Archive talk:Constitution/Proposed
The membership fees section needs to be updated. Scott Nelson 14:01, 12 March 2008 (PDT)
- Done, though now it is a little weird, since the alumni still have the option to pay $45, not the new $52.50 for associate. Should have updated that last time I guess. Need to add other members in there too. Scott Webster 14:30, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
Simplification of membership classes
Last year we introduced "other" members, making membership open to non-students at the discretion of the membership chair. I like the idea of simplifying things by changing this to an eligibility clause under "associate" members, however this leads to a problem: at the moment, "other" members need to pay for 4 years before being eligible for alumni status. If "others" are rolled in with associates, then they become eligible for alumni membership after one year. I'm thinking about ways to fix this, but wanted to post the concern, so it's on record and will hopefully be addressed before any new proposals are put to the membership. --Matthew 16:04, 5 January 2009 (PST)
- See below. Scott Webster 16:27, 5 January 2009 (PST)
Alumni eligibility
1.3. Alumni Members
1.3.1. Eligibility
1.3.1.1. Must have been members of the VOC previously either as Student Members or as Associate Members or must have been an Other Member for at least four years.
1.3.1.2. Must not be eligible for Student or Associate Membership. *** this needs to be fixed, problematic ***
Why is this problematic? --Matthew 16:10, 5 January 2009 (PST)
- Because if anyone can be an associate member, then everyone is eligible for that class and therefore ineligible for alumni membership. Actually, the "fix" tag is supposed to apply to 1.3.1.1 as well, since it still references "other" members, which should no longer exist, and the 4 year thing you mentioned above, which I have also thought about and have not yet solved. We could have some long winded clause about how you have to have been a member for 4 years if you weren't a spouse or staff faculty, but it seems that it would be confusing and lame. Scott Webster 16:27, 5 January 2009 (PST)
- Maybe if we want different criteria to apply to other members and associate members, it would be easier to keep it as fully separate membership categories, although that defeats the purpose of trying to simplify things --Matthew 17:19, 5 January 2009 (PST)