Your statements reflect my understanding as well. However, I believe the language of the constitution and bylaws probably aren't as clear as they need to be to reflect this (unless it is clarified elsewhere that I haven't seen-- a distinct possibility). In any case, the BoD should probably opine one way or another via a policy statement or amendment to the bylaws/constitution, just so it is clear. I will pose the question on the board.

Interestingly and paradoxically enough, it would actually cost me more for Life Membership if I joined today. If the BoD decided that my previous 3 years counted and I joined today, Life Membership would cost me $750. If I wait 4 more years (paying dues each year) and then become a Life Member, it will only cost $600. Even considering the dues I will pay between now and then, it still costs me $30 less to become a Life Member if I wait, even less if you factor in the time value of money (but assuming no dues increases, which may be an aggressive assumption).

In any case, this is nothing more than a fairly interesting intellectual exercise to me (one of the perils of being a bank compliance officer-- I get paid to think about situations just like this, and this is my idea of fun ), but as Steve says, how the constitution is interpreted in this case would have implications to others who are similarly situated (and may be thus incentivized to join the ranks of Life Members). As such, there should probably be an official ruling, and perhaps have the language clarified as necessary to match the intent.

Have a good night!

Brent J. Jensen
R-8007
orbis non sufficit