Is there any interest? was Re: no comp.

[Kent Swafford, RPT]

You rang, Joe?

Comments interspersed.


On 7/25/02 5:58 PM, "Joseph Garrett" <joegarrett@earthlink.net> wrote:

> All, (& Del & Wim)
> I've reading your discourse regarding the convention(s) and their short
> comings and good things. Earlier, when this discussion began, I stated that
> Every Year, the convention MAKES a profit. Sometimes more than others, but a
> profit, non the less.

This simply is not true. In years where we have unprofitable conventions,
such as the one in Orlando, the convention can drag the PTG into the red for
the entire year.

But in addition we have "fixed" costs associated with the convention that we
cannot easily include on the reports; the biggest item is the cost of staff
time spent on convention prep. We have begun estimating these costs for
planning purposes.

> This money is not being put to good use, but rather is
> used for some of the frivolous junk that the Board has in their own agendas.
> (If you want specifics, read your annual accounting report, CAREFULLY.
> You'll see the "Fat")

I wrote the most recent annual report. Please specify the fat -- other than
me personally. <LOL>

> I have always maintained that the Instructors should reap the benefits of
> the "profit", on an equal basis. This is were the rub is and will continue
> until many of us just don't make ourselves available for the "honor" of
> teaching. I'm fairly certain that Del is of the same mind. And this is what
> he is alluding to. Of course, he is not a caustic or abrasive as yours
> truly. He chooses to be a gentleman about this mess. And it is a mess. It
> has improved somewhat, but not enough in my opinion. It is MHO that most of
> the Board really doesn't care as long as no one is complaining, they will
> continue with the policy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" "let's not
> plan for the long haul", kind of thinking.

At the simplest level, our organization depends upon the volunteer efforts
of its membership. Every member is expected to pitch in at one time or
another over the years. Of course, that the volunteer burden falls on the
membership unequally is inherent in the volunteer system. However, to begin
paying for all member efforts would be a big change for the organization,
and would require a revenue stream that does not presently exist. Frankly, I
see little to no benefit to changing to a "pay for services" system; what
would really be gained by changing from low dues/high volunteer system to a
high dues/no volunteer system?

One of the past presidents put it best; he said that in a volunteer system
members are free to engage in volunteer activities to fill a need and for
the satisfaction of doing a job well, whereas if a member was paid to do the
same job he would be just another underpaid employee!

The rewards of volunteerism are real (the teacher really does learn more
than his students) but those rewards do not involve $. Given that being a
PTG instructor is indeed a very real burden, I encourage all instructors to
take a year or years off now and then, and then encourage them to come back
when they are ready to again learn more than the students.  :)

As for planning for the long haul, I happen to believe our future would be a
richer, fuller one if we plan to continue to work under the present
volunteer system.

> This subject should be discussed at every Chapter and the Chapters should
> direct their respective RVP's to take notice of the problem. Then and only
> then will there be anything done to rectify the situation. Or, at least
> "Make it Less Bad".

I would be most interested in knowing specifically what you have in mind. I
also urge discussion at the chapter level. If there are proposals to be
made, prepare them for Council and work for the changes you wish to make.
The board will adapt; my family in particular would prefer that I be paid
for the work I do for PTG.  :)   (Please note I'm kidding, OK?)

> One final thing: The Institute Committee(s) are comprised of fabulous
> people, who do a miraculous job, year in and year out. They simply do what
> they are told to do, by the Executive Committee. They must stay within the
> bounds of those perimeters laid down by the EC. They always are top notch,
> in my book. So, in no way am I faulting the Institute Committee for the
> problem.

I'll make one final plea for specifics. Council sets the budget for the
convention, but the Institute Committee is given wide latitude as long as
they stay within the budget. To what, then, are you referring when you say
the EC tells the IC what to do?

Kent Swafford