On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 10:36 -0500, Penny Golightley wrote: > Hey everyone! > > > Last night we talked about the low income membership level. I think > it's great we offer that. I also think it's odd that we have people > dropping their membership because they say they cannot afford > membership. Right now we offer low income membership at $25/month and > the board needs to approve each individual case before someone can be > low income. This can be really stressful to someone in this situation > so I have an alternative idea. > > > New idea: > The treasurer should be able to approve or deny low income membership > pending the next board meeting. This would make it so there would be > no waiting period for the member. If the board disagrees with the > treasurer's decision then the member can be reimbursed (if they were > denied low income status from the treasurer but approved by the board) > or they can pay what they owe retroactively due 30 days from the board > meeting (if they were approved by the treasurer and then the board > denied their status.) The treasurer would then be required to inform > the changes to the member within a week from the board meeting so the > member would have time to pay the difference.
I think that if someone wants to join but can't afford it, they should get the approval from the treasurer before applying. The treasurer is the sole person responsible for our money, so I think we should actually just remove the board approval. If the treasurer makes a dangerous habit of accepting dubious claims of low income, the board or membership can remove the treasurer for either lessening the value of voting rights or driving us into financial troubles. If the treasurer is in complete control, there isn't a period of uncertainty between the treasurer telling the member they can apply for low income and the next board meeting which might be as far as 12 months into the future, which might result in the member getting a bill for $240 in owed dues. Suddenly, the member is blaming the treasurer for thinking it was ok to not pay the full price and instead they got a huge bill they can't afford. That sucks and makes me worried that the treasurer can not say with 100% certainty: "Yes, I promise that you will never get a huge bill in a year if things fall through". I think this approach simplifies the process down to: 1. Ask the treasurer if you can get the discounted rate 2.1. Treasurer says yes, and Jimmy applies 2.2. Treasurer says no, and Jimmy doesn't apply instead of: 1. Ask the treasurer if you can get the discounted rate 2.1. Treasurer says yes and Jimmy applies 2.1.1. 12 months later, the board decides the treasurer was wrong and hits Jimmy with a huge bill they cant afford 2.1.2. 12 months later, the board agrees, and nothing changes 2.2. Treasurer says no, but Jimmy applies anyways hoping that the board agrees 2.2.1. 12 months later, the board decides the treasurer was wrong and writes a check to Jimmy for a sum we can't afford 2.2.2. 12 months later, the board decides the treasurer was right, and nothing chanes 2.3. Treasurer says no, and Jimmy doesn't apply Thats a lot of uncertainty. > Also, the treasurer may approve a low income level at $15 or $25. $10 > off isn't much after all and $25/month is still a lot for some. I know > students who are better off financially than non students. I don't see > why students should automatically be approved to pay less than people > who are struggling financially. This would then be up to the board for > final approval later. I'm not sure about this, since dues are determined by the membership. I mean, I'm fine with the membership deciding that we should have $15 or $25 as the low income level, but I'm not comfortable with letting the treasurer make unilateral decisions like that on a critical component of us such as income. If the treasurer wants to change it, they can propose it like anything else and provide valid arguments during the proposal process with all kinds of projections and charts and proof that it'll still benefit the public (note: us running out of money is not a benefit to the public) > > I would really like to hear input about this. It was mostly favorable > last night. Please reply to this email if you have anything to add or > discuss about this. As long as the need for a low income schedule is thoroughly proven by the member in a way that keeps the $35/mo level the easiest way to join, I think it sounds good. To clarify, I think the right to vote should be /worth/ $35. It can cost $15 in money, as long as there is enough extra work needed to show that membership is really worth $35 to that person. Volunteer hours for the space, donating tools/materials, significant contributions, etc. > > > Thank you, > Alexander Golightley > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
