About LLL Leader Applicants

[pinklady]

There has been a lot of talk about LLL Leader applicants lately.
Quoted from a letter from an LLL representative:

While you are a Leader Applicant, we suggest that you not identify yourself as one at Series Meetings, on the Internet or in any other public forum. Otherwise, mothers may unknowingly put you on the spot for information or clarification of LLL philosophy before you are ready. LLLI liability insurance provides no protection during the application time. Also, the application period is intended to give you all the time you need to determine whether LLL leadership is what you want to do. Should you decide to discontinue at any point, you will not have to tell more than a few people.

[Siana]

[my2girlsmama]

Originally Posted by pinklady

There has been a lot of talk about LLL Leader applicants lately.
Quoted from a letter from an LLL representative:

While you are a Leader Applicant, we suggest that you not identify yourself as one at Series Meetings, on the Internet or in any other public forum. Otherwise, mothers may unknowingly put you on the spot for information or clarification of LLL philosophy before you are ready. LLLI liability insurance provides no protection during the application time. Also, the application period is intended to give you all the time you need to determine whether LLL leadership is what you want to do. Should you decide to discontinue at any point, you will not have to tell more than a few people.

[pinky]

I think the main issue is that since you aren't covered by LLL's insurance, they don't want there to be any confusion about whether or not an applicant speaks for LLL (they do not) or are fully trained to give breastfeeding advice (they are not). LLL just wants to make sure there is a clear distinction between leaders and leader applicants, which may not be so clear, say, to mothers who are attending a meeting.

I mean, when I was a leader applicant, it wasn't top secret or anything! I just didn't introduce myself at meetings as anything other than a mom.

[Little Bear's Mama]

Originally Posted by my2girlsmama

What's wrong with that? I think it makes sense...the guidelines are obviously meant to protect the applicant and mothers.

[Peppamint]

Originally Posted by Little Bear's Mama

What's wrong with that? I think it makes sense...the guidelines are obviously meant to protect the applicant and mothers.

It was a first post though... I always think it's kinda odd when someone's first post is a thread like this and not an intro or anything.

[pinklady]

Originally Posted by busybusymomma

It was a first post though... I always think it's kinda odd when someone's first post is a thread like this and not an intro or anything.

If you were an LLL leader applicant posting about not identifying yourself online, wouldn't it make sense to not reveal your regular username?

[cmb123]

Originally Posted by my2girlsmama

Gee, nice to see such respect for the organization you supposedly want to represent.

[Peppamint]

Originally Posted by cmb123

Gee, nice to see such respect for the organization you supposedly want to represent.

IIRC, in April's case it was wanted- as in past tense.

and pinklady- I get what you're saying but it just seems weird to me that it's all so undercover.

[njeb]

Originally Posted by pinky

I think the main issue is that since you aren't covered by LLL's insurance, they don't want there to be any confusion about whether or not an applicant speaks for LLL (they do not) or are fully trained to give breastfeeding advice (they are not). LLL just wants to make sure there is a clear distinction between leaders and leader applicants, which may not be so clear, say, to mothers who are attending a meeting.

I mean, when I was a leader applicant, it wasn't top secret or anything! I just didn't introduce myself at meetings as anything other than a mom.

:
It also helps avoid embarrassment if, for some reason, the application falls through. Women have been turned down for leadership, but only the leaders need to know about it.
Also, women sometimes change their minds about becoming leaders. They will start the process, then lose interest.
Life events can interfere, too. For instance, we've had applicants who've had to return to work because their dh died, divorced them, or the dh was disabled in an accident and mom had to go to work to support the family.
There are many reasons why an applicant might not complete the process; these are just some of them.

[Patchfire]

If all of this is the case, and is LLLI's policy, why would the Leaders of my local group have put two applicants in charge of last month's meeting? Without any accredited leaders there? I was thinking I had missed something, like maybe it was part of their training, but now I'm definitely thinking not.

[njeb]

Originally Posted by Patchfire

If all of this is the case, and is LLLI's policy, why would the Leaders of my local group have put two applicants in charge of last month's meeting? Without any accredited leaders there? I was thinking I had missed something, like maybe it was part of their training, but now I'm definitely thinking not.

That is weird. Perhaps there was an emergency at the last minute, and this was the best they could do under the circumstances?
In any case, that definitely sounds like a violation of LLL rules. Those leaders should have cancelled the meeting. Now, mothers can get together and chat, but they cannot call it a LLL meeting if no leader was present.

[marisa724]

Originally Posted by Patchfire

If all of this is the case, and is LLLI's policy, why would the Leaders of my local group have put two applicants in charge of last month's meeting? Without any accredited leaders there? I was thinking I had missed something, like maybe it was part of their training, but now I'm definitely thinking not.

Although this happened once recently at one of our meetings, none of the 'regular' mamas was any the wiser. There are three Leaders in our group and they were all either overbooked with their families, or out of town. However, none of the 'regular' mamas was any the wiser, since the LA was instructed that this would be called a "mothers' meeting" and no official topic would be discussed -- just some straight-up mother to mother support. So basically the LA opened the room (in a church), set up the library, and made the announcement, then the meeting just sort of went until people wanted to go home.

I don't believe that leading a meeting officially is something that's supposed to happen before accreditation. (I'm not looking at a handbook right now though so I could be wrong.)

[Viola]

Originally Posted by Patchfire

If all of this is the case, and is LLLI's policy, why would the Leaders of my local group have put two applicants in charge of last month's meeting? Without any accredited leaders there? I

Good question. Sounds like they were violating policy. You should ask them why they did that.

This shouldn't happen, at least to my understanding, unless it was like a meeting marisa just described where it was not an official meeting.

[Patchfire]

Originally Posted by njeb

That is weird. Perhaps there was an emergency at the last minute, and this was the best they could do under the circumstances?
In any case, that definitely sounds like a violation of LLL rules. Those leaders should have cancelled the meeting. Now, mothers can get together and chat, but they cannot call it a LLL meeting if no leader was present.

Basically, the two LAs said 'This is not technically an official LLL meeting, but the topic for the month is...' and there were a lot of new & pregnant mamas there who seemed quieter than most often are. Maybe it was just that group!

The thing is, there are so so many LLL groups in the metropolitan area, I find it really hard to believe they couldn't have found someone to cover the group as easily as they arranged everything with the two LAs. They had the library, and a sign-in sheet, and while there was lip service to the idea that it was not official, it didn't really seem clear... IMO.

[Viola]

Oh, OK. I went to a meeting like that once. But the woman did not mention she was a leader applicant (I found out later) and she explained that the leader had an emergency and couldn't make it so they couldn't have a real meeting, but we could all sit around and talked if we want. There was no sign in sheet or anything like that.

[my2girlsmama]

Originally Posted by cmb123

Gee, nice to see such respect for the organization you supposedly want to represent.

I respect the org as a *whole*.

I have zero respect for the local groups (save for one) and their leaders. And if you were treated as I was, you'd likely feel the same.

I just find it ironic they need leaders, yet when you work your tail off to become one and follow the rules and pay and all that, they ket things slip, slide and then forget about you altogether? I too don't agree with the hush hush stuff, nor the patronizing attitudes many local leaders I know carry with them, as if they are the only ones who know how to help Bf moms.


I knnow locally I am not alone in this. Most I have tried to send to local LLL groups had similar experinces and refuse to go now, and turn to IBCLCs or the like.

It's a shame LLL as a whole doesn't enforce the local groups more. It's a mess here that is all I know.

[my2girlsmama]

Originally Posted by Patchfire

If all of this is the case, and is LLLI's policy, why would the Leaders of my local group have put two applicants in charge of last month's meeting? Without any accredited leaders there? I was thinking I had missed something, like maybe it was part of their training, but now I'm definitely thinking not.

I can totally see that happening. Here we have one group, or lack there of, where the leader cancels meetings, doesn't run them frequently and forgets about them altogether. Another one near me refused to take me on as applicant for the reason that, they have 5 leaders and 2-3 applicants and "like it that way". I spoke to LLL and they are not supposed to have that many...but no one enforces it.

Lots of discrepencies. I wish the greater part of the org itself enforced more.

[its_me_mona]

Before you can become an accredited LLL Leader you have to lead a meeting as a Leader Applicant. But the LA leading the meeting isn't alone in her efforts - an accredited Leader is right there by her side should something come up that she may not be prepared to address. If an accredited Leader is not there with the LA during the meeting then that is a no-no.

One main reason why LLL doesn't want LA's to identify themselves is because they don't want mother's to go to the LA for information/support before they ensure that she's met all of the guidelines for Leadership. A LA is not yet an accredited representative of LLL and I can understand why they wouldn't want someone who is not yet officially associated with LLL representing the organization, kwim?

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by its_me_mona

Before you can become an accredited LLL Leader you have to lead a meeting as a Leader Applicant. But the LA leading the meeting isn't alone in her efforts - an accredited Leader is right there by her side should something come up that she may not be prepared to address. If an accredited Leader is not there with the LA during the meeting then that is a no-no.

I know someone who became accredited at the end of October and she has yet to lead a meeting. Is it possible that this is something the Leader in one group decided she'd do in her own group with her own LA's?

Originally Posted by its_me_mona

One main reason why LLL doesn't want LA's to identify themselves is because they don't want mother's to go to the LA for information/support before they ensure that she's met all of the guidelines for Leadership. A LA is not yet an accredited representative of LLL and I can understand why they wouldn't want someone who is not yet officially associated with LLL representing the organization, kwim?

How could you lead a meeting as an LA and have all there not know that you are an applicant. This doesn't make sense to me. :

I completely understand LLL not wanting LA's to indetify themselves. If for no other reason than the liability issue. People are so quick to sue today and for an organization that does so much good, I'd hate to see them sued because of what an LA did/said/etc.

As for all the other stuff that's been said about the Leaders, LLL is made up of all kinds of people and just like any other organization; there are people in it who are human and don't always do things as we'd like them to.

When a Leader does something that is inappropriate, it needs to be reported. Otherwise, if it's a personality issue, it needs to be straightened out with the Leader, that's all, IMO.

Sus