[MR] is it the value of membership or values in general?

[Craig Levin]

Brother Cleireac:

> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Becky McEllistrem
> <bmcellis at yahoo.com> writes:
> > 
> > This is why when worries about funds come along you
> > change existing membership fees.  That way you're only
> > changing something for people that have already
> > decided they can afford to pay.
> 
> I would caution you to be careful with this line of reasoning.  It could
> be well interpreted that you advocate penalizing people who dutifully
> submit their membership dues to the Corporation for the actions of those
> who choose not to.

Actually, I wouldn't call it penalizing, exactly. Those of us
who've sent money to the corporation-me included, I'm #64565-
figure that we're getting something for our money. If the
membership rates skyrocketed, yeah, I might ponder whther I'm
getting something I'm really wanting to pay for. To a certain
extent, I am surprised that the BoD didn't consider raising the
rates to cover postage expenses, since the publications are one
of the major items of the budget. I'd have understood that-far
more than I understand the weird increments that the Postmaster
General is using in postal rate changes-and if membership had
changed from $35 to $40, *maybe* even to $45, I'd probably send
my check out, with mutterings about the Post Office squeezing the
guts out of non-profits.

> The sense I'm receiving is that "when money runs short, we can just
> charge the drones more.  They will always pay more because they see it as
> a great value at whatever the price."

Not necessarily; I think that if membership rates went up
correspondingly with the costs, we wouldn't be in this pickle,
and we'd have understood why the rates were changing.

> I am not morally opposed to the NMS as others apparently are.  At the
> same time I would love to see my membership count for more.  The recent
> decision to "unbundle" publications from the basic membership plan means
> that it means even less to be a member than it did before.  Therefore
> there is less incentive to pay up.  Currently, my membership has lapsed. 
> When I go to an event, as I hope to do in the next several weeks, if I am
> asked to pay three dollars more, I won't fuss.  It's the price I pay for
> not maintaining my membership.

That's away to look at it, and, to some extent, it's valid. In
the winter, when my membership is up for renewal, I'm going to
ponder the notion for a while. In the end, because I enjoy being
the herald for my barony (currently, there are some mundane
obligations tying me to another schedule, but by the beginning of
autumn, I'll be back again), and because I like TI and CA, my
guess is that I'll pay up once more.  

I didn't have as much of a beef with the king's version of the
NMS, because it benefits the barony/shire/canton where it's being
collected. I figure that the real core of the SCA is in the local
group, and helping them does a lot of good. It's the local groups
that put on events, which are our core activities.

FWIW, when I wrote to the BoD lo these many moons ago, I
suggested that a slight change in the membership rates take
place, so I certainly have no problem dunning myself!

> What I am hearing is that folks are unhappy with the way decisions are
> made and the Corporation is run.  There are development corporations
> available that can examine how an organization is established and whether
> or not it is meeting its stated objectives.  It could also present
> options to assist in future growth, or ways to overhaul the structure to
> return it to the original vision.
> 
> Of course the only problem is that these companies cost money.  Who's
> going to pay for it?

If I knew that some of my check went to that, I'd happily pay up.
A firm I once worked for went to one of these operations, and
came back with a revised constitution and bylaws, a more active
set of directors, and a better sense of where it had to go. Did
the place some good, frankly.

Pedro

-- 
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html 
clevin at rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin				Librarians Rule: Oook!