[SJAAboard] July 19 2008 - Draft SJAA Board Meeting Minutes

[Rich N]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Scull" <craigus at rocketmail.com>
To: "sjaa" <sjaaboard at sjaa.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:01 PM
Subject: [SJAAboard] July 19 2008 - Draft SJAA Board Meeting Minutes


> Here are the minutes. Please let me know what is
> missing or needs correction. /Craig
> 
> 
> ======================================================
> July 19 2008 - SJAA Board Meeting Minutes
> - Craig Scull
> ======================================================
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> Members present
> -------------------------------------
> SJAA Board Members
> *-Craig Scull
> *-Rob Hawley (excused)
> *-Rich Neuschaefer
> *-Robert Armstrong (proxy for Rob Hawley)
> *-Gordon Reade
> *-Lee Hoglan
> *-Gary Mitchell
> *-Mark Wagner (has rescinded his resignation)
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> June Meeting Minutes
> -------------------------------------
> Rich made a motion to approve the June meeting
> minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Robert
> and approved by unanimous vote. There were no
> abstentions or oppositions.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> Calstar
> -------------------------------------
> Rich made a motion that Calstar 2009 and onwards be
> administered by LCO, Inc. (aka Left Coast Observers) a
> legal entity portion of TAC. The SJAA will administer
> Calstar 2008. The motion was seconded by Robert.



> 
> After 2008 no aspects of Calstar administration would
> involve the SJAA. All legal liability for Calstar
> would be assumed by LCO, Inc. after 2008.

This part about liability was at Gary's request.  

Please note: IMHO, if TAC/LCO and the SJAA wanted to have the SJAA 
take on the legal liability for CalStar I would not have a problem with it as 
long as TAC/LCO handled the administration of the star party.  They would
report to the SJAA board regarding CalStar just the way they did in the beginning
with the SJAA and the first CalStar.


> 
> The motion was approved by majority. There was one
> opposition.