KidEpoxy

Should we put in place some kind of anti-deficit spending rule/bylaw/etc
to have Muncie pay back a preceding year's overspending in the AMA budget of the following year?

We have seen runaway deficit spending in the government, to the point that its said to be unstoppable, and wonder how it got out of control.
Should we take preventative steps now to stop that from happening to our org.

Hossfly

Kid, I'm not voting in your poll, mainly for two reasons.

(1.) I have for many years tried to sell the one point that would place the AMA in the black side of the ledger. That point has not received any significant support by the membership.

(2.) The Executive Council is totally responsible for all happenings at Muncie. Since none ever get "Term Limited" by their constituency, especially when I have given that constituency a fair chance to do so, then I have almost (but not quite [sm=devious.gif] ) decided that the membership deserves whatever they get.

So, KID, Keep up the good work. It is very much needed.

Mr. Mugen

[sm=wink_smile.gif]

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

I didn't vote either. The choices (therefore the outcome)were loaded. I get the idea your after though but disagree that it's the only way you can haveaccountabilityorresponsibilty.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Is the AMA a private enterprise owned by the permanent staff, or is it considered a public trust owned equally by all members?

Who owns it?

I got a big kick out of Mark Smiths' column [on page 143 of March issue] about how SPLENDIDLY the PPP is doing.

About what a huge SUCCESS it is.

What a LOAD...who does he think he is kidding?

*editted to correct who I blamed for the PPP article...it was not JC, like I originally stated...oops.

Time for him to start looking for another "Chamber of Commerce" type job where they haven't heard of him yet. One of those jobs where you gotta have at least 3 or 4 chins to at least qualify.

That is almost subject for another thread, but at this stage it is kicking a dead horse.

KidEpoxy

Kbob-
I think you are trying to read way too far into it.

I'll work it the other direction for you:

Kbob, what (if anything) do you see wrong with requiring deficit spent funds of one year
to be paid back in the next budget?

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

You're probably right about reading too much into it.

There's definitely nothing wrong with the requirement that deficit funds form the previous year be replenished with funds from the next year. Of course it would be even better if there was no deficit spending to start with. I could see an exception for unexpected and unbudgeted emergency expenses but what would that be?Broken water heater at Muncie?Maybe a one time large cash payout with no receipts?

Poll:

1. I would like to see a fiscally responsible spending bill passed by the U. S. Congress.

2. I would like to have 15 kittens die a slow, painfull, horrible death.

You can see how the sample poll is similarly flawed. (a prez. would never sign such a bill)

KidEpoxy

Kbob,
I understand your reference, but dont see how that is happening here.

Top continue in your kitten example:
The Kitten choice was clearly put in as one so bad that nobody would choose it, defaulting folks to take the other choice. However, in the poll here we see folks ARE choosing the kittens die option, which kinda demonstrates that option is not driving votes toward the other choice.
With the 12 votes we have at the moment, killing kittens is only trailing by 5:7 .... folks apparently are not steered away.


If you would like to suggest alternate phrasing of the poll options, to reflect
Deficit Spending is OK vs Deficit Spending is Bad
I'll consider changing the text for ya




edit:
oh, yeah I understand that its not a perfect world and the very nature of sales makes a budget just guessing at what the future holds, so thats why I said to repay any deficit rather than to say some arbitrary text trying to make it impossible to do. Obviously there would need to be some time spent putting together a formal draft to incorporate contingencies and details far beyond a two sentence sound bite on it here.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

I know, I know,

But the wording of your two choices is a little loaded. Just pointing it out.

"No consequences or responsibility for overspending is needed"gives the impression that this is the status quo when clearly it is not. There is responsibility and there are consequences.

Like I said earlier. I have no problem with a change to the bylaws so ifthe choiceswere a simple "yes" or "no"I would vote yes. I couldsee how some might viewthe wording of the choices as a dig at the present system or administration. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying some might view it as such and dismiss the whole (good) idea out of hand.

Hossfly

AMA Bylaws

ARTICLE I
Section 3. The AMA is a non-profit corporation organized under
the District of Columbia Non-Profit Corporation Act.

ARTICLE II
Purposes
Subject to the limitations set forth in the Academy of Model
Aeronautics, Inc., Articles of Incorporation, the primary object of
the AMA is to promote and foster educational and scientific
advancement in model aeronautics, to give recognition to model
leadership and to provide guidance and direction of national model
aeronautic affairs by those individuals who, through their
accomplishments in the model field, have demonstrated their
qualifications for such responsibilit

ARTICLE III
Section 3. The Executive Council’s determination on eligibility or
class of membership shall be conclusive. Upon acceptance for
membership, each individual shall agree to accept the Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws of the AMA and to pay such dues as may
from time to time be determined by the Executive Council. No
member shall have any right, title, or interest in or to AMA
property.

AMA and its assets are wholly owned by the Corporation.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Thanks Hoss.

It still doesn't say WHO owns it.

The true owners are the ones who have direct access to the money and are the ones able to decide how that money gets spent.

To answer KE's question...deficit spending could ruin the organization if allowed to run amuk.
I don't know if they already have some kind of by law that limits expenditures or not.
Should they just mind their own business and stick to clerical / organizational work...or should they be speculating / gambling with AMA funds?

So far they've spent a million bucks on PPP and had 50 guys show up at a PPP rally in Nevada.
They've declared the turn out a major victory......like when we rolled tanks into Baghdad and Baghdad Bob kept declaring on their local news that all was well.

Hossfly

Therein lies the total problem; First, examine these phrases:
"No consequences or responsibility for overspending is needed "

Not bad but just who is responsible for overspending. Each year there is a Budget Committee meeting around Oct. 01. Who attends;

Finance Committee (C) (1/97):
Chair: Russ Miller
Mission Statement: “To present a budget to the Executive Council for review and approval that will assist the AMA in performance of its mission statement.�
Committee Members: Doug Holland, Jim Wallen, Jim Cherry, Craig Schroeder

Now, any guess just who will write those contingencies into the "formal draft"? That would be like swiss-cheese with plenty loopholes. Like the federal income tax. There are many loopholes for Congress, etc. All one has to do is find the loopholes and save on one's taxes. Unfortunately our AMA member-dues are not susceptible to any loopholes in the AMA budget.

To obtain a copy of that report would most likely require a court-order. Will you pay for such?

The Executive Committee approves (disapproves ) their recommendations at the next EC meeting usually late Oct. or Nov. of same year.
Only a membership vote to remove old and place new members into position can change the EC. However history evidences the AMA Membership simply is far too tolerant and UNLEARNED to do such.


NOW: "Yes, ounce of prevention toward responsible spending "

What does that mean? "ounce of prevention" may be good for Mom telling a kid why he/she should take their medicine, but here in almost [/u] legal work it doesn't mean anything.

Kid, you and I are friends and I hope to say that many years from now. However, here publicly, may I please suggest that while you have some great inputs, you need to move far away from the "teen-age text messaging" style to a higher plain of writing your thoughts and desires.

Horrace Cain

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Maybe if we become 'too big to fail' the gov't will bail us out if we need it [&:]

cj_rumley

As an AMA member you signed this agreement: Upon acceptance for
membership, each individual shall agree to accept the Articles of
Incorporation.........

Looks like you wrote the mysterious 'them' a blank check.

Not singling you out, I don't know any AMA member that has ever seen the AMA Articles of Incorporation each of must agree to accept to become a member, and find that rather curious.

Stickbuilder

They would never know that we were too big to fail. Normally there are what, 7 people who vote or something like that? Oops, maybe I should have said sheep.

Bill, AMA 4720

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

*Sigh*

And the downward spiral begins ..................

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

The AMA, as a non-profit corporation, is a legal entity unto itself. If the corporation is dissolved, the assets of the corporation are distributed according to the laws of the state where it is incorporated, but typically as part of the formation of the corporation is a statement that none of the assets will be distributed to the members. Rather the assets must be distributed to similar non-profit organizations. Similarly if the corporation has a liability, we as individuals are not held liable. This is one of the big reasons to form the corporation.

We as "members" of the corporation do not own the assets. We elect the directors of the corporation, and the directors "direct".

Brad

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

We've all heard that before, but the people who really own it are the ones who can sign the checks that buy the new building, carpet, drapes, frig, furniture, expense accounts and what they get paid with. IOW, the ones who are in control of the money are the ones who own it.

They enjoy most of the perks of "real" ownership without any of the liabilities.

The Ultimate Gravy Train? Well maybe not but almost as good as being in Congress.

cyclops2

Ownership is STILL voluntary. ( untill creditors want their money). Then members COULD become liable.

Stickbuilder

You can't spiral much further downward than the few who voted in the last National AMA election.

Bill, AMA 4720

cyclops2

Always remember. In America, anyone can sue anything at any time. Till several trials resolve the issue.

Lawyers REJOICE!