Bob Schmall wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Glenna Rose wrote:

lid writes:

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
government
lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
liability.

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.

Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
the
concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it
*truly* means, and *can* mean.

While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as
irate as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government
form.

I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
its corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
rights seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the
form is "typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police
state.

Take that form, and ask yourself how you would have reworded it as a printed
generic form to address your concerns. If you can come up with better
wording that will pass their lawyers, they may thank you for it. It sounds
like a typical generic form to me. Perhaps you haven't done much work for
the government.


Bob Schmall

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)