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