Stop and rethink the CLRA membership fee change!

I hope that a reconsideration will lead to a result that will be more acceptable to more members. I hope that this issue will not negatively impact the relationship with the University. If it has, I hope that a reconsideration will mitigate that negative impact.

The significant reaction and questioning of the change to the Fees warrants additional consideration by the Board.

I believe the present fee structure attracts a wide variety of experienced rowers and new rowers to the club. A slowdown and rethink appears appropriate.

I am interested in continued discussion of ways to keep the Lakers an community inclusive rowing club that can benefit novice to expert rowers.

The board should be more responsive to member concerns. As a community club CLRA has the challenge of finding a balance that allows members with different interests and skills to be part of the rowing community whether they are recreational, competitive, experienced, or novice rowers ...or even scullers. This membership proposal seems to benefit a limited group without full consideration for the impact on other groups. What problem is it solving? Several years ago when the board dismissed alternatives to moving scullers to Kingston they had little concern about separating scullers from daily interaction with other members or safety. Now it seems that another decision is being pushed through that will impact members without fully discussing member concerns. Options should be discussed to find more balance for all members of the CLRA community. As sculler I’m not ready to pay over $300 for a membership that provides little more than use of a port-a-John.

I believe more discussion is needed.

I am fairly new to the club with doing LTR last year. I love coming to the club and the current fee structure works for my current lifestyle (regular work and family commitments with young children). I like having the option of potentially having a structure where I row more frequently through the week and where I might want to be more actively competing. I have seen at other clubs various tracks where it might make sense to have options for the types of groups we'd like to welcome to CLRA.

Let's keep what we have done so well over the years, that is, having a community rowing club and not one that tries to position itself as an "elite" rowing group. Let's face it, none of us will be making the Olympics but the ability to have a good workout with fine people is what makes this a great club. Let's also see what can be done for those of us who work in NY or Philadelphia and what might accommodate our schedules. when I joined nearly 20 years ago, we had evening erg session and even evening rowing sessions. There was of reinstituting some of these sessions. what has happened to that? I don't think it is a matter of making it more expensive for the occasional rower but offering more opportunities to row or erg for those of us whose work and commuting schedules are not as flexible as others.

I think the long term health of CLRA is grounded in the club as an organization having sufficient members to insure adequate financial health and sufficient collective energy to maintain the vitality of the club. I worry with the new proposed pricing scheme you would lose a significant number of club members and in the long term hurt the club. I would be open to a tiered model - one rate (lower) for members who do not row or who row only a handful of times a year versus a higher fee with unlimited rowing for the more active set of members. So I am not against changes in the pricing scheme but worry that the current scheme is to expensive.

I'm all for more discussion of ways to keep the Lakers an inclusive, community club that supports and encourages all levels of rowing.

7 years ago Featured

I have a peculiar perspective (as I'm totally focused on the 1x). I would need something like the "basic" option; but as it stands, it's too expensive for me to maintain a relationship to the club.

I am not adverse to a change if it will improve the bottom line for the Club, but the suggested pricing structure seems a bit much.

I support the Board taking more time to more fully understand the membership's concerns with the proposed changes in fee structure.

Hello team, Sorry for the delay in signing this petition, as I was at worlds the past several days and put my undivided attention into this commitment. Although I personally would benefit from the change in the fee structure, I also feel that it would not hurt to put a hold on the vote reevaluate the situation, and open the lines of communication. This is quite difficult for me, because I am interested in competitive rowing, yet at the same time so are many whom are just starting out. I am certain there are also those whom are interested or in the process of developing themselves, as I did. Had it not been for the learn to row program, I never would have had this opportunity and I believe it is one that all should benefit from equally, unless of course, to piggyback o what Nicole Frisone has stated, , “If the interest is making the club a competitive rowing club, then that’s what they should do and make it clear.” Again, I personally would benefit from the change, but I am open to the idea of more transparency if that is with the majority of the club feels is needed to resolve this issue once and for all.

I read over the powerpoint presentation and I just wanted to note a few things about the proposed pricing structure, specifically the competitive vs. recreational rower dichotomy that is set out, and my own background and how I ended up in this club in the first place. I previously rowed with Capital, which is huge. It has 6 clubs within the club and a big money maker for it was the Learn to Row program that is offered March through November with erg sessions during the winter months. For those that want to compete, there is the competitive team which is its own club with its own fee structure, added costs, attendance requirements, coaches, and tryouts. Racing is not subsidized by the general populace, it is not capped at $30. There's also the Seniors and Weekenders club, who row on Sundays for much less, and are still allowed to race even through they only row Sundays. I genuinely get the impression from the club presentation that what you guys want is a competitive team and I'm not really sure why you don't just form one with its own fee structure, attendance requirements, tryouts, etc and that's it. I don't think it's unfair to have people pay for the service they use. Offering learn to row more aggressively serves as a great source of income for the club (Capital got a lot of money out of this and it was run by paid coaches and compulsory volunteer hours), created a bigger talent pool, bigger financial base, and filled up the rowing ranks. There was also no sign up and no penalty for no shows. In Philadelphia, the trend is towards a seat fee for masters sweep rowers from $10-$15 and most are not members of the boathouses they row out of (Penn AC, Vesper, and Bachelors all offer this option). I ended up at CLRA because it was hard finding a new club to call home. Philadelphia has limited sweep options, especially if you're a woman under 55, and growing up near Princeton this was a viable option to be able to row if I couldn't get membership at another

I hesitated to add my voice since I have not been an active member for over a year. One thing I always have appreciated about the club is the way members come together at Thanksgiving and to volunteer even when life has taken them in different directions. Taking more time to consider all the ramifications of changing the fee structure would be wise.

I have rowed this year due to medical reasons. I plan to back on the water next year.

I wish to express my displeasure with the proposed revision to the Association's fee structure. As mentioned in my 25 July 2018 letter to the Board, the current $165 annual dues and the "pay-as-you-row" seat fees are equitable and coincide with the club's philosophy of offering affordable community rowing. The proposed annual fee of $595 ($550 in July) would penalize recreational or occasional rowers and favor those who race or row often. With the proposed system, occasional rowers (1-2 times a week) would essentially be subsidizing those who race or row often (3-4 times a week). Although a comprehensive annual fee would simplify accounting practices, it would tend to change the nature of the club to one that excludes recreational rowers and focuses on those who race. Thank you

I support having more conversation before a final decision reflecting the desires of the majority of club members is made. If the desire is to have the fee structure support the purpose of the club, why are we not discussing this aspect of the bylaws concurrently with discussing fee structure? It seems the purpose according to the bylaws is competition, but the words I hear and read from current members is that we want to support competition and recreation without bias. Perhaps when our bylaws reflect our current desires as to purpose, the best way to financially support that purpose will be clearer.

7 years ago Featured

We, THE MEMBERS, are the club. We have spoken. The Board will govern a rowing club with no rowers if they railroad this through