Stealth Pilot wrote:

the discussions on the airsport mag format have tickled up an old
question.

why is the EAA structured the way it is? is it something to do with
american tax law?

why is it that in a nation of 250 million the EAA president's name has
always been Poberezny? Why the dynastic succession?

As an australian the EAA has always seemed more of a slick corporation
than an actual Association. Or is there something to the Ferengi
lifestyle that we across the pond have missed.

Stealth Pilot
downunda.
The EAA is a non-profit organization under US law. A non-profit is just
like any other corporation except that its excess (read profit) has to
be retained and can't be distributed to shareholders. There is no limit
on compensation for employees. The EAA has a board of directors that run
the organization. Under Paul and perhaps under Tom they seem to have
just rubber stamped what Paul/Tom want to do. I'm sure that if one was
involved in the organization it's not that simple, but it sure looks
that way from the outside. I believe that most of the board are
appointed. Some are elected from the membership.

The EAA's "product" is services to its members. This encompasses a lot
of stuff, including lobbying in Washington, the magazines, the
convention, technical and business help for chapters, etc. It's not a
member-run organization, but members can and do influence what goes on.

Paul was/is a very genial guy and seemed to care a lot about his
members. At the same time one did not want to be in the way of the
organization. As an example he was ruthless in his treatment of farmers
who owned land adjacent to the convention grounds in Oshkosh. One thinks
along the lines of benevolent dictator.

Chapters are different. The national continues to try to keep all the
chapters in line with the national. Some chapters will even accept
members who do not pay dues to the national.

Just my opinion, of course...

Jim