RE: why AERC needs to review its financial structure

[Vickie Smith <kiwana@sover.net>]

This whole issue has gotten more complicated than I think it needs to be.. 
 I think that adults pay $xx and 2nd adult, same addr. pays $1/2x; juniors 
pay $10-15.  If juniors can't come up with that amount of money through 
sponsorship/allowance/extra job aka babysitting or house cleaning or 
petsitting, etc., then, I must conclude that they are not ready for the 
responsibility of caring for a horse.  I say this as a mother who did not 
work outside the home and felt that my children must be responsible for 
their interests-whether it coincided with my interests or not.  My 3 
children, by the way, are adults who don't live at home and all are 
starting families.  My 4 grandchildren (soon to be 6) will likely be raised 
in the same way..  My oldest grandson who is now almost 7 began riding 
gymkhana as a 5 yr. old and earned his $10 membership fee for the club by 
helping to do chores at my house!  He also was "paid" a few dollars to help 
our neighbor work in her garden!  This, in addition to feeding his horse 
and helping to clean her stall.  Alex was so pleased with himself and I 
could hardly stand the pride I had in his accomplishments.  (I don't mind 
helping with entry fees but belonging to an association is a once a year 
type of fee.  I also believe that kids are never too young to be aware that 
an animal has needs that must be met by a responsible owner.)

On the topic of trail advocacy, I believe that each member should be given 
the option of donating to a special trails preservation fund set up by AERC 
as a part of the annual budget for the association.  IF you don't care to 
donate to said fund, you need to be active in person.

Best wishes,
Vickie Smith


----------
From: 	Thomas, Barb[SMTP:thomas@amgen.com]
Sent: 	Monday, January 04, 1999 11:11 AM
To: 	'grs@TheNetEffect.com'
Cc: 	kiwana@sover.net; Merryben@aol.com; NdurN@aol.com; 
vanhove@unavco.ucar.edu
Subject: 	RE: why AERC needs to review its financial structure

The more I read and think about this issue, the more I'm inclined to the
keep it simple concept.  It really does become an administrative nightmare
to have so many levels of membership.  I think that having an individual
junior, associate, individual, and group membership (defined as up to 3
adults plus minors) may be the way to go.  I also don't think it is AERC's
intention to push any particular lifestyle.  I just don't think that the
original fee structures were well thought out.  I'd leave out the
marriage/family issues out of the letter and focus on the fairness of any
new fee structure.  Anyway, my 2cents.  I also talked to a friend about
trail advocacy/preservation and her suggestion was that we align ourselves
with a bigger advocacy organization which will give us more clout and bang
for our buck.  Back to work for me!!  Before I get into trouble!!

Barb
> ----------
> From: 	Glenda R. Snodgrass[SMTP:grs@TheNetEffect.com]
> Sent: 	Friday, January 01, 1999 4:05 PM
> To: 	kiwana@sover.net; Merryben@aol.com; Susan Kasemeyer;
> thomas@amgen.com; Teresa Van Hove
> Subject: 	why AERC needs to review its financial structure
>
> Okay, ladies, I've been thinking some more <uh-oh, they say>.  What do 
you
> think of this draft follow-up letter to the BOD, which I'll probably post
> to RC as well?
>
> -g
> ----------------------------------
>
>
> I've been thinking about this subject for a couple of months now, and
> quite a lot in the last few days.  I think I've finally pulled the 
strands
> together into a reasonable analysis, that I'd like to share with you all.
>
> Keeping in mind that this is my 2nd year of membership in AERC, so I 
don't
> know of the history personally, it is my impression that whenever the org
> reached a financial crisis, new fees were implemented or old ones
> raised in a somewhat haphazard manner, without due regard to actual cost
> considerations. When the org was young and small and had few fees, it
> wasn't such a big deal ... but now it is growing and the structure is 
more
> complex.  I believe it is time for the entire structure to be reviewed
> and revised according to sound financial principles.
>
> You know that I support a revision of the membership structure to replace
> the family membership with a group membership and increase membership
> options.  I believe this is the primary change which must take place for
> AERC's finances to be put on better footing -- not only more secure, but
> better justified.  As long as membership fees are based upon a social
> consideration (marital status, blood relation) rather than the financial
> cost (how many riders, how many horses, how much paperwork, how much
> postage), the financial foundation and legitimacy of the org are at risk.
> By discounting membership fees for families but not groups of individuals
> with identical economic/cost considerations, AERC is _de facto_ promoting
> marriage and childbirth as the preferred lifestyle of endurance riders --
> whether it intends to or not.  If AERC wishes to reclassify itself as a
> sport horse organization with a secondary agenda of returning the
> traditional family to prominence in society, then it should do so 
publicly
> and amend the Bylaws (Article VI - Purposes) accordingly.  If not, then
> AERC needs to review its structure and financial condition and set
> membership categories and fees so as to reflect its goals and guarantee
> the continuance and, hopefully, expansion, of the org and the sport.
>
> Restructuring the system according to sound financial principles includes
> many reasonable optional considerations, some of which have been proposed
> either on Ridecamp or in the EN mailbag:
>
> 1 - discounted membership fees for juniors (under 18) and seniors (over
> 65) who are at either end of the economic spectrum, primarily with 
respect
>
> to wage-earning ability
>
> 2 - scaled non-member or "day member" fees according to classification --
> perhaps $5 for an LD, $10 for a 50 and $15 or $20 for a 100?
>
> 3 - creation of an "associate membership" for those who do not wish to
> compete for awards
>
> 4 - scaling awards according to distance and placement
>
> It is hoped that, eventually, expansion of membership services may occur
> as part of the restructuring program, for example:
>
> 1 - insurance
>
> 2 - trail preservation fund
>
> 3 - ability to donate through AERC to other non-profit orgs such as 
Nature
> Conservancy, etc.
>
> 4 - greater organization of the membership to speak as a single "voice" 
on
> issues relevant to our sport
>
> I believe that the AERC is at a crossroads in its life, where it needs to
> make some tough decisions and set a course for the future.  I hope that
> the thoughts outlined above will be taken into consideration as a part of
> this process.
>
> Glenda & Lakota
> Mobile, AL
> AERC # M18819 & H27310
> SE Region
>
>