> At the time the increase in the AEF fee was proposed, Adelaide Uni GC strongly opposed it and offered to provide GFA, for free, with an online system for managing AEFs which would have reduced the administrative overhead to close to zero. GFA didn't even bother to respond to the offer!
Sounds like one could safely assume that someone up there is a little technophobic. I've seen it at schools I worked at with David, and where I work now. Someone up high, usually a faculty manager etc. is a little technophobic, and when some confound new thing come along, they prefer to stick with what they know works, what they currently use, generally ignoring the fact that once they've taken that half hour to learn this new thing, it'll save them hours/days of work. There are still teachers at the school I work at that prefer the kids to do their work by hand, and some teachers who have never booked their class in to use the computer room. And we have a computer:student ratio of about 1:1.5. It's quite amazing how one person that doesn't like / want to use technology can effect a lot of people. Dion Baker 2008/10/16 Guy Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Actually, there is a third way – reduce administration costs. > > > > At the time the increase in the AEF fee was proposed, Adelaide Uni GC > strongly opposed it and offered to provide GFA, for free, with an online > system for managing AEFs which would have reduced the administrative > overhead to close to zero. GFA didn't even bother to respond to the offer! > > > > And there is a fourth way – increase the number of members (and the fees > they generate) by lowering the barriers to entry (e.g. AEF fees). > Interestingly, in the arguments I saw on the AEF topic, there was no mention > of market dynamics. Rather there was an assumption that GFA, as an effective > monopoly, could simply increase revenue by increasing fees without any > consequences. > > > > Guy Harley > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Robert Hart > *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 October 2008 5:15 PM > *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Gliding Gets a Bagging on Pprune > > > > Derek Ruddock wrote: > > The improvement I would like to see is an end to slugging clubs for $20 > every time they took an interested member of the public for a flight. This > thinly disguised revenue raising is an abomination for all clubs, regardless > of size. > > OK - I am on the GFA Board as GQ rep and I supported this measure. There is > a very simple logic to the decision, which clearly has not made it back to > your club. > > There is insufficient income being generated by our (unfortunately) > shrinking membership to allow for the running of the organisation. There are > two ways of raising the revenue needed - raise membership fees or find a way > for people outside the organisation to make a contribution. > > Raising the AEF fees makes those outside the GFA contribute more to its > running. Do you really want your membership fees to rise significantly > instead? > > > -- > > Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > -- <timmo> you know what i hate <timmo> errors that wont go away <Guilty> So you dislike children too
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
