Re: RC: Information on the motion concerning the NC use of the AERC name

["Nancy Mitts" <mitts_n@hotmail.com>]

To whom it may concern,
(Motion 3, presented by national office committee) It strikes me as a bit 
odd that "AERC" does not want financial responsibility for the AERC National 
Championship Ride because it may be a financial drain. Then suggest it's 
just fine to skim $20/rider off the top.
Granted the National Office has no business managing a ride, but I'm not 
sure they're doing anyone a huge favor by "letting" someone manage one in 
the name of AERC.  If the membership expects a national championship from 
AERC, is it not somewhat obligated to provide one, in some fashion? I surely 
don't want AERC losing money, but perhaps making the ride a profit center 
should depend on the ride actually showing a profit.  Otherwise, who will be 
willing to undertake such a monumental task in the future?

Other very related motions:

18. Motion: The AERC pay for the cost of the National Championship Awards as 
presented at the convention. The cost of the awards shall not exceed $6700 
and will be paid for out of the AERC General Fund.
Presented by: Diane Fruth, AERC National Championship Committee Chairman
If motion 18 passed, then motion 3 would have some validity!  The riders 
would be paying $20 each to see to it that there were national awards, 
regardless of whether sufficient sponsorships were obtained by the national 
ride management/committee. Money for awards would not come from general 
funds, but from the NC rider's fee funds.

20. Motion: AERC drop all weight divisions from competition and go back to 
having just one National Senior Champion plus a Junior National Champion. 
Presented by: The Rules Committee Chair

We're so worried about this thing losing money. Let's reduce the number of 
possible winners! That's sure to increase participation!

In the 10 years I've been a member, the AERC National Championship, in it's 
several various forms, has never seemed to offer a whole lot of prestige. 
(Though not for lack of trying on management's part! All the one's I've been 
to were excellent rides!) I seem to remember one year the winners didn't 
even get into the yearbook? Or maybe the 1st place did but not the other 
placings. The particulars aren't that important. The impression is that the 
National Championship just doesn't matter a whole lot. It's been a joke to 
some people. The fact that "AERC" wants to sell it's name for $20/rider & 
not be involved in any other way pretty well sums it up. If it's OUR 
National Championship Ride it darn well SHOULD be publicized in OUR 
magazine, Endurance News. It's not "giving free advertising", it's 
distributing information to the membership about THEIR national 
championship.
Perhaps the membership doesn't really want a National Championship? Speak 
up! Do you think money should come from general funds, or all from the 
participants? It's time to give this ride the talking up & support it 
deserves, or just forget it. It's a shame for so many people to work so hard 
as they did this year, and have at past NC rides, in the name of AERC. And 
somehow AERC (we) did them a favor by letting them use the AERC name?
I got the impression they were doing this FOR AERC!

Personally, the championship series fit our concept of what an endurance 
champion should be. Excellent performance over time, not just a one-ride 
event. It proved to be an unwieldy form, and more trouble to figure out than 
a lot of people thought is was worth. The membership (was it a poll or an 
official vote?) decided on a championship ride format. As Jim said, the 
entire membership had the opportunity to qualify for the right to attend 
this ride. It was not financially prohibitive for anyone who had set it has 
a goal. So, if the membership wants a one-ride championship, the entire 
organization needs to quit treating it like a joke, support it vocally, in 
print, and financially as much as prudent. If it doesn't pop your cork, 
attend the events that do, but don't run the championship down. We supported 
the ride as vendors, and it was really tough to be there & not riding! Maybe 
we'll change our minds and ride next year, but if not we'll still support 
OUR CHAMPIONSHIP the best way we can.

Nancy & Monte Mitts




>From: Michael Maul <mmaul@flash.net>
>To: Distance Riders <DR@yahoogroups.com>, Goneridn <goneridin@egroups.com>, 
>        ridecamp <ridecamp@endurance.net>,        CT_Region 
><AERC_CT_Region@yahoogroups.com>
>CC: Vicki Rutter <rutter@dakotacom.net>
>Subject: RC:  Information on the motion concerning the NC use of the AERC 
>name
>Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:33:05 -0800
>
>Vicki Rutter requested that the following information be posted to the 
>endurance
>lists concerning one of the motions before the board that the National 
>Office Committee
>proposed.
>
>Questions should go directly to Vicki at  rutter@dakotacom.net
>
>Mike Maul
>
>**************************************************************************
>Motion to assess a per rider fee at the NC ride for the use of the AERC 
>name.
>
>AERC sanctions rides.  AERC does not get involved in the management of any 
>ride.  AERC can recognize the
>NC ride as a special ride.  AERC has worked
>hard to build a reputable name in endurance and we are allowing that name 
>to be associated with one
>specific ride by calling it the AERC NC ride.  The per
>rider fee is a small price to pay for the use of that good name.
>AERC supports the NC ride financially by promoting it in EN both through 
>full page ads and it is
>mentioned numerous times in messages from officers and
>committee chairs.  In ad space alone, EN has provided over $7875 worth of 
>support for the NC ride over
>the past two years.
>
>I am concerned that the NC ride will become a financial drain on AERC if we 
>start participating in the
>expenses of the ride.  I saw the budget early on for
>the 2001 ride and they were anticipating a $10,000 loss.  I questioned 
>whether they could absorb this and
>they were hopeful to get a sponsor to help but
>that didn't happen.  AERC is in excellent financial condition right now 
>but, in order to stay there, we
>must treat all rides fairly and just sanction them, not
>get involved in direct financial support.  In order to help stop this on 
>the front end, I would like to
>see the NC ride be a small profit center for AERC
>through the "franchise fee" for using our good name and not end up being 
>asked to pay for ride amenities
>or awards for just one event that AERC
>sanctions.  Everyone sounds like they had a wonderful time at this years NC 
>ride so hopefully the riders
>wouldn't object to paying a little higher entry fee
>for the use of the AERC name and to cover whatever awards ride management 
>chooses to give.
>
>Vicki Rutter
>National Office Committee, Chair
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
>Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp