... membership, I said in my original position statement (before I was even aware of the change in the by-laws) that I was undecided as to whether national membership should be a prerequisite to chapter membership.

I have now read every post on the subject on both of the BB's (there being none on the Chequers board). I see merit in (at least some of) the arguments being advanced by the proponents of both sides of the issue.

I do think that everyone who is a serious chip, token or other casino item collector should WANT to be a member of the national club, for what I think are obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I remain undecided on the issue of whether such membership should be mandatory for anyone who wants to join a chapter.

Before making up my own mind on the issue, I would like to know specifically how many chapter members (and associate chapter members) there are who are not members of the national organization (to help assess the exact nature and extent of the potential problems of either maintaining the current rules or changing back to the old ones).

And, on the issue of monetary costs to the national club, whether any chapter which has non-CC>CC members has ever requested and received funds for any project which has benefitted non-club members.

I do think that the by-laws having already been changed and people allowed to join the chapters without becoming members of the national club, any change back will have to be made in a way which is fair to those who have, by following the existing rule, become members of chapters without joining the national club (or whose previous chapter membership was sanctioned by the current rules).

I also think that the current board (and the newly elected officers if the issue is not resolved prior to the time they take office) should try to determine whether there are any middle of the road alternatives to the current "either/or" positions. So far, I haven't seen much discussion of any such alternatives (and frankly don't know off the top of my head whether there are any). In any event, given the sometimes passionate feelings expressed by people on both sides of the issue, it seems to me that a compromise solution which is at least acceptable to (if not enthusiastically received by) everyone whould be preferable to the divisiveness which has characterized much of the discussion so far.

Furthermore, and as always, I think it should be possible to conduct a discussion of this issue in a civilized, rational manner without resort to rancor and/or personal invective.

Finally, I think it is unfair to the members of the current board to berate them for making this change in the by-laws without submitting the issue to the membership. They acted within the club's current constitution and by-laws in making the change and apparently did so based on seemingly reasonable considerations and WITHOUT OBJECTION from anyone, either at the board meeting at the convention or in any public discussion prior to that meeting. I can't say that I wouldn't have voted the same way under the circumstances, had I been on the board at the time.

Although the advice discussed by JB and Archie is probably sound, I did NOT wait 24 hours after writing this to post it! ----- jim o\-S