[Dick Carne]

All of the above are interesting comments. For the most part, the proposed changes appear to me to be primarily oriented toward an update and revision of semantics rather than general policy modifications. As an example, a few of the comments above have suggested that the exclusionary language contained in Article V of the Constitution/Bylaws is the result of an arbitrary decision on the part of the Board that is intended to restrict/exclude access to scheduled MARC events, but from my perspective, a closer reading suggests that these "restrictions" are mandated more by the group insurance policy than by any action on the part of the Board (I suspect that the liability section of the national insurance policy is limiting only to define those that would be covered in the event of injury/damage, etc. Similarly, I suspect that in order to remove such restrictions would result in much higher insurance premiums, and perhaps make membership more expensive ... for those on a fixed income, this might prove to be more exclusionary than the limitation on members vs. non-members. From a legal perspective, a loose analogy might be the difference in the standard of care owed to an invitee (guest) vs. a non-member ("trespasser" -- think in terms of vacant land/property). Consequently, I am confident that the sole reason for adding the language in the proposed revision of this section is instead mandated by the terms of the group insurance policy rather than any exclusionary intent on the part of the Board.

While I am not one for "political correctness", I suspect that the reference to a "domestic partner" in Article IV, Section 2(a)(1) may have been offered to address those instances where someone in a "spousal" role/relationship with a member, might be attending a designated MARC event. Under this proposed revision, and in my case, my fiance' (female/girl friend) would also be provided coverage under this provision rather than be excluded from coverage (see above) as a "non-member".

Notwithstanding, the many references throughout the proposed revised document, I personally do not see anything overly objectionable that is being proposed, but as I stated initially, the primary objective sought through these proposed revisions is targeted instead at cleaning up the semantics of this instrument, and of bringing certain sections into line with corresponding language found in the MARC general insurance policy.

With all of this said, if I were to make any general observation and subsequent recommendation, it would be that there be a more consistent reference to either "Directors" or "Board Members". From my reading of this document, it would appear that these terms are used somewhat interchangeably rather than a more consistent reference to those who might serve in the various positions on the Board.