From roysail at hotmail.com  Fri Jun 15 08:22:53 2018
From: roysail at hotmail.com (Roy Briscoe)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 14:22:53 +0000
Subject: [Board-2018] PYC Constitution
In-Reply-To: <CADgzbB9caNN9UfxLQSG6PAY9qmEkoRCATWzqrG_VTLUBzGZQFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ebcfc1c2-6bd7-05b7-708c-e04c441dff90@blueberrybayfarm.com>,
	<CADgzbB9caNN9UfxLQSG6PAY9qmEkoRCATWzqrG_VTLUBzGZQFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN6PR1701MB173020CAD09C45C0B424F97BBC7C0@BN6PR1701MB1730.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>

I think the Board would need more information to consider justifying any increase. For instance:

What are the other local yacht clubs (10 mile radius) charging for dues and the initiation fee?

Compare their services and overhead to ours

Do the same comparison to other clubs say from Portland to Situate the BOD have been to so we have first hand knowledge.

When would the increase take effect?

Would/could that effect people on the wait list?

What is the problem we are trying to resolve? For me having a long waitlist is not a problem. It means we have a backlog of people wanting to join so we have future money coming in. KPYC has no waitlist

How would/could this effect the make up of the club and what services are expected?

And probably a few more questions.

Roy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 14, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Scott Blidberg <scott.blidberg at gmail.com<mailto:scott.blidberg at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello all,

First, allow me to apologize for my absence this evening - I started a new job this week and the schedule has been challenging to say the least.  I had been anticipating the discussion this week and am sorry I missed it.  That said, I look forward to a review of the meeting via the minutes!

In response to the proposal above I'd like to strongly oppose an increase, particularly of such a degree.  While some of the points may be valid for certain individuals (at least anecdotally), I would also like to point out that there are many, many members (myself included) that would have no possible way of joining the club should the application fee be anywhere near as high as proposed. While the situations mentioned may not be fiction, they are by no means the norm and do not, in my view, warrant such measures.

One of the tremendous appeals of this club is that it is not a place where only those with large amounts of disposable income can be members. Members similar to myself, who are active and who very much feel the real impact of an annual expense in the thousands (when factoring in dues/slip/etc...), are not the type that we are going to gain more of by raising initiation fees.  In fact, I would argue that they are very much the ones we will lose.  Additionally, there is absolutely no guarantee that those who have the means to spend $2500 - $5000 simply to apply will be more active members or won't be interested in joining for exactly the reasons addressed!

It is important that we not lose sight of exactly what the financial impact membership can truly be to other members. This club - in my experience through a lifetime of being in and around it - has never been a place where you needed to have a lot of money to be a member. I for one will always do my best to make sure that remains the case. We need to grow our membership based on the quality of the people we choose to let in and not their ability to fork over larger and larger amounts of money.

As always, I look forward to the thoughts from the Board!

-Scott



On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:54 PM Ron Laurence - Blueberry Bay Farm <info at blueberrybayfarm.com<mailto:info at blueberrybayfarm.com>> wrote:

Commodore Michael & Officers & Directors

I would like to strongly recommend that the PYC Constitution be amended to rectify our absurdly low application fee. Our present fee does little to insure that applicants for membership truly want to participate in, and contribute to the Portsmouth Yacht Club.  Without a more reasonable fee, such as $2500, or $5000, we will continue to discourage earnest applicants with a painfully long waiting list, largely, I feel, because of people who:

- Want to gain a membership card in a bargain yacht club simply so they can have dinner at any reciprocating club in the country (world?);

- Are local residents who think its great to be able to walk to dinner, so inexpensively;

- Wish to be able to tell their friends they belong to a "Yacht Club", so inexpensively (and take pride in showing off their PYC sweatshirt or other garment);

- Want to be able to show on their resume, and/or their obituary that they belong(ed) to a yacht club;

In that our Steward claims there are at least 70 members, in his roughly ten years of service, that have never set foot once in the clubhouse,  pretty much indicates the above situations are not fiction.  Why not eliminate or greatly reduce these absentee members and give those on the waiting list who really want to belong (and contribute to our financial situation through participation) a chance to become accepted into membership in a more reasonable period of time, and not diminish their enthusiasm.

Therefore I urge the entire board to approve this proposal so that the entire membership can affirm it.

-

--
[cid:part1.4E77AB6A.3E0D3D4D at blueberrybayfarm.com]


--
Scott Blidberg

scott.blidberg at gmail.com<mailto:scott.blidberg at gmail.com>
Phone:  603.674.1179
http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottblidberg<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fscottblidberg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb27a1bc1f1df438b2e4208d5d26a5dce%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636646276635180595&sdata=%2FJpgkilpXo4hunSlQCksu1nE%2FCnNsx67zK9ovFJ0x0w%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20180615/e06f7933/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Auto signature copy.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 133438 bytes
Desc: Auto signature copy.jpg
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20180615/e06f7933/attachment.jpg>

From jsmall.105 at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 09:40:33 2018
From: jsmall.105 at gmail.com (Jeremy Small)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:40:33 -0400
Subject: [Board-2018] PYC Constitution
In-Reply-To: <CADgzbB9caNN9UfxLQSG6PAY9qmEkoRCATWzqrG_VTLUBzGZQFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ebcfc1c2-6bd7-05b7-708c-e04c441dff90@blueberrybayfarm.com>
	<CADgzbB9caNN9UfxLQSG6PAY9qmEkoRCATWzqrG_VTLUBzGZQFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJsZRig_noyigKDgmGTNrp7qkc-NDdaMT=aRMOi8_F-izKco2w@mail.gmail.com>

Very well put Scott.  I think there a misconception of the demographics of
the club.  In my opinion, we need to be more open to getting younger active
boating member in rather than increase the buy in.

Jeremy

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Scott Blidberg <scott.blidberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> First, allow me to apologize for my absence this evening - I started a new
> job this week and the schedule has been challenging to say the least.  I
> had been anticipating the discussion this week and am sorry I missed it.
> That said, I look forward to a review of the meeting via the minutes!
>
> In response to the proposal above I'd like to *strongly* oppose an
> increase, particularly of such a degree.  While some of the points may be
> valid for certain individuals (at least anecdotally), I would also like to
> point out that there are many, many members (myself included) that would
> have no possible way of joining the club should the application fee be
> anywhere near as high as proposed. While the situations mentioned may not
> be fiction, they are by no means the norm and do not, in my view, warrant
> such measures.
>
> One of the tremendous appeals of this club is that it is *not* a place
> where only those with large amounts of disposable income can be members. Members
> similar to myself, who are active and who very much feel the real impact of
> an annual expense in the thousands (when factoring in dues/slip/etc...),
> are not the type that we are going to gain more of by raising initiation
> fees.  In fact, I would argue that they are very much the ones we will
> lose.  Additionally, there is absolutely no guarantee that those who have
> the means to spend $2500 - $5000 simply to apply will be more active
> members or won't be interested in joining for exactly the reasons addressed!
>
> It is important that we not lose sight of exactly what the financial
> impact membership can truly be to other members. This club - in my
> experience through a lifetime of being in and around it - has never been a
> place where you needed to have a lot of money to be a member. I for one
> will always do my best to make sure that remains the case. We need to grow
> our membership based on the quality of the people we choose to let in and
> not their ability to fork over larger and larger amounts of money.
>
> As always, I look forward to the thoughts from the Board!
>
> -Scott
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:54 PM Ron Laurence - Blueberry Bay Farm <
> info at blueberrybayfarm.com> wrote:
>
>> Commodore Michael & Officers & Directors
>>
>> I would like to strongly recommend that the PYC Constitution be amended
>> to rectify our absurdly low application fee. Our present fee does little to
>> insure that applicants for membership truly want to participate in, and
>> contribute to the *Portsmouth *Yacht Club.  Without a more reasonable
>> fee, such as $2500, or $5000, we will continue to discourage earnest
>> applicants with a painfully long waiting list, largely, I feel, because of
>> people who:
>>
>> - Want to gain a membership card in a bargain yacht club simply so they
>> can have dinner at any reciprocating club in the country (world?);
>>
>> - Are local residents who think its great to be able to walk to dinner,
>> so inexpensively;
>>
>> - Wish to be able to tell their friends they belong to a "Yacht Club", so
>> inexpensively (and take pride in showing off their PYC sweatshirt or other
>> garment);
>>
>> - Want to be able to show on their resume, and/or their obituary that
>> they belong(ed) to a yacht club;
>>
>> In that our Steward claims there are at least 70 members, in his roughly
>> ten years of service, that have never set foot once in the clubhouse,
>> pretty much indicates the above situations are not fiction.  Why not
>> eliminate or greatly reduce these absentee members and give those on the
>> waiting list who really want to *belong* (and contribute to our
>> financial situation through participation) a chance to become accepted into
>> membership in a more reasonable period of time, and not diminish their
>> enthusiasm.
>>
>> Therefore I urge the entire board to approve this proposal so that the
>> entire membership can affirm it.
>>
>> -
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
> --
> Scott Blidberg
>
> scott.blidberg at gmail.com
> Phone:  603.674.1179
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottblidberg
>



-- 
Jeremy Small
603.661.7371
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20180615/96b379c4/attachment.htm>

From glennwmichael at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 13:58:16 2018
From: glennwmichael at gmail.com (Glenn Michael)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:58:16 -0400
Subject: [Board-2018] Mooring
Message-ID: <CAC7tJWbjCuwr2t5PxhdxETb1-DJQCLOXxZ7wb9-M2Hn29FhjuA@mail.gmail.com>

Did I miss something?  The mooring was advertised as a max of 40 feet.  The
people win the lottery and decline it because they want a boat longer than
40 feet.

Then, my interpretation of loose talk starts, and all of a sudden people
"believe" that it can hold greater than 40 feet, so now they want the
mooring.

I want somebody to tell me what I just wrote is what happened in this
scenario.  The mooring was PUBLISHED at a max of 40 feet.  After that, I
really do not care what transpired.

Glenn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20180615/4e7e31ee/attachment.htm>

From roysail at hotmail.com  Fri Jun 15 16:25:04 2018
From: roysail at hotmail.com (Roy Briscoe)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 22:25:04 +0000
Subject: [Board-2018] Mooring
In-Reply-To: <CAC7tJWbjCuwr2t5PxhdxETb1-DJQCLOXxZ7wb9-M2Hn29FhjuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7tJWbjCuwr2t5PxhdxETb1-DJQCLOXxZ7wb9-M2Hn29FhjuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BN6PR1701MB173006863D01B63FC6004A4CBC7C0@BN6PR1701MB1730.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>

Ahh the life and times at PYC. Over the years The Flags should write all these snippets down and put them in a binder to hand off to the next set of Flag officers. So over the years it could be quite a set humorous anecdotes 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 15, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Glenn Michael <glennwmichael at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Did I miss something?  The mooring was advertised as a max of 40 feet.  The people win the lottery and decline it because they want a boat longer than 40 feet.
> 
> Then, my interpretation of loose talk starts, and all of a sudden people "believe" that it can hold greater than 40 feet, so now they want the mooring.
> 
> I want somebody to tell me what I just wrote is what happened in this scenario.  The mooring was PUBLISHED at a max of 40 feet.  After that, I really do not care what transpired.
> 
> Glenn


From glennwmichael at gmail.com  Fri Jun 15 18:46:46 2018
From: glennwmichael at gmail.com (Glenn Michael)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 20:46:46 -0400
Subject: [Board-2018] Mooring
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR1701MB173006863D01B63FC6004A4CBC7C0@BN6PR1701MB1730.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAC7tJWbjCuwr2t5PxhdxETb1-DJQCLOXxZ7wb9-M2Hn29FhjuA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BN6PR1701MB173006863D01B63FC6004A4CBC7C0@BN6PR1701MB1730.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAC7tJWaCe_nNf5jGWK=evDvrBpKDZ1HJJvD50QiDmVNDAREpBQ@mail.gmail.com>

You are correct Roy.  This issue in my mind is closed.  We can dub around
for hours, days and months on stuff that we should not even spend seconds
on.

Again, this issue is closed,

Glenn

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Roy Briscoe <roysail at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ahh the life and times at PYC. Over the years The Flags should write all
> these snippets down and put them in a binder to hand off to the next set of
> Flag officers. So over the years it could be quite a set humorous anecdotes
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 15, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Glenn Michael <glennwmichael at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Did I miss something?  The mooring was advertised as a max of 40 feet.
> The people win the lottery and decline it because they want a boat longer
> than 40 feet.
> >
> > Then, my interpretation of loose talk starts, and all of a sudden people
> "believe" that it can hold greater than 40 feet, so now they want the
> mooring.
> >
> > I want somebody to tell me what I just wrote is what happened in this
> scenario.  The mooring was PUBLISHED at a max of 40 feet.  After that, I
> really do not care what transpired.
> >
> > Glenn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20180615/5305ae66/attachment.htm>