[H-GEN] Constitutional changes I will be proposing at the AGM

[Russell Stuart]

On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 19:22 +1000, Matthew Franklin wrote:
> If by allowing people to pay online brings in more
> membership then

Why is Humbug getting more money because it managed to grow it
membership such a bad thing?  Is it a sin to have a healthy bank account
because we attract new members?  I could imagine people getting upset if
our fees increased year after year, but we haven't raised them in my
time at Humbug and we aren't planning to raise the amount Humbug gets
now.

Besides, the amounts are so small it makes this discussion a storm in a
teacup.  We are talking $20 / $25 in one year.  The difference is less
than most people spend on food and munchies during your average Humbug
meeting.  In fact $25 in total is less than many spend on food at one
meeting.  Or look at it this way - I paid $20 when I first joined Humbug
in 2002.  Adjusted for inflation in 2010 that same $20 is worth almost
smack on $25 in today's money.  Humbug's membership fees have been
effectively dropping every year because of inflation - and will continue
to drop despite this change!

I doubt whether it is $20 or $25 will have any effect on how many people
join Humbug if that is what you are worried about.  We all happily pay
the money to get the badge of honour that says we are paid up humbug
members.

> , depending on the break even point, the fees that
> Humbug would get would be increased. Not decreased.

That's speculation.  And it if happens, we can adjust the fees
accordingly with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - if we think that is
the right thing to do.

I don't think it is.  Reducing that fee in some ways reduces the worth
of that badge that says "I cared enough about humbug to pay $20 for
membership".  Think about what that badge would mean if it was just $1.
Would you even bother paying it?  You get bugger all for it, other than
the warm fuzzy feeling you are supporting an organisation you care
about.  Supporting it to the tune of just $1 hardly seems worth the
effort does it?  I think reducing the fee devalues Humbug in some ways,
and you may well find reducing membership fees actually reduces the
number of people willing to pay for it.

I think this is a problem LA faced.  LA membership is free.  In 2003
they were in danger of folding completely - they had less members than
Humbug as I recall.  Now you would think if people joined an
organisation because they had low membership fees they would be overrun
with members.  They are the national organisation after all.  But no, in
2003 they had to resort to the tactic of making every attendee to LCA a
member.

> As to you not wanting to get tangled up in a discussion about the
> appropriate level of membership fees I'm sorry but you already are.

Sigh.  So it seems.