No liability

Ms. Palamountain did allow those in attendance be heard and to ask questions. Catherine Neeley said the issue came up because one of the staff was writing an announcement for the pool and realized that the directive said ‘children’ and asked for clarification since there was no age mentioned.
It appears from the editorial changes that the board started with 12 and changed it to 16. Please see the following for clarification, or check the website to track the changes, which are in color. In any event, the proposal is now aimed at 16 year olds with the exception of
One woman asked about the liability question and, in fact, how many cases were there with respect to liability. Both Ms. Palamountain and Ms Neeley discussed reports of foul language, (a day time issue) and vandalism, which occurred at night, after beaches and recreation venues are closed. None of these are liability issues.
The idea to restrict recreational facilities in the way the board proposes seems counterproductive. We should be encouraging our children to avail themselves of the facilities, not throwing obstacles in their path. This would be difficult to enforce or involve selective enforcement, which is even worse and opens up other issues. If kids are “loitering” or misbehaving, call the police and move them off. Don’t punish the good kids because of the behavior of a few. Whether you agree, or disagree, make your voices heard at the board meeting, May 23, or through the
There are multiple sides to every issue and we look at issues through the prism of our own experience. I understand the board is concerned about liability, but at the same time I think we need to consider where and what the targeted group will be doing when you limit access to local recreational facilities, many of which are why families moved here in the first place.

Related Posts

dewi88 cuanslot dragon77 cuan138 enterslots rajacuan megahoki88 ajaib88 warung168 fit188 pusatwin pusatwin slot tambang88 mahkota88 slot99 emas138