[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Jeff Hopkins <phxjeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:27:17 -0700
Paul makes a good point about the SAC drag races.
I think the board should vote to discontinue those. :-)
BTW, when suing SAC, if SAC is incorporated, the suit is against the
organization, not the people. If not incorporated the suit would be
against the board members or directors. While individual people can
be sued, I believe that would be something entirely different. If
suit were brought against a person, waivers, incorporation or club
insurance would unlikely be of value.
Jeff
At 07:46 -0700 7/22/05, Paul Dickson wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:02:22 -0700, Jeff Hopkins wrote:
>
>> I believe Peter is correct that the members of an organization are
>> not liable only the board members. If incorporated, only the
>> corporation's assets are at stake.
>
>Not entirely true. IANAL, but in a suite for damages, board members and
>their assets can be brought in. It's most likely dependent on what the
>suite was about. If board members sanctioned something like a drag race
>at the observing site, then I can definitely see this happening. But if
>they behave like we normally do, then probably not.
>
>I'm in favor incorporating, and I'm willing to help. I just don't want to
>be the one doing all the work to get it done.
>
> -Paul
--
Jeff Hopkins
HPO SOFT
Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
http://www.hposoft.com/Astro/astro.html
*********************************************************
Small minds speak about people * Average minds speak of events
************ Great minds speak of ideas! ****************
*********************************************************
Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
7812 West Clayton Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85033-2439 U.S.A.
www.hposoft.com
- References:
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Peter
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Paul Dickson
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: Peter
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution and Proposed Amendment 2.0
- From: Paul Dickson