Do you remember Rule #3 in the safety code? That is the one where AMA hands your club officers a stick along with a workload that is backed up by the predefined risk and threat of the uninsured club (and its officers) for failure to enforce all rules. You know, all club rules are extensions of AMA rules and by inference if you are in violation you and your club with its officers are uninsured.

I think this is a major stumbling block to any concept of tiered membership. It gets worse when you recall that the club and it's officers are required to enforce the AMA rules by Rule #3 in the safety code. That means that any attempt at tiered membership will BY DEFINITION pass off much more work on to the backs of our club officers in the form of figuring out HOW to enforce the stupid break out without getting punched out for raising questions. Not all club members are as reasonable as the folks found on this forum.

I have been a club officer for around 10 years and I am not happy with the additional work the AMA has already foisted off on the club leadership with the 'temporary membership' thing they recently enacted. In fact, I am sure that it will wind up with hostile non members (takers) who feel they have rights to MY (club's) site and efforts. Those hostile people can make keeping a field a serious task and the AMA has not helped us with that. I am very concerned that this is another fine and wonderful idea with very serious and dangerous (locally) unintended consequences.

But in the words of my district AMA VP and his friendly AMA Fellow, I am probably just paranoid.

Food for thought.