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

 
Paul, just had a very productive phone conversation with Thad and have come
up with a couple of changes to the amendments.  These changes make the
wording much clearer and, hence, easier to understand.

The first place for change is Article VI, 1, 5; this is the one I was tied
upon and was in the definate I don't know what the heck to do.  With the
following change I feel much better about the wording and intent.  So, the
wording for this, "Attending a club event, that requires a signed release,
and refusing to sign the release for the event."

The other change is to Article XII, 2, 2; that would read, "who also have
signed the release for the event, when a release is required."

If you want to change the wording that is OK, but as long as the concept in
them are followed.

After some discussion with Thad I feel these changes should smooth out some
of the criticism.

BTW, hopefully these changes can be made for Rick Tejera to get them into
thenewsletter - - tomorrow evening.

Thanks,
aj

Paul Dickson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:27:07 -0700, Paul Dickson wrote: I'm of two minds
about the change in Article VI. Before continuing, yes, I think it should be
added to the constitution. On the one hand it should be part of the Waiver
Amendment, it is predominately the only teeth SAC has regarding waivers. On
the other hand, including it as part of the Waiver Amendment could be
consider hiding it. This is an important change to each member. Do we what
tosplit this amendment? I just made a change to Article VI. I felt it was a
bit stupid to require a signed release for events you don't attend. -Paul

Other related posts: