The email today from SAM admin suggests revisions to the Qualifications Section of Article II. Members Section of the By-Laws. It reads [bolding in the original]:

The main categories of membership which shall make up the Society are Individual, Spouse/Partner, Student, Retired, Honorary, and Affiliate. The Board may establish additional membership categories as appropriate.

Individual: shall be available to any person who has an interest in the stated purpose of the Society.
Spouse/Partner: shall be available to those who live in the same household as individual members.
Student: shall be available to students, graduate or undergraduate, in residence at an accredited college or university. Such individuals shall be eligible for student membership for a period not more than seven (7) years. They shall not be eligible to hold an elective post in the Society except as co-chairs of the Student Forum.
Retired: shall be available to persons who have retired and are on a fixed income.
Honorary: may be awarded at the discretion of the Board of Trustees to persons who have made outstanding contributions to further the mission of the Society.
Affiliate: shall be available to non-academic institutions interested in interacting with the Society’s membership. (Examples: Performing arts organizations, commercial music companies, arts festivals, other societies, museums, and the like.) Affiliates receive an electronic subscription to the Bulletin and online access to the Membership Directory, but not the Society’s journal. Affiliates may not vote on Society business.
Individual members in all categories and student members shall be entitled to receive the publications of the Society. 

I find some of these proposed changes problematic. Not all spouses and partners live in the same household, as many academic couples know very well. A student who joins SAM as a undergraduate may well time out of the 7 years' allotment for student memberships before they finish a PhD. Indeed, students many not even finish a PhD in 7 years, depending on numerous factors including health, parental status, and others. Are we to ask our retired members to certify that they are "on a fixed income"? 

I would far prefer that our Society, which is supposed to be the "friendly" organization among scholarly music societies, create policies that lean on the side of compassion rather than policing, restricting, and limiting its members.