I can agree with many of the actions Harry recommends. Some changes will require the cooperation of MOAA and would supplement the current “Year of the Chapter” program. The following addresses some of the topic in Harry’s comments. Several would require changes to national, council and chapter bylaws to strengthen the bond between the three levels.

He says “Get more people on the state rolls with a rule change.” The first step is for national to assign all national MOAA members to chapters based on the current zip code designations. All chapters need to add these members to their rolls whether or not they presently pay chapter dues. The subject of dues will be addressed later on. If a member living in a metropolitan area would prefer a different chapter than the one assigned, he or she could transfer.

There is precedent for this action. The Navy League has a similar 3-level organizational structure, i.e., national, region and council. The national organization assigns the member to a council within a region, collects dues and passes a certain amount of money down for regional and council operations. My Air Force Association friends tell me that when one joins the AFA, they automatically become members of the AFA state and chapter units with a similar financial arrangement.

CAL-MOAA has roughly 5,000 regular members from the affiliated chapters. There are about 30,000 regular members in the State of California. Putting the other 25,000 on chapter rolls would result in six times as many members for the chapters. The chapters would have the responsibility of assimilating the new members into their chapter although a large number will remain inactive. In the Central California Coast Chapter, 60 to 70 percent do not participate but continue to pay dues.

The California State Commanders Veteran Council [CSCVC], with which CAL-MOAA is affiliated has proven that it can no longer get participation from its total membership to support a legislative advocate. CAL-MOAA cannot do it alone recognizing how the council is presently financed. Proceeds from the 75 cents assessment has decreased for several years in a row. Funds are needed for this purpose as well as for a webmaster and a state newsletter.

Returning to the matter of dues, using the model of other organizations mentioned above, MOAA could add an additional $1 to its annual dues for regular annual members and pass it down to the councils. This would relieve the council of the perennial task of collecting council dues. That brings up the sticky question – what about life members of MOAA? I do not know the breakdown of MOAA members who are life members vs. annual members but I would suspect life members are in the minority.

MOAA should have some fiscal flexibility at this point and be able to fund the $1 for each current regular life member. I read in the October issue of the Military Officer that MOAA has $193 million in total assets. For future life members a new actuarial table would be developed that takes into account any increase cost of a life member buy-in as a result of MOAA passing any funds to the council or chapters. Over the next decade the number of life members enrolled under the current fee scheme will have decreased substantially as members pass on and new members come in under new actuarial tables.

Again using California as an example, the council would have an annual income of $30,000. This would be sufficient to fund the legislative advocate, contract for a webmaster and publish a newsletter without relying on the support of the individual chapters.

In the matter of chapter dues, national MOAA would also collect and pass down chapter dues in a similar manner as for councils. The exact amount passed down is highly debatable. A starting point as in the following is set forth. In the California example, it is common for chapters to set regular member annual dues at $20. With a six-fold increase in chapter members, $3 to $4 per member would make a chapter whole. If chapter leadership determines it needs additional funding, it would be up to the chapter to provide it.

I realize these proposals reflect some radical changes. There will be naysayers, not without reason. We would have to insure that our 501 status would not be jeopardized and that the fiduciary implications are fully explored. A small number of non-chapter members may be antagonized by such sweeping changes but most should see it as change for the better. We have recently gone through a national election where both major candidates campaigned on the premise there was a need for change. The above is a plan for change.
Best regards,
Earl Gustafson
California Central Coast Chapter