Thanks for your legitimate question Ron. I will respond to your devil's advocate role. Some may not agree with my reasoning ... and that's fine. Over the past 25 years in this wonderful club, I've always been candid with my critics on controversial subjects and have been up-front with my responses. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

First of all please allow me to make one thing very clear. My objection to the Constitution change proposal is not personal. Steve Passalacqua and I have been good friends for many, many, years and we will continue to be good friends long after this mandatory vote by the membership is taken. This proposal is not new. Steve raised this issue last year, but did not formally present it as a Constitutional change.

I too, would like to see the club grow ... but at what cost? My primary concern is why would anyone make an effort to sign up a new member at $30 when he/she could sign up a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker for only $5 associate dues? The club can't survive on $5 dues. A family member as an associate is one thing ... opening associate membership up to anybody and everybody is not good for the club in my opinion.

Let me play devil's advocate for one moment. Would you sign up a friend or neighbor or co-worker for $30 when you could sign him/her up for only $5? Sure you would! The annual dues in this club used to be $5 for several years back in the late '80's - early 90's. Why do you think it was raised on several occassions since then? Because it was not economicaly feasible. Life Membership was originally pegged at $50. Why do you think LM dues was raised to 20 times the regular membership rate that it is now? Because the club was losing money on Life Memberships at $50, $100, $200.

A secondary legitimate consideration I have is this; suppose someone did make a $100 "contribution" to the club under the new Constitutional proposal at hand, and sent in 20 associate applications for neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. Since the club does not send out ballots to associate members, that sponsor is now responsible to reproduce ballots for every election and provide them to the 20 new associate members he/she has signed up... and who may reside all over the country. The sponsor now has much "influence" on how those 20 associates votes and could easily send in their ballots under their names. Several past CC>CC election outcomes have been determined by less than 20 votes. I'm not speaking of officer elections per se, but it could be applied to that scenario. How about the OTY voting as another example; or voting on future amendments to the club's Constitution down the road? Past history of voting result participation in this club is not very encouraging. 20 votes can make a huge impact in final outcomes.

I have no objection to Steve's proposal that would permit family members who do not live in the same household to become eligible for associate membership, but I do object to non-family members becoming associate members for the very reasons I have addressed. Do I want to see the club grow? Sure ...; we all do. Yes, the CC>CC membership is dwindlng (as most hobby organizations are), and I too read the concerns that members have. However, some of those concerned members might want to ask of themselves; "how many new club members have I recruited to help sustain the future of the club?"

Just stating my opinion ... $5 bucks doesn't cut it.
I hope that I've offered some reasonable food for thought before voting takes place on this issue.