I don't know where that info came from, "Dot," but it's certainly not
what I remember hearing at the National Convention in February. (No
flame intended by that statement!!!)
Obviously this would be more official coming from Steve Johnson or a
member of the BOD. But, as I understand it from what was said in
Denver, there's more than enough money in the pot right now - from the
sale of our existing building in Englewood/Centennial - to cover the
cost of the move to Topeka. We're getting a huge amount of help from
the city of Topeka and the MTAA to design and build the new HQ. So the
move would certainly represent a cost savings in that respect.
The dues increase, as I understand it, is just to get us out of the red
and into the black when it comes to operating all of the many facets of
SCCA on a day-by-day basis. I could be wrong, but that's the way I
understand it.
Before anybody decides to flame me for that statement, please do your
homework. (And then let us ALL know what you find out!) It never
ceases to amaze me how much time is wasted on this list by so many
people batting around an issue and speculating on its origin or intent
rather than just going straight to someone who should know the answer
and asking the question. IMNSHO, this list should not be a source of
answers for administrative questions but, rather, a place to share the
information we've learned about our questions from the proper sources.
John (Old Fartz & TLS #37) Lieberman
Bruce Wentzel wrote:
>
> The only thing that bothers me is that it is being ascribed to the
> relocation to Topeka, but that was sold in part as a significant cost
> savings.
> Bruce
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|