APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1201556957


From: Dee Dee King <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Jones APGQ article
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:49:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <24303601.204471201554974850.JavaMail.root@mbs4.homesteadmail.com>


Julia said:
>
> I think the point is that the people behind this want a very exclusive
> organization. I am seriously considering not renewing my membership since I could
> not qualify under any of these special qualifications. I figure if those of
> us who don't meet full membership resign or simply don't renew, they will
> get their exclusive club and maybe see how much the rest of us have been
> supporting the organization. I have felt both hurt and insulted by some of various
> statements. So since I am not certified and certainly don't make $15,000 a
> year I will just have to go put my time and money into an organization wants
> me as a member.
>
> Julia Coldren-Walker
> Past Secretary National Capitol Chapter
>
>


Part of what we are trained to do as professional genealogists is to look at documents and dispassionately analyze what they say.

This is a snip of one posting from Tom Jones:

"Professional Member, for those meeting income, experience, and
credentials criteria set by APG (for example, an average income of, say,
$15,000 from practicing professional genealogy for the previous three
years or a professional credential----meaning BCG certification, ICAPGEN
accreditation, or at least a bachelor's degree in genealogy from an
accredited institution of higher education)

Active Member, for those actively earning income from practicing
professional genealogy but not meeting APG's income, experience, or
credentials criteria for the professional level

Associate Member, for those meeting APG's current membership criteria
but not meeting the above Active Member criteria (an
individual-family-corporate dues structure, rather than the current
Associate Member category, could meet the needs of families and
companies not wanting to pay for more than one issue of /APGQ/)

Excluding people interested in membership or differentiating dues for
each level would not serve APG well..."

This proposal does not eliminate anyone who wants to join APG. It quite clearly says that the proposed Associate category could accommodate "those meeting APG's current membership criteria" - which is ANYONE who pays the dues and agrees to the Code. It further clearly states that "Excluding people interested in membership... would not serve APG well..."

I have looked back through several of the postings on the membership category subject and have found no proposal that does not accommodate those who wish to join APG. I've got the flu, so maybe I missed something while reading.

The issue is that our membership categories should honestly reflect both internally and externally whether or not the member IS a professional genealogist, or somebody who just joined for the learning experience, or a travel planner or web designer who has never done a lick of genealogy but $65 a year is cheap advertising to a target audience, etc. As it stands now, any member of the public viewing the APG website is led to believe that the folks listed in the directory are all professional genealogists, unless the member bothers to make a specific statement otherwise.

People on this list may have broad views as to what a professional genealogist is, but the public does not. Just ask, without any preface, 10 NON genealogists you know, "Define a professional genealogist".

I recently had the pleasure of visiting with the gentleman who founded a very prominent genetic genealogy business. I urged him to join APG and asked why he hadn't. His reply, "Because I am not one".

The Umbrella is a great inclusive concept. But let's be honest about the fact that not everyone who joins APG is a professional genealogist. There's absolutely no foul in openly declaring all the wonderful attributes we find on today's APG website and also saying that APG welcomes folks who are NOT professional genealogists and we have identified them in a different membership level/name/category.

By the way, my personal preference is no income qualification. As Rondina quoted me from another message list, I ain't a showin' my tax returns to anyone. :-)

Best regards,
Dee

This thread: