Elimination of Family Memberships

[gypsyken]

Those who have Family Memberships in LCS should know that the proposed new constitution eliminates them. Article 6 on page 2 of the proposed constitution states only two classes of paying memberships, Regular and Associate, and that "other classes of dues paying memberships may be established or abolished at an annual meeting by the membership UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS." Therefore, Family Memberships will be eliminated upon adoption of the proposed new constitution unless and until the Board of Directors recommends them and the membership approves them. It is extremely unlikely that the Board of Directors will recommend Family Memberships. During review of last year's proposed new constitution, members of the Board of Directors stated that Family Memberships should be eliminated because they are "abused," and they would have been eliminated if that proposed new constitution had been adopted. Obviously, if the Board wanted to continue Family Memberships, they would be stated as a class of membership in the proposed new constitution, as they are in the existing governing documents. I am told that the Board believes that persons now holding Family Memberships will simply purchase regular, individual ones, which will, of course, increase membership revenue.

[Atlas]

A "Regular" membership includes a couple. There is no "individual" membership.

[Mad_Max]

A "Regular" membership includes a couple. There is no "individual" membership.

So if a regular membership is for a couple, that makes us single folks need an "irregular" membership?

[gringal]

A "Regular" membership includes a couple. There is no "individual" membership.

I just looked on the LCS site membership fee schedule for the LCS. There are individual memberships, and a "couple" is a two person family membership, which costs more. Eliminating "family" memberships would also include the "2 person family", would it not? Result: raising the fees for a couple.

My impression is that the purpose of the new constitution movement is to clean up some loose ends but also, to be able to hire a paid director. I am curious about what the proposed salary would be.

The article in the Guad Reporter did not provide enough clear information about these matters.

I would very much appreciate our President giving more.

In fact, I would appreciate more information from anyone who actually knows the answers and is not just speculating.

[suzanjo]

It baffles the mind why a couple should be less expensive then two single people. Are we trying to say something?

[Lexy]

Perhaps Howard Feldstein, prez of LCS, would sign on here and remind us what the membership rates are and what changes in the rates are being proposed at the upcoming public meeting.

As a couple, my husband and I have always paid more for our membership than a single person. That's just logical. What happened sometime back when membership rates went up, some couples (unhappy about the increases) decided to take only one membership, to use only the library privileges and the mail box. Others dropped their memberships altogether.

Terry Vidal has been receiving a salary as LCS director for over a year. When he was office manager (or some similar title) his hourly salary had been announced in the minutes. But nowhere have I seen it on record his income since he was made director. Of course, it's of interest to all members, just as we're interested in all the operational expenses, and it's our right to know.

Howard, fill us in, please.

Lexy

[gringal]

It baffles the mind why a couple should be less expensive then two single people. Are we trying to say something?

"Your logic", as Mr. Spock would say, "is impeccable". But then, so is the "marriage penalty" in the IRS system. And yes, it also says something about attitudes towards non-traditional "couples", doesn't it? Hmmm.

[gypsyken]

The 1998 Amendments to the Constitution of LCS state in Article VI on page 4 that "There will be individual, family, and honorary memberships." The 2003 Amendments to the By-Laws of LCS state in Article VI on page 3 that "There will be individual, family, and honorary memberships." Both of these governing documents will be superceded by the proposed new constitution that does not mention family memberships. It only specifies "regular" and "associate" memberships and states that other classes of membership may be established upon recommendation of the Board of Directors and approval by the membership. How, then, despite any assurance that the current Board of Directors may give, can family memberships be continued unless and until the Board of Directors recommends them and the membership approves the Board's recommendation?

[ajijiccharlie]

Ken,

Are you a member of the LCS? I don't see you in the directory. I do remember that you seemed to be opposed to any action the last board proposed. I hope you are not opposed to this board for the sake of being opposed.

If you are a member, I'll see you at the extraordinary meeting. I've read the old governance documents and the proposed constitution and will vote for the new constitution.

If you are not a member, I wish you would keep your thoughts to yourself. I don't publicly comment on the organizations I don't belong to.

Charlie

[cedros]

We just renewed. It was 800 for a couple. It would have been 1,000 as two singles.

[maw7815]

The 1998 Amendments to the Constitution of LCS state in Article VI on page 4 that "There will be individual, family, and honorary memberships." The 2003 Amendments to the By-Laws of LCS state in Article VI on page 3 that "There will be individual, family, and honorary memberships." Both of these governing documents will be superceded by the proposed new constitution that does not mention family memberships. It only specifies "regular" and "associate" memberships and states that other classes of membership may be established upon recommendation of the Board of Directors and approval by the membership. How, then, despite any assurance that the current Board of Directors may give, can family memberships be continued unless and until the Board of Directors recommends them and the membership approves the Board's recommendation?

There are 2 types of membership in the proposed constitution- Regular and Associate.

A "Regular" membership is one that has full voting rights.

An "Associate" membership does not have voting rights. You can purchase an Associate Membership for $100 pesos per month- many will do so in order to post ads on the website and on the bulletin boards which is for Members Only.

A Regular Membership includes 1 person for $500p, 2 family for $800, 3-family for $1100 and a 4 family membership for $1400. All family memberships must have the same address. Each member in a family membership has full voting rights.

The new constitution allows for changes to membership and is voted upon at the annual meeting by the members. When I was on the Board we voted to have a new price structure for 1-4 family memberships. Previously there was one price for Single memberships and another for 2-5 members. That price structure encouraged 5 people to be in a family membership for the price of 2 people.

maw

[gringal]

There are 2 types of membership in the proposed constitution- Regular and Associate.

A "Regular" membership is one that has full voting rights.

An "Associate" membership does not have voting rights. You can purchase an Associate Membership for $100 pesos per month- many will do so in order to post ads on the website and on the bulletin boards which is for Members Only.

A Regular Membership includes 1 person for $500p, 2 family for $800, 3-family for $1100 and a 4 family membership for $1400. All family memberships must have the same address. Each member in a family membership has full voting rights.

The new constitution allows for changes to membership and is voted upon at the annual meeting by the members. When I was on the Board we voted to have a new price structure for 1-4 family memberships. Previously there was one price for Single memberships and another for 2-5 members. That price structure encouraged 5 people to be in a family membership for the price of 2 people.

maw

[/quote

I just went to the LCS website, looked up the Proposed New Constitution of 11/10. On their website, it is under the "New Constitution" section and refers to paying memberships as "regular" without any sub-classes for more than 1 person. Being strictly literal: if this New Constitution is voted in, there is no obligation after passage to allow anything other than individual membership. The Board may choose to do so. Or may not.

I think anyone who is a voting member would be well advised to read the Proposed New Constitution for him/herself and base the decision on what's written. I am not against passage, but I like clarity.

[maw7815]

I just went to the LCS website, looked up the Proposed New Constitution of 11/10. On their website, it is under the "New Constitution" section and refers to paying memberships as "regular" without any sub-classes for more than 1 person. Being strictly literal: if this New Constitution is voted in, there is no obligation after passage to allow anything other than individual membership. The Board may choose to do so. Or may not.

I think anyone who is a voting member would be well advised to read the Proposed New Constitution for him/herself and base the decision on what's written. I am not against passage, but I like clarity.

Here is a copy of the proposed constitution in reference to Regular and Associate Members:

Article 6. MEMBERSHIP

LCS is a membership organization that has the right to refuse membership.

Section 6.01 Types of Membership

LCS has dues paying members and non dues paying members:

(a) Paying Members

The Board of Directors recommends classes of membership that pay dues. Categories include, but

need not be limited to Regular and Associate memberships.

Regular members in good standing have all privileges including one vote on any agenda item

at any meeting of members requiring a vote. Regular members pay annual dues.

Associate members have limited privileges which are established in LCS policy. Associate

members have no voting privileges.

Other classes of dues paying memberships may be established or abolished at an Annual

General Meeting by the membership upon the recommendation of the Board of Directors. Once

established, the requirements and privileges of any new class of membership are defined in LCS policy.

The above does not mention single or family memberships.

Abolishing one or the other would still need the general membership approving and neither one would pass a vote!

There are just as many singles wanting family memberships abolished as families wanting to keep it.

maw

[gringal]

Other classes of dues paying memberships may be established or abolished at an Annual

General Meeting by the membership upon the recommendation of the Board of Directors.

Sorry to be nitpicking here, but once the New Constitution is passed, the only "regular" membership class actually being voted on is the single membership. None others are being voted upon. Then, once that wording has been voted on, that is the only class that has been subjected to a membership vote. The "other classes" would (including family membership) would then need to be established by recommendation of the BOD and voted upon by the membership in a new vote.

If there are to be several different classes of membership, why are they not listed in this constitution now under consideration? As quoted above, "OTHER CLASSES OF DUES PAYING MEMBERSHIPS MAY BE ESTABLISHED, etc." Which, as I read it, means they will not exist until a new membership meeting and voting takes place, etc.

In a former life, I used to deal with contracts and learned that the devil is always in the details, which is why I am looking at this as though it were a contract. It only says what it says.

[maw7815]

Sorry to be nitpicking here, but once the New Constitution is passed, the only "regular" membership class actually being voted on is the single membership. None others are being voted upon. Then, once that wording has been voted on, that is the only class that has been subjected to a membership vote. The "other classes" would (including family membership) would then need to be established by recommendation of the BOD and voted upon by the membership in a new vote.

If there are to be several different classes of membership, why are they not listed in this constitution now under consideration? As quoted above, "OTHER CLASSES OF DUES PAYING MEMBERSHIPS MAY BE ESTABLISHED, etc." Which, as I read it, means they will not exist until a new membership meeting and voting takes place, etc.

In a former life, I used to deal with contracts and learned that the devil is always in the details, which is why I am looking at this as though it were a contract. It only says what it says.

There is a reason for not being specific in a constitution. If there is a change the Constitution needs to be rewritten. That is why there are 4 governing documents in place now!

Changes can be made to the membership without changing the constitution when you specify Regular & Associate. We presently have a Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution, By-Laws and Amendments to the By-Laws. All 4 do not supersede the others! If you dealt with contracts imagine trying to read all 4 of these documents and figure out what you can and cannot do!

maw

[gypsyken]

Ken,

Are you a member of the LCS? I don't see you in the directory. I do remember that you seemed to be opposed to any action the last board proposed. I hope you are not opposed to this board for the sake of being opposed.

If you are a member, I'll see you at the extraordinary meeting. I've read the old governance documents and the proposed constitution and will vote for the new constitution.

If you are not a member, I wish you would keep your thoughts to yourself. I don't publicly comment on the organizations I don't belong to.

Charlie

I seek to point out dishonesty wherever I see it, Charlie. Note that the LCS has also posted and published a notice saying that the U.S. Postal Service is rejecting mail without return addresses, which is simply false. (I'll be glad to send to anyone who requests it the official U.S.P.S. statement that first class mail without a return address will be delivered.) Whatever reason LCS may have for requiring mail sent through LCS to have return addresses, it is dishonest to state that the U.S. Postal Service requires it.

.

[Marley's Ghost]

Does this have anything to do with the topic of the thread (started by you)? I notice that you avoided answering Chuck's question and also that your posts refer to internal affairs of the LCS, seeking in some places assurances that memberships won't change--issues that may be of concern to LCS members, but that have nothing to do with dishonesty.

Further to continue to harp on such an extremely minor matter is a sign that you have another agenda--after all what difference does it make if LCS requires a return address or not, or if there has been a misattribution to the USPS?

[gringal]

There is a reason for not being specific in a constitution. If there is a change the Constitution needs to be rewritten. That is why there are 4 governing documents in place now!

Changes can be made to the membership without changing the constitution when you specify Regular & Associate. We presently have a Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution, By-Laws and Amendments to the By-Laws. All 4 do not supersede the others! If you dealt with contracts imagine trying to read all 4 of these documents and figure out what you can and cannot do!

maw

I agree that dealing with those many documents is a nightmare task, and that there should be a new Constitution to eliminate this. What I don't understand is why the new one did not specify that there would be regular memberships and family memberships, thus eliminating the need to alter it to include these later.

[ajijiccharlie]

I seek to point out dishonesty wherever I see it, Charlie. Note that the LCS has also posted and published a notice saying that the U.S. Postal Service is rejecting mail without return addresses, which is simply false. (I'll be glad to send to anyone who requests it the official U.S.P.S. statement that first class mail without a return address will be delivered.) Whatever reason LCS may have for requiring mail sent through LCS to have return addresses, it is dishonest to state that the U.S. Postal Service requires it.

.

Ken,

I think it is sad that you are so suspicious of LCS' motives. It's easier to make one simple rule than to try to explain all the intricacies of US postal rules. I'm guessing that you've never had to deal with large numbers of people.

I've added the relevant information and the website.

Charles

http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/602.htm#wp1085528

1.5.3 Required Use of Return Addresses

[9-7-10] The sender's domestic return address must appear legibly on:

a. Mail of any class bearing a printed ancillary service request or an ancillary service request embedded within an Intelligent Mail barcode.

b. Official mail.

c. Mail paid with precanceled stamps (except Standard Mail pieces weighing 13 ounces or less and bearing a mailer's postmark in accordance with 604.3.4).

d. Matter bearing a company permit imprint.

e. Priority Mail.

f. Periodicals in envelopes or wrappers.

g. Package Services (except unendorsed Bound Printed Matter).

h. Parcel Select

i. Registered Mail.

j. Insured mail.

k. Collect on delivery (COD) mail.

l. Certified Mail if a return receipt is requested.

m. Express Mail if a return receipt is requested. The return address on the Express Mail label meets this standard.

n. Detached addressed labels (DALs).

[ajijiccharlie]

I agree that dealing with those many documents is a nightmare task, and that there should be a new Constitution to eliminate this. What I don't understand is why the new one did not specify that there would be regular memberships and family memberships, thus eliminating the need to alter it to include these later.

I'm married so the family membership is good for me, but I'm not sure that it's really the fairest approach. We have many singles as well as unmarried partnerships. I'm happy to pay for two and have more money go into programs for the local population.

[Marieluise]

We just renewed. It was 800 for a couple. It would have been 1,000 as two singles.

I would point out that your renewal took place under the present constitution. Maybe that was your point. You would have paid more if the proposed constitution were in effect.

There is a reason for not being specific in a constitution. If there is a change the Constitution needs to be rewritten. That is why there are 4 governing documents in place now!

Changes can be made to the membership without changing the constitution when you specify Regular & Associate. We presently have a Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution, By-Laws and Amendments to the By-Laws. All 4 do not supersede the others! If you dealt with contracts imagine trying to read all 4 of these documents and figure out what you can and cannot do!

maw

Your assessment is not accurate. Changes in the constitution can be made by amendments. Specifics can be changed by means of Bylaws. The constitution does not have to be rewritten. I would also point out that according to Mexican law, the only way legally to dissolve the existing documents and adopt a new constitution is to dissolve the association. Check it out.

[gringal]

I'm married so the family membership is good for me, but I'm not sure that it's really the fairest approach. We have many singles as well as unmarried partnerships. I'm happy to pay for two and have more money go into programs for the local population.

I should have added that a "family" need not be married partners, but IMO, should include non-traditional partners living together at the same address.

Your sentiments about having more money go into the programs are noble, but what we are discussing here is whether LCS is or is not going to be obligated to provide "family" memberships if the new Constitution is passed. Some retired folks here are on tight budgets and it's not getting easier for them to meet expenses. They are, IMO, as important as any LCS programs.

[Marieluise]

Since my previous post, I have taken the time to read the proposed constitution, and I recommend that all who plan to vote do the same.

I can tell that a lot of consideration and admirable work went into this proposal, because it is head and shoulders above the proposal that was defeated previously.

Besides the elimination of family memberships, I find the following to be troublesome:

Section 9.02 Power of Attorney (Poder General)

To be specific, that section states: "1) The power of attorney is granted to the President who may reassign it to any of the following: Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Executive Director."

And the following sub-section enumerates this power: "l) open, close and make transfer to and from LCS’ bank and investment accounts;..."

I don't think it wise to give that kind of power to a single person. I am reminded of what happened to the American Legion in Chapala a few years ago; if you aren't aware, please inform yourself. Then you can make the connection to what possibilities are made possible by this provision. That type of action should be delegated to a committee of at least three persons, in my opinion.

You make the call.

[gringal]

Since my previous post, I have taken the time to read the proposed constitution, and I recommend that all who plan to vote do the same.

I can tell that a lot of consideration and admirable work went into this proposal, because it is head and shoulders above the proposal that was defeated previously.

Besides the elimination of family memberships, I find the following to be troublesome:

Section 9.02 Power of Attorney (Poder General)

To be specific, that section states: "1) The power of attorney is granted to the President who may reassign it to any of the following: Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Executive Director."

And the following sub-section enumerates this power: "l) open, close and make transfer to and from LCS’ bank and investment accounts;..."

I don't think it wise to give that kind of power to a single person. I am reminded of what happened to the American Legion in Chapala a few years ago; if you aren't aware, please inform yourself. Then you can make the connection to what possibilities are made possible by this provision. That type of action should be delegated to a committee of at least three persons, in my opinion.

You make the call.

I hadn't paid enough attention: I completely agree with your concerns. Where money is involved, there should be more than one person overseeing it's dispersal.

[longtimer]

First thing the new board did was eliminate the "longtimers" discount which sent me packing. I've lived here for 25 yrs. I was responsible for lending videos to the Video Club when it first started up. A lot of changes have happened in those 25 yrs. and not for the better.

We all thought that Nancy Craven was the worst President but, this new President is running a close second.

I found that I was using the LCS less and less and now since I've been away from it for 2 yrs., I don't miss it at all.