Having some experience in business management and cost cutting, I have to agree that the new headquarters is superfluous if not downright frivolous. Selling it would be a great boon for the AOS, whose real missions of education and conservation (one of the smallest budget items) are not advanced by it. Additionally, I would look seriously at moving the headquarters to a less-expensive locale, possibly a mid-sized city in a less-in-demand market. As individuals, we all have these considerations. As an organization whose income is not tied to its location, but is statically based on other sources (i.e., income from membership dues, awards, etc., does not vary depending on the headquarters location), but whose costs ARE (at least for the building, utilities, salary, and possibly even printing) dependent on location, this is certainly worth looking into, even if the initial costs of a move would be high (but of course more than offset by selling the headquarters in a prime real estate market area). In a less-expensive city, a comparable salary is similarly less. Such a move would in many ways reduce ongoing operational costs.
On to income generation. In this respect, it is important to consider membership. I have tried to stay out of the election debate here and on other forums. BUT those who are charged with the stewardship of the AOS should be aware that, regardless of specifics, from what has been going on, it is clear that a very large part of the orchid community, including a large part of the membership, is dissatisfied with the direction and leadership of the AOS. Regardless of the reasons, it is not something likely to be solved by a few emails from an AOS officer. Perception is critically important to any organization selling something, as the AOS is selling memberships. Ignoring this would be a strategic mistake. Those in whose care the future of the AOS lies will do it a grave disservice if they do not take strong, immediate measures to restore the confidence of the members and orchid community (from whom, after all, any future members will most likely come). The perception (_whether true or not_) of the AOS as a self-interested, spendthrift bureaucracy unconcerned about and unresponsive to the membership's interests, will do possibly fatal damage to the organization if not speedily addressed in more than a cosmetic way. This has been building up for some years and the leadership must accept responsibility for it. There must be a perception of real and positive change. It may not always be fair, but it is true, that in politics and advertising (both of which apply here), perception is the name of the game. As a member of the AOS I do hope such changes can be undertaken and that the organization survives. Perhaps the membership can force the 'leadership' to listen. There is certainly no formal route for meaningful input, as elections are a closed, self-perpetuating loop in which the memberhip at large really has no viable options. I do not know any of the people 'nominated' or currently serving. How many of us do? How many members have EVER been part of the nominating process? There isn't even any way to do so. The election organization may have made sense in the beginning when the organization and membership were small, but it does not now. My 2" worth. Tennis Maynard
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
