ORIGINAL: Blue_Sky
Bob, nice to hear your response. I don't begrudge any organization for attempting to make something positive happen, but in a nutshell, as you know, the argument surrounding the PPP regards the contention that the PPP, as it exists, was not created from a single point of need and logic by the AMA, and therefore goals and projections have no actual ascernable basis in the real world - because the goals could literally be anything.
I think that AMA leadership has been remiss in not fully publicizing just what those goals are/were. Again, I'm assuming that some specific goals existed. I think there are some here that believe I'm a dyed in wool PPP supporter because I supported M. Smith for EVP.....not true. I think that the program deserves/deserved a chance to prove itself.
In other words, if what I've read is true, the genesis and flow of the PPP occurred backwards. For all intents and purpose it started with the Marketing Committee determining how much money it would cost to print the AMA logo on airplane boxes - determining which airplanes would get the designation worked backwards to the insurance company, which worked further backwards in determining the amount of money in staff, printed PPP material, and staff involvement requiring an official program - and then at the other end, where it should have started - from a point of need by the AMA, a group of people evidently developed a program to dovetail into what the Marketing Committee proposed. And I'll also say the AMA probably rationalized putting the AMA logo on all those boxes was advertising for the AMA.
That's the first time I've heard it described that way. Where did that come from?
Some people would like to know where the reported $200,000.00 was spent.
I think a full accounting of PPP expenditures is owed to the membership. For that matter, a full and understandable accounting of all expenditures. For example, we don't really know the full cost of MA because the way the expenses and revenue are reported doesn't include staff members assigned to the magazine. I'm not bashing the magazine, in fact I think it does a pretty good job. But the accounting practices aren't up to standard, IMO.
And where did the money come from? Were other programs shortchanged?
Again, we don't really know, I don't believe, because of poor accounting practices. Without knowing the annual budget for each program, and a full year end accounting showing all expenditures and revenue associated with the program compared to budget it's impossible to tell. Perhaps no program was shortchanged, and the additional funds were pulled from Academy investments. We just don't know. I'm not indicating that I think anything is being deliberately hidden, it's just that with the current accounting structure some things just can't be pulled out the way they should be. (I'm basing that on the year end statements, and nothing else. I've read through them for fiscal 2006 and 2007 and they leave much to be improved, IMO. In one of my past lives I was responsible for detailed monthly analysis of actual expenditures vs budget, and nothing frustrated me more than not being easily able to pull out the numbers I needed to easily explain overs/unders.)
The key is to have a budget that people are accountable for holding to, and periodic comparisons to that budget to see how things are going, and address problems that come to the surface because of the comparisons.
Dave Mathewson has indicated that there is a new controller on board at AMA, and that one of the things he is going to do is to improve accounting practices. I hope that happens.