Leo,
I think that there should be some context given here. The AMA used to pay 100% of the cost associated with the world champs. Over the years the level of support has been dropping (about 200 dollars from 2006 to 2012 per team member) obviously this is not a deal breaker for any members of the senior team. However, if we would like to continue to field the best possible team, equitable access is important for anyone considering joining the program. We do not just want the people that can spend ~2k to go to a qualifier and team selection and then another ~3k for the world champs. I would like to see juniors in particular receive full funding. Generally speaking, they have more expenses because most parents choose to not let there children travel alone to the world champs, so full funding would affectively half their bills.
My two cents,
Nick
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 23, 2012, at 12:03 AM, "Leo Pilachowski" <leop_at_lyradev.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer John. Most of us throw away this stuff, especially when it comes in the license renewal packet for those of us who have previously renewed for more than one year. However, Brown's campaign statement is available online at:
>
> http://amaelection.com/bob-brown/campaign-statemen
>
> Brown's editorial in the current issue of MA is not contradictory to his campaign statement but does give limits to his support. So as John says, we need to determine if Indoor Duration is one of the specific SIGS where there will be increased focus (that is, is there "interest" in Indoor Duration).
>
> Brett mentioned the AMA contributions to the indoor team. I looked at the WC entry form and calculated, using Brett's info, that the AMA would contribute nearly $9000 to the team just for the WC event (8x$400 = $3200 in airfair contribution, $2825 for entry fees, and $2750 for accommodations at the event hotel). Is this is a great deal of money compared to the number of AMA members who are indoor fliers? What participation level (in WC team qualifications, the NATS event, and in local and regional events) do we need to show that this level of support is apropriate
>
> Leo
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "John Kagan" <john_kagan_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > All AMA members should have received the campaign statements with their ballots
> >
> > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Leo Pilachowski" <leop_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Can you please point us to the issue of MA (or whatever) where Brown's campaign statements are published?
> > >
> > > Second, to fully understand Brown's latest MA editorial as it applies to indoor duration, some persepctive is needed. How much does the AMA ontribute, in total, to the FAI Indoor WC team? I thought it was about $500 a person for the six fliers and the two managers. Are there other contributions (fees, etc.)?
> > >
> > > Leo
> > >
> > > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "John Kagan" <john_kagan_at_> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob Brown's latest column discusses how he plans to reduce support for the FAI programs, in direct contrast to his campaign statements. That's pretty disappointing.
> > > >
> > > > "This is no reason for dollars to be spent in competition disciplines where there is little interest". It will be interesting to see how he defines "interest".
> > > >
> > > > The F1D program has maintained the highest funding level through its performance, even though it has not met the participation based funding threshold. It deserves continued support.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 23 2012 - 06:22:08 CEST