Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad
That is not what BNR is saying...not what Rich is saying either. Seems like some of us agree that when an assignor chooses to use an administrative tool that will make his/her job easier (Arbiter, Stripezone, etc.), then they should pay for that out of their current earnings, not turn around and increase the fees that we pay. Add to that the fact that some assignors do this without telling their officials why, and you have an integrity issue to boot...
|
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Prior to 2010 my association did not use Arbiter. A new commissioner was voted in and part of his platform was that he would purchase Arbiter and pay for it out of his assignor's commission. He won the election and Arbiter was purchased with private funds. The following season Arbiter was renewed out of the business account with no increase in dues to our membership. Our business account always had unspent funds at the end of each season so the dues that were already in place were sufficient to cover the costs of Arbiter. Only folks who joined the association each year after the Arbiter bill was paid were required to pay for their seat. It was $5 in addition to their normal association dues.
So, yes, in the end "we" are paying for Arbiter. However the membership did not incur any additional costs when we went from "pen and paper" to automation. If it came to a point where a dues increase was needed to cover Arbiter I know our membership wouldn't be very receptive to it.