While I have not made up my mind about the need for a waiver, I think
maybe one thing that might help make up my mind, and maybe others, is to
explain what has changed that makes one necessary now? I believe the
club has kept its membership fairly constant, between 100-200 members,
over, what, 20-30 years? For 20-30(?) years one was not necessary,
perhaps not even dreamed of. Why now? Maybe this has already been
explained in other discussions on SAC-Board, to which I am not subscribed.
Previously I thought the proposed amendment would make it an absolute
requirement for any club event. However, upon reading the proposed
amendment in the August newsletter, it merely gives the Board the
authority to require one if they feel it is needed for an event. Thus,
maybe it is not as draconian as I had understood. If it happens to pass
that no one, or very few, show up for star parties because of the waiver
requirement, the Board has the power to stop requiring them if they want.
Upon thinking about this some more I have to wonder about enforcement.
In the case of the Lepidopterist's Society field trips I mentioned, it
is easy to enforce signing a liability statement. Nearly everyone in
attendance are from out of state. As a result they do not have cars and
so to get on a vehicle for a field trip they have to sign one. However,
this August, although there were field trips along Box Canyon road that
required signing liability statements, I did not sign one because I was
not formally participating in a field trip. I had my own vehicle and did
my own collecting, but I was collecting in the same areas that those on
field trips collected in, and sometimes I ran into them and socialized a
bit.
I think this is pertinent to the issue here because except in the
situation where one has to go through a gate (such as at the All Arizona
Star Party), how can the club force someone to sign a liablilty
statement if the club does not own the land? What if a member decides
that Sentinel is the best place for a particular night, and it just so
happens that it lands on the night of an official SAC star party? If the
member has no intention of participating in the formal event and sets up
on land that the club does not own and which is not fenced in and is 300
feet away from the main club setup, will the club really expell him/her
by not signing a liabilitiy statement?
Stan
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 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