Eric Linnhoff wrote:
> >Many people don't realise this, but when they check those little boxes
> >of "interest" on their membership renewal form, they're asking for their
> >membership dues to be shared amoung all of the boxes selected.
> >
> ============================
> Re-e-e-e-ealy. I did not know that. Is this fact or just supposition?
> Sources?
>
> If so, I'll be sure to rectify the problem when I renew in October.
Believe it, it is accurate. I do not recall who, but when I heard this some
time back it was indeed confirmed by one of the designated SCCA "officials".
I think it was finally even published after many member inquiries.
I wonder why SCCA still does not make that patently clear on the form?
Regarding finances and accountants - the old adage, "Figures don't lie, but
liars do figure" may be applicable here in the sense that numbers, graphs
and statistics can be manipulated in almost any way to show anything. Ever
been in a Board room where different costs are being assigned to different
programs? I have. It gets very creative and philosophical about why certain
funds are billed to one program or another.
Just the fact that SCCA distributes funds on the basis of those little
boxes, and does not make it *very* clear to everyone that funding is
therefore affected, is very shady in my book.
I guess the less we know the better :-) . If what this petition
addresses is accurate (and I don't know that it is or isn't), the backlash
would be similar to the Boston Tea Party I would think.
It would be very hard to prove.
Scott Meyers
|