Authorization for tools: Strings attached?


If I’m around and you want to leaf through the insurance binder, let me know and I will retrieve it for you.


Thanks, but I’m not that interested, and this thread has gone off into the weeds from where my original question was going: “Can a committee assess an authorization fee for their tools, irrespective of who gives the training or whether the tool was donated?”

While I don’t see any clear answer in the rules, the general consensus here seems to be “Yes”.


That answer is “yes” - why not? most tools / equipment need maintenance / consumables from time to time.


Somebody update the rules to explicitly state “yes you can”! :grinning:


Not sure how it gets so confusing. Committee chairs set the usage fees. This usage fee is a one time fee that is tracked with tracking the class. Why would it be viewed as different than any other chair setting a usage fee?


Put it on the agenda for an upcoming Member Meeting for a vote… :wink: :slight_smile:

(That is actually how the general rules get changed… Committees can make their own committeee/tool/material specific rules though…)


Added to agenda:


It doesn’t merit discussion in that form in the meeting in my opinion. There’s no concise objective. It’s just a bunch of questions which I feel like are better addressed here.


From my perspective here are some answers.

Do committee chairs set rules for training and fees?

If a committee asks for a fee for training on a tool, can somebody offer training for free?
It’s up to the committee chairperson.

… Does this give the trainees authorization to use the tool?
It’s up to the committee chairperson.

Does the new Maker Manager indicate who’s authorized to provide training?

Can somebody charge for a class normally offered for free?
It’s up to the committee chairperson and the classroom committee (since they approve or reject scheduled events).

Can somebody from another committee provide training?
It’s up to the committee chairperson.

… Are the fees from the original committee still requested?
It’s up to the committee chairperson.

… Which committee gets the money?
It’s up to the committee chairperson (assuming we’re not taking into account honorarium).

How early do they need to announce the class if charging a fee?
There are no restrictions on timing except for honorarium.

Does insurance allow non-SAE people teach automotive classes?
Insurance doesn’t discuss automotive classes at all as far as I know but we’ve been advised to not teach automotive classes in the past.



It is up to the committee chairperson for most of the questions…

Pretty straight forward there!

Thanks for that clarification.


I agree with you on everything else, but IMHO the answer to this is Yes. You can charge a fee for anything you want; giving a tour, for instance.


I think the confusion on that question is if the trained people are “certified” after the class. The answer is, only if the person teaching the class was authorized by the committee/chair to be a trainer.


I’ll concede that point.


I definitely think committees should decide how/what members can/can’t do with their tools and training. Are we sure there aren’t any safety or insurance/legal reasons compelling members to seek training from only qualified/approved people? Any space-wide issues there? It sounds like no, but who can say for sure?

As for charging a fee and who gets paid, I think that’s settled. Anyone can charge whatever they want for training of any form for any group - one they’re an active part of or otherwise.


Oh, and I removed from the meeting agenda. I’ve never attended one of those, so wasn’t sure what was appropriate. I figured somebody would correct me if I’m wrong and you did - thanks!


Oh, I agree w/ that…


Then I think there needs to be some more rigorous documentation which shows which tools need training/authorization, a list of authorized trainers, training fees, etc. Right now, it’s a crap-shoot and the Wiki page is woefully out of date.


Are you volunteering to update/create the documentation? :grin:


Nope, that responsibility should land squarely on the shoulders of those Committee heads that have the power to set the rules. :smiley:

Ignorance of the law is a defense if nobody writes it down anywhere. (Kudos to Brandon for the Lift placard regarding training/authorization)

I’m trying to help DMS think about balancing the needs of members for whom $50 is a large chunk of change versus the concerns of others that equipment will be used 'n abused by transient members. The more times the $50 authorization pops up, the less attractive this place starts to look.


There is no responsibility attached to being a committee head, or any other officer, at DMS. It is a purely voluntary position, and if the members don’t like their execution they are free to elect replacements.