Every organization needs to be built on the foundation of “fairness,” so that every individual associated with the organization is treated in the way he or she deserves.
Several years ago our club was presented with a test of fairness when a member bemoaned that he had moved to the city and no longer had room to store his boat at his home in the winter. He also had no place to store a trailer in the summer. He very politely asked the Board if he could leave his boat at the club in the winter and his trailer in the summer. He offered to pay the club for the privilege. The board acknowledged his hardship and accepted his generous contribution. Concurrently, the Board questioned the “fairness” of this special solution. The Board was concerned that this could pose several problems to the club in terms of the club’s appearance and the inconvenience of having boats in the way for the spring work party. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the “fair” thing to do was to offer the same benefit to others. Realizing that many members might accept this convenience, thus exacerbating the perceived problems, a “fair” way to set limits had to be established. A fee for storage was introduced to allow but deter a historically prohibited practice.
Years later, the beneficiaries of this fairness observed that others stored their smaller boats on racks for the winter, and began to question if it was “fair” for the small boaters to store for free when the larger boaters paid a fee. For 60 years, the storage of small boats posed little or no difficulties for the club, but it was only “fair” that they should pay if the larger boats paid.
It also stands to reason that it is probably “unfair” that some members enjoy the benefit of having other club members or high school sailors install and remove their moorings while others get no similar benefit. Members used to deal with their own moorings, but there were so many problems that the Board decided a mooring committee could do a much better job - and they have! It is now time to address the “fairness” issue that has some receiving a substantial benefit that other don’t enjoy. What is a “fair” fee for this service?
As our clubhouse became popular for private parties, our Board realized that dumpsters filled up a little sooner when there were private parties. They reasoned that water, propane, and electricity use might likewise increase. It was only “fair” that the users should compensate the other club members for these extra costs.
With the proliferation of Lasers, Sunfish, canoes and kayaks it has become apparent to many that some folks in the club have more than one boat. It only stands to reason that members with multiple boats might use the club more than those with only one boat. That seems “unfair,” and the only way to make it “fair” is for the multiple boat owners to pay a little more – their “fair” share so to speak.
Let’s see… the Scots, the Day Sailers, and the other big boats are the only boats utilizing the docks which surely cost a significant amount to maintain, but the Sunfish, paddle boats, and Lasers are stored on cradles, racks, and platforms which must cost something as well. So, to be fair, we need to charge members in accordance with how many boats of each type they keep on these club resources. Gees! Better have a dinghy fee as well… gotta be fair to all the people who don’t have them. We’re gonna need a CPA.
This time of year reminds me that the club spends about $1000 on the end of the year banquet that only about one third of the members attend. That doesn’t seem “fair” to the other two thirds who do not to attend. Attendees should be paying that $1000. It’s only $25 each ($50 per couple) in addition to the $42 each ($84 per couple) for the meal.
I’m sure it would be a more enjoyable evening if attendees were assured that the club was “fair” in all important respects.
Come to think of it, what about the $800 in trophy money? The members who don’t participate in racing competitions are helping to foot the bill for all those who win prizes, something they don’t share in. Shouldn’t we charge the trophy winners, or even better, give everyone equal trophies whether or not they compete?
And who came up with the reduced membership dues for life-time members when, in fact, many of the current lifers still use the club more than most members? The board has at least moved from no dues to half dues, but really, isn’t it time to move to full dues? Those (we) people are down there all the time!
And in order to make the club really “fair” we need to tackle the greatest “unfairness” of all, the “unfairness” at the very core of the club. Is it “fair” that non-racers do duty that serves only the racers? Should they not have duty or should the racers pay a hefty fee to restore “fairness?”
If we do all that, then we will have a club that is “fair.” Or at least I think so. Maybe you can think of some other “unfairness” that also needs to be corrected.
Several years ago our club was presented with a test of fairness when a member bemoaned that he had moved to the city and no longer had room to store his boat at his home in the winter. He also had no place to store a trailer in the summer. He very politely asked the Board if he could leave his boat at the club in the winter and his trailer in the summer. He offered to pay the club for the privilege. The board acknowledged his hardship and accepted his generous contribution. Concurrently, the Board questioned the “fairness” of this special solution. The Board was concerned that this could pose several problems to the club in terms of the club’s appearance and the inconvenience of having boats in the way for the spring work party. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the “fair” thing to do was to offer the same benefit to others. Realizing that many members might accept this convenience, thus exacerbating the perceived problems, a “fair” way to set limits had to be established. A fee for storage was introduced to allow but deter a historically prohibited practice.
Years later, the beneficiaries of this fairness observed that others stored their smaller boats on racks for the winter, and began to question if it was “fair” for the small boaters to store for free when the larger boaters paid a fee. For 60 years, the storage of small boats posed little or no difficulties for the club, but it was only “fair” that they should pay if the larger boats paid.
It also stands to reason that it is probably “unfair” that some members enjoy the benefit of having other club members or high school sailors install and remove their moorings while others get no similar benefit. Members used to deal with their own moorings, but there were so many problems that the Board decided a mooring committee could do a much better job - and they have! It is now time to address the “fairness” issue that has some receiving a substantial benefit that other don’t enjoy. What is a “fair” fee for this service?
As our clubhouse became popular for private parties, our Board realized that dumpsters filled up a little sooner when there were private parties. They reasoned that water, propane, and electricity use might likewise increase. It was only “fair” that the users should compensate the other club members for these extra costs.
With the proliferation of Lasers, Sunfish, canoes and kayaks it has become apparent to many that some folks in the club have more than one boat. It only stands to reason that members with multiple boats might use the club more than those with only one boat. That seems “unfair,” and the only way to make it “fair” is for the multiple boat owners to pay a little more – their “fair” share so to speak.
Let’s see… the Scots, the Day Sailers, and the other big boats are the only boats utilizing the docks which surely cost a significant amount to maintain, but the Sunfish, paddle boats, and Lasers are stored on cradles, racks, and platforms which must cost something as well. So, to be fair, we need to charge members in accordance with how many boats of each type they keep on these club resources. Gees! Better have a dinghy fee as well… gotta be fair to all the people who don’t have them. We’re gonna need a CPA.
This time of year reminds me that the club spends about $1000 on the end of the year banquet that only about one third of the members attend. That doesn’t seem “fair” to the other two thirds who do not to attend. Attendees should be paying that $1000. It’s only $25 each ($50 per couple) in addition to the $42 each ($84 per couple) for the meal.
I’m sure it would be a more enjoyable evening if attendees were assured that the club was “fair” in all important respects.
Come to think of it, what about the $800 in trophy money? The members who don’t participate in racing competitions are helping to foot the bill for all those who win prizes, something they don’t share in. Shouldn’t we charge the trophy winners, or even better, give everyone equal trophies whether or not they compete?
And who came up with the reduced membership dues for life-time members when, in fact, many of the current lifers still use the club more than most members? The board has at least moved from no dues to half dues, but really, isn’t it time to move to full dues? Those (we) people are down there all the time!
And in order to make the club really “fair” we need to tackle the greatest “unfairness” of all, the “unfairness” at the very core of the club. Is it “fair” that non-racers do duty that serves only the racers? Should they not have duty or should the racers pay a hefty fee to restore “fairness?”
If we do all that, then we will have a club that is “fair.” Or at least I think so. Maybe you can think of some other “unfairness” that also needs to be corrected.
No comments:
Post a Comment