ridecamp@endurance.net: [endurance] aerc newsletter
[endurance] aerc newsletter
Charlie Gabri (hillfolk@foothill.net)
Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:26:31 -0700
>Date: Fri, 5 Jul 96 09:27 EST
>From: "Larkin, R. Joe"
<WFCB/WFCB1/LARKINRJ%Western_Farm_Credit_Bank@mcimail.com>
>To: Charlie Gabri <hillfolk@foothill.net>
>Subject: aerc newsletter
>
>
>chuck -
>i sent this article to aerc to publish in the august newsletter.
>can you please put this on the net ?
>thank you.
>joe
> -----------------------------------
>
>I wrote a letter to AERC that was published in the endurance news December
>1995. My letter was a result of the published income statement that
>appeared in the October 1995 endurance news. In my opinion, there was too
>much money being spent on awards and data processing.
>
>Vonita wrote back to me on December 29, 1995 and asked me to address the
>board during the AERC convention. In this letter Vonita asked me to tell
>the board what was wrong with their computer agreement and explain any
>suggestions that I had to share. Vonita and I followed up via emails on
>February 27, 1996 and she said that I was on the agenda to address the
>board.
>
>Prior to attending the board meeting in Reno, I went into the AERC office
>and Miki gave me a demo of the new computer system. The system, developed
>in foxpro was in my opinion, very well written. The graphical interface=
was
>very easy for the people in the AERC office to use. At this time, Miki
>said she would send me a copy of the data processing contract.
>
>After reviewing the data processing contract dated and signed by Miki on
>3/7/95, I found some issues that I thought should be conveyed to the board.
> I also had some ideas for the awards program. One such idea was to have
>those who wish to participate in the awards program pay a higher yearly
>membership.
>
>I addressed the board on February 29, 1996. At that time I was told that I
>was allowed only one item to discuss, so I opted for the data processing
>issues and passed my awards program suggestions to Dean Jackson. The new
>AERC CPA (Omar Bardales) addressed the board first. Next, Mark Holmes the
>AERC computer consultant addressed the board. Mark discussed the new
>program and the future enhancements. When it was my turn, I started
>discussing the data processing contract. My initial comments were the
>contract cost of =F1 $25,000 per year for three years for a total of=
$75,000.
> This method of payment was negotiated because AERC is cash poor. AERC got
>Mark to develop the new system and then he would be paid by the number of
>membership/family participants. This projected cost is approximately $5=
per
>member. This $75,000 cost was spread over three years for development only
>and does not include maintenance costs. It has been my experience, that
>maintenance costs for data processing services are usually free for the
>first year. Then in the remaining years of the contract, maintenance costs
>are applied at a 10 to 15 percent of the purchase price. This brought up
>discussion by everyone on the board. One issue brought up was that the new
>system and contract were in place because we relied on Joe Long for so many
>years. Well, nothing has changed but the person. Once again we are going
>to rely on Mark and his firm for data processing expertise.
>
>During this discussion, Robert Morris asked Vonita why I was there
>questioning the board's decision. Why was I invited to speak on this topic
>if the AERC board did not want to hear what I had to say? Vonita then=
asked
>if I had any thing else to say. Even though I had much to say, I was made
>to feel unwelcome and chose not to continue.
>
>There were other issues that I wanted to bring up about the data processing
>contract, but did not get the chance to. One issue is the support warranty
>clause. This is only good for ninety days after delivery. This means that
>all maintenance/modifications will cost AERC at time and materials in
>addition to the $25,000 per year. Another issue in the contract is that as
>the contract expires, AERC must return all software and materials to Mark
>Holmes. According to the contract, AERC has not purchased the software. =
In
>other words, we do not own the software! Who owns the software is a very
>important issue. The CPA (Omar Bardales) was telling the board that the=
new
>software system is being depreciated as an owned asset on the books. If we
>do not own the software, is this legal? As (Omar) was leaving, he told the
>board that they should start running the organization as a business, or
>there would be no AERC. A business would have received three or four bids
>for the data processing project before selecting a product.
>
>Even though I feel that I was treated unfairly at the board meeting, I
>believe that all AERC members should contact the board and/or their
>directors. They need our input. If you are treated unfairly, do not
>become frustrated. Keep talking to them and giving them suggestions and
>opinions of their actions. No matter how unfairly you think you are being
>treated, they say they need our input. We as members should tell the
>officers and board of AERC that they need to run this organization as a
>business. Look at Vonita=C9s column from Endurance News, May 1996.
>
> =C8how can we expect our ideas to be heard if we don=C9t speak up? =
And we
>should be heard.
> After all, it=C9s our sport.=C9
>
>
>/s/ joe larkin
>
>cc: Omar Bardales
> Western States Trail Foundation
> NASTR
> Vonita Bowers
> Stagg Newman
> Louise Riedel
> Larry Kanavy
>
>
>
--ole slow charlie(chuck)
Lonesome Coyote Ranch, Foresthill Ca
(916) 367-2981
hillfolk@foothill.net(KD6RRX) =20