[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment
- From: Paul Dickson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:38:40 -0700
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:46:30 -0700, Rick Tejera wrote:
> After a quick glance (I'll take a more detailed look later) Here are a few
> comments:
> * XII 2.2- Not much we can do, as we were advised by Kimball some time
> back out, best strategy is to make sure there are witnesses to those who
> choose not to sign. If you were an attorney and had the choice to sue SAC
> with $5000.00 in the back or the sate of Arizona, where would you go? My bet
> would be the deep coffers of AZ. Granted there ain't no Guarantee, but
> frankly we cannot eliminate all risk, we can only minimize it, no matter
> what we do.
Thanks for the comments.
You sort of missed the point of my comment. I'm aware of the results of
this clause, but what I'm interested in is how the clause should be
written to address the point that SAC can't bar anyone from attending,
signed release or not.
> * XII 3.2: I think we should limit Non Members to a "one event one
> release" policy. To give a blanket release, opens the debate as to what
> events they are entitled to attend. I think a release for non members should
> be for a specific event.
Except for the logistical nightmare of getting newly signed releases at
our monthly star party, I do agree with you.
> * XII 3.3.2: Since we extend a three month grace period on late
> renewals, we could simply do the same here. Once the grace period is over,
> so is coverage. At that point you need to be treated as a guest at a SAC
> function until such time as your membership is reinstated. Written notices
> should be sent (probably by registered mail to members prior to expiration
> of the grace period as a reminder and as CYA for SAC.
Actually, VIII.2.3 says 2 months. Anyway...
I'm being to think we should drop the entire concept of collecting
releases from the membership in general with regard to the monthly star
party. The work is non-rewarding to the person needing to deal with the
issue (which mean it will last at most 18 months) and we can't prevent
anyone from ignoring our requests for a signed release. And rather than
protecting us, it might end up getting SAC fined for littering.
I think I should change Art. XII so that it states that nothing can be
done about the issue of star parties on public land beyond educating the
membership about star party etiquette. Then only the thing remaining is
SAC star parties on private property, the messier marathon.
-Paul
Other related posts:
