Re: [War Of 1812] who bells the cat?
- Well put Mark.
That is the position that we have taken at Stoney Creek as well. It
seems that if we are to aproach an individual or unit based on unsafe
actions, we best have it documented. If it happens repeatedly, we
then have a compelling case for remedial action. If not, acting on
heresay and 2nd hand verbage just doesn't cut it. Furthermore, if we
had chosen not to do anything about it, we could then be proven as
negligent. Not a bad check in balance, but our first step is to have
the help of the reenactors themselves.
--- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Dickerson" <mdickerson1@...>
> Speaking as somebody who has helped organize two different re-
> (Longwoods and the Thames) for the past several years, I have hadto deal
> directly with these issues. Each incident was dealt with as thehost site
> organizer and not as a member of the re-enactment circles, whichcan be hard
> to do sometimes.situation
> In the past, I had people complain that a unit/person/
> was unsafe and needed to be corrected. In certain situations I hadto take
> 'word of mouth' to rectify an immediate problem. But over the past4 years
> I have asked the offended group/ person to give me a WRITTEN reportof the
> problem. That way, there is no miscommunication, ormisinterpretation of
> the events. It is on record for future reference and can be sentto other
> sites, the Crown Forces groups, US groups. It can also be used toset down
> safety regulations. The offending person/ group can then beconsulted and
> allowed to explain their side of the situation. To condemn somebodythe
> otherwise infringes on their innocence.
> I refuse to take "word of mouth" as evidence of wrong-doing, unless
> situation requires an immediate response. As a re-enactmentcoordinator,
> I refuse to let oral complaints determine who is not allowed on thewritten
> battlefield. "no report= no foul"
> Over those years, I have only ever received 1
> report. I sent the information onto the appropriate parties andhopefully,
> when proposed safety regulations are put forth, the situation willbe
> addressed.enforce their
> I believe the SITE has first responsibility to
> own rules. They are likely the first ones to be on the liabilityline. If
> they won't enforce the rules or deal with it, then we must do itourselves,
> and do it properly and openly, without any gossip and slander. Soat this
> point, if somebody comes up to me and says , "We aren't going onthe field
> because XXXXXX is here." Then my response is likely to be "Wellhave fun in
> camp unless you have documentation to give me"
> Any thoughts or comments?
> Mark Dickerson
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]