RE: MCM -notification of membership

[krandall@world.std.com]

At 12:12 PM 4/7/99 -0400, O'leary, Jack wrote:

>       I'm taking the next few days off and planning to catch up on
>membership items, including responding to email.  Based on the feedback that
>we are getting from the membership, it seems that we really should send out
>a confirmatory package to each new/renewing member, and I will start doing
>it.  I intend to send out a postcard, as suggested, when each application is
>processed, with language something along the following lines:
>
>       Welcome to the AGA!     As a benefit of membership, you will recieve
>6 volumes of The Aquatic Gardener.  It is usually published on a bimonthly
>basis, but your first issue may be delayed depending on when your membership
>was received and on the frequency of publication.  The Editor may delay
>publication at his discretion in order to compile special issues or for
>other reasons.  The volunteers of the AGA appreciate your patience.
>
>       In the meantime, please visit our web page at ______________.  You
>may also want to order back issues of TAG from:  __________________.  Most
>imporantly, we welcome your participation!  You are encouraged to submit
>your own articles, photographs, drawings, or questions to the Editor, Neil
>Frank, at ________________.
>
>       I hope that this will all fit on a postcard, at a reasonable type
>size.

Sounds great!!!

>       I suppose that a motion is in order, so I move that 
>
>       1.      The membership chair be authorized to send a "welcome"
>postcard, more or less as written above.
>
>       2.      The membership chair be authorized to incur printing costs
>to have them produced (estimated at $30 - $60).
>
>       As far as contacts go, I was intending to put our mailing addresses
>on the cards.  Is this OK?  (Not everyone has email).
>
>
>       Lastly, the membership database, as I recieved it, had expiration
>data expressed as dates (i.e. Jan 1999). Lately I have received some
>complaints that renewal notices are being sent out "early" (I thought that I
>was late with them!).  This is probably due to the practice of basing the
>expiration date on the calendar years from receipt of the application.  I'm
>thinking that renewal data should probable be expressed by the particular
>volume and number at which the membership expires, in order to allow for
>less regular publishing schedules, and to ensure that the member does indeed
>receive six issues per year.   What does everyone think?

I second all of the above.

Karen