[sac-forum] Re: Waivers

  • From: Stan Gorodenski <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:12:15 -0800

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














Other related posts: