ORIGINAL: aeajr
You somehow see the concept of the club as separate from the members. The members are the club. If the club restricts the members it is because the members voted it to be that way. The club has no power or authority over members unless the members grant it. Members acquire a field for themslves and form a club to help obtain insurance and create a group method for funding and managing the field.
Wait… I know what you are thinking! Just why should a club just open its gates to any AMA member? Well… they shouldn’t…unless the precepts of “all for one and one for all” is the mantra… they should have any limits they desire but by the same token they (the club) should not rely on others to insure their particular endeavor either.
I have no idea what this means
aeajr,
I apologize for my poorly conveyed message. I seem to always have people misunderstand my intent or message. I will try again.
As it stands now all AMA members contribute to a pool that works to offset direct costs of insurance to clubs. Reportedly about half of the AMA members do not belong to a club at all. Also at this time all club members
must be AMA members.
The alternate AMA hypothetical operating strategy I have so poorly tried to convey would be quite different. In this alternate reality, clubs would have to burden the whole costs of chartering and site insurance depending on their
unique needs. Also they would be allowed to have non-AMA members if desired.
In this alternate strategy it might be possible to allow some clubs to utilize city parks in partnership with the city and reap reduced costs since city parks do have their own insurance that could be used to some extent.