My wife finally got a reply from the council's Program Director:
Thank you for your e-mail. I was out at Camp Xxxxxx when you sent the e-mail and did not have a chance to reply back to you timely as there is no service there.
We have investigated the incident, and we cannot determine the cause of the window being broken in the parking lot. I have spoken to both the Camp Director from camp and the Range Officer whom worked at camp at length, whom each indicate that they were present that day and that they could not determine how it occurred or what had caused the window to be damaged. I also spoke to you onsite at camp on June 13, when I visited there and I could not determine the possible source. You indicated you were having your window replaced under your insurance.
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx who was the RSO for camp, is currently heading out of town to his Troops Summer Camp and said he will contact me when he returns. He stated to me earlier today when we spoke via phone that he was the person in charge of the Ranges at all times during camp, and that at no time did any incident(s) occur where any unsafe activity took place that could have caused damage to a vehicle as a result of the range operation. I can forward a copy of the report once received.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I think it really short-sighted to play the "you can't prove it was our fault" game. Were I in their shoes, I would hope that I would see it's so much easier to pay the $300 and keep the good will of someone who volunteers as much as I do. Our last Troop sold over $4000 worth of popcorn, and that was entirely my doing; they would not have partaken had I not convinced them and organized everything, and I've already volunteered to be Popcorn Kernel and Membership Chair for my district, within months of my move within this council from one district to another.
The comment about "replaced under your insurance" bothers me too. They're weasel words designed to weaken our position, as if insurance makes up for our harm. We paid for it out of pocket, because driving around for days or weeks with a missing window is obviously not an option - it rains a lot here. I'm sure going to Geico about this would be a waste of time, with deductibles and the ensuing rate hike.
This is a picture of the damage:
For what it's worth, the "hole" area of the glass didn't fall in at the time of the initial damage, it collapsed later, when my unobservant children closed the door after retrieving something from the car.
Initially, I had some doubt about the ability of a BB to damage a car window, and wondered where the range was. But when I went on site and saw where the range was located - it was diagonally adjacent to the parking lot, with "down range" running parallel to the parking lot - all my doubt was removed. I think it fair to say 90% odds the initial shattering was from a BB gun. Tempered glass like this is much more likely to break from pinpoint pressure, than from a blunt hit from something like a hammer or a fist.
Also, I've talked to the RSO, and "at no time did any incident(s) occur where any unsafe activity took place that could have caused damage to a vehicle" is over-stating his position. He told me he saw nothing unusual or suspicious or indicative; but I'm sure he wouldn't go out on that logical limb and say unequivocally that certainly nothing happened; that would be like proving a negative. It bothers me the program director used such absolute language.
So... if you were me, would you give up at this point, or should l pressure council harder to make this right?
Edited by ddubois, 07 July 2017 - 04:42 PM.