SCN: Put up or shut up.

[Kenneth Crandall]

Hi all,

Legal terms can be tricky.  It is nice to know Rich's interpretation of
intentional misconduct, recklessness, and gross negligence but I have
decided it would be useful to go to the Internet and get the definitions
from a legal dictionary.  I have included them just below Rich's
interpretation in response to Steve's note.  I hope this will add an
outsiders perspective since the legal dictionary is not involved in this
issue but Rich is.

						Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
Littleton
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
To: Steve
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.


Steve,
Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:

> > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
>
> At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained
> in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the
> Bylaws.
>
I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
The By Laws merely make a general policy.

> But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far
> more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures),

Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
"heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
major or a minor rule or process.

Note: the following definitions are from a legal dictionary available on the
web at http://dictionary.findlaw.com/
negligence
['ne-gli-jens] : failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person
of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a
foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation also :
conduct that reflects this failure (called also ordinary negligence, simple
negligence) (compare abuse § 2 due care intent) Note: Negligence may render
one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.  gross
negligence : negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an
unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even
the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes
associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights (see also
recklessness) (compare criminal negligence in this entry)


misconduct
[mis-'kän-dekt] : intentional or wanton wrongful but usu. not criminal
behavior: as a: deliberate or wanton violation of standards of conduct by a
government official b: wrongful behavior (as adultery) by a spouse that
leads to the dissolution of the marriage c: an attorney's violation of the
standards set for professional conduct also : an attorney's and esp. a
prosecutor's use of deceptive or reprehensible methods in presenting a case
to a jury d: impermissible behavior by a juror (as communicating about the
case with outsiders, witnesses, or others, reading or hearing news reports
about the case, or independently introducing evidence to other jurors) e: an
employee's deliberate or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or
disregard or violation of the employer's standards or rules that is
sufficient to justify a denial of unemployment compensation

recklessness
: the quality or state of being reckless also : reckless conduct (compare
negligence) Note: Recklessness may be the basis for civil and often criminal
liability. Unlike negligence it requires conscious disregard of risk to
others.

Further comments by Ken:  Even the words used to define these terms are
subject to further definition by legal precedent (such as "deliberate or
wanton violation of standards of conduct by a government official").  What
are the standards?  What applies to a non-governmental official?  A lawyer
needs to be able to cite the legal precedents that apply.  We non-lawyers
can only guess at what we would believe to be correct.  At the limit, a jury
must decide.

However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.

> generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would
> likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving
> indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws
> provision.

I concur.

Rich
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *