Re: LPA Today/ Hagen

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Thank you for your summary concerning the lack of LPA Today issues. I

remember working with you while I was putting together the Chicago conference

newsletters. I also remember you as being an excellent accountant who

contributed a massive amount of your time and professional expertise to that

very successful conference. It's very encouraging to have you in LPA's

financial driver's seat.

While I understand that you are trying to stave off the bottoming out of

our finances, you stopped short of explaining exactly why LPA is suffering

from a cash shortage.

Isn't it true that LPA has run into this cash crunch because editor

Margulies is charging LPA a projected $43,000 a year to produce four or five

newsletters?

If so, this is a 200% increase in cost just since 1997, when LPA Today's

budget was only $20,000 a year. I know this because that was my budget as

editor. Even then it was the single most expensive item on LPA's debit

column.

Alot of us on the east coast still haven't received this last issue of

LPA Today, so could you confirm whether it's true that we paid Mr. Marguliles

$20,000 for just the first TWO newsletters this year?

I think I might have found the reason we're running out of money.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the intent of the increased dues is

relatively simple: The $5 extra that we're going to have to pay from now on,

(about $20,000+ each year?) is just going into Mr. Margulies' pockets?

Just because we haven't had a dues increase in 13 years, for which our

past Board of Directors and several presidents should be highly commended, it

doesn't mean we need an increase, especially considering that we have

hundreds of members barely earning over the poverty line. And especially

considering the increase is just going to enrich the wallet of the current

editor. You know, there's a reason why a sitting U.S. President can't

voluntarily increase his salary...it's called a conflict of interest.

, please forgive my incredulity, and I write this with all due respect to

your wonderful wisdom, but if the dues increase was your idea, why didn't you

make the obvious, financially-sound, cost-cutting suggestion that LPA just

obtain a less expensive editor?

Rick Eanes

In a message dated 11/11/99 3:52:21 PM, you wrote:

<<Rick -

I need to clear the air on something and do it now ...

Your concerns with about getting out three issues of LPA Today this

year (and one more before the end of 1999) should really be directed to me

.... not to . The decision to release 4 issues in 1999 was a move I

made (after discussion with a number of people) while closely monitoring our

year-end (1999) cash flow because dues are (predictably) at a low point at

this time of the year. Therefore, our cash flow is low at this time of the

year also. had plans to issue more newsletters, but in view of the

need to not over-expend our available cash this year, he agreed to go with

four issues for 1999.

The dues increase from $25 to $30 should be directed to me also. I made the

recommendation (after much internal study, calculations, and discussion), it

was published in LPA Today (as required) and the rest is history. I believe

his comments reflected his support for the decision that was made by

encouraging members to renew, given this modest increase ... the first

increase in about 13 years, I believe.

I hope this makes some sense. I wanted you to know what went on behind the

scenes on all of this. In summary, was working within his agreed-to

budget constraints for the 1999 year. I have really apreciated the quality

that has put into his work this year. The quantity of issues,

however, is something that I have some control over (after discussion with

Danirel and others) and those complaints should probably be directed to me,

not .

Thanks for hearing me out.

Hagen

Vice President of Finance>>