I questioned help from the AMA ED concerning some figures in the minutes of the last EC meeting.
There is something that I cannot figure on my own (actually eons of it!)

Here's JH's reply, BOLDED for identification, with my original quoted below. .
Maybe some of you can assist me with the *New Math* or the accountant's way of doing things. The question is quoted from the EVP's report.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Subject: RE: Help needed?
Date: 3/19/2004 10:35:47 AM Central Standard Time
From: [email protected]
Reply To:
To: [email protected]



don't remember the figure that Doug gave at the EC meeting, so I am forwarding your email on to Doug to respond



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Help needed?


Help please?

From the last EC mtg. minutes:
>>>>>>>>>
The EVP has been studying the idea of an indoor site. He reported the figures he received Friday for a site 150 x 150 x 50 (36-38 thousand sq. ft.) were astronomical. Nothing is.....

<<<<<<<<<

My math is terrible. 150 x 150 is 22,500 SQUARE Ft. Times 50 for area equals 1,125,000 CUBIC feet.

Horrace

.. i wonder what my 54 is gonna buy

My guess is that either there is a typo on the email, or the building has a total sq ft of 36-38K with one area suitable for flying that is 150ftx150ft.

Naw, it's in the EC minutes, just as Horrace posted it. I conjure up visions of Horrace going over the minutes holding a 6" magnfying glass looking for something between the lines, and occasionally, he finds something like this. I bet the gal that takes the minutes is redfaced and being ribbed about her reporting. I bet the change to the minutes is made at the next EC meeting when they must be ammended or approved.

From the minutes:
"The EVP has been studying the idea of an indoor site. He reported the figures he received Friday for a site 150 x 150 x 50 (36-38 thousand sq. ft.) were astronomical. Nothing is being done at this time but the study continues"

Hmmm...

Ya don't think they meant $38K do you? That number actually does make some sense.

Simply looks like a result of the "new math" being taught in school these days!

You seem to be you suggesting that this 'new math' you speak of is the basis of the dues rates!

I don't think that is the case because almost every EC member I have ever talked to (all but one or two) is much more on the ball than this 'report' seems to suggest. IOW, as JR suggested the gal taking notes probably made a mistake and/or missed a word or two. However, no matter what is said there remain others to throw the metaphysical rocks of distortion.

Good job Horace! You saved us from the evildoers at the AMA again.

Horace combs the minutes and finds satisfaction in these F-ups like finding an ingrown hair on his butt, I don't care about either.

This thread is the prototypical Horace thread with all the elements:

a) A small error on the part of an AMA staff member.

b) An e-mail alerting the proper authorities.

c) A post of a personal e-mail.

d) A self rightous, sarcastic statement letting us all know how smart he is, while looking out for us.

Horace if you rap your comb in tissue paper combined with all your hot air you could play a symphoney.

Good troll...Good troll...ataboy! You are doing well grasshopper...you make me very proud

I guess I have to ask the question as to WHY we need an indoor flying site??? After all of the bickering, lies, and B.S. associated with the dues hike, you would think that the AMA would be a little smarter about these stupid ideas. This ranks right up there with the color photos (or something like that) that some other loser wanted to add to MA at the expense of the members. I say, if you want an indoor site, YOU pay for it. One more rate hike and the AMA can kiss my *****. I liked the idea that there was an organization out there who had our back, but things like this just make me think they are another bunch of crooks that run the AMA as their own personal playground/bank.

Based on some of the non-conversations I have had with a very select, exclusive, and elite minority on the EC, I have a hard time saying you are entirely wrong. However, I have spoken to all but 2 of the AMA EC members and MOST of them have struck me as meeting your(s and my) previous opinions about the value of the organization. Too bad about the few who muddy the water we all have to drink.

We don't...We don't need the outdoor site either...Heck we don't need models at all...but aren't they coooool. I guess the money has to go somewhere and I think an indoor site is not all together a bad idea...just would like it big enough for a 40% tho

I'm kinda curious where you got the impression there were lies about the last dues hike. Everything I read, and all the conversations I had were that the $10 amount was in excess of what was necessary. The idea was that another hike would not have to happen right away.

If we don't get serious about safety, the dues will go up again soon. Only so many 10% hikes in the cost of the commercial insurance policy, and increases in the self-insured portion of the coverage can be covered before another increase is necessary.

As far as an indoor site an Muncie is concerned, I have mixed emotions. The indoor free flight guys have been paying dues for longer than the RC guys ever thought about, since RC is the "Johnny come lately" of modeling. There is a whole new sport developing with indoor RC. At the same time, I am not very fond of the flying facility in Muncie.

Hmmm. It might be nice to have a real structure, as opposed to a blow up one just for the NATS. With that IN weather, it would be nice for someone to be able to use the site all year round. Heck, they might even be able to rent it out for indoor dog shows.

As I posted in another thread:
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>
I received this email:
>>>>>>>
"Just finished talking with Doug Holland. He indicated the building he described to the architect would cost about $6m. Now what he wanted me to tell you is 1) This would not be just an indoor site, it would be a multi function site; 2) the first discussion with the architect was with all the bells and whistles, and much could be cut out to reduce the cost.

The building the way it was quoted would be for a Cat II site, part underground and part above ground. It would be used for traveling exhibits, classrooms, theater, controlled environment for storage of museum artifacts, Education offices, place for symposium, exhibitors for events, banquet facility etc.
<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<<<<

So regardless of the minutes, regardless of the talk to him and her, regardless of who or what attended the EC minutes, the idea and the expensive building are still circulating around some head/s.

Personally I have posted plenty information, directly from AMA sources, within this forum to indicate that misleading information was definitely disseminated to the membership about the dues increase. Things like 60% of the increase was allocated to Model Aviation production through member subscription allocations, and that the EC was entertained by a marketing director to make the dues increase sound justified. Those two items alone are adequate for me to disallow insurance costs and Safety as being of any major concern of the hierarchy.

In addition, in one of these threads I posted the link to another forum where pictures of the Golf Dome in Buffalo Grove (night RC indoor) are displayed. DEFINITELY an all-weather building, yet probably at some figure of about FIVE (5) % of the proposed Muncie site. This site is used ALL-YEAR 'round as it is so done by the TEXANS here in Houston.

I think maybe it isn't only me that needs the math help and indications are that others are also like me in a real need for technology upgrade in what's happening in this world.[>:]

Edited to complete after pushing wrong button.

As far as the lies, etc. goes, it comes from all sides. The fact that the AMA is even considering investing in something like this just proves to me that they did NOT need the dues hike. It's keeps being pushed that it is safety and insurance that drive the prices up, well then, how does this indoor site help that??? What is the biggest concern right now for modelers? I don't think it is an indoor flying site. This is another example of the few use the money of the many to support their own desires. To hell with that and if this crap goes through, to hell with the AMA. I'll go back to rogue flying. It wouldn't make a difference to me if the AMA only raised dues a nickel, the fact is they waste money and come up with ignorant ideas like this that have no usefullness for modeling as a whole.

IronZ

I am not sure how to put this politely, so, I won't bother. This increase was done two years ago. The numbers and the debate are evidenced in threads done at the time. The truth is that only a precentage of the dues increase, at the time, was slated for inurance increases. A fact known before the increase was passed. The only surprise was that it was a $10 increase and not a $7 increase. The rest of the increase, above the insurance increases, at the time, was to fund projects that had been delayed and to forstall another dues increase. During the ensuing two years, the insurance costs have continued to increase. Claims have continued to increase as well. The increase of costs is eating into the reserves created by the larger than necessary dues increase.

If you want an argument about whether it should have been done that way, you won't find one with me. However, the facts are out there and can be verified. There was not any sneaking around about what was done. I am not going to get into Horrace's views of accounting. my feelings on them are already documented in this forum.

Again, if you want an argument about whether we should spend money on the National Flying Site, your going to have to look to someone other than me. I can, however, tell you that there are those, including Horrace and many others that think the FFS should be improved and more money should be spent to foster competition and advance aeromodeling.

If you take the time to read the by-laws, you will find that those that hold that position can make a pretty good case. The AMA was not designed to be exclusively, or even primarily, an insurance provider. One last time, if you want an argument that it is, in fact the reason that the AMA has grown, I won't fight with you.

What the AMA is supposed to be, according to the goals set forth in the by-laws takes money, and your dues, and mine, will continue to be spent to pursue those goals.

Not bad J R. sometimes comments like your last post are almost refreshing compared to the Hosspucky sorry Hossfly spews out.

I still have to wonder how an indoor flying site would help aeromodeling? It seems to me that what we need are greater numbers and a more positive attitude from the public. Again, HOW will an indoor site, that will be used mostly by the locals, advance aeromodeling? You want to help aeromodeling? Run some commercials, get everybody you can on the aeromodeling bandwagon. That's just an example off the top of my head. The closest thing I've seen to an advertisement for aeromodeling was the Navy commercial that showed it for about 10 seconds. That's more than I've seen from the AMA. Kind of sad actually.

IronZ-
Indoor flying sites are venues of opportunity. Where they can be had, modelers put them to use, especially in the northern climes that have a long 'building season.' As for purpose-built indoor sits, your preaching to the choir - it doesn't look like anybody is taking the notion seriously.
As for running commercials, I think you are presuming that aeromodeling is in a slump and needs heavy promotion to keep it alive. I don't think that is the case. Aeromodeling is doing very nicely these days, growing at a pace I haven't seen in the several decades I've been involved with it. The technology of electric power has improved vastly over just the past few years, and it has made aeromodeling accessible to wannabe modelers, primarily by multiplying the useable venues by orders of magnitude over the numbers of 'conventional' model flying sites which continue to dwindle. AMA is heavily dependent on the AMA charted club, practically to the exclusion of aeromodeling that is pursued in any other venues. Chartered clubs don't exist without flying sites of minimum requirements that are getting harder to obtain all the time.
Aeromodeling is alive, healthy and growing very nicely. It doesn't need help. It's just that it has done an end-around on AMA; it's AMA that needs help.

Abel

No one has mentioned the price. But I suspect even a metel building that size is going to cost more then 5 million. If it is used for more than just indoor flying it may be worth it. But, I don't think it will benifit many modelers outside of the mid west, except for a hand full of rubber modelers during the nationals, so why build it?

The entire HQ building was built for less than half that. The AMA already owns the ground. There is no reason to spend that kind of money on an indoor site, IMHO. Nevertheless, here are some reasons that consideration of building a new building might be entertained, in my opinion:

One thing that may create support for a building to house indoor competition is if it were to also house a new museum structure. The current museum is in a reworked building that is marginal. It is currently having roofing problems and it is really too small. Keep in mind that the museum is part of the requirment to maintain the IRS 501 (3) c status of the AMA.

The indoor FF Nats drew less than 50 competitors last year. A building was rented and the entire proposition lost money. Having said that, FF is very much a part of the AMA and must be supported. There are buildings in Muncie that could be rented which are suitable for indoor FF competition. Could these rental fees be better spent on the cost of a new building?

At the same time, indoor RC is growing very quickly. At the AMA convention in Ontairo, and at Toledo, indoor RC demos drew large crowds. Here again, the indoor RC NATS could be held in rented facilities. I think that it is safe to assume that this event will grow in the future. Again, could the rental fees be better spent on the cost of a new building?

When the AMA holds an FAI championship, it must have some place to feed the troops. In this case, a building in Muncie is not acceptable. I needs to be onsite so that such events can be held within a short time after competition for the day is complete. This has necessitated renting a structure (tent) in the case of the C/L World Championships to be held in July. This is an ongoing series of championships that the AMA will be involved in, and as a result, a recurring expense. Cound the rental fees be better spent on the cost of a new buiding?

Doug Holland, the EVP, managed to roll the entire debt of the AMA into a loan based on Indiana law allowing educational bonds to be secured to refinance $4 million dollars, which included the HQ building. IIRC the payments are about $200,000 a year. That was actually in excess of the amount needed, IIRC. Could some similar arrangement be made to service the new debt?

The architect on the first proposal, produced plans for a building that was partly underground, so as not to inhibit the view of the HQ building. Is this necessary? Are all the functional items raised in Joyce's e-mail to Horrace Cain necessary, or are they the pipe-dream of the architect?

Now, in my opinion, this project has not yet been risen to the level of serious consideration. Could it be? Maybe. It it worth looking into? Probably.

But if flying sites are disappearing and harder to come by, how are we not in a slump? Let's spend some money on keeping sites or creating new ones NATIONWIDE not just for the good ol boys in Muncie. If we brought more members in, would we not have more influence to help said sites? I think we are in a BIG slump. With the small amount of bad press and the paranoid fears of the general public, I think the AMA should really consider some positive PR with the masses. A fancy indoor site for the fat cats in Muncie does nothing to help us, period.

Wasn't building the new HQ supposed to make the existing building available for more museum items? Now that building isn't good enough and we need another one. It's amazing how the justifications for one thing end up not good enough later on. Also, if the FF Nats drew less than 50 competitiors, then why in the hell build a brand spanking new building for them??? Again, HOW will this advance aeromodeling?

The AMA has been stable at about 2500 chartered clubs for several years. Each year, we lose a few and we gain a few and the net change is zero.

Call your local TV station and get a price on a 30 second ad and you will answer your own question. Forget the Super Bowl, those ads cost more than the building would.

Which fat cats in Muncie are you refering to? The competitors that build and fly indoor models, or the Elected UNPAID members of the EC? Or are you talking about the ones that chase mice in the crop fields?

Good point.

According to Billy Hell, there are only 800 Pro Bro members. There are less than 900 turbine waiver holders, and no turbines were flown at the NATS. Let's get rid of 3 D and turbines, as well. Any group with such low numbers can't possibly advance aeromodeling.