Reduce New-Member Sponsors?  Not So Fast!

(Editor’s Note:  This correspondence from Mr. Somers is in response to “Could Your Membership Process Be Streamlined?” an item appearing in the February 2003 issue of the Private Club Advisor—specifically, a suggestion that a club might consider reducing the number of required sponsors for a candidate for membership.)

We believe reducing the number of sponsors to one to be potentially antithetical to the selectivity requirement for distinctly private clubs.  That is, if one of the major considerations regarding a membership candidate is the candidate’s perceived likely compatibility with the existing membership and perceived congeniality, are the club’s interests well and best served by taking the recommendation of but one member?

What if the single sponsoring member was more or less obligated to promote the candidate because the candidate is the sponsor’s immediate occupational superior or a valued customer or client?  Doesn’t requiring two or more additional sponsors (if they take their responsibilities seriously) help protect against an “obligated” sponsorship?  Doesn’t the opportunity for questioning additional sponsors by the membership committee vetting the candidate potentially lead to discovering unsavory or discomforting facts about the candidate (or lack of familiarity so as to raise questions about the candidate’s suitability) that an “obligated” primary sponsor may not disclose?

We have always believed that requiring two or more sponsors shows the club is genuinely interested in being selective.  Having only one sponsor ostensibly “cheapens” the process and may tend to create the appearance that the club isn’t particularly fussy about who joins.  Having somewhat of a gauntlet to run (although we agree, not a tedious one) creates an impression that gaining membership is something of an achievement and recognition of personal worth, not merely an economic acid test.

We advise clubs wishing to protect their private status to have a well-defined admissions procedure in place, to follow the procedure assiduously, and to include in the procedure certain evaluation criteria relevant to the club’s mission and purpose.  If the procedure is too streamlined, to accommodate impatient candidates, it risks not being deemed a genuinely selective process.

Admittedly, there are some very selective clubs that do not even permit ostensible sponsoring of candidates.  Rather, these clubs do their own selecting from among “suggestions” from the membership, membership committee members or the governing board itself.  In such cases, the member “suggesting” a prospective candidate may not even know the candidate is being considered or processed or “shelved.”  However, generally, these clubs are not normally hurting for members, do an extraordinary job of vetting candidates carefully, and don’t need to consider more “streamlined” admission procedures as do the clubs to which your comments are perhaps appropriate.