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

Right on target Jeff.................Joe Goss
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Hopkins" <phxjeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 09:39
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.
>
> I feel this whole business needs to be thought out better. I hope the
> following will be considered to be presented at the next meeting for
> discussion before any vote.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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. They do require activities in very
> dark surroundings. Most people have experience in dark situations.
> Most people will be instinctively careful. Sure someone my stub their
> toe or walk into a cactus, but those incidents will be minor. Unless
> there really is some hazard (e.g., an open mine shaft), there really
> should be no problem and people are probably far safer at the event
> than most anyplace in the city.
>
> Consider adding an amendment that describes a person and situation
> for handling safety at events. Someone responsible for doing a quick
> survey and determining and rectifying potential problems, determining
> ingress and egress problems (more than once I was unsure just were
> the path was out of an event in the middle of the night). Blinking
> red lights are great for indicating things (e.g., the port-a-potty
> location, road out, etc.). Doing this shows the club has considered
> safety and taken reasonable measure to enhance the safety.
>
> I feel there are positive things that can be done to make events
> safer, but waivers are the wrong thing.
>
> Jeff
>
> At 06:44 -0700 8/24/05, Thad Robosson wrote:
>
>>OK, I'll take a crack at this.  I think the key wording is "may" be
>>expelled, but I see your
>>concern.  It really does sound harsh.  Can we work in something like....
>>"Any SAC member who refuses to sign a waiver will be considered to not be
>>participating
>>in said club activity and is acting on their own behalf seperate and
>>independantly from SAC."
>>Or am I backtracking here?
>>
>>Legal advice?  What specifically do you mean to ask AJ?  I'm not 
>>poo-pooing
>>the idea, just
>>that if we are going to consult, we need some very specific questions. 
>>And
>>on top of that,
>>even after consultation, what extra protection will we have gained?
>>
>>Let's get it figgered out.....
>>
>>Thad
>
> -- 
> Jeff Hopkins
> HPO SOFT
> Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
> http://www.hposoft.com/Astro/astro.html
>
>      Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
>         7812 West Clayton Drive
>    Phoenix, Arizona 85033-2439 U.S.A.
>         www.hposoft.com
>
>

Other related posts: