Re: associate membership policies | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizm![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:04:04 -0800 (PST) |
I'll add that I've been chatting with some of our associates who are NOT happy with our policy. Essentially "have the same rights and responsibilities as members" does not feel good to folk who try to live up to the letter of the law. Despite very active involvement they feel guilty for not coming to meetings, don't WANT to be allowed to speak to "what its like to live here" issues, feel they should not have equal role in consensus decision making, and don't think they should have to do the same level of work. So we still have some work to do. -Liz (The Rev.) Elizabeth M. Magill www.worcesterfellowship.org www.mosaic-commons.org 508-450-0431 On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Diana Carroll <dianaecarroll [at] gmail.com> wrote: > At Mosaic Commons we do have associate members, meaning in this case > non-resident members. > > We spent a lot of time and energy working out a much clearer policy. > *MEMBERS* must be residents (http://www.mosaic-commons.org/membership); > others are *ASSOCIATES* (http://www.mosaic-commons.org/associates) > > (All this is separate from our HOA, in which membership is clear: it's for > owners, period. After all, that's what the "O" is HOA stands for :-) > > Diana >
-
associate membership policies Martha Wagner, February 27 2014
-
Re: associate membership policies Diana Carroll, February 28 2014
- Re: associate membership policies Elizabeth Magill, March 1 2014
- Re: associate membership policies R Philip Dowds, March 1 2014
- Re: associate membership policies drmaryann49, March 2 2014
- Re: associate membership policies Philip Dowds, March 2 2014
- Re: associate membership policies Sharon Villines, March 3 2014
-
Re: associate membership policies Diana Carroll, February 28 2014
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.