kwizard

You finally brought into focus what I see as our basic disagreement. You, on the one hand, are comparing what Doug Holland is reporting on from 2001 and what Dave Brown is reporting on in 2002, on the other hand.

I believe the two versions of different years to be accurate. As I said before, I talked to Doug Holland and he has stated that the insurance went up substantially this year. He also stated that Royal's estimate for next year is substantially higher than this year, IF it can be re-insured and placed at all. I guess our basic disagreement is the reason for the dues increase. I don't believe that it was necessary to raise dues to replace the "reserves' of the AMA, but, I do believe it was necessary to raise it because of the operating expenses caused by insurance increases and a desire on the part of the EC to proceed with some improvements at Muncie.

My point with all of this is you can not compare apples and oranges. It is quite unreasonable, in my opinion, to take what Dave Brown is saying now and try to use the 2001 Financial Statement to refute it.

The EC has done things I do not agree with, including "deficit budgeting" and including projected return on investments in the budget as projected income.

I have been described as an "AMA basher", of "thumping the EC", of being a " blind AMA supporter" and of being an "EC lackey". I have no ax to grind.

My opinion is that next year will not be pleasant. I expect to find that the AMA has "lost" more in the market, that insurance did, in fact, cost a lot more than it did in 2001 and I expect to see a drop in the membership because of the recent dues increase. I hope I am wrong on every count. If not, we may see another dues increase next year. Those items, coupled with Dave Brown's assertion that the AMA would have to drop coverage from the current $2,500,000 liability limit to $1,000,000 if we have to become self insured do not bode well for the AMA in 2003.

JR