top of page
  • 1. What happens to a couple membership if the primary member becomes incapacitated (physically or mentally) or simply no longer wishes to play golf?
    If the primary member resigns, the spouse/significant other is automatically out of the Club. Currently the only way for the spouse/significant other to continue as a member of the Club is for dues to be paid for both (knowing that only one will actually golf). Let's have more common sense policy for dealing with changes in life circumstances.
  • 2. Mistake or Precedent? This actually happened. A primary member resigned. Under current rules the spouse would lose membership.
    Except in this case, the secondary member was able to retain membership. When another couple in a similar circumstance asked for the same treatment, they were told what happened with this other couple was a mistake. Their request was denied. A mistake or precedent is the question.
  • 3. Young Adult Members have full membership privileges from day 1 even though some may not follow through to regular status given they have up to 21 years to get there (if they join at age 19).
    Nothing should be changed for the YAMs but think it only fair that other full-time dues paying members have the same privileges.
  • 4. Upon divorce or dissolution of a relationship, current rules say the spousal/significant other member is automatically out of the Club."
    How about the couple gets to propose to the Board how they want to handle this changed circumstance? The Board would act on its own only if the couple does not propose a resolution.
  • 5. Disenfranchising a spousal/significant other member can happen for any or no reason.
    All a primary member needs to do is notify the Secretary of the Board in writing that the spouse or significant other is no longer a member. This policy should be cancelled.
  • 6. Regular and founder members need to have special privileges and priority.
    This is a throwback to another time and place no longer relevant in the 21st century.
  • 7. Treatment of years of membership to qualify for the benefit of Lifetime status.
    Why would years and years of dues paying membership be disallowed when computing eligibility for Lifetime status? Here are 3 instances where members thought they would qualify for were told no, they did not. All 3 had years of membership + age to + 120. a. A woman, a founder member, was informed that her initial years of membership, when she first joined the Club as a significant other, counted for nothing despite the fact that she was paying dues for all those years. b. A woman, who was a founder member and a widow, applied and was denied being told all her years of dues paying membership counted for nothing since she was always a spousal member. Double whammy for her. When she became a widow she applied for Widow status and was told that it didn't exist, even though there were members with that status as there are to this day. Good luck finding anything about this status anywhere. c. A man applied but was denied because he had opted for Senior Membership two years earlier so was now completely ineligible. Was not informed of that when he applied for Senior status even though he was very close to qualifying; might have made a different decision had he been made aware of what he was forfeiting.
  • 8. When granted a leave of absence for a legitimate reason (medical or otherwise), the member is required to pay half dues."
    Seems a bit harsh to have to pay this amount when you're ill, taking care of another, or simply down on your luck. Apparently this became policy in reaction to someone who was granted a medical leave but it came to light he was playing golf at his other club. Why should everyone granted a leave be subject to this financial burden beause of fradulent behavior of one? Pretty onerous; if monies need to be paid as a deterrent to fraud, perhaps it could be less than half.
  • 9. Death of a primary member of a couple, the secondary member remains in secondary status; no option to move to primary status, a practice that used to be allowable."
    Reinstate the former policy.
  • 10. Couples used to be able to switch membership status. Now it is not allowed.
    Why not leave it up to each couple, with parameters? For example, if switching such a change would stay in effect for a full calendar year. Each year the couple will declare who is in which status. It has no bearing on the amount of annual dues paid by a couple and administratively it's simply a key stroke in the computer system.
  • 11. Early Sunday a.m. play, in-season, with guests; non-members can play with a primary member but not the spouse. So, if a golfing couple visits a Noyac couple, the primary member and the visiting couple can play early but the spouse cannot."
    A poorly thought through policy that adversely impacts spousal/significant other members; should be revisited.
  • 12. Consequences of opting for a Senior Membership.
    All the consequences of such a change should be communicated in writing with all the impacts signed off on. There are still instances of secondary members being surprised that their couple membership was changed to this status.
  • 13. Secondary full-time members are ineligible to serve on the Board and are denied the right to vote (clearly a throwback to our patriarchal roots). Spousal and significant other members are virtual non-entities with zero rights.
    Allow all full-time members to be eligible to serve on the Board and have voting rights.
  • 14. The Bylaws contain more information than the Member Handbook.
    The Bylaws should be posted on the website (as the Member Handbook is). And any time bylaws are changed, the revisions should be highlighted, posted on the website and bulletin boards, and distributed to all members via an email blast.
  • 15. Fees for various types of memberships are a bit mysterious to most of the Membership.
    Fees should be posted on the website and kept updated. If the website is secure enough to contain our personal information, it should be secure enought for ths info to appear.
  • 16. A fallacy to be debunked is that financial assets of couple members are separate. In most cases assets are not; monies remitted to the Club come from joint holdings.
    When a couple joins the Club, the amount paid by the couple, no matter how it is invoiced and entered into the accounting system, was likely paid from jointly held funds. Both should have full and equal privileges. Why not establish the category Couple Membership? We have it; it's just not called that.

[Click the down arrow on the right for more content.]

bottom of page