Proposed Changes to Family Membership Policy
The club is currently refusing Kathryn and me a family membership because we live together and are not married. This is despite the club’s precedent for allowing others to do the same. Consequently, we have submitted a proposal to the Board of Directors to amend the club bylaws to be more inclusive. This issue goes directly to the identity of the club and directly affects many other club members besides us. Below is our proposal sent to the BODs. We have posted it here to encourage a healthy discussion among members as you will be asked to vote on it at the annual meeting.
Kathryn & Ron
To The Board of Directors:
We propose the following amendment to bylaw 2.6 to be voted on at the next annual meeting by the membership in attendance:
2.6 Any changes to existing amounts of dues and categories of membership will be recommended by the Board of Directors to the members and shall be voted upon by members present at the annual meeting or other specially called meeting.
2.65 A Family Membership shall include all members of the immediate family as defined by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A Section 1. A waiver form must be completed annually by each family member wishing membership.
It is our understanding that a related proposal was submitted last spring but was not brought to a vote by the BOD because it was thought that memberships which included unrelated persons could not be reasonably executed. The specific reasons cited were: 1.) it would involve a change to the existing website software and 2.) it would involve extra work for the membership coordinator. As explained below, this reasoning involves a mistaken belief about the legality of a signed release. In addition, we do not believe these objections are bonafide obstacles to executing the bylaw changes for the following reasons:
1.) The club's family membership policy is currently ambiguous and not uniformly enforced; membership decisions should not be arbitrary.
2.) One spouse cannot sign a release that legally waives the rights of the other spouse. The membership software as it is currently implemented requires that a second waiver be sent to the membership coordinator to be in legal compliance. Furthermore, a family membership could also include older emancipated children, requiring their signatures as well. The addition of other waivers included in the same already required envelop does not qualify as significant hardship for the membership coordinator. No addition changes are necessary to implement the proposed amendment.
3.) According to the club's charter, the stated purpose of the club is "…to encourage the recreation and sport of bicycling...". The recent decision by the BOD to enforce a restricted interpretation of the "family" membership policy to deny a family membership to cohabitating couples is unnecessarily exclusive and counter to the charter.
4.) Finally, it appears that the BOD may believe that family memberships are unfair to the other members and serious consideration should be given to abolishing them. As Nancy wrote in an earlier email exchange "Thus, we have to ask why we give an extra benefit to spouses, and not to some other group like ride leaders?". Once again, we believe this promotes exclusion and not inclusion and is counter to the charter. However, if the BOD believes abolishing the family membership is in the best interest of the club then it should also propose to amend the bylaws at the same time that the membership votes on our proposed changes.
In conclusion, this issue speaks directly to the club's identity. A decision of this magnitude should be up to the membership to decide.
Submitted by Kathryn O'Leary and Ron Rieder
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Glad its over
I'm SOooooooooooooooo glad we put this to rest at the last meeting.
Proposed Changes to Family Membership Policy
The Board of Directors received Ron Rieder's request to extend the family membership to unrelated household members. We will put this issue to a vote at the Fall Meeting, as requested, and will send out formal language for the vote prior to the Fall Meeting. As background, the Board does not support Ron's request for the following reasons:
See below for further information on each of these issues. The last issue is particularly important because Ron has challenged the way that we collect waivers for family memberships, thus calling into question whether we can continue with a family membership.
1. Family memberships:
Currently, NSC has 245 memberships:
Of the 48 family memberships, 20 contain two cyclists; 10 contain one cyclist; 18 are unknown because they do not ride regularly. It is notable that one-third of known families have one cyclist and use the family membership as a way to give a little extra to the club, or include their spouse in the membership to encourage their participation in non-ride events.
2. No compelling reason to extend the family membership to cohabitating couples
The Board considered "Why do we have a family membership?" and "What is the definition of family?"
Family membership. Some longtime NSC members said that the family membership discount was tied to the cost of the newsletter: the club saved on the costs of printing and mailing newsletters by sending only one to a family. Similarly, CRW said that they continue to produce a newsletter and their current household membership is designed to pass on the cost savings associated with mailing one newsletter to each address. NSC no longer produces and mails a newsletter so there is no cost savings to pass along.
Family definition. Ron has suggested that the NSC family membership should be defined to include all household members because "families" are now defined more broadly. Ron cited Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A Section 1 for a family definition, but that law does not support his position because it defines "family or household" together, and does not define "family" separately. That law appears as follows:
CHAPTER 209A. ABUSE PREVENTION
Chapter 209A: Section 1. Definitions
“Family or household members”, persons who:
(a) are or were married to one another;
(b) are or were residing together in the same household;
(c) are or were related by blood or marriage;
(d) having a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together;
(e) are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship, which shall be adjudged by district, probate or Boston municipal courts consideration of the following factors: (1) the length of time of the relationship; (2) the type of relationship; (3) the frequency of interaction between the parties; and (4) if the relationship has been terminated by either person, the length of time elapsed since the termination of the relationship.
Various laws use the terms "family" and/or "household" and each law defines these terms for the specific purpose of that law. On the other hand, the US Census Bureau defines:
It is not useful for the club to argue over definitions or to define “family” with a detailed list of circumstances such as “length of relationship.” What is important is a discussion of the purpose of the family membership and the implications of extending it or eliminating it. Ron suggested that we are excluding people from the club by defining the family as related persons. The Board does not understand this claim since Ron is free to join as an individual and the price difference is trivial: $20 for individual versus $15 for half of the family membership.
3. Implementing a change in the family membership
This issue is paramount in the Board's consideration of extending the family membership to unrelated individuals. NSC members currently join or renew membership by mail or online. The mail-in form contains a place for one signature - thus one family member signs the waiver for the family. The online form collects one electronic signature in the form of a checkbox to affirm that you have read and agree to the waiver. Most transactions are now completed online, yielding a significantly savings of time and effort in managing the membership database.
The Board did not agree that the family membership should extend to unrelated individuals because we have no way to collect multiple signatures for a single online transaction. On this issue, Ron responded that our procedures are inadequate for current family memberships. He wrote:
"Nancy,We are surprised to learn that you were not aware that one signature was inadequate. It appears that you have left the club unnecessarily exposed to significant liability for quite some time. Does the club's liability carrier know about this practice? We want you to tell us on what authority you were relying in concluding that a married person can bind their spouse to a legal contract?"
Ron contends that our current membership form is not legitimate because we do not collect signatures from all family members. We can easily change the mail-in form to collect multiple signatures, but changing the online form would entail considerable effort or cost. Thus we are faced with the following choices:
I do not believe that options #2 and #3 are viable because we should not increase burden on a volunteer membership coordinator for the purpose of extending a trivial financial discount to cohabitating couples. I do not know about the legality of option #1. Option #4 does appear to be a fair outcome for all. However, I am stepping down from the Board and the next Board will be charged with implementing any approved change in memberships. Therefore candidates for the Board this year should weigh in on this issue.
I hope this is not a money
I hope this is not a money issue??
It's easy,,, we can use the same rules that insurance companies use in the state of Ma.that define a family.Some how they worked it out legally.
Fall Meeting: Proposed Changes to Family Membership Policy
So, is this on the agenda for the Fall Meeting? Seems to me like a reasonable proposal.
Joe Marino
amendment to bylaw 2.6
The proposed amendment appears to be fair and reasonable to me. I am in favor and will support the amendment.
Tom Quintal
tquintal@comcast.net
amendment to bylaw 2.6
I feel that the family membership should be limited only to families which have children under the age of 18, and the children have to participate in a defined number of rides. I think giving a membership discount to two persons, whether married or not, is not what the family membership was created to accomplish, which in my mind is to promote bicycling to younger persons as a family activity and possibly encourage the younger members to become individual members once they attain a certain age. Effectively, the single members are subsidizing the family members, although the actual dollar amount is so small that this discussion borders on the absurd. I suggest the by-laws be amended to delete the family membership altogether or at least, it should be amended to define a family to include minor children who participate in a certain number of organized NSCC rides.
Jeff Ontell