It's a very good question. It's definitely a policy choice for a statute of this kind to make--whether the exculpation or immunity of directors should go as far as we're suggesting. Lots of people disagree on it, and there are two views.
The opposite view to this is that if you take the position of a director, then you should take on the responsibility, which means that if the outcomes aren't good, you should take on those outcomes.
The answer on the other side has to be that on balance we're dealing with a very diverse sector. We're dealing with religions organized in various different fashions, with member-oriented golf courses, with advocacy associations. If we look across the sector, there's a huge variety of purposes that are pursued under this statute. We're asking in general whether the liability regime should be immunity-oriented or simply indemnification and insurance. That's the policy question.
And that's the reality; I think your choice is between the two views.
On balance, six or seven of us who worked on this argued this question back and forth. That sentiment was expressed, and this view prevailed in the end, based on our experience with clients. In general, the client group we're dealing with wants a regime that is simpler to use, and is concerned about attracting directors to give volunteer time.