Letters - 07 November 2014
From membership to legacies
Attenders and members
Graham Watts’ letter (31 October) came as quite a shock to me. Not that the distinction between members and attenders should be questioned, far from it, but that attenders are apparently commonly serving as trustees, co-clerks, elders and overseers!
I have been a committed and regular attender for some thirty years, mostly at my present Meeting, which is even smaller than Bainbridge. Several years ago there was what I would describe as a brief lapse in protocol when I was approached with a view to serving as assistant clerk. The offer was quickly withdrawn when someone checked the ‘red book’! I was a bit hurt at the time.
At our last Area Meeting, when the appointments for the next triennium were presented, it was noticed that an attender had been appointed as an overseer. Questions were asked, and it was stressed that this was an exceptional move.
So, I’m wondering, why such a difference in interpretation of what I will call the ‘guidelines’? Surely, those appointments in North Yorkshire can’t all be exceptional?
Jan Lethbridge
Graham Watts wrote: ‘Is it not time that the distinction between attenders and members is abolished?’
There was an earlier letter on similar lines: ‘I can-not see what purpose is served by “applications for membership”. Their only conceivable object is to keep out “unfit” members; but as we do not wish to keep anyone out of our Meetings, and as we are not very certain what constitutes “fitness for membership”, I think that we should find great relief in ceasing to define it.’ Caroline Stephen wrote that to the Friend in 1908.
I do not entirely agree with either correspondent and wonder if this correspondence has been going on for too long.
David Hitchin
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.