[sac-board] Re: Amendment on the constitution....

Thad, I have to concur with Jeff.  I thought the incorporation was to
protect the board and possibly the members.  Are we now trying to protect
the insurance company also.  The idea of making the site easier to navigate
in and around should make it a lot safer for the people who attend.  We had
close to 1000 people at the Thunderbird party, and I heard of no incident.

I feel that most of the good people and friends, and would do nothing to
harm there club.

Let's rethink this waver thing.

Tom Hilton

-----Original Message-----
From: sac-board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thad Robosson
Sent: 08/24/2005 10:08 AM
To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-board] Re: Amendment on the constitution....



>I know you are working on the amendment wording, but my feeling is
> there should be no amendment, thus NO wording.

Jeff, thank you for your thoughts and keeping it on topic.  However, the
time for this has not yet come around.
>
> 1. Why the waiver?  I see no valid reason for the waiver.
> 2. The waiver is unlikely to protect the club or members.
> 3. The waiver could actually be a cause of problems.

Why does the Oregon, Texas, and other major parties require them?
Heck, even the NASP had us sign a release when it was in it's heyday.
I see plenty of people agreeing to the terms in order to attend those 
events.
And yes, the waiver does bring up some possible troubles, but then, so does
not having a waiver.  Either way, there will be troubles, so why not lean on
the side of caution.

> 4. Enforcement would be an enormous problem.
> Kicking out members.
> Refusing insurance liability.
> Physically barring someone.
> Shunning people at an event.
>
> 5.  It certainly will not be seen as a friendly gesture.

Again, why do the other major parties require them?  IIRC, Texas basically
closes the gates at certain time, and that is it, no one comes or goes after

that.
I believe that someone at a MM in the past was restricted from leaving.
As far as freindly, that's far more subjective, and isn't strong reasoning 
for
or against a waiver.

>
> 6. Do you think this will attract new members or turn them away?
>
> 7. Do you think this will make the club better or worse?

Again, subjective.  I do not think that it will scare potential members 
away.
I've done far less that required far more.  Agreeing to a release is so 
common
place these days, I doubt it will phase anyone.  As far as improving the 
club,
again subjective, but if the club has adequate protection, then the events 
are
likely to improve as well.  But that is speculation.

>
> 8. Logistics of this would be a nightmare.
>
> I feel there are positive things that can be done to make events
> safer, but waivers are the wrong thing.
>

Yes, that is a given, but just as you are saying that waivers are no 
gaurantee, neither is
appointing a "safety officer".  I don't like the way the world has gone 
regarding legal
issues, but just making things "safer" doesn't make it less likely to be 
sued.  The events
this club manages is done so by volunteers, and if some degree of protection

can't be
established, there is a possibility that these events may go away.  What 
would be worse?
Losing a few members who don't want to sign the waiver, or losing a major 
event like the MM?
Which do you think would cause the club to lose more members?

Ok, so I'll now shut up, and let the regurally scheduled amendment 
discussion continue....
Where were we?

Thad

Other related posts: