Subject:
|
Re: How to handel minors in "LUG's" was (Re: NELUG Turns 50!!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:22:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2111 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us, James Brown writes:
> It's not all that tricky, actually. Not with the 12+ range of minors,
> anyway. I've got limited experience with younger groups, but the legalities
> are generally similar.
Actually, I don't think it's that difficult, per se, it's just that it's more
work than it's worth. I'd rather not go through making permission slips for
parents to fill out, etc., just to have a silly old meeting... to date the
meetings have been pretty informal, and I'd like to keep them that way-- the
events on the other hand are where we can have some real potential for being an
organized group... and I don't mind as much dealing with legal issues for
things like that...
> > > Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental • injuries,
> > > etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I DON'T
> > > want NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're
> > > dealing with minors.
>
> AFAIK, you only really have two options:
> 1:Don't be a 'real' organization. If you don't exist on paper, you can't be
> liable. Note, however, that even if the group isn't liable, the people are
> still valid targets for the sue-happy.
> 2:If you are a real organization, you need liability insurance, which is
> expensive.
Well, yeah, that's kinda what I meant... if a minor gets injured, SOMEONE'S
liable, albeit the group, the person's property (if it's something like falling
down stairs), another person who was present (like fights breaking out between
kids), etc... And that's really what I want to avoid... I like Lego, not legal
issues... I just want it to be fun...
> > I would agree that for our current standard NELUG meetings I would not want
> > children running around. I think that these meetings should remain Adult
> > only.
>
> I'd say keep the meetings open, but children must be accompanied by an adult.
> That's the easiest way of keeping a lid on the rambunctious. Parents who care
> will keep their kids under control, and parents who don't care won't go with,
> meaning the kids can't be there either.
Hmm... That would work for things like events, definitly... regular meetings
would be different-- not insofar as legal issues (that'd make it easier, in
fact) but in terms of the nature of the meetings... Parents would probably be
bored stiff, and so would the kids-- unless they had free reign to go and play,
which hasn't really been the nature of the meetings to date... But that's kinda
what I'd have in mind for an event: minors (or whatever is appropriate) must be
accompanied by an adult.
> I would say that the best way to handle this age group would be to treat them
> just like members, except that in addition to whatever form they need to fill
> out, you also get parental permission for them to be a member.
Yeah, that'd probably work, I suppose-- parental permission once instead of
repeated per event...
> > So do we have some sort of "permission slip" that clears us of any
> > responsibility?
Yeah, I think that something like that would be in order-- something to the
effect of waiving the right to sue the parties hosting the events, other group
members, etc., insofar as the action being sued upon was a direct result of the
activity at hand (I.E. we can't say you can't sue a NELUG member for actions
during the event, or else I can go around meetings punching children, and it'd
be legal-- the legal mumbo jumbo would be in order)
> > Does that mean that we would have to refrain from having alcohol at events
> > (we havn't been drinking much at meetings but hypothetically we might want
> > to).
>
> Probably not. If the meetings are in a private residence, then minors or no
> minors is irrelevant. If the meetings are in a public place, then alcohol
> needs a liquor licence - check your local laws.
Yeah, having alcohol isn't illegal, but serving it would be, and maybe allowing
them access to it... As for having a liquor licence, I think that's only for
selling alcohol? I mean there's plenty of alcohol in public places (parks,
etc.) that I'm assuming is legal... it's when you distribute it to random
people that it you need a licence... and assuming we "know" our members, I
think that it'd be legal to have it without a licence, just that we'd be
responsible for making sure it didn't go to JrFOLs...
> Any group which holds its own public events pretty much has to have a legal
> identity and liability insurance. Otherwise, you will find that 98% of venues
> are closed to you, and the other 2% are questionable at best.
Well, as you said before, since we don't legally exist, no problem! :) It's
more like an organized meeting of friends...
Anyway, some more thoughts for y'all...
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
