[sac-forum] Re: Waivers

While I myself am undecided about the waiver proposal, in all fairness to the proposal, I should mention that the other society I belong to, the Lepidopterist's Society, requires everyone to sign a waiver if they are going on a society sponsored field trip at the annual meetings. They did this at the annual meeting in Sierra Vista this August. There was one incident involving someone who refused to sign a waiver. Here is what happened:

Dear all,
I was also sad that Mr. H* did not do the paperwork for the field trips!
I told him that we needed a signed liability form and he just stated that
he was going to go on a field trip. Period. At that point we did not have
enough leaders and even a group of people who had signed up but had no
leader at all!  When we actually met for the field trips only about
two-thirds of those who had signed up actually came. It may have been
possible for H* to go a field trip, but he didn't provide the signed form
and no-one seemed to want to accept responsibility for him.  We did the
best we could do under the circumstances.

I have no idea if waivers for star parties will really work, or if they really 
protect the Lepidpoterist's Society, but they are doing it.
Stan



Stars wrote:

I am not against the waivers or for them, I will vote for them and even sign
one if that is what is best for the club.  I just want us to make sure that
our insurance company agrees with the clubs actions.  They might even have
preformatted waivers that they want us to use.  Also has anyone checked into
the legal statues in Arizona as far as how the courts see waivers.  I know
items was posted about wavers for stables, but most of us do not do
astronomy from horseback. Ha Ha.

Tom Hilton


-----Original Message----- From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Coe Sent: 09/07/2005 1:48 PM To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Waivers

How about this?

If we stopped sponsoring the Messier Marathon and either EVAC or some other
group would pick it up or it would never be held again.


Obviously, the Sentinel Star Gaze would also never be held again.

Also obviously, the club would stop holding public viewing sessions.

Would those three actions be enough to allow the club to continue on in the
same way it has for over 20 years with no legal action against it?

I agree that we need some input from our insurance company, maybe a
representative at the meeting?

Steve Coe



-----Original Message-----
From: sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-forum-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stan Gorodenski
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:04 AM
To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sac-forum] Re: Waivers



Thad Robosson wrote:



To anyone who would like to present a case for or against
the waiver issue, please feel free to post them here




Since you did not mention doing this at the meeting, I hope this is not saying presenting a case, for or against, is just limited to here, the internet.

Is there a speaker for the meeting next Friday? If there is one, then maybe having a vote on these amendments should be rescheduled for another meeting, a business meeting without a speaker, so that members can have plenty of time to discuss all the amendments if they want without them, or the president, feeling discussions have to be cut off to have time for the speaker. Having said this, more than likely there will not be much discussion by members, but I think having plenty of time set aside to discuss amendments to the Constitution, a serious matter, should always be preserved, just in case.
Stan
















Other related posts: