[Artemisia] Fwd: [Announcements] Membership Fees

[Jackman-Brink, Julia]

I guess I am going to play devil's advocate, since I have similar fish in other organizational ponds. Comparatively, the SCA is dead cheap for what is covered. Try being a member of a professional organization (ie profession oriented, like Geological Society of America, etc.) Memberships for those often START over $100. And that's IF you are a student. If you want the publications, you add another $50-100. 

I do agree with HE Gefjon in that there has to be more parity between individuals and families, as there are a lot of people being carried. There should also be am electronic publication option in addition to a non-publication option for those who don't really want it.  

Realistically there comes a time where it comes down to cutting services or paying more for those services. One of my subscriptions went to a bi-annual publication (as opposed to monthly) to avoid raising their membership rates. Looks like the SCA is now at that decision point.  There's never going to be a happy medium when dealing with money, publication, insurance, and all the details...it's always a battle. The SCA is just catching up to the rest of the pack. 

Juliana


-----Original Message-----
From: artemisia-bounces at lists.gallowglass.org [mailto:artemisia-bounces at lists.gallowglass.org] On Behalf Of Kristine Alvarez
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:04 PM
To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Fwd: [Announcements] Membership Fees

--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Sondra Gibson <sgibson at edulog.com> wrote:

From: Sondra Gibson <sgibson at edulog.com>
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Fwd: [Announcements] Membership Fees
To: "Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 3:28 PM
Well, it appears that some of us may be priced out of the organization.
That will make a sustaining membership $45.  Which in my opinion is WAY too
much.  

I also very strongly resent the fact that single people are subsidizing
families.  The majority of couples these days have 2 incomes, to pay for the
monthly expenses on one home.  Which generally puts them in a better
financial position than single people living on one income.  Why should one
of them be charged $10 while single folks have to pay $45?  That is just
totally wrong.  All adults should have to pay the same price.    

Gefjon
_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
_______________________________________________
 
I understand your frustration. The single memembership would go up 22% and the family membership would go up only 13%. However, to assume that all families have 2 incomes is wrong. Even when there are two incomes, families have often more expenses than singles. I'm sure a suggestion to increase the family membership more than the single membership increases would be in my opinion more fair that to suggest that both adults pay a full membership. That would be an increase of 60% for family memberships and I'd bet that it would price families out of the game much quicker that way.
 
Things are costing more and more these days while income is decreasing for all of us. We have to accept that it's affecting all aspects of our lives and we may have to make unfortunate decisions to cut costs for non-essentials. I hope we can all find a way to keep "playing."
YIS,
Kristine Ragnvaldsdatter
 
 


      
_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia