[sac-forum] Re: Waiver-amendment debate.....
- From: Paul Dickson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: SAC-Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:15:53 -0700
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:25:33 -0800, Stan Gorodenski wrote:
> These are my comments, mostly in the form of questions which may not be
> helpful.
>
> Regarding:
>
> 1. _A club event is only one occurring on the day, time, and place
> that the Board of Directors formally specifies._
> 2. _Participants at club events are only those who are:_
> 1. _members or invited guests and_
> 2. _who also have signed the release for the event, when a
> release is required._
>
> 1. Do these releases really do any good or do they just alert the
> attendee that the club thinks it is protected? In this regard, anyone
> can file a law suit even if it ends up having no merit because of the
> waiver they signed. However, it might cost the club the entire treasury
> to get to the point of a judge ruling that it has no merit and the judge
> may or may not award attorney fees. Also, related to this, I remember
> incorporation was being discussed to protect officers and administrators
> from being individually sued. Has this fallen by the wayside?
We are following the advice of our lawyer. Do you have evidence that
he's wrong?
> 2. Who makes the determination that a guest is an invited guest, the
> member bringing a guest, or in the case of someone that shows up by
> themselves the person distributing the wavers?
Yes. Otherwise the are not a participant at the event. This is from our
lawyer. While we can't remove people from the site, we can legally
distance ourselves.
> 3. Are waivers going to be required of the public at public star parties?
To be determined. SAC doesn't hold public star parties. We just provide
the telescopes.
> 4. How is this going to be enforced? If all that can be done to a member
> is terminate membership, it doesn't solve the problem at the moment.
True. What if someone refused to turn out their white lights? There is
no magical solution, but any further activity by the former member might
be treated as harassment.
> 5. Would a waiver protect Steve Coe from a liability lawsuit, for
> example, if the board decided to have a club event at his house?
If he was listed as the provider of the event and requested the use of the
waiver, then yes.
> Regarding
> This Constitution shall be amended only by consent of a majority of the
> voting membership at a regular or special business meeting called for
> that purpose_ or the regular meeting following submission_. Any
> amendment so passed shall take effect immediately.
>
> I am against this change. It is too vague - "the regular meeting
> following submission" - immidiately after? I think the change would make
> it easier for things to be voted on without the full membership being
> aware that something they might want to vote on will be on the agenda.
> When something is labeled a "business" meeting, as it is called in the
> current bylaw, most people know this means possibly voting on something.
Too vague? The line above your quoted material says the amendment must
be turn in at a meeting. So how can "the regular meeting following
submission" be vague? All club meetings these days have business taken
care of usually in the first half-hour. Among others items it includes
the treasurer's report.
>
> Regarding expulsion of a member:
>
> 1. _Attending a club event, that requires a signed release, and
> refusing to sign the release for the event._
>
> While I question whether a waiver will do much good, if it becomes a
> requirement than all members should sign the waiver.
They only have to sign if the want to attend the event.
-Paul
Other related posts:
