Excellent idea! They should run a honestly written history of the PPP and account for the money spent, bring us up to date on how it's doing and discuss the project's targets or goals, maybe even some deadlines. Opinion polls can be conducted on any subject at the website, a well written article could inspire a good amount of feedback from the membership.

I think a poll of the entire membership is a great idea. As is the magazine article.

What I'd really like to see, though, is what the goals were for PPP for the first 12 months......I'm assuming such goals exist......if they don't then somone has really missed the boat. And for 24 months as well.

Without clearly defined goals, it's all too easy for projects to limp along far longer than they should before they are either revamped or eliminated. Based on comments earlier this year from AMA President Mathewson it appears that PPP results are lagging behind expectations...but what were those expectations? If that remains the case at year end, then one of two things should happen, IMO. Either the program should be dropped, or it should be altered to perform better. If the latter, I would strongly disagree with any more expenditures WITHOUT some clearly defined goals for the next 12 months. Dave has said that the program should be self-supporting, and I agree. Like most start-ups, though, it's not going to be self supporting right out of the box.

If it's not self supporting at 24 months, or lacking strong indications that it's moving that way then it shoud become part of history.

I'm willing to invest another $1.50 of my dues to see if it can be made to work......but only under the above conditions.

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.

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.

Some people would like to know where the reported $200,000.00 was spent. How much for the packaging? Putting a logo on a box would be a great opportunity for the manufacturers to "offset" their packaging expenditures - it would be interesting to see how some boxes changed in a before/after AMA logo. And of course where all the money went is more important than the boxes.

And where did the money come from? Were other programs shortchanged?

I was probably one of the few here that at first was optimistic about the PPP, but not at nearly a quarter of a million dollars. I'm afraid in retrospect it will be a failed program - because it wasn't thought through with the primary needs of the AMA.

Bob,
I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Obviously, the vast majority of AMA members, 90%+, as evidenced by the percentage of AMA members who don't vote, could care less about the AMA and it's officers or programs, and therefore, my statement is in error.
However, I do remember getting an e-mail about the proposed PF program, because I wrote a two page reply expressing my opposition based on tiered dues and the AMA using its limited resources going after the Wal-Mart crowd instead of supporting the members of the AMA in the challenges that lay ahead, namely the FEDS, fields, etc.
I remember reading that the majority of responses received by the AMA were against the program; I guess I could look up where I read it but at this point it doesn't matter, now that Smith, et al, has put the program in place.
Anyway, sorry for the unfortunate choice of words, I guess I need to proof read a little better.
BRG,
Jon

I wasn't trying to nitpick between "all", "Life", or "leader" members. Just asking in general where the information came from. I'm heard that there was an email poll conducted, but I have yet to hear where the information came from that the response was overwhelmingly against formation of PPP. Actually, I would appreciate it if you could find where you read the information. So far the only thing I've been able to get is that someone heard it from someone who heard it from someone who is supposed to know. I'm not saying that your information isn't accurate, to the contrary, I really have no way of knowing at this point. I'd just like to figure out where it came from to know if it's real or just something that someone posted at some point that has been repeated enough times that it's now accepted as factual.

Again, nothing to be sorry for, as I wasn't trying to parse your words to that point. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

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.

That's the first time I've heard it described that way. Where did that come from?

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.

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.

I didn't think this was another PPP gripe thread, but since it is, I'll add my comments.

I would say that the majority of AMA members don't really care one way or the other about the PPP. It's only on these RC forums that I see from the vocal dozen or so that has a beef with it. Some may not like it, but they are still doing their best to help support it and the AMA. Seems like that's the right approach to take in my mind.

Frank

I didn't either, but after about 2 messages that's what it became. And my comments below really won't become a "gripe" until after the beginning of the year, and if no such information is forthcoming from AMA. As I said in an earlier message, I'm willing to donate another $1.50 of my dues to the program if some clearly defined goals and definition of "success" are laid out.

I agree with your last comment. However, as I've indicated, I think that the AMA leadership owes information and plans about PPP to the membership if they expect to maintain some of that support. IMO the most important thing is a set of goals. I'd like to see them clearly define what PPP "success" means to them in terms of cost, membership headcount, revenue, etc. If those things aren't defined then any program, not just PPP, will tend to roll along with no real oversight or improvement. That's my $.02, anyway. If the AMA leadership has that definition they should let the members know what it is. If they don't have it, then shame on them.

Regarding a "poll" to determine AMA members feelings about PPP, the following was sent (I presume to all members for whom AMA had an Email address on file):

Note that the two questions posed to members addressed just one concern, and only one: How many Open members would AMA lose to the proposed bargain basement tier?

"Views of the membership" be damned, it's always been about the money, period. Many members did express their views in reply emails, to the chagrin of Ms Hager. Only the overwhelmingly negative replies to the specific questions were of any interest to the people at AMA HQ hawking the program internally to the EC, and were interpreted as the go-ahead from the membership at large. AMA members, your Nay 'votes' were counted as a resounding 'Aye' for PPP.

Abel

Abel
Did you tell Joyce that Kid Epoxy was going to drop from open to PPP?



. . .


What, like offer free tee shirts to PPP that renew,
to buy "success" with more $ from Opens?

You guys forget, I already got that letter decaring PPP a success.
When you dont have goals or conditions to meet, success is easy
... even easier when you can spend other peoples money to make it a success.




Oh, and the EC didnt overwhelmingly endorse the PPP.
Hoss got that back when he could force unanimous votes,
but it looks like Mark didnt play well with others enough to get unanimous EC Vote for PPP.
Perhaps Mark could ask Hoss to swing by Muncie to whip the EC into FULLY backing PPP next time.





How much more money can Mark dump into PPP before he falls on his face?

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm gonna take Frank's advice and be just like the vast majority who don't care about any of this stuff. Just go out there, have fun and be a good little member.

Not directed at CP.

And that's what it is all about; having fun. At the end of the day, that is the reason we are in this hobby to begin with. To have fun and enjoy building, flying, and sharing those experiences with others. No reason to get all upset about something we have no control over. Enjoy the hobby when you can. Life is too short not to.

Frank

(Not directed at either CP or Muroc1)

Enjoy your hobby, just don't expect me to subsidize your hobby for you. It ain't my place to front you the money. If you want to play, you ought to pay.

Bill, AMA 4720

Frank-
a) There are a quarter million reasons to get upset.
This is not some $5k increase to the show team budget or $50k for a pair of employees to go school to school giving demos... when did throwing away a quarter million dollars become unworthy of concern? I suggest Muncie takes up the KEP (KidEpoxy Program) that spends a quarter million dollars on subidizing KE with model aviation materials at the expense of all other AMA members. Its just a $1.50, why should you guys care thet it all goes to me.... like you would even notice a buck fifty missing.... its all about having a good time flying toys, so whynot just give KE the $250k and you guys keep quiet about it and fly.

b) No control?
Remember back in the day when AMA wasnt out of control of the members.... ahhh, good times.
Is there a reason the members have lost control of the member organiztion? I guess thats why the way of the future is to have non-voting members, since voting or not dont help in the out of control organization. What about the JoycePoll, that there is direct member input... not if members wanted to start divisive membership tiers but solely asking if they would join that new tier. I guess I see how they can say the poll was overwelmingly possitive if "negative reposnse" was that the Open would drop down while "positive response" was that the Open member wouldnt: Wanting or Hating the tier to be created must be irrelevant stray invalid data.

Based on what he's said, I believe that the current AMA president agrees with you, given that he's on record as stating that PPP should become self-supporting.

The way I see it, I "fronted" PPP about $1.50 last year, and will be glad to fork over another $1.50 for 2009 if there are some firm goals in place and plans to meet those goals. Lacking that, I don't want to "front" PPP any more than do you.

After all, it's gotta be costing me at least enough fuel for one or two 10 minute flights a year.

It's your money, and you should be able to contribute it to whomever you wish. It's also my money, and I should be able to not contribute to whomever YOU wish.

Bill, AMA 4720

Well, if Dave meant what he said, then PPP will either become self supporting, or go down the tubes, won't it? Since park flying isn't your hobby, I'm sure that either result would make you happy. Or will you still remain unhappy even if it becomes self supporting with the lower dues structure?

By the way, do you fly control line or fee flight, or indoors? Helicopters? I don't. I'm a sport flyer. THat's my hobby. I wonder how much of my dues, and yours, go to support other areas that aren't your's or my "hobby"? Are those areas totally self-supporting?

My point here is this: (And this isn't directed just at you) Are we paying dues to AMA to support only "our" part of the hobby or to support the hobby as a whole? Did you really mean what you said above in not wanting any of your dues to be used to support AMA programs in which you don't participate...ie, not "your" hobby?

Are those that fly smaller planes in a park somewhere, that are not powered by glow or gas engines really participating in a different hobby? I think that may be at the heart of much of the opposition to the Park Flyers program.

The rest of, "Those other parts of the hobby" that you don't consider yours (C/L, F/F, rubber, indoor, helicopters) all are required to be open members, and pay their full share. You don't subsidize anything for them. They have been around since before R/C was anything but a gleam in the Good Brothers eyes (with the exception of helicopters).

As to your question to whether or not the PPP are participating in a different hobby; according to the AMA, they are. Otherwise why a different tier of membership for them?

How many times do I have to tell you that I am against any tier of membership (regardless of the price) that does not allow those who's actions within the hobby are governed by an orgainzation that will not allow the members to have a voice in that organization. If you can't vote, you have no voice. How much more plain can I be, and you still not comprehend what I have, and am now telling you?

You claim that you are intelligent enough to comprehend the AMA rules that you have read (sic), and yet you keep missing my point completely.

Bill, AMA 4720

A lot of folks think that allowing non-voting membership levels is no big deal. In actual practice with only 10% of the membership willing to vote for representation, having a non-voting tier doesn't seem like such big deal. What some fail to see is the insipid path that allowing non voting members can lead to. I know we overuse the old drastic comparison to how Hitler gained control of Germany, but the principle is the same. He didn't do it all at once, he did it little by little and the sheep continued to follow.
Establishing non voting tiers sets a bad precedent and should not be accepted at any level by those who wish to see the AMA remain an organization designed to answer to it's members.
Some could argue that it's already too late for that. They have recently proven that they can do whatever they wish, whenever they wish and sell it off as promoting the hobby. Having a voting membership is just a pain, it slows things down and forces them to be accountable for their actions. Who needs that?
Just go out and fly, guys...this stupid "democracy stuff" will just work itself out, it always does .

I think it is you who missed a point there, Bill. The fact that those who engage in those pieces of the hobby pay the same amount of dues that you and I do doesn't mean that you aren't aren't subsidizing ("fronting") them. For illustration purposes, lets assume that 8% of the open members consider that flying helicopters is "their" hobby. That means that 8% of AMA's revenue comes from them. Now, if more than 8% of AMA's annual budget is associated with supporting helicopter flyers (putting on national events, magazine articles, etc, etc) then you are indeed "fronting" someone else's hobby. Now the annual financial reports put out by AMA don't supply enough detail to know for sure, but do you really believe that revenue and expenditures are all proportional? It's hard to believe that they are, and if they aren't then someone else's "hobby" is being subsidized. Perhaps by you, depending upon what your "hobby" is.

Faulty logic, there I think. The membership tier is indeed different, but are they not flying model planes just like the rest of us do? Or does the fact that the plane that they fly, and the locations flown are different mean they are doing something different than those who fly a 1.20 sized kit built Waco? I think not. Your milage apparently differs.

I understand that completely, Bill.

My responses here have been regarding your comments about front money, though. You made a big deal out of not wanting to front someone else's hobby to the tune a buck or two a year, and THAT is what I was responding to. If you now want to bring that into the discussion, then fine, but that is not what you've been talking about in this particular exchange.

Well, I am intelligent enough to recognize gratuitous cheap shots when I see 'em.

To be honest I've gone back and forth a bit on whether having a non-voting membership tier is a problem or not, and I think at this point I tend to agree with you that's it's NOT a good idea.

That said, I believe it's a stretch to think that setting up such is geared towards a deliberate move to reduce voting members as some sort of control issue. That seems to be what you are indicating here. If not, then nevermind. []

Bob, guys in our age bracket learn from we've seen happen in real life. I've seen a lot of individual freedom that we used to take for granted turned over to big brother little by little. I think it's only natural for the people who work for large organizations to want as much control as they can muster, it's for their own job security, and makes their job easier instead of having every little thing decided by vote or by commitee.
I've suggested before that for a 1/2 price membership they could have been granted 1/2 a vote, which would seem to be more fair.

AMA having a non-voting membership is definitely another GIANT STEP FORWARD in the ultimate objective of a few individuals to make the AMA their own little nest. As Mr. Marx wrote, it will always be three steps forward and two steps back, but the objective will be reached as long as the NET one step forward continues. Anyone with any active perception to see and comprehend beyond one's nose, can readily see such in all our world of today. As of now it seems that there are more like 3 steps forward and no steps back, even at AMA.

Now BM, you have set about trying to outsmart Stick. IMO, Stick is being very kind to you. Stick is much more aware of things than you, and far better informed than you evidence to be.
Stick does say one thing that I disagree with. He gives you credit for knowing a lot about AMA. IMO, he is wrong there, as I don't think you really know anything beyond a few written words. Just recently you well evidenced right here in this forum that you never pick up on other than the words; you simply see nothing of the structure and that which lies, "Between the Lines." I really had to laugh.

Here is a quote of an email that I received back in Oct. The name I reserve, yet he is an individual I still respect even though we often engaged in extremely strong different opinions about AMA directions.

>>>>>
FYI, I have already voted twice!!!

Once for YOU, and once for McCain (Hmmn ..... Cain and Mc......Cain ...... sounds like a conspiracy to me!!!)

XXXX voted the same way, in both cases, so you will get at least 3 votes....:&lt)))

I sincerely hope you win ...... you and I have disagreed over the years, and I am sure we will continue to disagree on some things, but I suspect Mark Smith will bankrupt the organization with his grandiose marketing schemes.......

Good Luck
XXXX XXXXX
PS...... Don't faint ...... pinch yourself, as I really DID vote for you, as did many people who would surprise you.
<<<<<<<<<<<&lt ;

So this person and I both are now rather like the proverbial THREE-TIME LOSER: Pregnant Lady-of-the-Evening with a "I Like McCain" button on her dress. We lost and that is that.

So while I extend best wishes to the new EVP, my main loyalty is to the direction of AMA as set up by the FOUNDERS, same as another important organization, and not to those trying to change the original direction of the unit.

I won't be around here much so don't expect any more long disertations from me. I'm betting that right now I am displayed as Off-Line.

Once again, Rooty-Poop, you stepped on your own crankshaft (this time with golf spikes). You mentioned several different disciplines that are operational within the ranks of Open Membership. You also mentioned the Parkies. Of all that you mentioned, an Open Member can participate in any or all of them, without discrimination. If, today, I want to fly my Ramrod 600, I can do so. If I want to fly my Shark 45, I can do so. If I want to fly an electric foamy, I can do so. If I want to fly one of my R/C Scale Waco's, I can do so. The PPP member can only do one of these. Guess which one.

You see there Mitchell, I hold an open membership within the AMA. I can fly any type of model aircraft (granted that some require waivers), so no one is subsidizing me. I am not subsidizing any Open member. We can cross over and fly what we wish. By the Park Pilot only paying his 29 smackers, and there only being about one thousand of them, and the AMA paying out nearly a quarter of a million dollars, then they are being subsidized to the tune of about two hundred twenty thousand dollars to date. That is a subsidy. When an open member goes out to fly, he is not being subsidized by you, regardless of what he chooses to fly that day. If tomorrow all the Open Members go out and fly R/C, then they are taking no money from anyone else. Look up the defintion of Open Membership sometime.

Got it? Get it.

Bill, AMA 4720
Well, I am intelligent enough to recognize gratuitous cheap shots when I see 'em.

I thought you said it was the (NON)voting status that caused your vehement hatred of the PPP. Now it's the $1.50 of your dues that was used to get the program started? You're all over the place.

Bob has written several well thought out, friendly posts regarding his stance on the PPP and it's future. It has been met with name calling and vitrol from you and the former candidate for EVP.

Real nice. You two come off like a couple of grouchy old codgers. You should spend less time venting here. You could be spending more time at the field yelling at the young 'uns and their dad burned ARFs.

On topic:

The PPP is not even a year old yet. Dave Matthews has stated a time limit for it to succeed financially. Funny how some folks say the AMA is only about the money then lambast a forward thinking, progressive new program based solely on it's $ input after 11 months. I think that's called being two faced. yea, that's it.

As far as this thread degrading into a PPPP bashing thread:

What else would/could it be. Stickbuilder started the thread. Some folks just love to hate something, someone, anything.