Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 82 of 82

Thread: Lifetime BCWF Members

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    North Van

    Re: Lifetime BCWF Members

    Clubs have to collect and remit from every member that they want on the BCWF list that apportions votes to the club. The club is free to give a different membership to a lifetime member that does not include a payment to BCWF, but the club has to accept that it will be doing a little extra work by adding some sort of additional membership class and may be missing out on one extra vote at the AGM if the lifetime member is at the 100/101 threshold (or the 200/201, 500/501, etc).

    The BCWF does not say the issue is anyone's fault. The BCWF leadership, again, for about the third time, introduced a measure that would make it easier to satisfy members like yourself without going through a whole constitutional amendment. Members voted that resolution down. Your fellow members, not the BCWF leadership, did not seem to think this needed to be addressed.

    There is not, as far as I understand, in fact a method that will fix your concern aside from the very time consuming comparison of multiple reports in multiple formats from multiple sources by staff who already say they are over-tasked. The comparison idea was the very first one I explored long ago when one of my own club members brought the issue to me. It is not simple, it is not easy and we do not have the means or wherewithal to do it unless we sacrifice other work.

    It's nobody's fault. It's a bug in the structure of the BCWF constitution and local club constitutions and the bug is triggered when a member buys two different products from two different vendors. It was never planned and it's not easy to fix.
    Last edited by Rob Chipman; 11-26-2021 at 07:26 PM.
    Rob Chipman
    "The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2018

    Re: Lifetime BCWF Members

    Rob, I was going to reply to your last email however after reading it several times, I can see no point in yours and my continual "he said she said they said it said them said " ( does that cover all this new gender stuff????). Your comment " The moral judgements you continue to pass which are based on your incorrect assumption are, as a result, flawed. Being flawed they are also a bit offensive." kinda summed up for me where BCWF is on this issue, and that's fine. I didn't pass judgement on you as a Director but rather in the manner in which BCWF runs, so I don't think its correct to pass judgement on me, considering you don't even know me. Am I offended, nah, taken more crap in my time than most others put together! All my "thank you's" and "appreciate that" in all my correspondence with you have been sincere, but this would seem to be all to no avail in my attempts to sincerely carry on a member to member conversation, and that's ok too, like I said, debate is good.

    In any event, as I have mentioned, BCWF appears to have taken their stand on this issue, Rob is still exploring another option for me and I will await that outcome. In the meantime, again as I have mentioned, I will continue to look into the matter further via local Clubs to get a reading from them on the whole situation, it seems only fair to get their side of the story as well. Thats what a good investigator does, get both sides of the story. I'd have to say that judging by the input and numbers of readers to this post, that it has been more than worthwhile and provides valuable information to others...................

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts