seperate class of license at a substantially lower dues. Eventually, the park flyer's that stay in the hobby will gravitate upwards. There are some serious problems that the AMA is facing with reference to park flyer's. In particular frequency conflicts.

The only way we will ever get enough flying sites is to grow the AMA to a much larger membership. When you break it down, each state only has about 3500 AMA members. Not enough of a political powerbase. The size of the membership MUST become the number one priority of the AMA, in my opinion.

8. RCPilot 100. When it gets to hot in the kitchen, it's time to get out. Maybe Dave Brown is finding it to hot in the kitchen. He knew what the job entails better than anyone, and ran again for office last year.

9. RCAdmin . The premium on the AMA Policy with Royal &Sun Alliance last year is $320,000 (7/3/2001). An increase of 64% (as reported by Dave Brown) would make that approximately $525,000. If we say the membership of Open members, thus
excluding Jr.'s, is approximately 140,000, that breaks out to a premium of about $3.75 per member anually. That does NOT include the amount that AMA is paying 'out of pocket. The exact amount is not disclosed, partially due to agreements in lawsuits not to disclose the settlement.

The actual profit or loss from MA, after all expenses and revenues is also not disclosed by Mr. Holland in his reports. The numbers are buried around the statements so that the final numbers can not be determined without the underlying documents. Queries to Mr. Holland about these numbers have ALWAYS gone unanswered.

10. Stomper. If the rumor you speak of is about a FULL-scale runway, there is an airport in existence next to the AMA site in Muncie. There have long been rumors about it. The facts are that the AMA holds the option to purchase the airport. There are some who reason that if it is sold and developed, it might cause the AMA headaches with neighbors. Speculation has been that some of the EC want it so they can fly into Muncie in thier private planes. That speculation is just that, speculation.

AND IN CLOSING (at long last <G>), if you dont like the way things are, do something about it. Vote, run for office, get out the vote, but, don't just sit there and type. If you are interested in AMA politics and don't know where to start, go to the AMA's web page and read the EC minutes. They are dry and time consuming and full of information, as are the by-laws of the AMA, available on the site also.

J_R