Rose & Chad love at roseandchad.net
Mon Jun 23 11:09:51 PDT 2008

I think the point is to make members personally liable and keep SCA, Inc. from being liable, as opposed to making changes to make people safer and/or more legally protected. Imagine if each of those outbreaks had cost the SCA $10,000.00. That would be $60,000.00 in funds, or possibly a significant increase in our insurance costs or loss of insurance, *if* we're insured for that sort of thing. That does seem like a significant risk to run.
  But I believe that SCA, Inc. might be liable even if it wasn't an 'official' activity, because they would have approval from an official and they would have a space on the official budget. So we'd be making changes for no reason...
  Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the status quo or upgrading our services to include being within the law, as opposed to being aware that we may be violating regulations and codes and simply trying to finagle ways to *stay* in violation of regional regulations and codes.

  :) Much love to the people who have to think of and decide these things.
  R the O
Briana Delaney <briana.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
  One case for each SIX years? Not even once a year... There are outbreaks of
things all the time even in commercial venues. Tell me, is this really a
bad amount?

Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list