Here is a working example. There is a weathercaster in my market whose Seal was revoked in 1995 for nonpayment of dues and renewal fees. He was instructed by AMS legal counsel to cease displaying the Seal after repeated attempts to gain payment. He not only didn't pay...he has continued to display the Seal.
This revocation was unknown to me until the AMS' Todd Glickman did some checking, unaware that the inactive subject was still displaying the Seal, and let me know of the 1995 action against him. When I forwarded taped "proof" of his unauthorized display, AMS Counsel again notified the subject that he must cease display.
Todd tells me Counsel advises that upon payment he should be readmitted with Seal display privileges. After receiving this notice to cease display more than a week ago, however, he has continued to defy the order. No doubt, he will pay up. My position is someone who has defied a lawful directive -- twice in this case -- ought not be able to "waltz" back in.
I believe there is a distinction between someone who is in arrears, receives notification and then forwards payment and someone who purposefully defies the rules & bylaws, and that such Sealholders ought not be treated the same.
I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on the issue.
Don Paul
Chief Meteorologist, WIVB, Buffalo
Member, Board on Broadcast Meteorology, AMS