It's good news week!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

People don't seem to realize that today's dominant business model is the
media model, and that model applies in spades to associations. Services,
discounts, etc. provided to members are not the product being sold.
They're
the cost of goods--the bait to develop the real product, their membership
roles. These organizations are in the business of selling advertisers and
others access to their "members." To the extent that the professional
managers' objectives correspond at all with those of the members it's
purely
coincidental.

You got that right.

It's good news week!
 

Dave wrote:
You really don't understand the difference between a charity and these
associations, do you, Doug.

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Obviously you feel the need for
an ad hominem attack at this point.

... I said was "A number of years ago, I
represented an association manager. She ran I don't
know how many associations, most of them created by her,"

Associations. Got that? Associations. Not charities.

Sure.
So why did you then go on to generalize that all such groups
were crooked shills?

... Things like the Long
Island Plumber's Association to make up an example. Nothing to do with
charities. Different beasts entirely. The ABA, AMA, AARP, etc. etc. are
_not_ charities.


Agreed. But *you* brought up the AMA and the AARP
specifically, and strongly insinuated (in not stated
outright) that these too were crooked shills engaged in
shoving a personal agenda down people's throats; and in a
rather huffy way said that they were run by people who are
not memebrs of the group(s) they represent; which is simply
not true.




Aren't AARP and the AMA civic organizations?


Definitely not. They don't even pretend to be, though you and perhaps others
seem to be badly confused on the point. They are organizations that purport
to operate to further the interest of their members, not the public
generally.

Uh huh. So let's quibble over terminology. They represent a
group of people and the leaders *are* members of that group
themselves.


... But in fact they generate much of their revenue by providing
vendors of various goods and services with access to their members

Yep. It's called "advertising." The Republican Party does
rather a lot of it these days.

.... and
further in substantial part the interests of their professional managers
rather than the interests of their members.


Got any proof of that? I already called you on who sets the
policy.

Does every law firm consist totally and solely of lawyers?
Does no law firm (or any association of lawyers) ever ever
hire a secretary to do the filing & telephoning, or an
accountant to handle the money? The company I work for (sort
of) has a lot of people who are not engineers, should it not
be allowed to call itself an engineering company?


Didn't you
specifically speak of charities? Maybe that was a different
thread? Please clarify.


I said nothing about charities until you threw that red herring into the
pot.

Not a red herring at all. More ad hominem, eh Dave?
Charities were specifically mentioned by others before I
ever posted to this thread.

DSK

It's good news week!
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:41:30 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Gilligan" wrote in message
m...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by retired
people.


Dave wrote:
And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow
with
money.


So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the sound of it,
right?


A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I
don't
know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good
money
at
it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in
a
whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an
enlightening experience.

And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association.

DSK


Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull
in. 85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon.

It's practically the rule rather than the exception. The United Way has
such a deplorable pass-through rate (that amount that makes it to the
targeted end-users) as to be a joke. At times it's been less than 10%.

Max


The easiest way to avoid this is to give to LOCAL charities. That way you
can be
more involved in how your money gets used. Give 100K to United Way and it
evaporates without ever tocuching the ground. Give the same to a local
charity
and watch what happens with it.

I never give to the United Way, but my wife is literally forced to do so by
her employer. Sucks.

I've given to a variety of local charities, such as our Food Bank, which
distributes foodstuffs to the impoverished. 100% of my expenditure gets to
the end-user. By comparison the major charities are criminally inefficient.

Max

It's good news week!
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:


It's practically the rule rather than the exception. The United Way has
such a deplorable pass-through rate (that amount that makes it to the
targeted end-users) as to be a joke. At times it's been less than 10%.

Perhaps this just a US problem,
http://www1.unitedway.ca/sites/Porta...orm.aspx?ID=20 ,

Or did you you just make up that 10% figure?

First: The Canadian rule that 80% must be spent on the target charities
does not take into account the amount of money those individual charities
extract before funding the endpoint users.

Second: This is the USA, not Canada, and we have no such law that I'm aware
of. Rather we have, at times, had Congressional oversight on charitable
giving and expenses. This sometimes results in improvements in the
pass-through rate, but when Congress' back is turned the old ways likely
resume. Last figures I saw on the United Way is that about 70% of their
monies are passed through to individual charities, but only about 70% of
those monies are passed through to the endpoints. That makes the United Way
ultimately about 50% efficient. I suspect your United Way is somewhat more
efficient in the ultimate pass-through rate.

Third: The 10% figure was accurate for the mid to late Seventies. Thanks
to a Congressional investigation in the early 80s, the situation has
improved.

Fourth: Why would I make something like that up?

Max

It's good news week!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:

Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional
organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.

We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that run
the organizations, both financially and functionally. They do the
legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts, plan the agendas
of the organizations, and execute the decisions made by the organization
officers. The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice
versa. They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists.

So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and professional
interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing
agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world.

I agree that you'll always see it that way. It's your secular progressive
nature.

Max

It's good news week!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and professional
interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing
agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world.


Dave wrote:
A gross misstatement of my position.


Well, please state your position clearly then. You certainly seemed to
imply that because one charity that you worked for was crooked & driven by
a personal agenda, that *all* are? You even claimed that this view was
"the real world."

I didn't interpret his statements that way. But let's not worry about
specifics when blatant generalities are so easy and convenient to make.

Aren't AARP and the AMA civic organizations?

No. I don't know what the AARP is, but at times it appears to be an
under-the-radar, for-profit business with a strong political agenda. The
AMA is a professional organization, founded for the purpose of further the
agendas of physicians, also with strong political agendas.

In that case, please specify what percent of charities & civic
organizations you think are all right.

Locals, some church-based, etc.


I know only the specifics of the ones that I am involved with & donate to.
The Leukemia Society and the Nature Conservancy are the two main ones, and
they are both fine organizations with much to be proud of.

LOL. The Nature Conservancy is hardly a charity. It is a private
organization that buys and secures land to prevent its plunder. I have
given them a lot of money over the past 20 years.

I really don't know about the Leukemia Society--it may be a fine, legitimate
charity, but I'd ask to see their pass-through rate before sending any more
money.

Max

It's good news week!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
You really don't understand the difference between a charity and these
associations, do you, Doug.

Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Obviously you feel the need for an ad hominem
attack at this point.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "ad hominem attack" either.
Dave is debating your points, not name-calling.


Uh huh. So let's quibble over terminology. They represent a group of
people and the leaders *are* members of that group themselves.

And both organizations have leaders vested with strong political objectives.
The political agendas of such organizations cannot be overlooked simply
because they provide some publicly beneficial activities and services.


... But in fact they generate much of their revenue by providing
vendors of various goods and services with access to their members

Yep. It's called "advertising." The Republican Party does rather a lot of
it these days.

. . . and the Democratic Party doesn't????? You certainly wear some rather
one-sided blinders, Doug.


.... and
further in substantial part the interests of their professional managers
rather than the interests of their members.

I disagree that the AMA does this, Dave. The paid managers of professional
organizations are hired by the membership, and would be fired if they didn't
absolutely represent the membership's interests to the letter. As for the
AARP, I suspect what you say is true, at least that's been my observation.

Does every law firm consist totally and solely of lawyers? Does no law
firm (or any association of lawyers) ever ever hire a secretary to do the
filing & telephoning, or an accountant to handle the money? The company I
work for (sort of) has a lot of people who are not engineers, should it
not be allowed to call itself an engineering company?

Apples--oranges. Hardly the same thing.

Not a red herring at all. More ad hominem, eh Dave?

Not even close. Did he call you a left-wing wacko? THAT is an ad hominem,
and that's my job now, thanks to you refusing to give up your ad hominems
directed at me. I have to admit that it's easier this way, throwing
sophomoric shots at each other. It doesn't take mental gymnastics to avoid
a debate by name-calling in lieu thereof.

Max

It's good news week!
 

Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional
organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.


Maxprop wrote:
We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that run
the organizations, both financially and functionally.

You mean putting little circles & arrows on the calendar,
sweeping the office, balancing the checkbook, calling the
roofing guy.


... They do the
legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts,

Sure

plan the agendas

Not if the organizations are headed by members of the group
they represent. Doctors as officers of the AMA for example.
*They* set the agenda, not the office employees.

Ever heard of policy-making as opposed to manning the desk?



and execute the decisions made by the organization
officers.

Sure.

... The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice
versa.

That's exactly backwards from the way it should be, and is
backwards from every such organization *I* have experience with.

For example, if your sailing club has a hired manager, does
he decide who gets the big perpetual trophies?



They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists.


My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering
decisions.

One could say that your company is run by & for the office
manager; after all he makes a lot of decisions right? But if
he is setting basic policy then you are abdicating from your
role. Some presidents & boards do, most don't (IMHO of
course). Something about self-interest...

DSK

It's good news week!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the
AOA, are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run
professional organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.


Maxprop wrote:
We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that
run the organizations, both financially and functionally.

You mean putting little circles & arrows on the calendar, sweeping the
office, balancing the checkbook, calling the roofing guy.

Not even close. They are executive directors, people who plan and execute
the agendas of the organizations. They are very well compensated for their
expertise and performance.

... They do the legislative liason footwork, make the legislative
contacts,

Sure

plan the agendas

Not if the organizations are headed by members of the group they
represent. Doctors as officers of the AMA for example. *They* set the
agenda, not the office employees.

How naive you are. If I referred to the executive director of our state
professional organization as "an office employee," he'd laugh.

Ever heard of policy-making as opposed to manning the desk?

Sure. The doctors consult their executive directors and ask them for
policy-making direction and guidance. Doctors, as a rule, are great
clinicians but lousy policy makers and planners. Executive directors are
the movers and shakers of professional organizations--they help keep the
membership on the right track.

and execute the decisions made by the organization officers.

Sure.

... The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice versa.

That's exactly backwards from the way it should be, and is backwards from
every such organization *I* have experience with.

It's reality, like it or not. Your experience may not have been as close to
the action as you might wish to believe.

For example, if your sailing club has a hired manager, does he decide who
gets the big perpetual trophies?

Um, there generally isn't much competition nor trophies involved with
professional organizations, Doug.

They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists.


My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering decisions.

Yeah, but does he have nice legs? Wait--don't answer that. I don't want to
know.


One could say that your company is run by & for the office manager; after
all he makes a lot of decisions right? But if he is setting basic policy
then you are abdicating from your role. Some presidents & boards do, most
don't (IMHO of course). Something about self-interest...

When did we begin talking about my company??? We were discussing
professional organizations, and some not-so-professional, like the AARP.

Nice attempt at obfuscation, but no cigar.

Max

It's good news week!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:51:50 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

I disagree that the AMA does this, Dave. The paid managers of
professional
organizations are hired by the membership, and would be fired if they
didn't
absolutely represent the membership's interests to the letter. As for the
AARP, I suspect what you say is true, at least that's been my observation.

And the board of directors of a public company is at least in theory hired
by the shareholders--the owners of the company. Does the board always
represent shareholders' interests to the letter? I don't think so.

That would depend upon the heirarchical structure of the organization. If
the board of directors is analagous to the officers and board members of a
professional organization, then those people would be beholden to represent
the interests of the membership rather than their own personal agendas.
That's what annual elections are all about. In all honesty I can't recall
the officers and the board of the American Optometric Association ever
promoting an agenda that differed from the interests and needs of the
general membership. I suspect the AMA is similar in that respect. With
respect to the AARP, I'd never join because I know the agenda of the
officers and the board are quite at odds with my own beliefs.

But in
practice it's extremely difficult for shareholders to oust a board. Why?
Because it's an expensive undertaking, and with management in control of
the
machinery of communication the board has to really go haywire before any
one
shareholder will be willing to try. Same thing with membership
organizations.

Not the same with professional organizations. The top officers are replaced
annually, or at least they cycle through from sec'y/treasurer to VP to
President, and then out. The board is also completely replaced every few
years. Unlike a corporation where board members wield power and control the
ability to remain in their seats, professional groups replace all their top
people routinely.


You are certainly closer to the AMA than I am,

The AOA, actually, but your point is valid--the organizations are similar in
most respects.

and perhaps its professional
managers are more responsive than those of other organizations. But I
suspect that the control of the machinery of communications is in the
hands
of the managers, and that will inevitably be a major factor.

It is, but those executive directors do the bidding of the membership. They
do, however, guide and direct the membership in the most expeditious paths
for achieving goals, such as legislative actions, etc. They are paid to do
so.

Max