T he

El e c t r on i c
Ha llw a y ®
Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Box 353060 · University of Washington · Seattle WA 98195- 3060 www.hallway.org

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB

In April of 1993, Andy Falender looked out his window at the Appalachian Mountain Club
offices on Beacon Hill in Boston. It had been an especially harsh winter, and spring was behind
schedule, but the images he thought about this day were no longer of a free-fall down
Tuckerman's Ravine in northern New Hampshire.

Falender had become Executive Director of the AMC in January, 1989. A Harvard MBA and
former Peace Corps volunteer, Falender had long ago made a pact with himself to weave his
two passions -- mountaineering and music -- together in a professional career. Prior to 1989,
he had managed the New England Conservatory of Music for fourteen years, bringing it back
from the brink of bankruptcy. Through this effort, he had acquired a reputation for turning
around ailing non-profit organizations, leading them in directions that fulfilled their potential. It
was this quality that had attracted the AMC in their search for a new Executive Director. Faced
with the financial chaos of a $1.68 million debt load and out-of-control expenses, the AMC had
needed a skilled, professional manager. By 1991, under Andy's leadership, the debt had been
erased, and the AMC had moved back into the black. In addition, the organization had been
restructured, new staff had been hired, and membership was growing quickly. It was as if a
Model-T had been re-engineered into a Volvo. The problem, however, remained: how, and in
what direction, to steer it?

Early History

The Appalachian Mountain Club was formed in 1876, to bring "people to know nature and to
realize its beauties, and to take advantage of the mental and physical betterment that communion
with the out-of-doors induces." Starting with a budget of $295 and 134 members, the AMC
had focused first on opening up the Northern Peaks of the Presidential Mountain Range in New
This case is provided to Electronic Hallway members with the express permission of the author, Melissa Stone of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

This is a peer reviewed case, published in The Electronic Hallway Journal (http://www.hallway.org/journal/) Vol. 1,
2000.

The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This
material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email
hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for
educational purposes per the Member’s Agreement (www.hallway .org).

Copyright 2000 The Electronic Hallway

Appalachian Mountain Club

Hampshire. When the AMC was established, no national or state forests and parks existed.
As a result, the AMC had accepted gifts of property in the mountains to make sure that these
parcels would be preserved in their natural condition. Once the appropriate state and national
agencies were established, the AMC then turned these properties over to their care, making
certain that they would be protected from commercial development. From the beginning, the
role of environmental protector had included lobbying efforts, although the AMC had spurned
recommendations that it become the Sierra Club for the Eastern half of the United States.

The most distinctive characteristic of the AMC over its history was not its substantive
accomplishments but the volunteer work that enabled them. Volunteerism had been a defining
tradition of the AMC that applied to all members, in and out of the mountains: members cleared
trails, led trips into the wilds, and managed the many different activities in which AMC was
involved. Closely linked to this volunteerism was an abiding sense of community in the Club.

For most of its history, the organization was highly decentralized, although the administrative
center had always been in Boston. Club-wide meetings were held at Joy Street on Beacon Hill,
as were meetings of the Council(1). As Club membership grew, local chapters had formed to
facilitate members' involvement in the activities they cared most about. The first chapter was
founded in New York in 1912; the New Hampshire and Connecticut chapters were started two
years later. By 1992, there were a total of twelve chapters, extending from Maine to
Washington, D.C. From the AMC's founding until Falender was hired, the chapters "were the
Club," each having its own unique culture and operating with programmatic and fiscal autonomy
from Joy Street. As one former Council member recalled, "Some chapters used to not give a
damn about Joy Street."

Chapters developed and maintained recreational program activities through committees, such as
the Canoeing Committee or the Hiking Committee, and maintained separate checking and
savings accounts. The only direct revenue flows between Joy Street and the chapters came
from membership dues. For each new AMC membership, Joy Street gave the chapter to which
the member was assigned $4.50. It kept the rest of the membership dues, approximately
$35.50. Each chapter also had its own publications, such as frequent newsletters, that went out
to all chapter members. Chapters had no formal offices and were run entirely by volunteers.

It was not until 1956 that a long-time AMC member was paid to work for the club on a full-
time basis. Twenty years later, the first Executive Director was replaced by another devoted
life-long AMC member. By the late 1970s, however, the AMC faced significant financial
problems, and by 1980, there was a major projected budget deficit, as a proposed bylaw
amendment that would have raised membership dues had not passed at the Club's Annual
Meeting. In 1985, the Club resorted to taking out substantial loans and cash flow problems
were leading to frequent delays in paying its bills when due. By contrast, the huts, camps, and
chapters were in a strong fiscal condition and ran relatively independently from the Club as a
whole(2).

2
Appalachian Mountain Club

Finances were not the only crucial item on the Club's agenda. As the organization had
expanded its operations, relationships between employed staff and volunteer leaders had
become increasingly complex. Lines of authority were unclear. In general, the staff seemed to
feel that, while the virtues of volunteer management were many, its problems were beginning to
outpace them. As one staff member described the authority relations during the mid 1980s,

The joke always was that the volunteers' hut committee would choose the size
of the orange juice glass and then tell the huts manager where to buy it. As a
staff member, you couldn't make any operational decisions. You were working
for so many different people.

Given this confusion, turf battles emerged as people both protected their own territory and
made attempts at accumulating even more control.

Furthermore, some felt that the Council resembled a legislature more than a board of directors,
as individual council members clearly represented certain chapter, camp, or activity interests
(see Exhibit 1). Neither the organizational structure, nor the bylaws that supported the
structure, permitted executive oversight. Leadership credentials consisted mostly of a member's
devotion to the Club and a willingness to volunteer. Because of this, enthusiastic but
inexperienced volunteer managers could work their way up through the AMC ranks to some of
the highest managerial positions.

It was also evident that the club's bylaws needed substantial revision, as they were essentially
unchanged from those in the original charter. Change, however, was impeded by the
requirement that any bylaw revision, however small or large, had to be approved by the full
membership, making the political challenge of fundamental change a daunting prospect. As a
long-time AMC member observed, the question was "how to bring the operation of the Club
into the twentieth century while maintaining the original spirit of the organization as well as
preserving the rights and responsibilities of members."

The AMC's second Executive Director resigned in 1988. A growing concern among members
of the AMC Council led to a three-day retreat shortly thereafter. Following intensive
deliberations, the Council came up with a statement of mission, goals, and a recognition of
several "inadequacies" in its operations. While the Council had great experience in certain areas
(such as chapters or camps), it lacked financial management, marketing, and other general
business skills. Council members often confused their policy-making role with management,
leading to inconsistent delegation of authority and inconsistent focus on mission, priorities, and
strategy. Finally, the Council recommended that it: 1) become a "board of directors" and focus
on the well-being of the AMC overall; 2) establish a set of standing committees; 3) add five
members who possessed more sophisticated managerial skills; and 4) review the bylaws. The
Council also began its search for the AMC's third Executive Director.

3
Appalachian Mountain Club

Coincidentally, the news of the search caught Andy Falender's attention. Andy had been a
member of the AMC for several years and had mused about managing an environmental
organization with significant business operations like the AMC. When he talked with the search
committee, however, Falender found out that the picture at the AMC was not as rosy as he had
imagined. Based on these discussions and the tentative plan developed at the retreat, he wrote
a letter to the search committee that stated his requirements for a strong Executive Director role
and outlined a plan to accomplish what the Council had intended. Andy told the committee that
the letter should form the basis of his contract if he were hired. His "demands" included a
commitment from the council to support the plan he proposed and agree to centralize authority
in the Executive Director and the Council.

The search committee made its recommendation, and, in October 1988, the Council voted
unanimously to appoint Andy as Executive Director. Andy's letter formed the basis for his
contract, and became, in his words, "the most widely disseminated document within the AMC."
It would prove to be intimately connected to some of the thorniest issues he confronted in his
first two years. He started work in January of 1989 and was the first professional manager to
be hired from outside, specifically for his managerial expertise.

Managerial Professionalism and the AMC

Andy saw an opportunity in his initial role at the AMC to seize the Council's own plan and use it
as the core of a blueprint for change. Andy described himself not as a dreamer who generated
a new list of creative ideas each day. Instead, he saw his gift as being able to discover the
strengths in others and then direct their concerted energy into a coherent and integrated plan that
benefited the AMC as a whole.

Falender's Initial Strategy

Falender saw three characteristics as central to the definition of the AMC through 1995:

One, that the AMC will be seen as an organization that is unquestionably well-
managed and financially stable; two, that the AMC will be seen as an
educationally-oriented organization that uses all of its facilities and activities to
help further its educational mission in outdoor protection, safety and wise use of
scarce natural resources; and three, I would like to see the AMC perceived
unquestionably as the leading conservation organization in the region in those
areas that have a direct impact on our mission. I don't think that, even in the
conservation area, we should try to be everything to everybody. Instead, we
should focus on the protection and stewardship of open spaces. This can get
into the areas of air quality and water quality and thus become quite broad, so
we have to make sure we stay focused.

Finances

4
Appalachian Mountain Club

One of the first things that Andy did when he became Executive Director was to hire a new
auditor and to bring in his former board treasurer from the New England Conservatory as Chair
of the Finance Committee. The committee had already taken over major operating authority for
the AMC and had been cutting expenses dramatically before Andy's arrival. The new treasurer
pulled the committee out of operations and created financial planning and fiscal controls within
the organization to insure that financial problems could never again grow so large.

While shepherding the Finance Committee's operations, Falender focused on shaping AMC
staff and members' perceptions of their Club's health. Central to this effort was his "debt chart,"
designed to illustrate dramatically the severity of the AMC's financial condition (see Exhibit 2).
Embedded in this simple financial model were complex strategic assumptions about the direction
that the AMC needed to move. These assumptions, which Falender worked on in detail with
the Council and key committees, included projected revenue streams from facilities,
membership growth, and external fundraising efforts. They also included paying back
fundraising expenses incurred from a 1980s capital campaign and increasing revenues from a
variety of sources(3).

Andy felt that revenue could be increased in several ways. First, hut occupancy and capacity
should be raised where possible. He saw the financial structure of huts as similar to that of
hotels: they have high fixed costs, so high occupancy rates are needed in order to make them
profitable. Consequently, Andy decided to create a Communications Division to advertise the
huts and similar services -- a controversial idea, to say the least. Second, fundraising efforts
should be increased on multiple fronts, including individuals, foundations, and so forth. Third,
publications and other saleable AMC products were scrutinized for additional revenue potential,
again using the new Communications Division to assist. Fourth, fees for educational workshops
were increased; and fifth, membership was to be increased. In each case, he saw that
increasing revenues would also increase AMC's opportunities to reach more people and
educate them in becoming conservation advocates.

With clear evidence of the Club's financial turnaround in hand by the end of 1989, Falender's
credibility and authority as Executive Director had been strengthened, internally and externally,
despite controversial changes simultaneously occurring in the governance arena.

Governance

In addition to financial management, Andy had to confront major problems in the Club's
governance. Three issues stood out above all others: the structures of the Council and its
committees (in particular, the separation of the staff organization from the Council); the bylaws;
and, the composition and operations of the Council. The first issue was handled in a series of
restructuring that clarified and rationalized staff reporting relationships and reduced the
"representativeness" of Council members (see Exhibit 3 for the new organizational and board
structure).

5
Appalachian Mountain Club

The second issue, revision of the bylaws, came up before he had planned to deal with it. In
April of 1989, only four months after he began, a consultant to the Council suggested that the
AMC revise its bylaws immediately. Once the Council decided to move in this direction, Andy
chose not to obstruct the momentum for change.

The bylaw changes that emerged were fundamental and controversial. They focused on
correcting five key points:

1) the haphazard representation of the necessary experience and expertise on the Council;
2) the relatively short terms of office for Council and Club members;
3) the selection of Council members from geographic areas, leading it to de-emphasize club-
wide issues;
4) the Council's tendency to focus on managerial questions instead of policy issues; and
5) the Council's general lack of power to affect central financial and organizational policies.

It was also proposed that the Council be renamed the Board of Directors.

In line with these proposed bylaw changes, Falender's strategy was to add new board members
who demonstrated expertise in needed areas such as finance, fundraising, and conservation, had
strong natural resource backgrounds, and showed an allegiance to the AMC as a "whole," not
just to one of its constituent parts, such as an activity group or a chapter. Realistically, this
meant recruiting members without long experience on chapter, camp, or other committees to
serve on the Council. Critical to this endeavor was the Nominating Committee that chose not to
re-nominate several Council members whose terms were expiring. In the past, such re-
nominations were considered pro forma.

Confronted with fundamental change in both the bylaws and board composition, reactions
among some Club members built to a boiling point and focused on the tradeoff between
increased professionalism and volunteer member involvement. Despite attempts to integrate
member concerns, cries of power centralization persisted. In the view of one former Board
member, the reaction was so negative that:

… it came near to breaking the AMC apart. Chapter people and camp people
felt that the Club would cease to be a volunteer-driven organization and that this
is what made the AMC unique. They felt that the Board would not represent
members and would instead take the AMC where the Board -- not the
members --wanted it to go. They didn't want it to become like the Sierra Club
or Audubon Society, both of which are 'dirty words' around here because all
they ask members to do is send in money.

6
Appalachian Mountain Club

Despite the organized opposition to the new bylaws and to the Nominating Committee's slate
for 1990, both initiatives were successful. In April of 1990, the bylaws changes passed by 92
percent, with an unexpectedly high 48 percent of the membership casting votes.

The mandate for change was indisputable. What had happened to change the governance of
the organization was by most accounts necessary, but, in the words of one staff member, the
process seemed like "the goring of an ox."

Conservation and Advocacy

From the beginning of his AMC tenure, Andy was committed to focusing the AMC on
conservation issues. To help realize this vision, Andy hired Steve Blackmer, a graduate of the
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, to be Conservation Programs Director in
October of 1989. Steve quickly became a central player in the unfolding changes at the Club.

The AMC, while promoting conservation in the past, had never had a clear conservation
strategy. According to Blackmer,

The AMC got involved in specific projects, but generally it was somewhat
scattered -- here's an interesting project, there's an interesting project -- and no
sense of how all the pieces came together and what it was that defined AMC's
conservation interests.

Andy and Steve now planned to move the Club into a new phase of environmental advocacy.
Bringing this about, however, was not clear sailing.

One strategy entailed using the AMC's well-developed volunteer network to play a central role
at the grassroots level. Steve and Andy were well aware, however, that members had never
before been asked to advocate extensively for conservation issues, much less those of concern
to an entire US region. Volunteer work had instead focused on physical activities like building
trails and leading trips. Furthermore, Falender felt that part of the problem was that
Conservation Program staff had too many constituencies to deal with: if they spent time in
Washington talking to the Park Service, the Forest Service, and other environmental
organizations, they took time away from internal management issues and Chapter member
concerns.

The shift toward greater advocacy activities was controversial. Under Andy's leadership,
conservation had become a funding priority, a fact that led some members to feel that recreation
was getting short-changed. In short, some of the chapters argued that the AMC should
continue its tradition of pursuing "backyard" conservation issues but not try to enter the big
leagues of regional and national conservation politics. Despite these charges, Steve and Andy
argued that recreation and conservation were not mutually exclusive. In Steve's words,
"Building a trail up a mountain: Is that recreation or conservation? I think both."

7
Appalachian Mountain Club

Programs

Since Andy had come on board, the Club's conservation programs had changed dramatically,
but not in their objectives. The rejuvenation of specific program activity was the result of the
creative work of the Education Director, Walter Graff. Graff worked out of Pinkham Notch
Visitors' Center, and in his 18 years at AMC, had become a kind of spiritual leader within the
organization. Under Graff's guidance, the education programs had grown and diversified to
address the interests of schools, families, and disadvantaged youth as well as the AMC's
traditional adult market.

Membership Growth

In 1991, Andy had decided to actively pursue new members, in part to increase the long-term
revenue foundation but also to broaden the advocacy base of the Club. This high-growth
strategy generated significant opposition. For example, the idea of a massive influx of new
members made some Chapter leaders concerned about the effects of a larger membership on
the Club's volunteer culture and their ability to accommodate new members effectively (see
Exhibit 4 for membership figures).

Board members were also concerned with consolidating the changes of the last three years.
With so much change and so much growth, not just in membership but also in programs and
projects, Board members worried that the Club would lose coherence.

Implementing Organization-wide Change

By early in 1993, much of the turmoil within the AMC over bylaws, governance, and advocacy
issues had quieted down. The Board itself had stabilized and was learning to work well as a
policy-making rather than operations-oriented body. And, the AMC now had a Vision 2000
statement and a set of goals to guide the organization.

As the Vision 2000 statement reported, "At a retreat in the spring of 1992, the Board re-
affirmed its intention to maintain the essential character of the AMC, with particular concern for
the balance of conservation and recreation, volunteer and staff involvement, and focus on
highland landscapes, including mountains, rivers, and trails." Driven by resolutions at the 1991
and 1992 Board spring retreats, various versions of the document had been discussed at three
additional Board meetings, sent out for extensive reaction to every Board committee and a large
number of subcommittees, discussed with Chapter Chairs at their summer retreat, discussed in
many Chapter executive committee meetings and at the 1992 Fall Volunteer Weekend. The
final statement of mission and set of goals were as follows:

Statement of Mission. The Appalachian Mountain Club promotes the

protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers, and trails of the

8
Appalachian Mountain Club

Northeast. We believe that the mountains and rivers have an intrinsic worth and
also provide recreational opportunity, spiritual renewal, and ecological and
economic health for the region. We encourage people to enjoy and appreciate
the natural world, and we believe that successful conservation depends on this
experience. AMC members love the mountains and rivers, and we form a
network of users and stewards who protect these areas and educate others as
to their use.

Goals. To protect, enjoy, and wisely use the mountains, rivers, and trails of the
Northeast, the AMC will actively involve its expanding membership in achieving
five overarching goals:

(1) To protect the mountains, rivers and trails of the Northeast while
encouraging ecologically and economically sustainable use.
(2) To provide access to and enjoyment of these special places.
(3) To encourage stewardship of these areas.
(4) To create conservation awareness and appreciation of the natural world.
(5) To maintain financial stability and operational excellence.

Seemingly simple changes in communication with the chapters had worked well. Chapter
leaders were reading Andy's newsletter, which described what projects and activities he was
currently working on and gave news updates from the central office's Conservation, Facilities,
Membership and Resources Divisions. The new staff person in charge of Chapter Relations
had met face-to-face with each of the twelve chapters and had held a highly successful
Leadership Training weekend for the volunteer leaders from five of the twelve chapters.
Throughout that weekend, she had worked with the chapter leaders on issues such as goal-
setting, thinking about opportunities for getting more member-volunteer input, training, and
managing volunteers. In the past, "leadership" at the chapter level had focused not on
organizational or management issues, but on recreational activities and safety. Furthermore,
membership growth had slowed to 10%, and the chapters were managing to absorb new
members. The number of "donors" (i.e., members who contributed money to the AMC above
their dues requirement) had increased 90% over 1991.

Nonetheless, significant challenges remained, and this time many had to do with how to
implement the Vision 2000 policy statement. Falender knew that substantial improvements had
to be made to the AMC's considerable physical facilities and that these huts and camps needed
to coordinate programming and conservation efforts with the AMC as a whole. According to
one board member:

Cross-departmental integration is what we heard most about at recent board

meetings. How can all facilities be used for conservation and education
programs as well as for lodging? How can trails work be related to advocacy?
We need to look for leverage across AMC activities.

9
Appalachian Mountain Club

Work on the Northern Forests conservation project pushed ahead with the AMC playing a
major leadership role in the Northern Forest Alliance, an umbrella organization representing
twenty-five environmental groups. There were, however, many other conservation issues in
need of attention throughout the Appalachian region encompassed by the AMC.

One critical question, therefore, concerned how to mobilize the twelve chapters and the 55,000
people who were now part of that vision; another question concerned how to pay for all of the
things the AMC needed to do to implement Vision 2000.

Communications with the Chapters

While communications with the chapters had improved, problems remained. It was not clear
how to communicate the Vision 2000 policies and objectives to chapter leaders below the
chapter chairperson level. Joy Street had used Andy's newsletter and the Board's regional
representatives (see below) as the major channels of information about Vision 2000 to chapter
leadership. It was not clear, however, how individual chapters would define their role in an
implementation strategy; that is, what were chapters going to do for themselves by the year
2000?

Suspicion remained among some chapters that Vision 2000 was still a top-down directive from
Joy Street. On the other hand, some questioned the fundamental role of the chapters:

Personally, I don't understand why the AMC has chapters. There is a lot of
baggage in that history. But, I think the idea is that we need to integrate chapter
activities, too. This is an area of investment for the Club, especially in bringing
professional staff as resources to the chapters. Now they are getting leadership
training from the Director of Chapter Relations; they need technical training, too,
about conservation policies, research activities, and so forth. This requires an
investment by the Club in technical staff to serve the chapters which would
"bring the chapters along" or "keep the chapters in line," depending on your
perspective.

As an example of this "technical training," Andy had recently dispatched one of his staff from the
Conservation Programs Division to a local chapter meeting to discuss the Northern Forests
issue. The meeting was highly successful and had stimulated a great deal of interest among
chapter members. Falender knew that "face time" between Joy Street staff and the chapters
was valuable, but he was also concerned about draining staff energy and resources away from
their existing work with, for example, other environmental groups, state legislators, and
Washington policymakers.

The Board's Regional Representatives

10
Appalachian Mountain Club

Successful communication between Joy Street and the chapters also depended on how the five
Regional Representatives on the AMC board were used. These five seats on the board had
been the result of a compromise between the new administration at Joy Street and chapters that
had vehemently opposed the governance changes and increasing managerial professionalism.
To facilitate communication between the Board and individual chapters, each representative
attended chapter executive council meetings within his or her region, met frequently with chapter
chairs to discuss chapter and Joy Street concerns, attended AMC board meetings, and served
on Board committees. To do the job well, therefore, was enormously time-consuming and
meant that the Board member/region representative spent a lot of time sitting in meetings. Some
regional representatives were better able to conduct these time-consuming activities than others,
so communication between the representatives and the chapters was uneven. Could those
positions be better utilized? There was also a question of dual roles. The regional
representatives had come up through the chapter ranks and identified closely with them. In their
position on the AMC governing Board, were they able to see the AMC as a whole or were
they primarily chapter spokespeople?

Chapter Governance

Implementation was also difficult because of the chapters' own governance structure. Turnover
among the volunteer chapter chairs was always a problem as they were the ones who had the
"big picture" of the AMC activities. They received Falender's newsletter and met with the
AMC board's regional representative. Turnover was especially frustrating for the staff person at
Joy Street whose job it was to communicate regularly with them. Each chapter was governed
by a large Executive Council, often consisting of twenty people. Here, power was concentrated
in the chairpersons of activities committees of the chapters, for example, in the Canoeing,
Hiking, and Biking Committees. These committees had historically been strong, reflecting
AMC's character as a recreation-focused organization, and continued to produce most of the
chapters' leadership. They were also major revenue generators for the chapters, collecting fees
from members for the recreational activities. The service committees, on the other hand, such
as the Newsletter, Membership, and Conservation Committees were very important to Joy
Street. It was through these committees that staff at the central office communicated more
directly with the chapter membership about advocacy, education, and conservation activities.
These committees, however, were less powerful within the chapters -- they used revenues
instead of generating dollars and often consisted of only one volunteer willing to take on these
tasks. How could Falender use the chapters to the advantage of the AMC as a whole?

Member Involvement

Questions remained about what the 55,000 members wanted from the AMC and how the
AMC could link these members to its broader conservation and advocacy efforts. In the past,
new members filled out "interest cards" when they joined (for example, indicating an interest in
hiking or skiing), but as membership skyrocketed in the late 1980s, AMC's computing capacity
could not keep pace with the expanding data base. While a new computer system was

11
Appalachian Mountain Club

scheduled to go on line in January of 1994, Joy Street would have to spend significant amounts
of time and money to generate a database largely for use by the chapters. That is, the system
would tell each chapter which members were interested in which recreational activities. This
would enable the chapters to hook new members into favorite activities and would probably
increase annual member renewals. Links between the chapters and members was an especially
important issue for some large, geographically-dispersed chapters that had thousands of
members, many of them very new to the AMC. For example, the Delaware Valley, Maine, and
Narragansett chapters had all grown by nearly thirty percent in the previous year. It was not
clear to Joy Street, however, that investing in this kind of system was a wise allocation of
resources.

In many ways, the $64,000 question concerned how to connect the rather amorphous
membership to crucial advocacy efforts. Members were currently attached to a chapter in their
geographic area, but could the current chapter structure facilitate the link between members,
recreational activities, and conservation efforts? For example, the Pemigewasset River in New
Hampshire had been proposed as a Wild and Scenic River designation by the state and federal
governments. Before such designation could occur, however, eight towns along the river had to
vote in favor -- the vote was defeated in 7 of the 8 towns. While the issue was important to the
AMC, there had been no organized effort by the 6400 members of the New Hampshire chapter
to get "into the living rooms" of the citizens of these eight towns and convince them of the merits
of the designation. While the potential for such grassroots organizing was clearly present in
chapters, it was not yet developed.

Funding the Vision

Finally, there was the issue of how to finance all that was in the Vision 2000 statement. After
the rocky 1980s, the AMC had established a solid financial base for current operations.
Improvements and additions to the huts and camps, new programs, and various conservation
initiatives, however, would take new dollars. Falender and the Board knew that meant the
Board would have to raise a lot of money to implement Vision 2000. How to do that remained
a big question. A major capital campaign was a possibility with initial targets set at $20 million
for an endowment and $5 million for bricks and mortar. But Falender had serious concerns
about this -- the AMC would need a well-organized volunteer structure, paid and professional
development staff, consultants, and a feasibility study before embarking on such an endeavor.
In addition, the current Board, which was finally stable and doing an excellent job, was not
particularly strong on high-stakes fundraising. Falender wondered, therefore, if this was the
right time to go forward with such an ambitious undertaking.

Falender leaned back in his chair and thought about the following questions:

* What role could they realistically expect the chapters to play in implementing Vision
2000?

12
Appalachian Mountain Club

* Were there better ways to work with the chapters? How involved should Joy Street
get?
* How could the AMC realize the potential of its large and growing membership?
* How could the AMC get leverage across all of its programs and facilities?
* How should Vision 2000 be funded?
* Was there an implementation strategy that could solve several of these problems at
once?
Notes

1. The Council was AMC's governing body, later renamed the Board of Directors.

2. Camps were self-supporting and paid a small percentage of their revenues to the Club.

3. The campaign had been quite successful but had drained funds and management attention.
The AMC had used operating revenues to cover the campaign's expenses so the campaign
also added to the Club's financial difficulties. Falender insisted that campaign expenses be
paid from campaign revenues (that is, be taken out of the various funds raised). This was
controversial, as some saw the money coming from their piece of the capital campaign "pie."

13
Appalachian Mountain Club

Exhibit 1 Board and Organization Chart pre-1989

14
Appalachian Mountain Club

Exhibit 2

15
Appalachian Mountain Club

Exhibit 3

16
Appalachian Mountain Club

Exhibit 3 Continued

17
Appalachian Mountain Club

Exhibit 4

MONTHLY TALLY OF MEMBERS BY CHAPTER

January 1, 1993

Total # Increase since

Chapter Members January 1, 1992

Unaffiliated members 5,346 -34.4%

Berkshire 1,832 18.0%
Boston 15,204 18.4%
Connecticut 6,192 17.1%
District of Columbia 796 17.9%
Delaware Valley 2,663 32.8%
Maine 2,077 31.0%
Narragansett 1,598 29.2%
New Hampshire 6,399 19.9%
New York/No. Jersey 9,600 18.1%
Southeast Mass 1,591 20.1%
Worcester 1,644 23.6%
Total Club 54,951 11.1%

18