Waivers cannot stop someone from taking anyone to court. That has been
said countless times. Since it has been asked countless + 1 times I
don't know if repeating will help. Let me try: the only real reason
for having signed waivers is to make it MORE DIFFICULT for someone to
be SUCCESSFUL in their pursuit of a suit! It will NEVER repeat NEVER
stop someone from taking me, you or SAC to court. In reference to having input from our insurer, it has been my understanding they have agreed it would be in our, i.e. theirs and SACs, best interests to have waivers at EVERY event. I'm not in favor of every event. My interest is the marathon and only the marathon. Hence the wording of the amendments permitting the Board of Directors to decide, along with the ability of SAC members to vote. The converse is also true. The reason for requesting something like this now is due to the fact that our society has become more and more litigious and I'd like for ALL of us in attendance to have an extra layer of protection. I guess I digress as this is what we "now" are supposed to discuss at the meeting. Peter A. thanks for the links but, unfortunately, I haven't had time to read, much less scan, them. I'll try to review the last one in your list because it does seem to have definitions that may help us. On another topic - don't forget if you have observations for the selected objects in Sagittarius please get them to me. Thanks and clear skies to all, aj Steve Coe wrote: 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 hereSince 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 |