I hope you don't mind if I speak to your concerns one issue at a time. I also view the dues increase in an ill light and have some of the same concerns you do. However, I am not sure exactly who you speak of as "AMA management" since I know the EC cut their own budget this year.

I cannot begin to tell you or your club what you SHOULD do, but I can tell you the risks you run if the decision is made to be outside the 'umbrella' provided by membership and charter. I might suggest that you review them with your club before any final decision is made.

If you are not an AMA member and an incident occurs involving a visitor, who is going to pay the medical bills? Worse yet, are you willing to give up your home because little Sammy tripped over your tent tie down and broke his arm? Each and every member of the club can and probably will be held liable for any injuries that occur at the field, even if they are NOT flying related.

The liability is not limited to club assets because as you know the land is of low value. That means your possessions are at risk unless you have inadequate insurance coverage. Actually if any member of your club does not have current coverage and is involved in something expensive, you and your possessions are at risk again unless someone (he or you) is a member of the AMA.

The AMA card just proves Frank Flightpack has specified insurance coverage in effect for a specific time. That can be accomplished through other means if your club has people with nothing else to do but validate the strengths of insurance coverage and the officers don't mind keeping track of who is current in their insurance premiums and who is not. The risk you take is much worse when you evaluate the cost of protection - AMA membership.

To date the largest settlements AMA did not even involve aircraft but 'trip and fall' injuries at some AMA Chartered Club field. I suppose you could not charter the club, but that would lower the insurance coverage available to you and I don't see that as a reasonable approach, but you and your club may see it differently.

Have you ever sanctioned an event and turned in the paperwork? That is required to have received an earned membership. A CD that does not sanction an event each year was never entitled to an earned membership. He does, however, maintain his status as a CD if he pays his dues.

I am somewhat surprised that you didn't know that. It was required reading to become a CD in the first place. You can find the information in the Membership manual that AMA sent every year until this year. It is available on the AMA web site if you want to peruse it. The EC perceives the CD program as a whole, to have flaws in it. Your not knowing what the program is makes their point. Why did you become a CD in the first place? Apparently, it was not to sanction events.

The reason you got the e-mail was to solicit your opinion about the move by the EC to reduced the earned membership to half credit on your dues, taken last year. Personally, I support it. If I were to have a say, I would eliminate earned memberships for CD's and, instead give them to club presidents.

It seems everyone has something of a different view of what the AMA should be. You want contests, others do not. Some want a national flying site, others do not. The AMA is, and will be, what is stated in the bylaws. That makes some happy and some unhappy. That's usually the sign that something is being done right.

JR
AMA 732
CD/LM

The AMA is the "crutch" for insurance now tho. When I first visited the local chartered AMA club the only thing I heard about the AMA was "insurance".

Now if the people on the ground are telling you as a beginer it's just for insurance - what does that say?

If you ask the old timers out there (we don't do any "sacntioned" events - it's just a fun fly field) you get insurance and insurance IS the reason to join the AMA. If my club/field could get insurance outside the AMA that is competitive I think they would jump on it.

Recently on the OLN channel they had a tour of the National flying field/musuem of the AMA. It looked really nice but I'll never go there - what amazed me was that it was 1,000 acres. Of course they had a lot of nice stuff inside and outside and it was open the day the camera was there but there were like 2 people there.

Unless there are going to be national type events like ToC/Top Gun there what's the point? So the people located nearby get the benefits of a world class flying field financed by everyone else outside the area?

Borzak

For a little different perspective, take a look at what Dave Brown has to say about Muncie:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...066#post609938

JRR

JR

I read DB's notes. Both you and he missed the whole point of the original post.

AMA is not and has never been in defecit financing, at least not for any period of time. If AMA really was in defecit financing, the cash (And assets equivalent to cash) would go down. (That means lower, less posiitive). Instead they went up. (Higher, more positive) by $400K. Proof. Look at the AUDITED statements, cash flow. The balance went up about $400K, Dec 2001 to Dec 2002. Oh, it also happened in 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 more or less. That's where the $10M we spent on Muncie came from. It sure didn't come from running a defecit of $400K annually!!!! (Sure, I'll take my credit card bill to Wal-Mart and get some merchandise for it- try that sometime if you really think we got $10M for Muncie by running a defecit!)

The "defecit" is an accounting not a cash defecit. The insurance cost increase doesn't even come close to justifying the amount of dues increase.

There is a real and positive benefit of us socking away $400K a year toward future issues and there are some disadvantages. We currently have about $8M in cash or near-cash and $3M in debt, for net cash of $5M. Members need to understand the financials and understand them accurately, then decide for ourselves whether we need to continue to save $400-500K cash annually. Currently, my opinion is that this critical decision is being made by a few leaders at AMA and most members don't know (and perhaps don't care) or simply take the words of people like DB at face value. No, he's not lying- he's just being deliberately imprecise.

Bob

bobfox

I pointed Borzak to the post not to reference the financing. That was a different issue. At the time it was taken from statements in the EC Minutes. If you wish, look back and see the statements that were made in those minutes. Ultimately, the EVP said that he had used the term in an improper manner to make a point to the EC and that the person taking the minutes used them as well. Very much the position that you take. There were several items unrelated to this current discussion addressed in my e-mail exchange with Dave Brown. It was an election based discussion and off topic for this discussion.

The AMA does have a budget. The budget has been altered during the year, in most of the years that you reference, basically, in order to make sure there has not been deficit financing.

The reason that I did point Borzak there, was DB's statement about the reason the money was put into Muncie to begin with. The last line of Borzak's post was a lament about Muncie.

Recently, I asked an EC member "Tell me, why does the AMA need so much money?" His statement was that there is approximately 3/4 of a million outstanding on negotiated settlements and another potential 3/4 of a million on claims that have not yet been negotiated/settled. That leaves a surplus of 3.5 million to reassure the insurance company and banks that the AMA will remain solvent. Those numbers do not show in the financial statement from 2002, they are more current.

Unfortunately, what the membership does or does not understand has little value. The only input that the membership has is to vote. I do agree with you that the information should be available to the membership, and it is.

I have never seen or heard anyone at the EC or HQ level claim that the entire dues increase was due to, or for, increased insurance. Many members assumed that it was. To some extent, the EC hoped to be able to restore some of the spending cuts they made to keep the budget balanced. They have also said that it was raised more than necessary so that anticipated future insurance increases could be funded without having to raise dues again soon. That now appears to have been a fairly accurate projection, as higher insurance costs eat at the marginal difference each year.

The current EVP begs off e-mail and the net as not being a typist. If you have questions, he does pick up the phone if you call him. I have found most of the leadership quite accessible.

JR

>>>>>>>
I have never seen or heard anyone at the EC or HQ level claim that the entire dues increase was due to, or for, increased insurance.
<<<<<<<,


Yep, smoke and mirrors do it every time. In my cabin up NAWTH, I have a cute little item that looks so much like a wood burning fireplace, simply by lights and reflective mirrors. A small electric heater is built in to provide adequate warm air for those cool early mornings and late evenings. Cozy!!!


From EC minutes:
November 04, 2000, Mr. Holland brought up the topic of restructuring the AMA.

July 09, 2001, EVP reported working with lawyers on separating AMA assets. ---- Also discussed need for increase in member dues. -----

May 04, 2002, EVP uses AMA Marketing Director for explaining to EC how to make a dues increase "....sound rationale....to justify changes..."


The dues increase was in the making while politicians were planning how to make it sound rational and justified. The 2003 increase in allocation to this new high color MA is, in my opinion, a good batch of it, from 12 to $18. (Page 6)
Where is that in the EC minutes? Guess it was part of a "Budget Approval".

November 4, 2000

JR comment: I find no reference to the EVP suggesting any such thing, however I did find this:
"Bylaws/Standing Rules - B. Brown

The Chairman stated that the minor problems encountered with regard to the nominating procedures can be resolved by adding fifteen days to each item on the nominating schedule. The Chairman recommended, and the President agreed, there may be a need to look at restructuring the Academy. Not to be less responsive to the membership, but to protect the organization as a whole so it can continue to service the membership. The President questioned whether a committee should be formed within the board, to decide on a process that this can be done. The process should include combined expertise from outside of the board. The bylaws will need to be brought up to date. The Chairman agreed to develop a motion to address the issue for the next meeting if he receives input from other Council members on the direction they wish to take.

July 9, 2001

JR comment: Horrace, there appears to be a twist in your words

"EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Will start organizing the program for debt reduction (brick program, plaque, etc.), and charitable remainder trust.
The EVP is working with a lawyer on separating AMA's assets. Suggestions will be brought to Council for review prior to any action being taken. Funding for legal expenses are already in place.
A Common Paymaster has now been set up."

"Postage Increase Discussion-HQ
The Executive Director informed council that the post office is issuing a postal increase for 2002.It was determined that this increase will be publicized by the AMA, and member will realize that it will affect the Academy. The ED and EVP will discuss a possible dues increase for 2003 to combat this expense. The editor noted that AMA realized a 12% increase in cost for sending out the magazine last year."

May 4, 2002

JR comment: Horrace, you have completely mislead the readers.

"Dues Structure – Schwinn

The ED introduced Tom Schwinn, AMA Marketing Director; who made a presentation on dues analysis projections. Discussion brought about various ideas on areas where changes could be made to assist in minimizing a dues increase, yet continue to provide a level of service to the members that is acceptable. Whatever modifications are made need to have sound rationale behind them to justify the changes to the membership.

Council will meet July 14 for further discussion on dues structure. The Insurance Committee will present its findings on the alternative insurance study at this meeting."

Horrace, are you posting misleading statements intentionally? Is this another of your conspiracy theories? Are all of your conspiracy theories based on misrepresentations like this?

I have to assume that you mean page 6 of the 2002 financial statement. Not sure what you mean. My real reaction to reading your entire post is: HUH?

If this is your idea of how to run for office,Horrace, I suggest you submit your resignation.... NOW. If anyone else understands the misrepresentations and general BS, please set me straight.

JR