AERC restructuring

[terre <tobytrot@bigfoot.com>]

Glenda said:
	"What we are asking the AERC to do is examine its current financial
condition and fee structure, identify the weak points, and reorganize
itself according to sound financial principles, including fairness and
equitable apportionment of financial responsibility to each member. "

and I believe she is quite right; nor should the reoganization necessarily
be limited to fees alone.  AERC is a relatively young organization that has
sustained enormous growth in a short period of time.  The direction of this
growth has been largely 'uncontrolled' (what Randy calls 'evolution');
changes were made one at a time, in response to specific needs or
circumstances.  This has resulted in the pattern of growth being 'uneven',
and inequities such as many people obviously feel exist in the fee
structure.  Other examples can be easily found--for example, the BC forms
say "a lame horse shall not be judged for BC"--an anachronism from before
Fit to Continue.  In other words, some of the paperwork has not kept pace
with the rule changes.
	What everyone is talking about in this debate comes down to 'fee for
services' or 'user pay'.  Obviously, one member receiving one EN should pay
more than three members receiving one EN.  On the other hand, three members
receiving points should pay more than one member receiving points.  So how
about this: forget the categories 'single' and 'family', and go for
categories based on use of services.  For example: 1)non-rider (voting and
EN only, fee cost of EN plus, say $10)  2)rider (voting, EN, milage
tracking--higher fee to be determined by the cost of milage tracking)
3)competitor (voting, EN, Mileage and points--full membership fee)  Mileage
is forever, but points are only for one year; if they are a separate data
base anyway, should not be too difficult to charge for it.  Anyone in any
of these membership categories can get a fee reduction by declining to
receive EN.  Therefore, Angie's non-riding family members are back to the
orginal $10 per.  Couples or families that are all or mostly
riding/competing can decline the extra copies of EN, but pay a little extra
to have their records kept.  Friends who are not 'married' but who ride,
haul, and compete together can elect to split one EN between them and share
the savings, while still paying for the other services.  What do you think?
	The point is, AERC is still growing, and changes are taking place even
faster.  Soon, EN may be online.  Will those of us who are technologically
advantaged get a reduced rate?  We need a structure that can evolve along
with the organization.
	Similarly, and only partially related to fees, perhaps the whole structure
of the organization needs to be examined.  Most sports/disciplines exist in
a sort of pyramid organization--members rise (with increased skills and
usually expenses) from say, local to State to Regional to National levels.
Endurance is more of a square--everyone is at national level.  State and
Regional organizations exist, but are 'outside' the system.  So how about
this concept--what if AERC gave only national awards, and the regional
awards were given by the regional organizations?  This would a)save AERC
money  b)strengthen bonds between the national and regional organizations
that could possible be expanded to other areas  c)increase support for the
regional organizations and  d)make the awards more 'meaningful' for the
recipients by having them presented by their friends and competitors.
	Just a couple of different slants on the problem, and my $0.0128 worth
(I'm Canadian!)
	Terre