Re: [AISdiscuss] Life Memberships

["Deatons" <deatons@earthlink.net>]

I tend to be in agreement with Brad on quite a few points:
1.  Most people do not have the option of being on AIS Discuss, therefore
our general membership would not have the option of expressing their
opinions regarding the elimination of Life Memberships.  It does look like a
secret vote.
2.  We have just raised the dues for everything, and I think we should let
things settle in a bit before making a major change in anything regarding
the elimination of triennial memberships.
3.  The O/S Life Members will not effect AIS that much if we leave things
the way they are, and we have no control over the fluctuating currency
situation...two years from now it could be to our benefit, not theirs.
4.  Jeanne just sent out the Opinion Poll to the affiliates, and I just sent
it out in June's newsletter to my members.  We should wait to see what the
members want/require/desire/need before doing something so drastic as to
eliminate Life Memberships.
5.  EVERYONE LOVES A BARGAIN, which is what the triennial membership is.
Are we really losing that much income?
Cheryl Deaton
----- Original Message -----
From: <ZEBRAIRIS1@aol.com>
To: <aisdiscuss@aisboard.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Life Memberships


> In a message dated 6/7/2005 2:36:26 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> irishud@earthlink.net writes:
> I am furthering the discussion on life memberships by responding to
> Brad's comments.
>
> Jay
>
>
> >     2. Eliminating US Life Memberships:
> >
> >         Electronic voting would be viewed by the membership as a secret
vote
> >without allowing for input from them.  While this discussion has merit,
it
> >should only be voted on in an open Board meeting.  Personally, I'm
> >not supportive
> >of doing this at this time.
>
> {This is the reason for AIS discuss. It goes out to a lot of members
> and they may respond if they wish. Electronic votes have to be
> confirmed at the next board meeting. This is good for items that need
> immediate action.[Jay]
>
> [Brad's response]: I have never seen any comments on AISdiscuss from
anyone
> not on the AIS Board and was lead to believe it was created for the
purpose of
> Board dicussions.  John Jones, could you please let me know if AISdicuss
is
> open to the membership.
> >
> >     3.  Banning multiple triennial purchases:
> >
> >         Eliminating this option for the AIS membership would be viewed
very
> >negatively and probably be revenue neutral at best.  In practice this
> behavior
> >of some members to buy multiple membership in advance of a dues increase
> >usually produces extra revenue in the years of our worst budget
> >shortfalls.  This
> >is because we don't increase dues until we are running in the red!  A
> practice
> >of increasing dues modestly every 3 years would probably do wonders for
our
> >"boom & bust" budgetary cycles.  Also, it would minimize the practice of
> >multiple membership purchases.
>
>
> [Jay] Although this is not a part of my motion I am highly in favor of it.
> With our reserves we are covered at present and although the extra
> income is nice it in itself it creates a boom or bust situation as
> membership income will drop for a few years to compensate for lack of
> future increases. Like any business AIS has no way to control many of
> our costs each year. For the last couple of years we have had a bust
> and I foresee that continuing. The biggest example is the cost of
> insurance along with printing, postage and a slowdown in storefront
> sales. We have raised some fees and membership dues and it will be
> interesting to see whether that action actually increases revenue. We
> can only hope that it will so that further drastic action will not be
> necessary.
> [Brad's response] Jay, I too share your concerns about the AIS budge
> shortfalls, but we also have a MEMBERSHIP shortfall and these actions
aren't going to
> sell well in the Heartland without some groundwork being laid first.  In
> today's world I don't believe the AIS can increase membership unless we
identify
> the key services the members want and I don't believe blind-siding them by
> eliminating membership options is one of the services they'll appreciate.
The AIS
> isn't like any other business since we need the goodwill of our members to
get
> revenues and we have limited services to sell. We must look to cost
control
> until additional revenues do appear.  Just increasing the cost of the
services
> we do provide won't help us survive unless we also increase the services
we
> offer.  (Sorry, no specifics at this time!)
> >
> >There is a saying that goes something like this: "Every solution creates
its
> >own set of problems."
> >
> >Therefore, it is best to give serious consideration to all Board actions,
> >because actions that restrict the options of the members will likely
produce
> a
> >set of negative problems.  We should be looking at ways to INCREASE
options
> >because then there is a possibility of producing some positive
"problems."
>
>
> [Jay] Let's have some ideas.
>
> [Brad's reponse]
>
> With the advent of the information era and the world economy most
businesses
> today (and even the federal government) emphasize customer service as the
only
> way to survive or thrive.  Non-profit organizations are no different and
the
> Board must stop operating in the rarified air of our own "beltway."
Jeanne
> has made a good start in this direction by sending out surveys and I don't
> believe the Board should take any action that could be preceived to be
negative
> until we have more data.  Businesses and organizations that don't provide
more
> options, services, to their customers or members are unlikely to survive.
It is
> a buyers market for information and loyalty.
>
> >Brad
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> aissecjill@earthlink.net.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
aissecjill@earthlink.net.