This policy was put in place long before I was elected (don't know exactly when), but I suspect the idea was to prevent people from joining to get some immediate value (not sure what that would have been back in the day), quit to save money, then rejoin when it suited them with a number that had a history going back more years than they truly belonged.

The main objection that I'm hearing is that because of our past/current policy, it would be unfair to those who DID pay for the intermediate years to now allow members to regain their old number without doing so.

Personally, I'm an advocate for what you're saying. While technically it's nothing more than an account number in a tracking system, in THIS hobby, low numbers have meaning. It carries with it a sense of history, early adoption, and being on the ground floor.

There are LOTS of ways we can mediate this, with some to everyone's satisfaction. Here are all of the options off the top of my head:

-- (objectionable to those who paid "catch up" fees) Simply adopt a new policy that anyone can re-instate their old number after a lapse of any time period with no penalty.
-- (also potentially objectionable) Re-joiners pay for intermediate years with a capped maximum fee not to exceed $xxx.xx
-- Joiners and re-joiners can choose any number they want that is not, and has not, been in use. I saw talk of 8888, 9999, 10000. Our current numbering system is about to run out of digits, so we'll obviously be going to a wider format. My recommendation is 8 digits starting with a one to eliminate the need for dealing with leading zeros. This allows us to grow and doesn't wait for us to run out of 4-digit, 5-digit, nor 6 and 7-digit numbers. When using our account numbers familiarly, we can just state the last 4 digits and everyone will know who you are.

How can we deal with members who paid large $$ to get their old number back? Perhaps offer a ratioed credit where they get a one year membership extension (push their due date forward) for every 5 (or 3?) intermediate/recovered years they paid to rejoin. Not a full refund (although that could be on the table as well).

Another option is to set up a fund where member donors can put money into the account to help offset rejoining members' back charges.

It's also possible that those who were affected by this in the past, either because they DID pay to keep their old number or they weren't able to get their old number because they refused to pay the in-between years, wouldn't really have a beef with the club for changing a rule I'm sure they didn't like when it affected them. They may not care that they won't get a credit and just be happy that the club is changing their minds on this issue.

Another adjacent issue is allowing family members to retain a deceased member's membership number. I don't think that should be allowed as membership numbers are for a specific person, not bloodline. If young people wish to be part of the club, they can get their own identity early on (not an associate membership which is tied to another person).

As we move forward with membership number based authentication and data tagging, this level of personal identification will become more important, so let's figure this out now.

Discuss... be nice about it... be constructive in your thoughts and criticisms... and throw in a joke now and again to keep the conversation lite.

-- barry