My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
GRAND JURY RESPONSE
ConejoRPD
>
Public Access
>
Archive
>
Board Meetings
>
Agendas
>
2019
>
062019
>
GRAND JURY RESPONSE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2019 1:51:20 PM
Creation date
6/14/2019 1:50:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board
Document Type
Agenda
Date
6/19/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
[PROPOSED 6120119] Response to Grand Jury Report Form — Attachment 1 <br />Report Title: Youth Sports and Public Liability <br />Report Date: April 17, 2019 <br />Response By: Conejo Recreation and Park District <br />CONCLUSIONS: <br />C-01. The Grand Jury concluded that most cities and Districts in the County allow non- <br />affiliated sports leagues to use their facilities to practice or play. However, they do not <br />require proof of compliance with California law regarding protection against concussion - <br />related injuries from these leagues. They also do not require proof that procedures for <br />preventing and reporting child physical or sexual abuse are in place. <br />We agree with conclusion C-1 that the Conejo Recreation and Park District (CRPD) does <br />not require proof of compliance with California law (from either affiliated or non-affiliated <br />sports leagues) with respect to California law related to concussion -related injuries from <br />participation in such leagues. Nor does CRPD require proof that such affiliated or non- <br />affiliated sports leagues have adopted procedures for preventing and reporting child <br />physical or sexual abuse <br />C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that cities and Districts do not require proof of adequate <br />parental waivers and insurance coverage from non-affiliated sports leagues to protect <br />against legal action that could jeopardize public monetary resources. <br />We agree with conclusion C-02 that the CRPD does not require proof of parental waivers <br />from non-affiliated sports leagues. We disagree with the portion of the conclusion that <br />suggests CRPD does not require proof of insurance coverage. CRPD not only requires <br />proof of insurance coverage when someone obtains a facility use permit, but also obtains <br />a certificate of insurance with an additional insured endorsement naming CRPD (including <br />CRPD's directors, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds) for affiliated <br />sports leagues, non-affiliated sports leagues, as well as businesses, homeowners <br />association, clubs, organizations, churches and individuals who rent District facilities. <br />C-03. The Grand Jury concluded that cities and Districts are underinsured with respect to <br />the type of coverage and coverage amounts to sufficiently protect them from litigation <br />arising from the conduct of youth sports on city or district property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.