$20.00 per Rider fee and AERC... the rest of the story

[Deanna German <finishis2win@columbus.rr.com>]

It's nice to see the Ride Manager's POV. Certainly paints a different
picture than we were lead to believe from Vicki Rutter's post.

Here's what I have to say:

I think that my national organization has a responsibility to contribute to,
financially and through publicity, National Championship rides (100 mile and
50 mile) in order to contribute to fulfilling the organization's mission of
promoting endurance. I'm a new member so was unaware that the membership so
recently overwhelmingly voted to have a Nat'l Championship Ride. If I was a
member then, I would have voted for it myself.

The problem is being defined as lack of funds. Let's ignore for a moment
that the problem is ill-defined. There seems to be a belief that the rider
numbers won't change downward in response to increased fees thus not
increasing the revenue as much as anticipated and financially restricting
access to the ride. Is this what we the members of AERC want? Even if the
problem was lack of funds, increasing rider fees is not the best solution.

AERC's good name? Puleeze. The riders, horses and ride managers who
participate in and put on this ride ARE what makes AERC's name so good.
Sure, there needs to be some accountability from the ride managment, but
AERC shouldn't tie their hands either.

Connie has a good hunch about how magazine ad sales work. Don't anyone
believe that EN lost $7875 worth of revenue because of ad pages placed on
behalf of the National Championship. Here's how magazine ad sales work: a
magazine puts in as many ads as they sell. The production person just keeps
re-shuffling and adding pages and using filler material as needed. NC ads
should not have run instead of paid advertising. (If someone responsible for
EN is being lead or leading others to believe otherwise, I can recommend
some alternative sources for magazine production.) All AERC paid for was the
ink and the paper and that is negligible since the pub was already being
printed. Gee, maybe those ads were substituted for advertisers who pulled at
the last minute. That would actually be some smart thinkin'.

It's a darn shame that so much miscommunication went on. THAT'S the problem
which needs a solution. Sounds to me that we wouldn't be talking about this
motion right now if a little more communication had happened a long time
ago. The proposed $20 rider fee is the wrong band-aid for this gaping wound.
There is an agreement that there is a $10,000 shortfall. How did that happen
and how can it be prevented in the future?

Deanna (Ohio)
AERC #30478
AHAO member