Hippopotamus @ MindSay

Please see the Replies to this post just to emphasize that the singing (or not) of the Hippo Song is not in itself that important to me.

But the whole way it came to me (by two different) routes in the form of Rumour reminded me of the Kafkaesque way in which I was squeezed out.

A dictionary def'n of "Kafkaesque". Or something that makes you think "PLEASE tell me what's going on here. Tell me what it is you REALLY want me to do or say. The topic keeps shifting. I thought you said you loved me and had no interest in seeing me leave. I've done what you told me. Now I'm expecting you to do what you said what going to happen. What are these hidden extra hoops?"

In addition to the reconciliation process never happening, though I'd agreed to it, replaced by dismissal, when the latter happened, I was told they were going to have a subsequent meeting with me (to explain?), which also did not happen.

Now, both my lawyer and my personal Christian counsellor told me that *AFTER* the decision had been made, there was no point to such a mtg. The decision had been made by the camp to cease the relationship; there was no reason to carry it on with a meeting after death, so to speak. They never did have this meeting and I speculate that their lawyer also advised them against it -- though it would have been nice if they'd decided not to BEFOREHAND, rather than giving me the impression that all would become clear later (though too late to do anything about it).

Even today I know very little of what their criticisms were. I asked to see my file and all that it contained were two standard health forms, no evaluations, reprimands or such. So in that mtg they asked ME to supply THEM with the criticisms -- what had I done "to risk damaging the camp"? I was without legal counsel at that point, but even then, I sensed this wasn't right, but I did fumble around a bit anyway about how over the years I (like everyone) have had fallings-out with staff members, but had always (as far as I knew) reconciled with them.
I concluded (and recorded in my notes) "Not more than average." I stand by that answer.

See, here's the deal with this silly Hippo song thing:

Let's imagine it was I who refused to sing that song. It's not inconceivable that at some time in 25 summers I did do something like that. Even in the course of just doing one's job and making decisions one RISKS damaging camp by making campers (and staff) unhappy. If you don't want to *risk* damaging a camp ministry, don't run one -- or at least don't hire humans to work there.

But at times it's not just the decisions we make, but HOW we communicate them (grumpily, swearing at campers -- though I've never done that, refusing to explain and so on). Even then, there can be extenuating circumstances in the hurly-burly of camp which reduce the seriousness of less-than-ideal responses. (Not that we shouldn't try to do better.)

If (for example) I did swear at a camper (which I didn't; it's just a useful example), I would hope I could offer my side of the story. It would not always be necessary to fire someone for that, but I would expect to have a recorded reprimand.

But as it is, most of our decisions as staff (and our manner of expressing them) are upheld by the silence of our authorities. Most of what we do is considered "okay" -- not bad, not great either. Average. That's fine. Anything supposely serious needs to be addressed (and in a professional manner recorded). It's unprofessional (and I'd say unChristian) to bring up the condoned stuff later.

So let's imagine I refused to lead the Hippo song, and let's say a staff member was unhappy and felt offended, and thought I did so grumpily, and I thought I was matter-of-fact about it, not grumpy, simply doing my job as I understood it.

Let's say we even talked together about it and s/he said that s/he understood my decision and my understanding is that it was all over and dealt with, mutual apologies had been made where necessary. Meanwhile, the authorities made no comment.

Then let's imagine that this action (condoned-by-silence) was later resurrected anyway, behind my back and used to oust me.

That would indeed be Kafkaesque.

I know it sounds crazy to you (especially the reliance on 2nd hand sources), but that's how it looks from here.

Please bear in mind

1) that the singing of the Hippo Song is not in itself that important to me and
2) I suspect that Paul is correct in his reply to the previous post, that some campers (and at least one vol. staff person who passed on this idea to me a couple of years ago) got the idea that this one-time refusal to sing it had become a rule -- but were mistaken.

I can believe it, because I recall campers thinking (misled by younger staff) that there was a dress code for campers before there ever was one. (I had severe misgivings about the introduction of one, but that's another story.) It is part of our developing from immaturity to maturity to move from rules to situations.

Now the camper did tell me "we wanted to sing it and then [the staff member] was all like, no we cant sing that song anymore. and we all were like, what? what is this?" So (unless this camper is just plain lying to me) she (mis)remembers it as a rule and one given without explanation. The staff member was not you, Josh, btw.

Okay, fine. Maybe it was one of those less-than-ideal times when an adult loses patience and says (about either a rule or a one-time refusal) "...because I say so!! Okay!!?" I'm pretty sure all adults fall into this behaviour from time to time. Or maybe it wasn't even that -- but if it was -- that's certainly not a firing offence.

And it would be -- I think we would agree -- unfair to think of such a staff member as either Fascist in his rule-making or impatient in his response, based on a second-hand account from a camper (staff member, parent etc.) -- without at least first discussing it with that staff member and giving him a chance to explain.

Negative stories (this one is tame) do reach me and, of course, my experience (bias) inclines me to believe them BUT of course it would be unfair to give them credence based only on the one side. (And of course to be fair I encounter many positive stories too.)

But imagine I were a Board member with power to act on 2nd hand info. The necessity of presenting the stories to the staff member for correction would be that much clearer due to my power to do good or harm, based on what I come to believe.

In my own case, I was told that I was going to be given a chance to discuss the criticisms (and air my own valid concerns in turn). When I asked for my file, it was empty of any evaluations (positive or negative), just a couple of health forms. So I believed I would be given access during the mandated Process to the criticisms not found therein. As I've been picking up clues since that time, I surmise that something similar to what I've described above in this hypothetical situation is what happened and I was deprived of this knowledge.

This camper emailed me about something else a while ago and referred to "Dorion songs". I was curious and asked what they were these days:

=======
hmmm... well there like, Awesome God, and well...i think theyre pretty much the same. cept for some reason we're not allowed to sing The Hippo Song anymore. im not quite sure why though. That was one of my favs. ...
=======

Maybe it's the scientific inaccuracy of the alleged joviality of said hippo. Yes, that must be it.

Oh well, this too (every song we know and love [or hate]) shall pass...

...because allegedly "there is no time in Eternity" and every song we know or can conceive of requires time to function...

unless we are wrong about Eternity.
===================================================================
PS When some people ban others from reading their blogs the message I see is that such a person "has not made any blog entries yet."  When I'm NOT logged in, I can see that that statement is a falsehood. I prefer those who tell me that I "do not have permission to view this entry." It's seems a bit harsh, but at least it's accurate.