Membership

[Michael Greenebaum]

Well, our autumn discussions bore useful fruit, as the Board rather quickly and easily made a decision to cut seven meetings from our yearly schedule.  Using our discussion as the basis for the survey of members and the discussion at the end of last month was productive and successful.

We still have three issues (by my counting) that we began to discuss and which are still on the table.  One is what our club is all about, one is how we should define membership, and one is how to deal with the endowment.  Recently there has been some animated discussion about membership, whether congeniality and compatibility with current members should be added as criteria.  This leads to the question of whether we should vet members more carefully, or open the Club more broadly.  Should membership be by invitation (as it is, more or less, now) or by application.

In March we are on the schedule to have another open meeting to discuss the work of our Future group, and I suggest that this should be on the table then.  What do you think?

Michael

[jer...@aol.com]

Yes, I think it should be on the table, esp. the issue of membership.

Cynthia

[Citizen Wald]

Regarding "what our Club is all about": We have seen that even the
discussion of our financial situation turned to some extent on the
relative importance of sociability and the value of a speaker series
vs. charitable work.

Talk about coincidence:

Just this weekend, I was talking with someone (established and well
connected in the community) about the challenges facing civic
organizations. I mentioned the Amherst Club and its work. The response:

"But that's just a lunch club."

If this is the way that we are seen, then this is exactly the right
time to be having the discussion that Michael calls for.

Jim

[Roger Webb]

I agree. And if I can volunteer you again Michael, I would also like to see some sort of questionnaire, as you did with the financial situation. That was very useful, because we got a real sense of how all members thought about the problems. In the past, the membership issue has been discussed at lunch meetings, but although that allows everyone to air their thoughts it places too much weight on those that like speaking, and doesn’t really tell us how much support there is for the various suggestions.

 

Roger

 

---

[Hubbard Smith]

Roger's suggestion for a Questionnaire has merit.  We could go round and round with e-mails or lunch discussions during which only those few with strong feelings one way or the other, and the courage to state those feelings publicly, would tell us where they stand, whereas a questionnaire would encourage the "silent majority" to weigh in, and the results could be presented and debated.  (And in a meeting, we'd run out of time, anyway.)  I would think twice before attending a meeting at which there was to be an open discussion, repeating what has already been written as part of the "Future" project.   Just my two cents.....    ---Hub

---

From: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Michael Greenebaum
Sent: Mon 1/18/2010 3:17 PM
To: future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Membership

[Arthur Kinney]

To All:

I think recent events have clearly shown that we must have some sort of
review process for new members, although it need not be complicated nor
extensive.

Arthur

[Arthur Kinney]

Dear All:

Hub reminds me that the membership already has this on their agenda and
is planning a meeting.

Arthur

Hubbard Smith wrote:
> Roger's suggestion for a Questionnaire has merit. We could go round
> and round with e-mails or lunch discussions during which only those
> few with strong feelings one way or the other, and the courage to
> state those feelings publicly, would tell us where they stand, whereas
> a questionnaire would encourage the "silent majority" to weigh in, and
> the results could be presented and debated. (And in a meeting, we'd
> run out of time, anyway.) I would think twice before attending a
> meeting at which there was to be an open discussion, repeating what
> has already been written as part of the "Future" project. Just my
> two cents..... ---Hub
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com on behalf of
> Michael Greenebaum
> *Sent:* Mon 1/18/2010 3:17 PM
> *To:* future-of-the...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Membership