Magic Makers

For those ASM members who have received the latest copy of 'Magic Makers', just a couple of corrections and observations:

1 - Brian Pleasants said, regarding the discussion on the controversial membership rules:

"To my knowledge, there has only been one applicant rejected."

He was referring to me, but Sue-Anne was the second applicant to be rejected by the club.

 

2 - Alan Abbott made the point:

"Several years ago the submission of one particular application for Membership was perceived by a number within the Society to represent a threat to our harmony. It seemed that agreeing to this one particular application would lead to the resignation of a number of Members, including some from the experienced core who had been responsible for the revival of the Society. The possibility of one new applicant causing a number of existing members to resign was hardly consistent with harmony, or to the maintenance of progress."

The new member would not "cause" the other members to quit. Resigning from the club or existing in harmony is their choice. It seems childish that some members would refuse to exist in harmony within a club just because someone they didn't like joined, but it seems malicious that they should try to blame the disharmony they would cause on the new applicant.

"If you let him play I'll take my bat and ball and go home!"

(Along similar lines, Corrections Victoria are considering letting murderer Carl Williams attend his mother's funeral because if they don't it could lead to "increasing tensions (within the Williams jail unit)." In other words, who runs the Jail system... Corrections Victoria or the inmates who kick up a stink if they don't get what they want?)

I can understand a club having rules to dismiss a member for bad behaviour (not that that ever happens) but to not let them join because of what other members might do?!

 

3 - Alan Abbott explains how the controversial membership rules came into being:

"This difficult situation led to the development of the current policy on new admissions. The questions of how many objections should cause an application to fail, and how many years should elapse before a re-application would be accepted were widely debated. In November 2005 the results of this process of debate and compromise were included in a draft membership application policy published in Magic Makers. All fifty or so members were invited to forward their suggestions for improvement or clarification. So far as I am aware no such suggestions were received. Accordingly the policy was implemented."

Nick Morton said this:

"This is why changing the rules of the club can only be achieved by a vote of the whole membership at the AGM. The committee cannot simply change rules to reflect their own bias;"

Which is a good reason as to why the current rules are invalid, they were never voted on at the AGM.

 

4 - Finally, Brian Pleasants made this odd comment:

"I would hazard a guess that many members who objected to this one application have also served ASM well for many many years and in their time have made significant contributions. Should we have alienated their feelings and risked their resignations for the sake of one person who at some time in the past has done something to offend them. I think not. If we lose a couple of people because of this situation, then so be it. Our membership will continue to grow without them."

Is Brian actually saying the people who objected to "this one application" (meaning me, or maybe he means Sue-Anne because she was rejected too) are obviously good members the ASM cannot afford to lose, but if anyone should resign because they don't like the membership rules, the club is better off without them?!

Brian does finish with a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel though:

"I will be happy to continue my service to the society but I can tell you folks, I would be gone if expected to work in the same room as the subject of this letter."