[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0

Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone suggested incorporation as a 
substuitute for
insurance. The club will always need to carry an insurance policy. To not have 
insurance would be
plain foolish.
Protecting the personal assets of the officers and directors is one of the 
fundamental benefits of
incorporation. This is clearly delineated in the articles of incorporation. The 
corporation is a
legally recognized entity wholly separate from its officers and directors. 

You seem to be opposed to incorporation and I can certainly respect your 
opinion, however I don't
understand the arguments you propose. Perhaps you could elaborate?

For example, if you said that a SAC, Inc would have increased paperwork and 
recordkeeping
requirements compared to the current SAC, I would definitely agree.

Personally, I think that incorporating offers SAC more advantages than 
disadvantages... that's just
one member's opinion. I am certainly not on a 'SAC incorporation crusade' or 
anything like that. I'm
just participating in the dialogue that started with the discussion on event 
waivers as a means to
limit the club's liability.

Peter
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sac-board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Paul
Dickson
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:43 PM
To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0


Incorporation will not protect the club's officers, thus insurance would be 
required.

        -Paul

Other related posts: