> The AERC also keeps records and tracks
mileage for non-members for later incorporation into thier member record if they
join at a later date, so they can be eligible for awards if they decide to join.
For this they deserve compensation, and I dont think the paying members should
be burdened with this cost.
They aren't. The rider fee is paid to AERC
for EVERY rider, not just members, and this should easily
cover the recording costs. That is the ONLY benefit they
get, AERC is already compensated, so what's the
point?
>I believe one of the intents behind the
non-member fee was to encourage people to join our organization and further it
membership roles. This is a benefit to our strength as an organization. If a
rider only does one or two rides a year it really isnt a financial burden to pay
this fee, but if a rider should do say four or five rides a year the fee
encourages them to join and be a paticipating member, maybe even vote, be a ride
manager or DAL. I dont think it was imposed to be a punitive fee, but rather as
an encouragement to join and be a participating member so that they can have
awards.
If we need negative inducements to join AERC, then we need to
rethink our organization and ask ourselves why our positive inducements aren't
enough, or why it is that we are not presenting our positive inducements in such
a way that those who are not members would feel that it is worth it to
join. As Joe has already pointed out, the benefits of membership speak for
themselves--such things as receiving EN, being able to participate in lifetime
mileage programs for horse and rider, annual awards programs, being able to have
a voice in how AERC conducts itself, etc. To paraphrase your last
sentence, if our awards aren't attractive enough to make you want to join, we
will hold a $10 figurative gun to your head and make you enjoy them
anyway.
I agree wholeheartedly with Joe on this
issue--it is a black mark on our organization, and it is a matter of
principle. Unlike Joe, I had just given up thinking about
it.
Heidi
|