K of C refuse to allow suspension of pro gay and pro-abort members
#21
As an outsider, it seems to me the K of C has become like freemasonry in one aspect only: most members treat it as nothing more than a social club and/or aren't really involved except on paper.

Usually the best thing to do in this case is purge the rolls and mark members as "inactive" unless they attend 3 meetings or 1 event a year or such.  But, like with most organizations, it is probably difficult - not just hard, but a matter of hardship - if they were to turn away dues from inactive members.  So my guess is for pragmatic reasons they don't.

The net effect is that the unity of the group is lowered, and people who have odd ideas contrary to the organization's stance are unknowingly let in since the organization has in effect become a pyramid scheme with the inactive members' dues supporting the structure; they can't afford to purge the rolls of inactive members or dissenters.  Then the few become a problem, both internally and with regard to public opinion of the organization.

This is just speculation on my part as an outsider but based on how I've seen things go in other organizations including professional organizations, unions, etc.

To clean up the rolls, they need to be willing to take a financial hit which in actuality can end the organization altogether.

The moral of this story is:  organizations should not depend on member counts for financing their existence.

I could very well be wrong, but that's one outsider's take.
Reply
#22
You are right Quis...it's like with our Legion post. I think we have around 50 members or so on paper but we have about 10 that show up to meetings every month. Since we are having problems paying our bills as it is, the last thing we want to do is drop people who pay their dues just because they don't come to meetings. But then again, what use are people that don't at least show up to the meetings?

Reply
#23
(05-23-2010, 08:23 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: As an outsider, it seems to me the K of C has become like freemasonry in one aspect only: most members treat it as nothing more than a social club and/or aren't really involved except on paper.

Usually the best thing to do in this case is purge the rolls and mark members as "inactive" unless they attend 3 meetings or 1 event a year or such.  But, like with most organizations, it is probably difficult - not just hard, but a matter of hardship - if they were to turn away dues from inactive members.  So my guess is for pragmatic reasons they don't.

The net effect is that the unity of the group is lowered, and people who have odd ideas contrary to the organization's stance are unknowingly let in since the organization has in effect become a pyramid scheme with the inactive members' dues supporting the structure; they can't afford to purge the rolls of inactive members or dissenters.  Then the few become a problem, both internally and with regard to public opinion of the organization.

This is just speculation on my part as an outsider but based on how I've seen things go in other organizations including professional organizations, unions, etc.

To clean up the rolls, they need to be willing to take a financial hit which in actuality can end the organization altogether.

The moral of this story is:  organizations should not depend on member counts for financing their existence.

I could very well be wrong, but that's one outsider's take.

Actually, as I state a few posts back, my lengthier post, many member who are 'inactive' do not pay dues, I'd say almost a third. For reasons I don't understand, they are kept on the rolls.

This is bizarre because you pay a 'per capita' which is a per member fee at both the national level and the state level. The state 'per capita' here is quite high and actually means we take a brutal loss from these non-payers, yet there they are.

It's actually one of our biggest financial drains since we don't have our own hall to pay on, keep the lights on at, etc. the non-paying 'members' drain us the most.

The dues we charge barely offset the 2 per capitas, and so the paying members do not counterbalance the non-payers. I have heard from other Councils in other states this is their situation as well.
Reply
#24
Hmm.  Maybe it's so they can give a healthy count of members?  :shrug:
Reply
#25
(05-23-2010, 10:08 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Hmm.  Maybe it's so they can give a healthy count of members?  :shrug:

Yeah, it's the only thing I can think of, but it's a lame strategy IMO.
Reply
#26
Indeed, long gone are the days when the Knights owned Yankee Stadium.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)