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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:39:08 -0700, Jeff Hopkins wrote:

> 1. Why the waiver?  I see no valid reason for the waiver.
> 2. The waiver is unlikely to protect the club or members.

Lawyers seem to disagree.  Of course there are no absolutes, but you'll
have a much harder time trying to sue if you signed one.


> 3. The waiver could actually be a cause of problems.
>       It might look like we have something to hide.
>       It might look like we are trying to get away from providing 
>       insurance coverage for an injury.
>       Someone barred from an event might be very upset, upset 
>       enough to take legal action.
>       Driving hundreds of miles to event to only find out you will 
>       not be allowed in could be upsetting.

Most likely the requirement for the signed liability release will
attached to the map.  If someone is stupid enough to drive to the site
with the expectation of not signing, they are very unlikely to get
anywhere in court.

The site is provided at no expectation more than a clear area in the
desert.  The waiver sets the same level of responsibility as if you went
observing all by yourself.  The port-a-pottie is just an added benefit.


> 
> 5.  It certainly will not be seen as a friendly gesture.

It does if you thought about being a club officer.


> 
> 6. Do you think this will attract new members or turn them away?

Since other clubs are doing it (incorporating, having insurance, using
waivers), where else can one go?  They can go it alone, but that's boring.


> 
> 7. Do you think this will make the club better or worse?

I believe better.  The dialogue will improve the club.  Probably get a
couple of more people involved with the running of the club.


> 
> 8. Logistics of this would be a nightmare.
>       Will you have a well lit table at each event for sign in, 
>       manned for the entire event?
>       Will you require identification for verification of signature?,
>       Will you require more information than just signature so 
>       there is no ambiguity
>       as to who signed the waiver? (DL #, address, phone #)
>       Will you set up a database with scanned images of all the waivers?
>       Will there be a new board member specifically tasked with 
>       handling this?

The people running the marathon requested it.  They can deal with it.  It
shouldn't be too much of a problem.

It might take less effort than the grants and scholarship fund.  At least
this can be distributed easier.

I think your mightmare is more likely to be a mole hill.  It's easy to
make things much more difficult than needs be.


> 
> I think you will find that it not just me that has a big objection to 
> the waiver. I also think some may prefer not to speak up and may just 
> fade from the club if this is pursued.
> 
> On a more positive note, there are things that can be done to lessen 
> the club's liability.
> 
> Star parties are not dangerous. 

Don't over generalize.  The difference between a stubbed toe and a broken
wrist (or more serious) could be a matter of inches.  What would you
consider a snake bite to be?  It the last 15 years, I know of two
incidents regarding rattlesnakes at star parties (one each at SAC and
EVAC).

Have you read the waiver?  Do you feel that SAC should be responsible for
everything that happens at unimproved observing sites?

        -Paul

Other related posts: