On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:21:27 -0700, rick.rotramel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Dickson [SMTP:dickson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:53 PM > > To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: [sac-board] Re: SAC 2002 Budget and 2003 Recommendations > Reread the constitution again, it says "all back dues or a > reinstatement > > fee". Trouble is there is no attached schedule for the reinstatement fee. > > > > SAC has always pro-rated dues for renewing members the same as for new > > members. It's just more noticable this year due to the newsletter > > problems last year and the lateness of handing off the treasury. > > > > -Paul > > > Paul, > > I don't think so, show me a member who paid a pro-rated renewal in > the past. > I refer to Rick Tejera's earlier message (included below), he changed the Membership Services Form to make the pro-rating apply only to new members. I don't have any of Rick's newsletters prior to January 2001, but in newsletters through May 1999 there is no mention of limiting pro-rating to new members. And for the ten years I was required to attend board meetings (first as newsletter editor and then as President) the issue was dependent on the treasurer. Some would enforce full back payment (the only treasurer I'm sure that did this was Cathy Becker, during 1990) but most did not. The Membership Services Form was created for me by Bob Dahl (I think it was while he was President, rather than while he was treasurer). -Paul On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:26:12 EDT, SaguaroAstro@xxxxxxx wrote: > I did reread the constitution, and as I did point out, there is no schedule. > As I said and Rick Rotramel reiterated, I cannot recall ever seeing dues > prorated for renewals. As a matter of fact Peegy had specifically asked me to > change the wording on the member services form to include the words "for new > members only" in the prorata statement. To me "all back dues" means $28.00. > > Rick >