I have suggested this to some of you previously. I suggest we might task our Development Department to investigate the feasibility and legality of an actuarial-based lifetime membership, where depending on one's age, some of the cost would be a tax-deductible donation. The out-of-pocket costs to the member would be the same, but part of his costs might be tax-deductible. In other words, if a new life-member were 95, and had a life expectancy of 5 years, is it possible that we could institute a system where 5 years of membership at the current rate would be a direct cost, and the remainder would be a contribution? Excuse me if this has been previously considered, negatively impacts other develpment or financial objectives, or is known not to be legal. Dick Norton, N6AA On 1/9/07, dick@pobox.com <dick@pobox.com> wrote:
9 JAN 2007 - 1220 CST
Like a broken record, I still believe we need to establish an age-based life membership. Yes, there might be some cash revenue loss. But I think the reduction in membership renewal expense might offset this cost. If such a life membership could be revenue neutral, or very close to it, we should set it up.
FYI, Gayle D Zickefoose, W9ESS (born 1934) is a current ARRL member.
- Dick, W9GIG
======================================================================= Delivered-To: dick@pobox.com Received: from mail.sisna.com (mailx.sisna.com [216.126.204.104]) by cobalt.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DD1400091 for <dick@pobox.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dmtomc9 [71.57.100.82] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.15) id AE1B26C8001E; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:09:15 -0700 From: "Tom Ciciora" <ttc2301@sisna.com> To: <JamesGDZ@aol.com> Subject: RE: Life Membership Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:10:39 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01c732f4$1ab7a340$6401a8c0@dmtomc9> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C732C1.D01D3340"
This is a proposal which our Central Division Director, Dick Isely W9GIG has been pitching to the ARRL board. I have not spoken to him about it recently, but will.
73-- Tom KA9QPN
________________________________ From: JamesGDZ@aol.com [ mailto:JamesGDZ@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:13 PM To: ka9qpn@arrl.org Subject: Life Membership
Dear Tom:
Received you e mail about the deletion of the code requirements for an amateur license. I have read you position concerning the necessity of living with the reality of the circumstances. I have another issue that I have attempted to present to the "powers that be" in The ARRL. Thus far I have never received an answer that would address the reality of our ham radio community. Each representative when have presented my proposal have agreed with my viewpoint but I always get that same response (if I get a response at all). The national officers do not want to consider any changes.
MY proposal concerns the life membership which is offered. I am in my 70's with my projected life expectancy, the current price to not a sound economic decision. I have been an officer in veterans organizations, which were faced with this same problem. Many due to limited incomes and unexpected expenses (usually medical and/or physical disability) let their memberships lapse. There were times when a conservator had been appointed to manage the financial affairs as the member was physical disabled. Thus the organization lost membership numbers that are extremely important whenever politically lobbying in defense of and improvements for the organization.
The average of the ARRL member is u=increaseing years, to the best of my knowledge. What is the percentage of licensed amateur operators which are members of the ARRL? How many of the "lapsed" or non members are like me living on a fixed income? Has the ARRL ever considered polling these non-member concerning this problem? I have been a member whenever possible, but during the years I was raising 5 boy and 3 girls there were times that difficult financial choices had be made. At the present time I am an active member however the lack of consideration response to what I consider a valid question and proposal has caused me revaluate my participation as an ARRL member.
I am presenting this to you in response top your plea to the membership to consider the common good and the future of the whole. I feel that if the ARRL national leadership would offer a life membership with a threshold of 60 or 65 at an appropriate rate, which makes a valid economic choice, there are a number of licensed amateur operators that would join the fold. An increase of the membership would be of real value in the proposed goals of The ARRL, in my opinion. I'll be looking forward to receiving a response from a national officer in response to your submission of my proposal.
Should there be no response then I will have to presume that what many are saying concerning the lack of concern by the national representatives has at least some degree of validity.
73's
Gayle Zickefoose W9ESS