[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Thad Robosson <starstarcracker@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:18:54 -0700
Hello Board,
Well, this has certainly turned into a hot topic all the sudden.
Surprising since it's been on the drawing board
for quite a while now. But I digress.....
The biggest thing I can add to this discussion is that all of this came
about at the suggestion of Kimbal Corson.
He is a lawyer, and was kind enough to answer some questions pro bono.
I don't have it on this machine,
but I'm reasonably certain that his emailed response to AJ suggested
what Paul has drafted up as a way
to cover ourselves further. AJ, could you post any pertinent info from
that email if you have it?
I can understand some of the membership giving a suspicious eye towards
a release being part of renewing
the membership. But....any reasonable person who takes the time to read
it should be able to deduce
that it is not for any malicious intent. We practically sign our life
away in so many instances in life...
I mean, jeez, have you been hospitalized or rented a car lately? Do
you refuse to sign in those instances?
We're not asking for your first-born, just acknowledgement that you
understand the rules and risks.
Does this help if SAC is truly negligent? Probably not, but how many
instances can you think of where
SAC would truly be negligent?
As far as what other clubs are doing, Tom Hilton sent us the Texas Star
Party release. If I remember correctly,
Northern Az Star Party was doing that as well. I seem to remember
someone mentioning that the Oregon
Party did it too....With the Messier Marathon getting serious attention,
I believe that measures to reduce
risks are worth pursuing. Yes, we have insurance, and IIRC, it is
pretty solid. If something should happen,
I would hope that we have more on our side than just the insurance. The
releases add a little more protection
to the club and officers. It's not perfect by any means, but it does
show that we've made an attempt.
I don't think that Kimball would have suggested it if he didn't think it
would be worthwhile. (Aj, correct
me if I'm wrong...)
And for those who still cringe at the whole idea, please try to remember
that we live in a society where
cops get sued for tazing a criminal (while commiting a criminal act),
where McDonalds' gets sued for the
coffee being too hot (even if the coffee drinker didn't have enough
common sense to glue 2 brain cells
together), and where the highest court in the land doesn't think enough
of the "people" to allow them
to keep their property when some mega-corp comes in and wants to build a
shopping mall. It's simply
not enough to have an insurance policy and faith in humanity. Please try
to remember that SAC is the
one with it's neck stuck out. All we are trying to do is protect
ourselves somewhat more than we are.
There is no disagreement that most likely we will never have to put this
to the test, but following
that logic, we could save the club hundreds of dollars each year by not
buying insurance.
Also, I can't think of one board member who really WANTS to do this, as
it does add a degree of
difficulty to several things, but we think enough of this to have called
for a draft of the current amendment
we are discussing.
There is a board meeting this coming Friday, 6:30pm. I personally
invite anyone reading this, board member
or not, to please come in and voice your opinion or give suggestions.
Thad Robosson
President, SAC
Other related posts:
