Nobody questioned the excellent job that's been done, nor the fact that
if the money goes out, it has to come from somewhere. The folks "at the
top", the board and committee members, invest many hours of time and
personal funds into the organization, and that work shows.
*** Rounds of applause ***
My issue is that there are a lot of casual members in AERC that MAY
feel that they don't want to spend $65 on a membership that they use a
handful of times a year. If AERC is thinking that the increase is going
to bail them out, and membership drops significantly, it hurts the whole
organization. It achieves a negative effect.
$65 is cheap if you use the membership monthly, and some folks ride 2 to 3
rides a month. Others accrue mileage at 50 to 150 miles a year, if at all!
Many of us LD (low-riders :^) don't even care is we accrue, because it
doesn't mean anything significant to the AERC. $65 is a bit much for this
second group, who have lives outside of Endurance.
I have dozens of charities that tell me that I can help stop birth defects,
cure cancer, rescue horses and create new open space vistas for _much_less_
than a tank of gas. It isn't the money, it's the priorities. I could give
away $millions$ to deserving groups in $65 allotments. Now THERE's a JOB!!!
The question is, ARE there a significant number of people that are going
to opt not to rejoin because they aren't using $65 worth of AERC a year??
If that happens, where does that leave AERC? Is there a better way to do
this so that we don't loose the grass roots of the organization?
I oughta bow out of this...
Linda - the Garlic rep