Michelle -

I'm going to close this thread, because it's become quite circular.

I'll finish with just a couple of things:

1. National PTA absolutely has paid lobbyists. Carolyn Henrich was it for 14 years until this summer (Reference: www.hillnews.com/business/070903.aspx -- scroll down). Susan Nogan is another long-time paid PTA lobbyist (Reference: www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/coverstory/a0016949.html -- scroll down for reference). Looks like there are three full-time PTA lobbyists in DC (Reference: edreform.com/press/2001/10questions.htm -- see #3 on list). I'll stop. Again -- having paid lobbyists is not wrong. Your assertion that PTA has none is wrong. Several states (Washington state, for example) also pay lobbyists.

2. Still don't get the $70 thing at all. Groups have three options:
a. Independent completely (free) ;
b. Independent and get some nice added-value services from National PTO Network ($179, year one; $149 on renewal);
c. Affiliate with PTA and get PTA services (average = more than $900).

That's it.

You can debate -- as we've been doing -- which of those packages is the best. I believe that they're all fine -- it just depends what a group is looking for and what services a group is going to take advantage of. But the numbers themselves are dead on and really not debatable.

Tim

[ 09-22-2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Rockne ]

You're a state leader and you didn't know the dues? When did they change? You were doing your math in September 03.

I made the last math comparison on 8-29-03. I am on Council, I do not collect any state or national dues for the state nor do I submit any dues as the Council members are members at their own school. At the BOM meetings, we haven't discussed dues, we discuss planning convention and other items. I am also not on my personal school's board this year where I saw the budget for dues last year. Information packets are sent out by the State office, not by Council.

Absolutely not true. PTA does pay a lobbyist (perhaps even two, I'm forgetting) and also pays to staff and maintain an entire Washington political office. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with that (though it's not a fit for some groups); it's just dead wrong.

There may not likely be anything wrong with it however, those who volunteer to lobby do not get due credit when it is suggested they do it for money.
See www.leg.state.nv.us/lobbyistdb/ Barbara Clark registered lobbyist for NV PTA- note asterisks not present to indicate paid lobbyist. From www.savannahnow.com/stories/021002/LOCXGRCitizenlobbyists.shtml I really could provide hundreds of examples where PTA lobbyists are volunteers. While the PTA maintains an office in every state including Washington DC and their are a few paid employees in each office, we do not pay for a lobbyist. In fact to reinforce, I looked for ANY information other than a statement made that we do and found none with supporting documentation to show that the PTA pays it's lobbyists. Now from our own National website in regards to how we lobby www.pta.org/ptawashington/leginfo/legprogram0203.pdf
The National PTA Board of Directors, the National PTA staff, the state chairs for federal legislation, the National PTA Member-to-Member Network, and the state, district/region, council, and local PTA membership implement the Legislative Program. National PTA engages in legislative activity to the extent permitted by Section 501(c)(3)(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. Acting within this limitation, National PTA, through its legislative program, makes its legislative voice effectively heard with respect to proposed and enacted laws and regulations that pertain to the health, education, and welfare of the children and youth of America.
The National PTA Legislative Program is based on legislative policy statements and specific items (both of which are approved by at least 60 percent of the state PTAs).

Annual Priorities and Directives
Current priority issues and directives for legislative action are determined by the National PTA Board of Directors. All proposed issues must fall within the framework of the legislative policy statements.
After adoption of the current issue priorities, National PTA notifies it constituents and encourages all levels of the organization to consider working toward their implementation.
Each state PTA, through its president and legislative chair, determines the selection of PTA members to serve as links to congressional members. These PTA representatives make up the National PTA Member-to-Member Network.
Each individual in the Member-to-Member Network is responsible for communicating with a member of Congress about National PTA legislative positions. Members respond to alerts for action, which may ask for calls on particular issues to respective representatives or senators, a letter-writing campaign, petition-signing campaigns, or visits to local congressional offices. Additional information on the Member-to-Member network is available online.
Please, if you have the documentation, for example our lobbyists' salaries, that proves otherwise, I would love to see it.

Our average size unit is basically getting training, materials and insurance for just over $70

Huh? Don't get it.

Using the updated dues for Nevada, insurance and the average number of members in Nevada, we are paying just over $70 more than we would as a non-NPN member for insurance through your rates. In addition to insurance, we get training, support and materials for a total cost of $751.80 for the average sized Nevada PTA.

Originally posted by Michelle B:
Yes Tim, sometimes dues change. It is a new year.

You're a state leader and you didn't know the dues? When did they change? You were doing your math in September 03.

First off, PTA does not pay a lobbiest.

Absolutely not true. PTA does pay a lobbyist (perhaps even two, I'm forgetting) and also pays to staff and maintain an entire Washington political office. I actually don't think there's anything wrong with that (though it's not a fit for some groups); your contention is just dead wrong.

Our average size unit is basically getting training, materials and insurance for just over $70

Huh? Don't get it.

Tim

[ 09-22-2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Rockne ]

Yes Tim, sometimes dues change. It is a new year. As for council dues, they aren't required. although if you want to include it in the math, it's $50 per unit in our council, (different councils have different dues) but again, you are not required to pay them and I have several schools who don't.
The "math" that I did for the unit with 80 members was correct and feel free to double check it. The "math" I was doing at the time, was correct and the dues paid by our school came from the Treasurer herself. Not necessarily a big deal however, it implies that I am lying to support my own position, which I am not.
Nevada has 165 PTA schools with a total membership of 24,619 members based on count from July 2003. The average sized PTA in Nevada is (based on last years numbers) 149.2 members. At $4 each in dues, minus council each PTA is paying on average $596.80. Plus insurance, totals $751.80.(As of the new fiscal year) The difference between NPN insurance alone without membership is $76.80 more for PTA, $62.80 less if you are a NPN member. Units who do pay their council dues, do so because they see the value in what I as part of the council is doing for them but AGAIN, it is not required to pay council dues. (PLEASE NOTE, I AM USING NV COSTS ONLY AND KNOW THAT IT VARIES STATE TO STATE) That is using the average membership for Nevada.

Blue-
The PTA's political involvement has been discussed and their is a current thread going where the question is "How important is the state/national PTA?" First off, PTA does not pay a lobbiest. PTA dues are used more for materials and training rather than political lobbying. Lobbying is paid for, we do encourage PTA members to support resolutions that have been voted upon by the PTA membership. I find it interesting to hear that a group is leaving because they disagree with the political agenda. There are several hundreds of positions and statements which we have taken (keep in mind, these started at grass roots level at the schools and was voted up to the state and national levels at conventions/general meetings) It would be impossible to agree with every position. That is far too utopic. It is the mix of different views and opinions that allows PTA to be a larger voice. Without them, it would likely follow party lines and wouldn't be an effective child advocacy organization. The one thing our position statements do have in common is "How it relates to CHILDREN" Some disagree with our position on taxes to support public education, some even disagree with legislation to support Gifted and Talented programs, early intervention and alternative programs for at risk students, or even first aid training for school staff. I personally disagree with about 10% of the resolutions. However, the 90% matters to me as a parent, not a PTA leader. It is also important to keep in mind that it is the politically charged positions that are brought to light in media attention, taxes or vouchers being good examples, that is generally focused on as our TOTAL position. How many of the resolutions are you truly aware of? Underage drinking, seatbelts on school buses, nutritional lunches, there are so many that they are currently not listed in entirety on the PTA website because of the time consumption, although it is in the works.
What is so slanted in wanting to make things better for ALL CHILDREN? I really suggest you bone up on all of the political statements before you condemn them.
*****When I started this topic, I wasn't aware of all states insurance costs, only a few where their cost was under $200 or was included in the dues. I am well aware that it varies state to state and generally reference NV costs when doing the math

Cathie-
When you take the statement out of context

When you really break it down, if you are doing it correctly, you're getting more bang for your buck. It's just that simple. . .

It appears that I am stating that you are wrong. What was meant, when you include the statement with the entire post, that when doing the math, the breakdown in costs alone and if true and factual numbers are being used and if the math is done correctly, you are getting more bang for your buck. Our average size unit is basically getting training, materials and insurance for just over $70.(Using the NV average and 2003-2004 dues) I see that as more bang for my buck. Someone else may see it that way also. Am I telling you or Tim or anyone else that what you are doing for your children is wrong? NO! I can be found to state in many posts that anything that is for the children is a good thing. I know that you have read them as you are on the thread.
People come to this forum for many reasons, one is to investigate which group best fits their needs. However, this forum, for the most part lacks unbiased PTA information and I am only attempting to show both sides, in a forum where one side is WELL represented. I also participate in other topics but tend to get sucked into these topics "PTA/PTO" more frequently since my silence would indicate that I agree with the information being presented, i.e. average cost for NV $850.
In my not so humble opinion, you forget, that we too are doing this for our children, ALL children. If we are to read into implications, you are assuming that what I and others as PTA members are doing is not for the kids. And that working to further legislation as part of an organization (big emphasis as I know that there are those who work singularly for the same end) that I believe will benefit not only my child or someday grandchildren but also ALL children, is not for the kids. That your way is the only way to serve the kids that we are blessed to serve. I personally attest that in that instance, you are wrong.

When you really break it down, if you are doing it correctly, you're getting more bang for your buck. It's just that simple. . . . from Michelle B's post - but I don't know how to do the cut & paste thing in this forum.

Michelle, without getting too argumentative, this forum was established as one where parent groups could exchange ideas and share information. More often than not it seems that anyone who doesn't see things your way is wrong. Case in point "if you are doing it correctly" seriously implies that there is only ONE correct way.

In my never to be humble opinion - the RIGHT way is the way that it works best for the children we are blessed to serve. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing political, nothing sectarian, just plain simple Always for the Kids!

Cathie

Oh, and by the way, all PTA insurance isn't under $200. I know; we haven't paid less than $200 in our former PTA for years.