Beavah

If your FD is staffed by volunteers and gets it funding through taxes under state law and the voters vote for the bonds to build stuff and elect fire commissioners I think you are a government entity. Yah, yeh know, it's really hard to generalize this stuff across states, eh? Da public can issue bonds to benefit private entities in many states. Bonds for stadiums, bonds for private or religious colleges even. If the entity has the power to tax, however, then in da U.S. that means they are controlled by a persons elected by the general public, and are a public body. So the taxing authority is public, but the recipients of tax revenue are often private. vol, the free exercise clause applies to individuals and means that individuals have the right to hold any religious belief that they wish to hold. Where are yeh gettin' that interpretation Lisabob? It's certainly novel. Generally speakin', we consider the Bill of Rights to apply to persons both natural and corporate. Thus the right to be secure in persons and property applies to both individuals and corporations, eh? And the court just came down pretty hard in wipin' out McCain-Feingold stating that corporate right to free speech is equivalent to individual right to free speech. Same has always been applied to the free exercise clause, recognizing the rights of both individuals and corporations (churches). Beavah

Yah, two-deep isn't meant to be an "every second of every day two adults have to be hovering" thing, eh? Two deep means that you brought two adults on the outing, so if one gets sick or hurt or whatnot yeh aren't leavin' the kids leaderless. The adults on an outin' are allowed to go to the bathroom or go to their car and such without needin' to bring in a third person . I assume this is your re-enacting crew, and so you're talkin' about fellow adult re-enactors from da CO. Yah, no problem if they're volunteering to supervise on a short-term basis. Insurance is in force as excess coverage. But I reckon that in a lot of cases a person who is reluctant to supervise kids shouldn't be put in a position where they have to, eh? That reluctance probably means somethin' about their comfort level and competence at the task. If your folks are really worried about it, yeh can ask the council office for a certificate of insurance or a rider listing the other adults in the CO as named additional insured on the policy for events. This is a routine thing and done all the time when landowners and such want coverage or documentation to allow a unit to use their facilities. Beavah

Yah, there yeh go again, insertin' inflammatory and inaccurate words like "religious discrimination" "illegal" "fraud" "lying" "dishonest" and all da rest. When the rational argument doesn't get what yeh want, shout louder and up the emotional content. Yeh should have stayed in Scouting, mate. Yeh would have learned to be more tolerant. Beavah

I'm to assume then that members of the CO that are not parents are not covered at all during an activity under any circumstances if they happen to be at the same activities? Yah, I'm not quite sure what you're askin' here, eh? "Under any circumstances" is one of those broad things where the answer is always "no." If a person just happens to be at the same activities then I'm not sure what yeh think their exposure is? They likely have no duty of care. In general terms, the BSA liability policy covers any adult volunteer or youth who is a named defendant in a (negligence) tort action arising from a scouting activity. Those folks who do have a duty of care to the boys or the landowners and are therefore potentially liable if they breach that duty and cause harm. Beavah

Beavah, if BSA charters to government entities are legal, why did the BSA fold up and agree to stop issue them? It was a strategic case management decision, eh? You and your partners can spend millions in litigation filed in a dozen unfriendly jurisdictions, or do a paperwork fix that disposes of the litigation threat while not affecting your operations in the least. Yeh encourage your partners to do the paperwork fix; it's cheaper and gets the same result. You're calling undeserved entitlement "liberty" and whining when it's taken away. Yah, you related to Glen Beck? That's quite some spin. "Undeserved" is interestin', given the BSA's service record to communities. And generally speakin', government agencies especially in urban areas give grants to everybody from Catholic charity hospitals to private and parochial schools to YMCAs and Boys' and Girls' clubs... all for serving a segment of the population which is smaller than that served by the BSA. "Entitlement" is just humorous, eh? Another falsehood. Or do yeh not understand what an entitlement program really is? Even Glen Beck would get that one right. Yeh really need to start your own "angry people yelling" pundit show on YouTube, eh? I expect you'd get a small but equally rabid audience of dittoheads, and yeh could feel all righteous about it. It's so easy to become like da people yeh hate, isn't it? That's what overly self-righteous agendas does to folks. Shame, really. Had folks taken a less polarizin' approach yeh would have had a chance of changin' the BSA policy by now. Beavah

And, even if a government charter partner doesn't "give a hoot" if they are breaking the law, other people do, and can force government entities to follow the law. Yah, they can try, eh? They can bring a case, and make an argument, and we have a system to decide such things. Until then, the public body is empowered to represent its local constituents, and should do so faithfully. And even in the face of standing precedent (which isn't the case here), the public body can still choose to charter a unit in order to exercise its right on behalf of the community it represents to challenge the precedent. That's not the same thing as breakin' a law. You're just being dishonest (dare I say "lying" ) when you make such claims about illegality, fraud, and all da rest. It's funny that you criticize evmori for not bein' able to learn. We often see in others the faults that are most present in ourselves, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm... Seems like da parents in your troop aren't understandin' the system right, jblake47. For transportation, there is no difference between registered and unregistered adults on a trip. In all cases, da BSA general liability coverage is excess and comes into play only when the auto owner's insurance is exhausted. That's why the BSA wants auto owners to have some minimum coverage in place, eh? If the minimum coverage is in place, then da BSA doesn't have to pay that amount, which reduces the BSA's exposure. But whatever the case, beyond your auto deductible, the BSA is goin' to be there to back you up, registered or not. Even if your auto insurance is expired. Even if you have not filed a tour permit. Even if you were speeding and ran the red light. For supervision responsibilities on the outings, they're right. Only registered leaders are covered on a primary basis by the BSA liability coverage, eh? This makes sense, since it's goin' to be the registered leaders (SM, etc.) who are the ones that are goin' to be named in a suit and likely to be found to have a duty of care, since they were holdin' themselves out to the kids and the parents as being responsible leaders. Parents participatin' on a trip are just parents in the eyes of the court, eh? They're responsible for their own kid, but they don't have a (legal) duty to supervise other people's kids. So they're less at risk, unless they go off da reservation and start countermanding the SM and such, in which case they probably should have some responsibility. Now that's an oversimplification and there are certainly times (parent volunteers to be lifeguard) where it's not the case, but it's da rough outlines. So if you're really using parents to lead/supervise kids, then yah, for sure, they should be registered and background checked and trained, and they should be competent to lead/supervise the activity. But if you're usin' parents as transportation and adult campers, then it ain't much of an issue. Either way, the parents are covered by the BSA's general liability policy as excess coverage. So they're still protected, eh? Just means that their homeowner's insurance (if any) is goin' to come into play first, and the BSA and its insurers will take over after that. So aside from the liability deductible on their homeowner's, they aren't goin' to take a personal hit. Even if they have no other coverage. Even if yeh did not file a tour permit. Even if they did somethin' really dumb in violation of G2SS. Go talk to your council business manager or Field Director and ask 'em to come out and do a presentation to your parents. The BSA coverage is really a great thing, and it's there precisely to put leaders and parents at ease so you don't run into this. That's why those training nitwits who make stuff up about "the insurance won't cover you!" do such a disservice to the BSA. BSA goes well out of its way to take care of its volunteers, registered and not, so that they have no fear of givin' their time to the boys. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, they do have a capacity problem in da NE Region in some areas. But I really, really dislike when they do this welfare-for-executives malarkey. A council camp IMHO should run at a deficit, with a net subsidy from the council. That's why we solicit FOS monies, eh? To provide camping program to kids. No other reason, unless our FOS solicitation is really fraudulent. So it just isn't kosher to then expect camps to run at a net surplus. The bit about "The Council operates with a unit-serving executive to total available youth population ratio of more than 16,000 youth per executive" is even more transparent, eh? That's saying that they're going to harass a council which has made a decision that running a camp for the kids is more important than paying another executive. If that isn't backward priorities I don't know what is. NE does need to reduce its capacity, but this sorta move is the worst way to go about it. They'd best hope nobody in the media gets a hold of the "close the camp to pay another executive" bit. This stuff is why good folks are sometimes ashamed to put on uniforms with yellow tabs. Beavah

Yah, yeh have to also be realistic, too. A helmet won't do a thing to prevent a spinal fracture. Might even make it worse. So if the lad in fact suffered a spinal fracture, yeh can reassure the other group leaders that there's not much they could have done by way of protective equipment. Which comes back around to da other 15 points of the Sweet 16, eh? What are yeh doin' for proper supervision, especially in terrain parks and jumps and whatnot? Are your adults really qualified to supervise that? What are yeh doin' to check proper equipment selection and maintenance of snowboards and skis and such? Proper sizing? Do you and the lads know the safety procedures for the sport? Skier/Rider Responsibility Code? Safety for skiin' trees? Safety procedures for ridin' the rails? Skill level limits. How are you assessin' the lads ability and readiness to ride different slopes, to try different stunts? How are yeh limiting them if they're not ready? Buddies and First Aid. Do all your boys know what to do on a slope if someone is injured? Do yeh really teach first aid for head and neck injuries in your troop well enough that every lad is proficient in first response? If we're worried about helmets but not doin' all of da other parts of the G2SS Sweet 16, then we're just foolin' ourselves. And then those other youth groups who don't use helmets but do a lot of this other stuff have a right to pull us aside and have one of them conversations . Best to always mind the planks in our own eyes before we worry about da mote in our neighbor's. Beavah

And NO, offering illegal contracts isn't protected by the first amendment. Yah, yeh see. There you go again. If yeh shout "No" louder, and then throw in comparisons to fraud, conspiracy, rape, torture, or some other ghastly thing then your argument must be better, right? The BSA charter agreement is not illegal nor is it fraudulent. The BSA offering it to others is a free speech right. If yeh knew a thing about Constitutional Law and first amendment protections, you'd know that, eh? It's just so much more righteous to try to take liberties away from those you disagree with, ain't it? And so very hard not to become the enemy of what yeh pretend to believe. Beavah

The obvious problem with an attendance percentage requirement is that it does not make a boy active. Of course not. Yeh can't "make" a boy do anything . Lads are active if they like da scoutin' program and have good relationships with their leaders. What an attendance expectation does is set a standard for achieving an award. Nuthin' unusual about that. We use goals and awards to teach lads how to be good citizens, eh? And da first rule of being a good citizen is that yeh have to show up. An attendance expectation also sets a standard for how you are loyal to your community. Yeh don't just show up for the fun stuff, yeh show up for the work, too. Lots of lads are just kids being kids, eh? They might not show up for a meeting or service project because it's work, not because it's boring. Now, when we're talkin' about some of da "required" seatwork badges, those we have to make required because they really are boring. What I have found to be true in many cases is that many problems in Scouting arise because others decide to ignore the written policies and procedures and choose to make up their own. Yah, Abel, gotta agree with you. Da BSA Rules and Regulations that we all agreed to abide by have the official definition of active: "An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age." Problem is just that the program office has gotten lazy and decided to ignore the written Rules and Regulations of the BSA and made up their own goofy thing that no volunteer with any knowledge of kids would ever think made sense. If they'd just follow the Rules and Regulations yeh wouldn't get all this confusion and poor scoutin'. So now da poor unit and council volunteers have to figure out whether to follow the Rules and Regulations which they agreed to do in their membership application, or whether they should follow da program guidebook which is ignoring the Rules and doin' it's own thing. I expect most of 'em just keep on doin' what's right for the lads in their care, and most communities, parents, and BSA folks are grateful for it. Of course they do have to put up with fellows who never bothered to read the Rules and Regulations yell at 'em for being "wrong." But no good deed goes unpunished. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Oak Tree loses out on quite a few old guy geek points there, eh? I just imagine FScouter as a straight-laced fellow from a well-developed imperial planet walkin' into that Mos Eisley cantina filled with scouters... Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Troop24, it's just da Merlyn show. It's a vortex that eats all threads it comes in contact with. Merlyn, sometimes I feel like I'm overseas watchin' you as an American talkin' to some poor foreign worker who doesn't speak English. Just shouting what you said the last time louder doesn't make your argument any more effective. Yeh haven't demonstrated that the charters are "illegal". And even if it were an unconstitutional entanglement for the public entity to engage in a BSA charter, you are absolutely incorrect to claim that makes it "illegal" for a contractor like the BSA to offer it. Not the way the law works, eh? The BSA's charter is a perfectly licit one for the BSA, and it has a free speech right to offer its charter to any and everyone. If yeh believe in free speech rights, that is. Beavah

Since almost every state has some kind of intermediate nighttime restriction and about 40 (of 50) states have sort of passenger restriction, I'd say that qualifies as "many". Come, come. If yeh change the question, yeh change da answer. The statement was that "in many states, if he is 16 or 17 he can't drive any passengers". That statement isn't true. If yeh change it to "in many states, a youth who is still operatin' under an intermediate license may have some sort of restrictions" then that is true. They're just not da same thing. Statistically, nighttime vision declines with age after age 30. Watch for statistically based laws limiting your right to drive at night comin' down the pike someday. Statistically, certain racial and ethnic groups have worse driving records. Anybody ready to propose they should all be put on probationary licenses because of their race? These are just bad laws. We tolerate 'em only because of our prejudice against the young. Beavah

As to LDS, I agree with those who state that I've never had anything but the nicest interactions with folks. They're good friends and good supporters of Scouting. Now, I think they could improve da way they administer and use the scoutin' program in the wards. We've discussed before how their accident rate is high and all that. But it doesn't change that they're good folks and good friends. And as a corporation in the business of providin' services, we of course are mindful of the needs of one of our biggest customers. That's just common sense, eh? That's another case of Merlyn's lobby bein' penny-wise and pound-foolish in their approach, eh? If instead of threatenin' litigation and gettin' the public school sponsors dropped they had encouraged more public schools to sponsor units and taught 'em how to vote, they could have changed da BSA's policies by now. But it's da liberal way to try to force things on people through the courts, rather than trust to the intelligence and kindness of your fellow citizens. Makes for da worst sort of public policy when it gets anywhere at all. Beavah

Yah, I see another thread has degenerated into the same old Merlyn show. The BSA is a service provider, eh? If a government entity chooses to contract with it for services, the burden of complying with its legal obligations is on the government entity, not the contract services provider. So to make any claim about da BSA based on who contracts with it for services is being dishonest. A government entity contracting with the BSA can be being perfectly honest. Government entities are run by elected officials selected by the local populace. If da local populace strongly support Scouting, then that's what the government entity should do if it wants to be honest to the instructions of its constituents, the citizen voters. In fact, doin' anything else is dishonest. Now, Merlyn proposes a legal theory that a town or other local government entity sponsoring a BSA unit is a violation of the U.S. Constitution on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds. That is a legal theory only. To my knowledge, that theory has not yet been accepted by any court capable of setting precedent (i.e. an appellate-level court). So all we have is speculation that such a legal theory may prevail if contested. So absent a precedent that is binding, there's nuthin' wrong with what the town is doing, and nothing wrong with the BSA accepting the application of the town. Even in the face of the precedent, it is the right of the people of the town through their government to contest the precedent if they so choose. That's not dishonest either. It's democracy. I reckon the only person being dishonest in this whole thing is Merlyn. Beavah

Yah, I bet you'd find more congressmen willing to sponsor National Be Kind to Beavers Day. This is non-news. Beavah

Yah, it's very difficult to make any general claims about how organizations are set up and how the law for this sort of thing applies across da several states. That having been said, from what I'm familiar with, generally VFDs are set up as private NFP corporations. They have quasi-governmental status in that da state laws accord them some privileges (ability to run lights & sirens, extensions of sovereign immunity, etc.), and they might receive grant or contract payments from municipalities for services. But they would not be a governmental entity for da purposes we're talkin' about here. The closest equivalent people may be familiar with is private ambulance companies, which are very common even in urban areas. PTO would be a kind of strange analogy, though . Gern's test of "but for" government funding it would not exist ain't valid. That would make all government contracting firms from Lockheed-Martin on down U.S. government entities. Yah, and probably Haiti as well at this point . Beavah Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

in many states Yah, can't say fer sure what's happenin' on the coasts, but I think what yeh probably mean here is "in a few states", not "many states". I also get a bit annoyed by biased research of da sort Lisabob reports. Chance of an accident increases with number of people in the car, period. Doesn't matter what the age of the driver is. Put more adults in the car and distractions go up. Put young kids in the car with an adult driver and distractions go WAY up. IIRC, a parent drivin' around one or two young ones is more dangerous than a teen who is text messaging. Older folks also have statistically higher accident rates, eh? So when yeh find yourself being in favor of nanny state restrictions on young drivers based on statistics, remember that those same statistical arguments can end up applying to taking freedoms away from you. Such approaches make for bad law. Beavah

That's it. If I see ANY of you letting you or ANY of your youth on ski's or snowboards without headgear for ANY activity (scouting or otherwise), I'm stopping them in their tracks and telling them to go make snowmen until they get headgear. If they point you out as their adult leader, we will be having a "conversation." Yah, I'm not much of a snowboarder, eh? So I can't really speak to the issue. Seems like helmets are prudent. But I can say I've seen a lot of poorly behaved adults who give in to this impulse to treat other boys and other adult leaders discourteously. While it can be tempting, I reckon that after yeh take a breath you'll decide that the Scout Law offers a better approach. Havin' a strange adult give "orders" to a boy he doesn't know is just a bit odd, eh? I think a parent would be rightly upset by that. Even might involve some discussion with fellows in blue. And yellin' at the youth leader of another youth group is just goin' to get whatever you say dismissed as the rantings of a loon. When yeh approach things calmly and courteously, odds are yeh have a bigger effect. I reckon as long as the industry norm is that helmets aren't required in snow sports, we're goin' to be dealin' with this in various ways, and it's best to deal with it respectfully and gently. Happily, as long as it isn't an industry norm it's also not much of a liability issue, eh? We need to be cautious when we choose to front-run this stuff without a careful look at things. Sometimes policies can do more harm than good, like if a lot of scouters start thinkin' it's OK to use helmets from other sports or borrow (ill-fitting) helmets from other people in order to comply. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there shouldn't be a problem re-registerin' an 11-year-old webelos, eh? So you're good for the year. The followin' year will be the time to have the conversations about whether it's best to jump or to keep workin' cubs on a special needs basis. Beavah

Yah, JerseyScout, if the troop is OK with accepting the lad, and the lad is eligible to join (which he is at age 11), then if you're presented with an application I think you just go with it. Most of the time, it's a very bad idea to have a 4th grader jump into a Boy Scout troop, eh? Bad for the boy, bad for the troop, usually da result of a pushy parent who doesn't understand the program well enough. This sounds like it falls under "the exception that proves the rule." Beavah

Nah, not draggin' him down. Just tryin' to provide highway markin's for the new folks who are tryin' to navigate. That other thread a bunch of newer forum members got all in a huff about the tone of the conversation and the different things people were sayin' about the same topic, and I came back with the bit about how yeh have to get where other people are comin' from. FScouter in his bits and piece on the forum generally assumes that other scouters are a wretched hive of scum and villainy who are out to break the rules and be unsafe and violate da BSA program. Just like CalicoPenn will always come down hard on the side of the kid in any dispute, assumin' the scouter is the bad guy, eh? Product of their background and personal experience, just like my furry personality in da forums is a product of my background. FScouter's perspective is an OK one, eh? In Scoutin' as in anything we do have a few confused folks and a few bad eggs. It's worth rememberin' that there's a chance of havin' a bad egg out there. Bein' reminded occasionally is healthy. Like any perspective, yeh have to then balance it with other views and information. Maybe not every unit that writes some rules or bylaws is out to be dastardly, eh? Yah, Eamonn, don't get hung up on da word, eh? Substitute any word you like; "practice" "program" "guidance" "policy" "rules" "books" "worksheets". Meaning stays the same. Need to get PMing workin' again 'cause this stuff detracts from the thread a bit, eh? Beavah

Yah, this is goin' to be another one of those funky things, eh? In this case, G2SS is tryin' to limit the insurance exposure of da BSA. Young inexperienced drivers are a big risk ... but then so are tired older drivers on long trips. So the best read for what G2SS is sayin' is no young inexperienced drivers as regular drivers on trips where the unit is providing transportation or otherwise driving together. In other words, in conditions where it may be reasonably inferred that the unit is responsible for transportation. When the unit is just holdin' a meeting and it's up to the parent(s) of the boys to get them to the meeting, so the responsibility is theirs and not the units, then yeh don't worry about it. If a parent wants to let their 16 year old drive the carpool, and parents of other boys are OK with them riding with a 16 year old driver, it's OK. If a camp staffer is drivin' himself to camp, OK. The exception is an odd one, eh? They tightened it up too much in da last rewrite, IMHO, limiting it to National events. Just bein' silly. How many Area events are there, really? The old wordin' made more sense, or maybe limitin' it to events for which a National Tour Permit is filed. I'd still tend to read it as a "if you're on a long trip and yeh have a capable youth driver with a good record and it's OK with da parents of everyone in the car, it's OK to trade off drivin' duties to be safer and more alert." And of course, if you need to do it because the adult driver went and broke his leg, then dat's OK too. Beavah

Yah, emb021 is quite right about there bein' a distinction between bylaws, policies, regulations or standing rules, and guidelines in the bigger, broader world of corporate law. There's some value in understandin' those distinctions, and the reason for 'em. Dues should be easy to change; what constitutes a quorum when you're talkin' about spending 2/3 of the troop's cash on a new trailer should not be. I don't think for most troops, though, there's quite the need to go with da full corporate model, eh? Besides, dat's not a great fit for a lot of COs. It's enough to write 'em down on a few pages or in a troop handbook and get 'em jumbled up a bit, as long as there's an understanding (or better yet, a written procedure) that it should be hard to change the governance process. Now we know that FScouter always looks at things assumin' the worst of fellow scouters, but by and large havin' bylaws and policies for a unit is a fairly ordinary thing. And yah, sure units may put things into bylaws or such that differ from BSA practice. But I reckon they can also differ from BSA practice without writin' anything down just as easily. The difference is that in writing it down and approving it, more people are involved, more time is taken, more opinions and thoughts are considered. That makes it less likely that they'll go runnin' off the reservation, not more. And, if yeh have a few bylaws in place, then down the road when da CC thinks he's king or the SM wants to pay $10K for his cousin Vinny's leaky boat, folks have somethin' to turn to. Beavah