[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: "Steve Coe" <stevecoe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:08:59 -0700
Jeff, et al;
It has been many years since SAC discussed incorporating and my memory =
is
that the people who were officers at the time presented it badly.
Some sort of statement like "I would never remain an officer in a club =
that
was not incorporated" got thrown around and much of the membership said =
"we
will miss you".
I don't honestly remember any problems with incorporation other than =
people
problems and poor communication. Oh, and the fee, which seemed larger =
then.
Much less of a problem now.
If incorporation will protect future officers from being sued =
personally, I
think it is a great idea. I might wish to become an officer again, in =
the
future. I would hope that others would be more willing to take that on,
knowing that the club had done as much as it could to absorb any =
liability.
Sounds like a good path;
Steve Coe
- References:
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Jeff Hopkins
Other related posts:
- » [sac-board] SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- » [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Jeff Hopkins