[at-l] Question for Jim Owen and any others who know

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

I was at an ADK leadership meeting yesterday. One of the things that was 
said troubles me. We were told that most organizations of our type choose 
their directors based on wealth meaning that to become a director of the 
organization you had to be a successful fund raiser for the group, i.e. 
raise $100,000 and you become a candidate for club directorship. Allegedly 
that is how AMC has worked for some time (*PLEASE* This is not an 
invitation to those who want to chime in with an anti-AMC rant. We already 
heard all that) and (the disturbing part to me) was that the recent changes 
in how ATC will operate put it on that same basis. According to this 
source, rather than draw the board of directors from concerned 
members/volunteer leadership at large, these policy making positions will 
be doled out to those who bring in the biggest bucks. The point of this 
presentation was that ADK was different (which is great) but I'm also 
concerned about ATC.

I confess to not reading the changes ATC announced as carefully as I 
probably ought, but that was not my impression of the changes being made in 
ATC's organization. Is that characterization true? If so that opens the 
door to subversion of the organization by moneyed interests. ATC is an 
obstacle to our development plans? Simple solution, make large donations, 
appoint our own directors and change ATC to fit our development goals.

True or untrue, that is the question.

Saunterer
I repeat, no AMC rants. They've had enough airing. I'm only concerned about ATC.