833
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 270:
Line 270: + + + + + +
→Problems with Draft 3 language
:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
::: I understand that you're trying to limit the Board's power to enact policies pertaining to obligations by fixing the specifics of insurance. But just fixing that doesn't do anything to change the Board's power to enact policies. That stems from the Bylaws, and you can't take power away from the Board if it is granted by the Bylaws unless you change the Bylaws. Just creating an alternate means to handle insurance related stuff doesn't mean the Board will utilize it and will never create another policy.
::: Also, not every situation where the Board has to deal with obligations stems from insurance. This doesn't address the meat of the Events policy, which is only partly based on insurance. Binding members and even guests to the conditions of the insurance policy won't address many of the issues. We actually had a case recently where advertising went out for an event that implied illegal activity would happen. (I believe selling liquor without a license, and/or having a cover charge for a party which is illegal for us because we have no Chicago Public Place of Amusement license.) Even if no illegal activity does occur, the Board needs to be able to insist that an event organizer change their advertising if they want to use PS:One because we don't want to bring the cops down on us. In this case, the event organizer was understanding and accommodating, but that isn't always guaranteed. If someone digs their heels in, we may not have time to get a proper vote done before the event in question.
::: And this doesn't address other unforeseen situations. Hypothetical case: We have a lease obligation to handle exterminators. Let's say we've got an infestation of something affecting Tony, who insists we take care of it immediately by fumigating the space. Because hiring exterminators relates to a lease obligation, the Board can enact a policy barring all members from going into the space during a 48 hour period. What then? A member might have a deadline and decide he's going to use the space anyway, since he's entitled to 24/7 access, and the Board doesn't have the authority to tell him no. In this case, a Board with the power to make policy related to the space's obligations would be really useful. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:33, 12 May 2015 (CDT)