>>>>>>>>
EC Minutes:
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT'S REPORT
A job description for the position of EVP was presented to the Executive Council for their review. Council should be prepared to discuss these requirements in detail, at a subsequent meeting. A listing of job requirements for any person seeking this position is necessary due to the nature of the job. It is no longer a position that can be filled by someone without specific abilities.
<<<<<<<<<<<

That is what the EVP says. IMO it sounds like simple job protection. IMO any reasonable person could perform as well as it is being performed. IMO, any reasonable person, writing a monthly column in "MA", rather than saying no financial news to write about, (Apr. issue) could have written a few remarks about why the $10.00 dues increase had $6 of that amount credited to the member's subscription for the magazine, MA. Right there on page 6 of the Mar. issue -- $12, and the April issue --$18.
Some here have some idiotic notion that MA makes money for AMA. YUCK!

>>>>>>>>>>
At the time of the first Council meeting of each year, the Executive Director usually provides an orientation to the incoming district vice president(s). It was requested that at that time when the orientation is provided, it be available to associate vice presidents as well. At the time of the next Council meeting (end of April), the ED will provide an orientation, open to one or two AVP's per district. Headquarters will plan for this.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Seems like more expenses for travel expenses for *Officer Expense* to me. Got a raise, need a way to spend it. Of course I notice that some *fellow / s* are attending the EC meetings now.
Can't have a visitor paying his own way when he is there to keep the VP awake to say "me too".

>>>>>>>>
Work continues on a National Loss Prevention Program. (This item was brought up at the October Council meeting.) The Safety Committee proposes that a Safety Awareness Program be established. The purpose would be to create Safety Advisory Bulletins and accident reports, to be distributed to Executive Council members for review, (and kept in confidence to the Executive Council). AMA needs to establish a method of handling this information once it is received at Headquarters. Lowe is currently working on a bulletin addressing lithium batteries
<<<<<<<<<

Note that the safety bulletins are FOR EC MEMBERS only. Same ol' story about the members being mushrooms -- Feed 'em dung and keep 'em in the dark.

>>>>>>>>
MOTION II: Moved and seconded, effective January 1, 2004, drop coverage for Theft and Vandalism, and increase the Fire limit from $1,000 to $5,000
MOTION III: Moved and seconded, to table MOTION II. MOTION passed. 9 yes; 3 no (I, V, EVP).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Note those that wanted this to pass. There have been a number of thefts around the country. Without AMA furnishing info. to the contrary, I will wager that these thefts have not cost AMA a dime as all losses have been reimbursed out of member's primary insurance.
Why does someone need a change. Who needs *fire* increase?
Why was a motion even made? Why was it then tabled?
IMO, these events have more to tell than what one is hearing.

Always on the bottom -- just another AMA member.

Geeze Horrace, your doing it again.

Good or bad, the position of EVP HAS become one that requires certain skills. The AMA bylaws define the position as the CFO of the organization. Apparently, there are plenty of CPA's that are AMA members that are willing to serve the organization as volunteers. I personally think this position should be eliminated and moved to the HQ side, but, that would cost a lot of money. Things have changed... in life, in the hobby and in the AMA.

What difference does it make what MA puts in as the subscription amount? They could put $1000 and it would make no difference. How many subscriptions do you think MA has, exclusive of those sent to members or freebies sent to manufacturer's and the like? I will say you are right about MA losing money. All that is necessary is to look at the financial statement and take the MA expenses and add the MA revenues to see that it cost about $7 per member in 2001, the year of the latest financial statement.

I am surprised you would call into focus the AVP's going to Muncie without doing your homework. Bill Lee pays his own way. Hotel, meals, room, all of it... to the tune of thousands per year. And... I know darn well you are aware that he is CDing the WC for CL and has been in Muncie on business for that reason. The other AVP's are also volunteers. I suppose that some may travel on the District Expense Budget of their VP. I think most of these guy's pay their own way. I would leave it to you to find some proof otherwise, instead of rank speculation. Try asking someone at AMA. They respond to any reasonable request, and you know that as well as anyone. I am under the impression that the AMA does not fund such travel outside of the District budget, and that budget is at the discretion of the VP, subject to a complete accounting of the funds.

Horrace, when you were a VP, who paid for your AVP's to go to HQ?

Now for something I have been doing a little digging into. The National Loss Prevention Program. The AMA has not had one. Horrace, this year, the AMA solicited bids for insurance. One of the first questions the insurance companies had was about losses and a loss prevention program. Some simply refused to bid for lack of information.

Let's look at the type of things this program will generate. Report's will show the brand names of products and individuals involved. The data base may or may not ever become useful. Half of the claims are not flying related. The AMA can not put us in a position of naming names and the resultant liabilities from these reports. If you can not see that, you are not being practical. If you see it and don't think it is a sound policy, I think you have gone off the deep end. The specifics of any data base generated like this must be kept in confidence. Sure, the statistics should be published, but not the specifics. Who other than the EC would you have looking at this information?

On the item of theft insurance: the $1000 limit is causing two problems. The first is a problem of cost investigating the claims and the potential for fraud. The second is the fact that most of the reported thefts are way in excess of $1000. When you have $10,000 worth of equipment stolen, and get $1000 back after an investigation to see if the claim is legit, it causes more bad feelings than benefit. Carl Maroney brought this item up. It is based on $$$$ and nothing more. The EC saw the possible backlash from the membership and tabled the motion. The Fire insurance thing is hooey. Almost all of those claims are under Homeowers or Car insurance and it was obvious to the EC that the smoke screen of giving back more coverage in one area and taking theft coverage is counterproductive. In my opinion, this whole mess does, indeed, need being looked at in depth. The EC was right to table it and put it off until more thought went into the possible alternatives and the perception of the membership. What is your complaint here?

Geeze, Horrace, if you want to know more, write HQ or a VP or DB. They still talk to you. It isn't that you just want to raise doubt for the sake of it, is it?

I am more concerned with the contention that Dave Brown made that the EC minutes posted on the AMA web site do not have to exactly reflect the officail minutes. If they can decide not to include who made and seconded motions, what else can they decide is not necessary to put on the web page minutes?

JR