Re: Communication (fwd)

["Villa Sunscape" <davidlass@villasunscape.com>]

Hello everyone --
Having come into this brou-ha-ha at the tail end, my opinions may not be
valid -- but that's never stopped me in the past.
I am in complete agreement with Erik that AGA really needs to get our own
house in order in terms of our organizational status (are we a corporation,
organization or what? are we not for profit? Are we going to file for
401.c.3 not for profit status with the Feds?)
In terms of where I came in on the PAM debate, I had always simply assumed
that AGA was going to be a significant investor in PAM, and therefore the
issue of what say we have would be very clear. I was really surprised when I
found out that AGA was not going to make any investment in PAM. If that is
the case, then I am not at all sure we should get involved, since we would
be releasing our major asset -- our membership list and our members -- to a
new entity we have no control over. Not a good idea. I think that the
question should really be how much does Gomberg want us to invest and what
do we get for that. Corporations in America are run by their boards of
directors, and I would assume that AGA would have significant representation
on the board.
But all of this comes second to AGA getting our house in order.
Lass
----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
To: <aga-mcm@thekrib.com>
Cc: <gomberg@wcf.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Communication (fwd)


> I have waited a day so before sending this, as to be sure I wasn't just
> saying things purely out of anger.  Sure enough, I feel more or less the
> same way about all the points, so I'm sending it as is.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:24:30 -0800 (PST)
>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Dave Gomberg wrote:
>
> > >I don't know what else has been going around this week, but all the
> > >discussions I've been involved with have centered on investment and
> > >influence, the AGA's pre-natal existance as a true organization, and
its
> > >impediment towards negotiation with you/PAM.
> >
> > Neither investment or influence are germane (in my mind) to the issue of
> > whether PAM subs are a good thing for AGA members, which was the prior
> > vote.
>
> OK, I'm torqued now.
>
> This was something we went around and around and around with in New
> Jersey.  IN YOUR MIND they're orthoganal to each other.  From the AGA's
> position, SUBSCRIBING AND INFLUENCE ARE INSEPARABLE.
>
> I think treating this as "should aga members be subscribed to PAM" is the
> single STUPIDEST decision we could as an organization decide to make.  We
> might as well make the decison "should AGA members be subscribed to AFM".
> Hey, an AFM subscription's only $12 a year too, and it comes out every
> month. But WHY would we want to do this?  What's the point?  The AGA wants
> to be INVOLVED in a project, not just be passive recipients of whatever
> you and your "PAM board" choose to throw at your subscribers.  YES I AM
> SHOUTING.
>
> Now, if you make the question "should the AGA be INVOLVED in PAM?" I think
> it becomes more of something we are interested in.  Certainly that's what
> I heard from Mary and the others in New Jersey.  And I beleive this is
> what we voted on, not "should the AGA be subscribed to PAM".  And if the
> former issue is what we voted on, I hereby retract that vote (which was
> conditional on getting these pending details worked out anyway).
>
> I explained to the rest of the MC last week that influence and control DO
> come with subscribing, especially in the situation where the AGA may carry
> nearly 100% of PAM's subscriber base.
>
> I've really started to think that this is not a good match for either side
> at this time.  I've made it fairly public that (to me) the decision
> "doesn't feel right" for the AGA... now I'm finding out that it might not
> be right for you either... We do not have the organizational skills yet
> that you require to interact with, and you are in too much of a hurry to
> get issue #1 out to wait for the possible eternity for us to get our
> management together.  Shoot, it sounded like you scared Mary half to death
> by telling her the AGA insert "was due by the 1st of the year".  Becuase
> this issue of PAM is on the table chronologically in front of all our
> other (and IMHO more important to the AGA as an organization) issues, we
> are now in a deadlock.  The PAM decisions really cannot proceed without us
> having our organization working effectively, tax ID status, understanding
> of AGA future, etc.  But those decisions cannot proceed because we've got
> this !@&^#$ PAM monster sitting on the table.  We're doing this wrong.
> We need to table PAM, determine where we're going, and *then* get back to
> it.  We are the proverbial monkey with its fist in the jar right now.
>
> > We now need to implement the prior vote with an agreement.  From
> > what I hear there has been a lot of thinking that AGA should NOT invest
in
> > PAM, which is what I have maintained all along.  I think that
reinventing
> > itself is a big enough task for AGA without having to worry about the
> > future financial health of PAM at the same time.
>
> This is the conclusion that all those who have spoken last week have
> reached.
>
> --
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
>
>
>
>