Re: [AGA-sc] Convention fri nite

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

Heck, some folks disbelieve that SFBAAPS is actually an organization of any 
kind ;-)
 
The point is not to construct a legal instrument that will provide us a basis 
for remedies in court -- we haven't the financial means to seek redress in the 
courts and it's doubtful we would find any pleasure or relief filing law suits 
against a half dozen or so individuals. The point is establish the terms before 
rather than after issues might arise. We could do it some other way if someone 
wants to right something up; fine with me -- I wrote as I did because I was 
trying to make the terms clear. 
 
We will be behaving under presumptions about terms and so will SF folks. I 
think it's better to be clear about terms sooner rather than later. We never 
really received a proposal that covered the stuff we asked for. I don't know 
what the SFBAAPS folks are thinking, about fees or attendance or much else. I'm 
reasonably clear on what Jim and Leon think about some of the stuff, based on 
their emails, but that's about it.
 
RE memberships, every membership we sell includes the privilege of being able 
to register for the convention while a member. If we are not going to require 
that SF folks have paid membership during the convention, then I think we 
should treat all folks the same way. Either drop the membership requirement 
altogether or drop it for all folks that were registered last November since 
they missed out on the 2005 convention. Maybe we'll get higher attendance that 
way and that will be better for AGA in the long run. I could go either way on 
the membership requirement -- require AGA membership or not -- but if we have a 
requirement it should be broadly applied, to all folks, not just SF folks. I 
think it's a question of fairness and the perception of fairness.
 
sh

----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
To: Aquatic Gardeners Association Board <aga-sc@thekrib.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:34:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AGA-sc] Convention fri nite


First off, I don't think SFBAAPS is a legal entity, so I'm not sure what 
the agreement would accomplish legally to begin with.  Second, it seems 
that most of SFBAAPS is blissfully unaware about what's going on with the 
convention anyway, so I'm not sure the existence of an agreement Jim did 
or did not send them would change this.  It's more the four or five people 
who actually ARE working who might care, but I'll bet they're already 
members (maybe they ARE the premium members).

Anyone have an actual preference one way or the other on which membership 
to honor?
_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc