So let’s say we’re dealing with kids over 8, and you need a 1:10 ratio. So if you have 500 kids you need 50 counselors. Of those 50 counselors, 10 can be below 17 and 40 need to be 17 or over. Now suppose you have the required 40 counselors 17 or over, but instead of 10 counselors below 17 you want to hire 20 such counselors, for a total of 60 counselors. If you want to read this hyperliterally, you can’t do it. Because it says “a maximum of 20 percent of the total required counselors may be 17 years of age”; the “total required counselors” is 50 and you can therefore have a maximum of 10 counselors under 17. But this seems like both an absurd result and also a non-compelling reading of the statute - presumably “total required counselors” is intended to mean “total counselors used to meet the required number”, and is not intended to limit the number of counselors below 17 if you have enough over-17 staff.
The reason I ask this is because a relative of mine is running a camp in NY, and is in the staff situation described above, and is being told by the DOH that she needs to lay off some of her below-17 staff in order to stay below the maximum. This seems idiotic to me (and to a lawyer relative of ours).
[By way of context, this same DOH is also telling my relative that the medical doctor on staff does not have the required CPR certification. This medical doctor has a higher-level certification and teaches the course for the required certification. But they say that his own certification does not meet the qualifications and some 16 year old kid who took his course does. So it sounds like we’re dealing with an overly literal and bureaucratic office. Still, they are the authority in place, and it’s difficult to fight them.]
I could see how a maximum of 20% of the total number of counselors might be useful and enforced: if 50% of the total number of counselors were underage, then you could run into situations where attendees were only around underage counselors unless you were very careful to have them always shadow the older folks. But I could also see an argument that the rule means that there only needs to be at least 40 older counselors and any number of young counselors.
On the other hand, if the camp had, say, 100 counselors and 20 of them were underage – 20%, then if in that situation the state had claimed that only 10 underage counselors were allowed because that’s 20% of 50, then I’d say that would be a pretty ridiculous reading of the rule.
The situation you describe on the other hand, I can see both sides of.
Maybe call the applicable state rep and local news station? Perhaps there’s a good explanation for the wording, or perhaps it needs some tweaking that could get through the state legislature without any rancor.
What you’re saying has some logic to it if you were considering making a regulation from scratch, but I can’t think of a reading of the words which would allow that interpretation. You’re essentially striking the word “required” from the sentence, and saying it’s simply a rule that no more than 20% of the counselors can be under 17. But the sentence does say “required”, which doesn’t jibe with your interpretation.
I write these types of regulations for a living, although not in NY. The paragraph is an example of why it is important to be hyper-specific about intent. From what you are saying, they meant a minimum ratio and at no time should 17 year old counselors make up more than 20% of the total amount.
I would fix this by putting “minimum” before the word ratio each time it appears. I would then make the clause about counselor age a separate sentence and reword it to state the no more than 20% of all counselors, regardless of the ratio of counselors to children, can be 17 years of age.
I am sure the intent here is to keep the number of younger counselors a small portion of the total number of overall counselors, which is what the asked about camp is trying to circumvent. As to the CPR and doctor thing, yeah the regulator needs to get their head out of their rear.
I am guessing the relative is dealing with an inspector from the relevant state agency? Ask to speak to their supervisor and if that does not work a call to both the Director of the agency and your state legislator will get action.
My daughter has been that 17 year old camp employee. Camps, the the camp regulators, really do consider that age a gray, transitioning area between camper and staff. Because of that I suspect part of the reasoning is that while the 17 year olds are staff, they themselves are among the supervised and thus they would have inadequate supervision from the 18+ staff if their percentage were too high. Then they turn 18 and magically become responsible adults able to themselves supervise 17 year olds.
One odd rule at the camp she works at is 17 year olds can drive themselves to camp but must turn in their car keys when they get there only to be returned when their term of employment is over. Once they turn 18 they get their keys back and can use their cars on their nights off. 17 is just a weird age.
I’m not saying I agree with this, but reasoning along these lines was likely involved in developing the rules.
I don’t see what’s difficult to interpret about the language. Based on how many kids there are, figure out how many counselors are required. Figure 20% of that required number, and that’s the maximum number of 17-year-olds you can have on staff.
The total size of your staff is irrelevant to this question.