Re: IUF Memberships
At 09:24 20/01/98 -0600, Andy Cotter wrote:
>I assume the leaders the you are refering to are Connie and I. With a statement
>worded as such, you are bound to get some sort of response from
>me. Here are some quick points of my opinion about the above statment:
I did not want to bring names, I did want to provoke a response to get things
moving, but the USA Officer that came against the proposal thru the Internet was
indeed you. I do not recall Connie writing anything in the Internet, maybe she
talked in private to you.
>* Connie and I were not aware that the USA was the cornerstone to the IUF
The USA is not the cornerstone, the whole world is. But, as you know, up to
recently, the USA, Japan, and Puerto Rico dominated the IUF decision-making
teams. It seems that we are not moving because when one nation sends a signal
the other nation steps back. Europe (and Australia) seems to be organized by
club, not by nation. Maybe that is the way to go in Japan and the USA.
Personally, I think that we are better off going thru the USA and JUA. I also
believe that the USA and JUA should prefer that we go thru them and not directly
to the clubs. If so, they should be more pro-active than just wait and then
complain if something goes directly from the IUF to the clubs like what Jack
reported from Japan.
>If the USA was so important to making the proposal work, then I think we should
>have been asked what would it take to make it work.
What is it that the USA wants that can be done within the budget that the
>* The amount of $780 per year is more than the USA has in extra funds. In order
> to come with that amount on a yearly basis, USA dues would have to be raised.
The raise because of the IUF dues would have been $1 per year, or about 3%
increase. The globalization of unicycling was the extra value that should raise
the value of a USA membership. Two things might be happening here: One is that
the USA, and Puerto Rico, and Japan, and Europe are getting some of these things
for free already because persons like you, John Foss, Jack, Ken, myself, and
others are spending our own time and money off our pocket. The other thing is
that because of that, many other things are not getting done the way they should
when they should.
> In order for dues to be raised, the issue would have to be brought up to the
> USA general meeting. We (including the president of the USA) all decided that
> the proposal as it currenly stands didn’t have a chance of passing.
The proposal as it now stands is for a $1/per member/per year. You keep talking
of the IUF as a party totally apart of the USA. The USA, along with Europe,
Japan, Australia, and Puerto Rico are the IUF. It is an on-going process where
the USA will have an on-going influence.
>Therefore we didn’t propose it. But, any member of the USA could have brought
>it up. And, as I recall, there were two officers of the IUF at the last USA
>meeting (the president of the IUF and the secretary/treasurer of the IUF) and
>they could have proposed the plan. Because the IUF officers didn’t propose the
>idea at the general USA meeting, they also rejected the proposal.
Right, I hope they will also bring it up. Remember, I did not include names.
>* With paying the sum of $780 there was certain rights and privileges that
> would be awarded to the USA. Most were inconsequential or future looking
> ideas. One of the more major benefits of the proposal was the IUF newsletter.
> As I understood of the proposal, the IUF newsletter was a major part of the
> IUF proposal. To date, there has been no IUF newsletter.
The IUF newsletter is an idea that has been proposed. Personally, I believe
that the IUF is responsible for recompiling, generating, and distributing
unicycling news and articles. Having our own newsletter is one of the
alternatives to achieve that. I don’t believe that the existence of the IUF
should depend on whether a newsletter is done or not. That is putting the cart
in front of the ox. If the IUF members want a separate newsletter with its
implications $$$ (instead of say, providing interesting news to OOW, Jean
Ascher’s new publication, JUAs publication, etc.), then we should have a
newsletter. We can have a workshop teaching clubs to do newsletters with local
info and attaching the news that the IUF provides, etc. But, again, these are
details. Whatever is done will depend on what the members want to do for the
money they (we) want to spend.
>Also, the first IUF newsletter was to be free. So, we decided to wait until the
>first issue was released before making any further decisions. It is a good
>thing we waited.
I did not hear that the first English version would be free until last week, but
maybe I was just not paying attention to those details. There was an Spanish IUF
newsletter printed in Spanish last year. I sent it free. Maybe it was just too
lousy, but I got no response whatsoever.
>If the USA is going to be the cornerstone to the IUF proposal, then maybe
>before the proposal is passed, the USA should be consulted. I am 100% behind
>the IUF, but I’m not going to personally put a proposal to the USA unless I
>think it will work. Instead of pushing a proposal down our throat, maybe the
>IUF should find what the USA is willing to do.
We are not trying to push a proposal down anybody’s throat. If the USA wants to
make some pre-requisites to joining, what are those pre-requisites? We do want
to know. Please tell us. I prefer to go thru the USA and JUA. But if they are
not interested and they believe we are just pushing things down their throat,
the IUF should then decide whether to contact the clubs directly.
>One final point, the IUF currenlty has about $400 in its saving account. That
>number has not changed for at least the last five years. Meaning that the IUF
>does not have any day to day operating costs. In order for me to personally put
>forth a proposal of becoming an IUF affliated national organization, I would
>like to see a business plan or something similar of what the IUF plans to do
>with the money.
We do need a business plan. I have experience with that. I need to know
basically two things, where are we heading, and what type of budget we can count
on to get there. That is precisely what I am trying to find out. If the USA
becomes a member, they should know what the IUF does with the money. Not only
this year, but every year after that. The USA will not only know, the USA will
have a say about it. But how is the IUF going to start moving toward the
increasing expectations, if nobody wants to hop in until they see it moving,
even if they will participate in the steering.
Basically we have three alternatives.
Going thru National Associations and clubs when NA are not available. Our
main task will be to give support to our member organizations. We will be the
globalization of unicycling for them. If a NA does not want to affiliate to
the IUF, the IUF does not recognize it and will be free to contact the clubs.
Something has to be worked out for non-affiliated riders. This is my favorite
alternative. And the cheapest at only $1/per person/per member. Provisions
have to be made for small countries like PR (say a $100 minimum) and large
country like Japan, like say a $3,000. top. Individual clubs will have a $30
minimum. The USA, with the support of the IUF, has the potential of topping
off in the future. The IUF does not have to be large, nor be a big spender.
It is OK if all the members are larger than the IUF. That could mean that we
are giving them proper support.
We go after individual members. We will, in effect, be competing against
clubs and NA. This is my least favorite alternative. Because of the
tremendous duplication of efforts, it will be awful expensive to everybody. I
also believe that most things get done at the local level. I rather support
them than compete against them. Like I said in the past, I don’t want the IUF
to tell me what to do in Puerto Rico. I want the IUF to give me support.
Individual memberships will have to be much higher, probably about $20/per
year. Some people may not be willing to pay both the IUF and their club
and/or NA, so we will be thinning each other out.
We keep doing things like we are now. Lots of things are done right thanks to
the help of many persons. Other things are not done because we do not have a
budget and depend on volunteers. Yet we have done a lot of progress, seems
that most persons enjoy and respect the IUF. My only petition is for people
to refrain from asking too much.
As I said my order of preference is 1,3 and 2. I can live with all of them. Each
one has different consequences. I just hope that everybody accepts the
consequences of their decision.
Alberto Ruiz IUF President firstname.lastname@example.org
Alberto Ruiz email@example.com