[MR] Waterbearing going forward.

[Kelly Keck]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Terri Morgan <online2much at cox.net> wrote:

>
> I'm assuming that you missed the part in the original letter (it was long)
> about how impossible it will be to reconcile all the rules of each county,
> state, and city regulatory board, and how there is no way to have strict
> sanitary guidelines without running afoul of some of them.
>
> Taking us back to how things were a few years ago is the only option the
> SCA
> has in light of that.
>
>
> Hrothny
> --
> BOD: We have to start regulating activity YYYY for litigation reasons.
> Populace: OH NO! They're ruining The Dream!
> BOD: We have to stop regulating activity YYYY for litigation reasons.
> Populace: OH NO! They're ruining The Dream!


I did see that part in the original letter.  I also noted that in the
original letter, it was mentioned that we aren't breaking any rules in the
areas where it was asked about, only that we "could be liable if anything
happened." Which, unfortunately, is *always*  the case, regardless of which
activities are official and which are unofficial, or how tightly regulated
the official ones are.

The issue I have with the proposed change is not that it's deregulating
waterbearing.  It's that the SCA is essentially saying, "We see this as a
severe risk of a lawsuit and have to step away from it to avoid liability,
but we'd like everyone who currently waterbears to continue volunteering
(and take all the liability on yourselves, with no protection from the
SCA)."

The point was previously made that by taking away any official structure,
waterbearing becomes, if anything, a greater health risk.  But that's all
right, as long as the SCA doesn't get sued?  I understand that a large part
of the BOD's job is to protect the corporation from legal liability, but
that shouldn't be their sole and overriding concern.

In Service,
Adriana Michaels