[MR] Waterbearing going forward.
Lord Mungoe
mungoe1 at msn.com
Mon Jun 30 11:36:16 PDT 2008
Been reading this, think we are missing point. BOD cannot regulate this activity, how can it enforce standards across state lines, and for that matter, international lines? It will have to be done at the Kingdom level for the states and countries involved. Has happened before.
Take smoking for a example. Regulations concerning smoking are left to the individual kingdoms not the society as a whole. This is due to the international span we have, in a lot of countries smoking is OK wherever you are. IN some it is not so it is left up to that Kingdom to deal with it. That is what I see happening eventuly with this issue. As for serving food, that comes under a whole different set of rules applied to non profit organisations, then the one for "profet" professional food service companies. (Ever wonder how a church can have unregulated bake sales and pancake dinners? that is what we fall under.)
All and all, the new rules the BOD is putting out is a paper TIger. If there is ever a lawsuit or suits involving the passing of bad water it will name the person handing out the water, the barony, the event, Kingdom, Society, and the State issueing the permit for the event as a mass regardless of the BOD's policy. THis allows for a bigger payout for the lawyer and person suiing, and a more likely hood of settling out of court. Same thing for resturants, hospitals, and automobile makers.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Keck<mailto:kellylynne at gmail.com>
Cc: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org<mailto:atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MR] Waterbearing going forward.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Terri Morgan <online2much at cox.net<mailto: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
========================================================================
The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/<http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/>
Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org<mailto:Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia<http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia>
More information about the Atlantia
mailing list