On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, John BORIS wrote:
What I meant by that was a person who pays for their membership as
opposed to one who is given it might have a bit more interest in the
organization. A stake holder so to speak. Just a thought. We have
different types of membership now in place with varying levels of
benefits. Again just brainstorming what a Corporate membership would
be.
A few facts that I think are relavent here.
Even many people who pay for their memberships don't bother to vote.
Many large companies will pay for professional memberships, so we don't
know if the dues are comeing out of the members pocket or are being paid
by their employer today.
personally, I think anyone who is interested enough to participate should
be able to do so, no matter who is footing the bill.
David Lang
John J. Boris, Sr.
<da...@lang.hm> 4/9/2012 1:46 PM >>>
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, John BORIS wrote:
The talk about Corporate memberships is fine with me but we would
have
to setup a structure for that. A dues paying member gets voting
rights
and can run for a spot on the board. There should be some distinction
on
that.
Why should it matter if the member is paying the dues out of their own
pocket (with or without reimbursement from their employer), or if their
employer is paying the dues directly?
Yes, companies could try to game the system by paying employee
memebership
dues and trying to get those employees to all vote one way, but does
banning corporate memberships really prevent this? Is it worth the
hassles
of creating, maintaining, and explaining a second-class membership for
the
slight speed bump that this would put in the way of any company that
was
inclined to do this sort of thing?
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
