[sac-forum] Re: Waiver-amendment debate.....

No one can assure another's safety.  Given people's litigious nature today,
the attempt to assure some level of protection seems to makes sense to me.
Foolproof?  Absolutely not.  But perhaps foolhardy without, as the club
(yes) and the world (?) move forward?  I presume legal council has
acknowledged the validity/need of the waivers?  If not, then as Jeff
suggests, perhaps a step-back breather is warranted.

Understanding how other clubs have managed this topic provides information
to help support an informed sense of direction.  To operate in a vacuum
without information disallows leveraging other's work; right or wrong.  We
do not need to be lemmings to understand what others do or have done.  (I'm
reminded of two adages; history repeating itself, and the creation of the
wheel)

I would prefer NOT to have to sign a waiver, yet I will as a club member if
it is the correct thing to institute.  As I see it, the challenge is; what
is most right?  The area is gray, and if the decision is only 51% correct,
it should prevail.

I've exhausted my thinking about this.

Bob Christ


-----Original Message-----
From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jeff Hopkins
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:18 AM
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Waiver-amendment debate.....


Looking at what other clubs are doing may not be a good criteria.
Just because someone else does something does not make it right, good
or something you should do too. Indeed other clubs that use waivers
may be looking at SAC and asking "why do we need waivers when SAC has
had no problems and does not use them?"

I feel it is a fallacy to assume a waiver offers any protection, club
or individual.

I feel this a great injustice to the board and general members. If
the club or a member is truly negligent and someone sues, the club or
member(s) will not be protected by a waiver. It is possible, as
pointed out by someone else, that in a situation like that any award
maybe increased because of the waiver as it may be seen as trying to
hide something and avoid responsibility and thus allow an unsafe
condition to exist.

My feeling is waivers will not offer any protection and will cause
many problems. I also feel the board has not adequately evaluated the
problems involved with waivers.

The best way to protect the club is by making sure events are safe. A
written safety policy and proof of adhering to the policy would be
the best defense incase of litigation. The next level is
incorporation. For a long time I thought the club was incorporated
and was shocked when I found it was not. Lastly, having accident
insurance to cover costs of any injury should be the final step for a
responsible club.

Jeff

At 08:45 -0700 8/25/05, Bob Christ wrote:
Regarding the waiver issue, resistance to change is a human trait
more pervasive than acceptance of change.  Need a proof point?  Judo
couldn't exist without resistance to change - rather it counts on it.
And, resistance can be most pervasive when one's "rights" appear to
be impacted.  On the flip side, the proposed waiver "protects" the
rights of others.  It's difficult-to-near-impossible to "have it both
ways."

Unless the proposed waiver is breaking new ground amongst astronomy
clubs (doubtful), other fellow clubs have already passed this way.
It would be helpful to example how they manage their club's
indemnity.  I view this as a business issue, versus a personal issue.
The club agreed to formalize its business structure and members must
assume the appropriate responsibility to achieve that end.

My thoughts.

Respectfully,

Bob Christ


--
Jeff Hopkins
HPO SOFT
Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
http://www.hposoft.com/Astro/astro.html

                     Hopkins Phoenix Observatory
                       7812 West Clayton Drive
                   Phoenix, Arizona 85033-2439 U.S.A.
                                www.hposoft.com



Other related posts: