Get All Those Instructors You Can - Or Maybe Not

I’m just a bystander in media-land drooling to have the exclusive interview with a suddenly publicity shy city department.

So, Novato Parks and Recreation Department, dahlings, bubbaluhs, why don’t you consider talking to me? I’m very open-minded. I won’t even put our interview in a paper with those escort, B & D Clubs and pot-club ads. I won’t pester you with the questions that some want to ask you after that Feasting at the Public Trough story came out.

Not that I’d hound the Novato Parks and Recreation Department, and their no qualifications or background check required of their “instructors,” but if I did, here’s a list of due diligence questions I’d promise not to pose to them.

Do you believe the Novato Parks and Recreation Department has a duty of care to the public?
Do you believe that verifying “instructor” qualifications and doing “instructor” background checks meets an reasonable amount of care standard in dealing with others?

Do you have an Age of Majority requirement for your “instructors” or students? Ya know, the age at which an individual is considered legally capable of conducting themself responsibly.
Are your “instructors” in an agency relationship with you since you pay them as independent contractors?

Have you done any sort of background check that any of your “instructors” are really aggressors who just might acquire another in a take-over attempt such as a pedophile or other type sexual predator would do?

What are your “instructor’s” qualifications? Or are you just using a logic analogy as a trade-off by assuming that if the instructor tells you they are qualified that they are? That implies a course of dealing that is based on a false understanding, and that you are trading off the safety of the public attending those courses for your desired result of “courses” to fill up your schedule.

Are you using anticipatory repudiation as to why you have not done “instructor” background checks or verified qualifications?

Why are you relying on your “instructor’s” apparent authority to teach their proposal class instead of verifying it’s real?

Aren’t your “instructors” practicing appropriation, the act of making the Novato Parks and Recreation Department their own, or exercising or making use of the Novato Parks and Recreation Department to subserve the “instructor’s” own interest?

What do you think of the assumption of risk doctrine if one of your “instructor’s” questionable activities has been repeatedly brought to your attention and you still keep on the instructor?

Doesn’t the laches’ doctrine and negligence per se kick in at some point?



What do you think of the doctrine of attractive nuisance if one of your “instructor’s” is using the venue the Novato Parks and Recreation Department to lure children by something enticing therein?

What do you think of beyond a reasonable doubt when assessing your “instructors?” What would make you hesitate before acting in a matter important to you such as filling out your schedule offering versus the safety of a child or vulnerable woman?

Have you utilized categorical imperative as an ethical standard in the hiring of your instructors?

What do you think of consequential damages to students as they are reasonably foreseeable when “instructor” qualifications and backgrounds checks are not done?

What do you think of the likelihood of “instructor” duress on their students?

Does the Novato Parks and Recreation Department undertake any activity up to the point at which the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost?

So there you have it. How does that sound? If you’re interested, drop me a line.

This one has been bouncing around in my head ever since I read Feasting at the Public Trough @ http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2763 by Mistress Doctor in BrooWaha. In that story, the complaint was put forth as a syllogism that a public entity, as the major premise is unfairly subsidizing “instructors.” Then as a minor premise, that “instructors” are not first checked for their qualifications. Therefore the conclusion that “instructors” have a high potential to be dangerous to the public. That got me wondering.