[sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Jeff Hopkins <phxjeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:30:57 -0700
Hello AJ,
On one or more of the many SAC lists there was discussion of
requiring renewing members to sign waivers and if refused the member
would not be allowed to renew. That is even in the Newsletter in red.
While this may be in addition to the current wording of the
amendment, it has come up and will probably come up again and thus
has a bearing on the waiver issue.
Now I know it states the items in red are deleted form the original.
In what Newsletter was the original published?
Also the current wording states
3.2. Releases are for one event only.
I don't think that is what you mean. You have one event and have a
release for it and then never have any other releases for any other
future events as that was the "one" event.
Jeff
At 19:18 -0700 9/8/05, AJ Crayon wrote:
>
>Jeff, your second paragraph is way off the mark. My interest in the
>amendments are for the All Arizona Messier Marathon and only the All Arizona
>Messier Marathon. There is no hidden agenda to convert this to an annual
>renewal processs for becoming a SAC member. Acutally, the wording of the
>amendments is directed towards star parties and NOT membership.
>
>Please read the amendments.
>
>Thanks,
>aj
>
>Jeff Hopkins wrote:
>Peter makes some interesting points. He points out that he feels no problem
>signing the waivers as they would be ineffectual. While I agree that may be
>the case, if the wavers are written to be effectual then one would be
>signingaway their rights. So what are the values of having waivers? He also
>points out that adding this to the SAC C&B would give the board flexibility.
>While this may be true it is pretty guaranteed if it is added it will be
>used. All members will be required to sign a waiver when renewing. If they
>refuse they will not be allowed to be members. Waivers will probably then be
>used at all SAC events, because why is one event more dangerous than
>another?Jeff At 08:23 -0700 9/8/05, Peter Argenziano wrote in part: Speaking
>personally, I don't see myself as 'stupid' for signing a waiver, as I don't
>believe I'm signing any of my rights away. If I was injured by consequence
>ofthe club's negligence (I'm not sure what that even means) I think a decent
>lawyer could navigate past a waiver, if I was inclined to seek leagl
>recourse. I like the way SAC is approaching the use of waivers, by amending
>its C&B to allow for their use if the current governing body sees fit. This
>allows the club the freedom to make the decision at any point in time
>withouthaving to engage in further amending of the bylaws. Peter
--
Jeff Hopkins
HPO SOFT
*********************************************************
Phoenix, Arizona Atlanta, Georgia
7812 West Clayton Drive 12170 Boxwood Circle
Phoenix, AZ 85033-2439 U.S.A. Alpharetta, GA 30005 U.S.A.
(623) 849-5889 (Fax) (770) 619-3322 (Phone/Fax)
www.hposoft.com dataman.home.mindspring.com
4th Dimension Developer/ FileMaker Pro Expert
BASIC/C/C++ Programmer/Web Site Developer
- Follow-Ups:
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: AJ Crayon
- References:
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Steve Coe
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Peter Argenziano
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: AJ Crayon
Other related posts:
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- » [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: AJ Crayon
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Steve Coe
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Peter Argenziano
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: Jeff Hopkins
- [sac-board] Re: Waivers
- From: AJ Crayon