Beavah

but for now, the only scouting thing I'm going to be doing is preparing my speech for my ECOH Any good Venturing Crews in your area?

Yah, what's that? A Scouter goin' out of his way to lecture people about guidelines and rules? Nah, never happen . I'm glad you got an opportunity to meet some leaders of the right sort at Jambo. I hope you remember their example as you work with younger scouts. It's a challenge to strike that balance between respect and friendship, push and pull. At the same time, be kind to your adult leaders. Novices and others with less experience often rely on rules and formulas, or on what they already know (like the Marines), in order to get by. Not all adults have the same level of skill or experience, but hopefully they keep learning and growing. Yah, and we mustn't forget that a Kind man shouldn't pick on people for their weaknesses . Sometimes, I find that when things are gettin' absurdly "serious", laughter is the best medicine. Perhaps at the next uniform inspection, you all should be armed with Silly String?

Yah, I don't know your area, eh? But Missouri is not known for its whitewater, 'cept for a short bit of the St. Francis. Self-test questions: Do yeh know what a river gauge is? Can you identify the major hazard(s) on the river you're thinkin' about, and how to avoid them? If not, I'd encourage you to take a couple of adults and older boys to do an ACA canoe course. You'll learn a lot. Otherwise, find somebody who can answer such questions to help you out the first time. Summer camps have a really bad habit of signing off on the swim test for anybody who "drowns in a forward direction" the appropriate distance. Yeh have to re-do swim checks each year anyways. I'd take the time to do 'em right before your trip. Second step I think you've got - take a day or a half day at the camp lake, and learn stuff in a controlled environment. Swamping a canoe, emptying a canoe (learn which kids aren't strong enough to empty a canoe...). Forward strokes, sweeps, J-stroke or at least a good stern pry/rudder. A bit of solo paddling to be ready for when your buddy exits the boat. Some fun games of toxic tag, etc. Use that day also to set your expectations on the proper conduct of water fights, and limits to horseplay. Don't neglect the adults! They tend to flip easier than the kids, eh? Before yeh go on the river, be sure you've got a means to keep together. It's really easy for fast guys to get too far ahead, and slow guys too far behind. Proper clothing - May can be cool, wet, and windy as easily as sunny, and your small lads will chill faster than you'd think. Snacks and lots of water. On a good weather day, at normal river levels, I imagine a Missouri river trip would be no problem at all for your whole troop. Just a bit of planning and prep, and you'll have a blast. Beavah

"The unit committee should review repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior in consultation with the parents of the child to determine a course of corrective action including possible revocation of the youth's membership in the unit" You would be happy to allow the unit committee to determine the action that should be taken. I feel sure the Committee would contact you and ask you questions to help them determine that course. Yah, I just really dislike these one-size-fits-all solutions, eh? I remember a couple of lads caught smokin' weed (and passin' it out to others) at a district event. The way that played out, the SM met with the parents and the boys withdrew from Scouting. I don't think there's an obligation to take that to the Committee, so that all the other parents in the unit can get in an uproar. Sometimes kindness demands a lighter touch. I recall a bully in a troop, where I and the SM met with the parents and the boy left. There were so many truly furious parents on the committee that a committee meeting would have resulted in fisticuffs. Sometimes prudence demands a different course. Not every committee has the skills or experience to really determine what actions are best to help the boy. They certainly don't have the depth of knowledge about the boy that the unit leaders do. And even if they did, to be successful they still have to work through the SM. The boy in this case was apparently repeatedly hitting other boys, starting fights as a "first choice." He's First Class, so he's not goin' to be the smallest kid. On at least one outing, all of the other parents complained. Yah, we have an obligation to protect the environment for all the rest of the kids, eh? (bunch of policy on that too, eh? ). If the Committee was going to be involved in this, it should have been in there after that first set of incidents. They weren't. They let it go on, and let the boy go on additional outings with no conditions or instructions to the SM. So the SM was on his own, tryin' to do his best. There's plenty of "blame" to go around in any situation, if that's important to you. There's lots of ways to use "policy" to feel self-righteous and justified. I personally don't think either is in keepin' with our Oath and Law. The situation is at where it's at, and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Yeh just have to respond as best you can, with kindness, understanding, and support. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Perhaps going through the skills outlined in the MB and then creating some kind of test of knowledge. I don't know how successful it will be to demonstrate the skills on land, but I don't anticipate we'll have access to water before the trip. Yah, I don't think it's at all adequate to have a land-based course on "canoe theory", eh? The reason for the G2SS passage is that you need to get the boys individually to the point where they're going to be OK on the water. Water's a funny thing, it's not always possible for you to "get there" in time to save a boy from a bad experience. It might help us if you told us a bit about the trip you were thinking of. Then we could give yeh some feedback on what kind of handling skills (and more general group skills) are needed. If you can't do some kind of pre-trip practice on water, then consider whether on the first day of your "real" trip you need to set aside the morning, in a carefully controlled environment, to learn and practice. It'll make your trip shorter, true. But it'll also make it better, and safer.

Scoutmasters do not discipline Scouts. Yah, that's funny, eh? This SM, accordin' to the CC and other parents, made the right call with respect to the boy's behavior. That he did it with the family in private rather than through a big public process like a Committee Expulsion Hearing is a judgment call. Rough guess, this SM needs some quiet support to come up with a bigger repertoire for dealin' with kid behaviors, a lot more than he needs a CC (who never had to deal with this kid personally) to give him a lecture about policy and bylaws inspired by some internet critters, even those of the cute flat-tailed variety. Da question for Philmont0406 isn't about what the SM should have done, eh? The question is what he as CC should do now. What the SM did is water over the bridge. Maybe if the SM had posted a month ago, we could have given him some better suggestions. My advice to the CC is still "Don't be a bully." Don't quote policy or bylaws like some tinpot wannabe lawyer to establish your Authority. Don't turn this into Committee v. Scoutmaster. Rather, be understanding and compassionate of a SM tryin' to do his best under tough circumstances and gettin' only a "C" on his first try. Now go out, without makin' a fuss in front of other parents on the committee, to find some ways to support the SM's learning and development - pay for training, find a good "old hand" he can share a beer with to discuss issues he's dealing with, nudge the district to get you a real UC. If he's net-savvy, tell him about Scouter.Com and Scouter-T and Scouts-L and even Kudu's weird site. You know, support the SM and help him to provide a better program. That thing that all those funny Boy Scout Books say is the Committee's primary role and reason for being. Beavah

Yeh don't say where you're goin', AntelopeDude. Most common place to find a "pack your poop" regulation is whitewater river corridors. When yeh get 30-100,000 people goin' down one stretch of river during a season of 3-4 months, that's a pretty big bucket of manure to be dumpin' on the small spits of land along the shores. Second most common I think is on big wall climbs in popular places. Packin' your poop sure beats droppin' a brown "rock" on someone below, or leavin' it on the the only tiny bivouac ledge on the way up. Canoe or sea kayak trips where the campgrounds are small islands but they get a lot of use are also places yeh see it. Just way too much poo for the local environment. It'd get pretty gross, and then people wouldn't camp there and would start mowin' down pristine areas nearby to camp. Human poop is a fairly attractive foodstuff to critters; lots of fat in it. Ever seen a dog eat poop? Just like that. In places where there aren't a lot of soil microbes to break things down quickly, or where other foods are scarce, the local critters dig up human dung. That makes a real mess. Another reason is that most diseases don't jump species. We humans aren't likely to get sick from critter poop, especially wild critters. But human poop brings all kinds of human germs. And for some reason, humans, even scouts, have this habit of takin' dumps in or near water. Curse of the modern toilet. Sometimes land management agencies write rules for the least common denominator, not the well-educated LNTer. We Americans get all afraid of poo, but packin' it out really isn't a big deal. Da bag fits right in the end of SR540's sleepin' bag stuff sack .

Yah, I think yeh can get scouts back fairly easily. Good program, recruitment by a friend, welcoming, approachable adults. Seen it happen lots in active programs. Especially kids who drop out of cubs because it's so boring, but return to boy scouting. But as prairie mentions, if you've lost the parents because of a past incident or issue, it's not worth the effort. Adults hold grudges and bad memories lots longer than kids do.

Yah, I love J-KC's response. If yeh aren't sure what skills are necessary for the kind of trip you're contemplatin', find someone who does to help you out, eh? I'd recommend American Canoe Association courses over da Red Cross stuff; they've got a much stricter instructor qualification program.

My feeling is that the program is up to the unit and the role of the District /Council is to support the unit. Yah, then the evaluation of the district/council should be on the quality of support they provide units, eh?

Yah, OK Philmont0406. Thanks for the added information. From what you say, there is general consensus that the behavior of the boy was bad enough, over repeated incidents, to warrant removal. Assuming that to be the case, I wouldn't get too hung up on your bylaws, eh? The SM did what was appropriate, the parent reacted properly, you and the committee support the action. End of story. You might even say that your bylaws need a revision. If the SM really thinks it's necessary to remove a kid for health/safety/behavior reasons, is the committee really goin' to second-guess that? Good way to be lookin' for a new SM. Most committees consist of parents of other boys, who may know the scout in question and his parents. That can be pretty awkward, socially. Havin' da scoutmaster make the call makes it easier on folks, eh? I'd encourage you to make it so the SM can take the action on his/her own, but the boy or parent can appeal to the committee. Often, the process and delay of appealing can help calm parents down and adjust to accepting the decision, even though the appeal may not change the outcome. If da committee is the one doin' the expelling, then the appeal goes to the council or the CO, which can be awkward. I'd encourage yeh not to make a big deal out of an outcome that you think was correct. Support the SM in a hard decision.

Oops. I'd add one more thing to cogitate on while snow falls outside your window. It's interestin' to me that the punishment your SM chose was related to rank. Sometime in the next year, take a thoughtful look at whether your troop's program and culture is too advancement-focused. Seems like a better punishment would have been missin' out on the evening campfire game or an apology and puttin' in some extra service time,or temporary suspension as Troop Bugler or somethin' that's left to his Patrol Leader. If rank is the first thought, and it's such a big deal that it causes a boy to quit, maybe yeh need to put some more emphasis on the other seven methods. That'd be a good thing for a CC to try to support, too. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, the rank issue here isn't really the point, is it? Sounds like your question is really "I think the SM may have reacted poorly in responding to poor scout behavior. What is my role as CC in this?" I think your role is to keep your ear to the ground, while being quietly supportive of the SM. Dealing with a boy whose behavior is troublesome all weekend can put a good man on his last nerve. While threatening a punishment like rank reduction isn't the best way to respond, it's a common enough thing from a tired adult. The SM needs your support and understanding. Kids shouldn't misbehave all weekend. Misbehaving kids detract from the program for all the other boys, and often compromise safety. The Committee should generally back up the SM if he decides on a consequence, even if it's a bit odd. You only get to manage that end of the operation if you resign as CC and agree to be SM . But then, you also need to have a couple of things playin' in the back of your head. The first is "How can I help the SM do a better job?" Building relationships with young rascals is a bit of an art. So is constructive discipline. Training may help. The gentle hands-on coaching of a wise old adult or UC may be better. Just some ideas about "other options" might be the ticket. You know the personalities. Support the SM's weaknesses with other resources while exploiting his strengths. The second thing playin' deep in the back of your head should be "Is this the right guy for the SM job?" I've seen a lot of leaders who try the punishment thing in frustration. Sometimes they grow out of it with help. Other times they just don't have the personality for working with a bunch of middle school boys. Simple behavioral issues ordinarily shouldn't cause a kid to leave, though it does happen. If you're gettin a lot of other dissatisfaction from youth and parents, and what you see going on really doesn't match the "tone" your CO expects, you might begin to dust off the succession plan. But's that quite a ways down the fairway, eh? Whatever yeh do, don't make this a bylaws-and-policy adult power struggle. We're all friends and volunteers, doin' what we can for kids. A chat over a cup of coffee is better than a policy almost all da time. Beavah

OGE's is a good answer for yeh, Antelope. Parents should always be welcome as observers, at least if they meet the experience/fitness/behavior requirements for the trip. I think yeh have to ask yourself, "Is this parent really acting as an Assistant Scoutmaster?". That is, on the trip, does the parent have real duties counseling/supervising youth other than their own boy? Do they have some responsibility/duty of care to the other boys? A parent observer really doesn't. A parent who is entrusted with a supervision task does. If yer entrusting a parent with a supervision task or an ASM-type role, then I'd suggest you have them register, at least as an MC. This hopefully ensures that your CO will do reference checks and the BSA will do a criminal history check, so you've done your due diligence. This makes the roles clear for everyone. And hopefully in your unit, it gets 'em lined up for training. Registering also means the BSA's insurance becomes primary, rather than excess coverage. If they're not registered, and badness happens because of their failure, their personal insurance must defend them/pay first. Only when it's exhausted does the BSA insurance kick in. If they're registered, the BSA takes care of 'em right from the start. That keeps the person's personal liability/homeowners insurance off the board, which may save 'em a few bucks and some peace of mind. In the grand scheme of things, da insurance issue for being registered is a smaller thing. I think the screening and training of those you're holding up to youth as a "trusted adult" is the more important issue. A small bit of fear of that kind of monster is a healthy thing. Beavah

but they will cancel a charter if the unit has an unacceptable safety record in the Scouting program I agree with everything else Jeff H says about insurance and such. But I wouldn't substitute this one as the new version of "fear." Canceling a charter is an extremely rare event. Goes all the way to National, has relationship implications. Dropping a leader is also very rare; never known it to be done for a safety/judgment issue. The BSA stands by its CO's and volunteers. It really does. Their excellent reputation in that regard should not be besmirched. Long-term histories of a higher accident profile, as we've seen in some areas, are only the subject of "mutual conversations" to improve things. Membership action is a very last resort. ScoutNut, thanks for da G2SS quote, eh? I'm pretty sure that's a reference to a request for a certificate of insurance to be given to a third party (like a campground), not necessarily a statement that insurance coverage for the volunteer or CO is void. Cub leaders might not have much experience with that, but it's pretty common in Boy Scouting and Venturing for an outfitter or campground to demand a certificate of insurance, or even to ask to be listed as additional insured. Councils do this regularly for units on request. Yah, and da COR trainin' quote is out of date. Wish they'd fix that. BSA insurance is now primary for registered adults, not excess (except for vehicle accidents). Another good example of the BSA lookin' out for the volunteer. So again, follow da rules intelligently, do good things for kids, and fear no monsters. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If you have an 18 to 21 year old who is "new" to scouting, why would you be nominating him to the OA? I recall a young man who had been a scout in his home town for 7 years, very active but not into advancement (or his troop didn't do much that way), made it to 2nd class. His freshman year in college, he became active in Alpha Phi Omega and through them in the district and in a troop near his campus. Great guy, more active than most scouters in OA and super workin' with kids. Easily the best choice for that troop to recommend for OA. Then there's the young female ASM, a volunteer recruited from a nearby Crew partly because her brother is in the troop, her dad has passed away and can't help out, and her mom works odd shifts. Great young lady, helpin' hold the family together. She isn't eligible because she can't ever have earned First Class? Isn't it odd havin' the youth vote on an ASM's membership? Unless of course the youth get a vote on every adult scouter's membership. Might be a good idea, that. The over-18-still-a-"youth"-member thing is really quite strange when yeh think about it, in terms of YP and other stuff. All kinds of problems with it. But then I always thought OA was kinda strange myself. Pay my dues, did NOAC once, but I've never really been into da trappins'. Seems like some intelligent discretion is in order sometimes, eh? Cheerful service and all that. Right thing to do might be to nominate 'em anyway. Most good lodges would go along.

So what I'm actually wondering is what leverage does a SPL/SM have when a Boy Scout is caught doing something incorrect? I recommend torture as leverage. Nah, seriously, these arent silly questions at all, egh! I think one of da things that happens a lot at camp is yeh have relatively inexperienced scout leaders or visiting parents, who are uncomfortable with "the discipline thing" on other people's kids. They might not know a kid that well, they might not know the boy's parents that well. They might be a parent of a younger boy and be uncomfortable confrontin' a big teenager. All sorts of things. Or maybe they're just not good at "setting a tone" if yeh know what I mean. Scoutmasters with longer terms of service usually have better skills, picked up in da school of hard knocks if nothing else. And they have better long-term relationships with the kids to rely on when disciplining. So here's a rough cut for me that others can add to: *Haulin' my bed up a tree - gets a laugh and a complement on their ropework. *Haulin' a first-year scout's bed up a tree - depends on the reaction of the boy. If it's the loud, self-confident 1st year leader and he's laughing, it gets applause plus some extra mentions all week to praise the lad for how well he took it, to further boost his confidence (and maybe some help to pull a prank of his own ). OTOH, if it's the quiet, weak 1st year and he's upset, it's a SM conference with the perpetrators and an assignment to make the rest of the boy's week super-positive. *Gettin' in a minor fight with your tentmate on day 4 because you're tired and grumpy - gets a SM conference, an apology, perhaps a new tentmate who's a lot bigger than you, and a 7pm bedtime to miss the evening activity. *A prank that goes awry, and causes minor hurt feelings or extra work, but was without malice - gets an apology and an extended service project along the lines of being personal grunt workers for the affected staff for the rest of the week. *Settin' fire to your tent with the fireworks you smuggled from home, or doing anything else that's deliberately mean, malicious, or destructive gets you delivered home by your parent that same day. And then some serious conversations the next week. But in all that I cant imagine ever calling law enforcement on a youth in camp. Eghlies report that law enforcement gets called multiple times a summer I find really hard to understand. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, please! No rules thread! Or appeals to Authority! This is perhaps more simply stated as "There is nothing in the BSA training materials about liability and insurance. So if a trainer starts goin' on about liability and insurance, they are not following the training syllabus. They are improvising on their own. Probably badly." In fact, the only thing you'll ever see from the BSA is a statement that you're covered, period. So if we all know that, we can refrain from passin' on poor information, and might even gently correct misconceptions when we hear 'em online or at Roundtables.

So you are saying that the parents of the scouts that where in the vehicle could not sue the BSA only my insurance provider? Well, like Eamonn says, anybody can sue anybody over anything. That's a feature of our society, eh? We believe that it's important that anyone who has a dispute should have recourse to the courts. Even if they're dumb, and a lot of disputes are pretty dumb when yeh get down to it. But havin' people in court is better than having 'em "take the matter into their own hands." Open access to the courts is a price we pay for a civil society. In answer to your question, both the BSA and your insurance carrier would routinely be dismissed from the suit. The complaint would be against you, for your driving. Da cute little Geico Gecko (or whoever...) would defend you and pay any settlement or judgment. If the Gecko ran out of money, the BSA as secondary insurer would pay the balance. Both are acting on your behalf, but are not themselves parties to the suit. In such a suit, the standards of judgment for your driving would be those of the broader world (assured clear distance, etc.), not da stuff in G2SS like no caravaning or driving at night. If your driving was fine even though you were caravaning, then there would be no negligence and the court should find in your favor. If you were at fault in the accident, then there would be negligence and da Gecko would have to pay. The insurer would do its best to collect all the facts of the case, just as Lisa'bob describes, so that the dispute can be resolved fairly and quickly, preferably without actually goin' to trial. So even if yeh were tired, distracted, and didn't maintain proper distance, your insurance is still goin' to cover you, eh? That's what it's for. No need to fear drivin' the Little League or Scouting carpool from your neighborhood. 'cept for the mud on the floor, of course Beavah

Are you saying that the BSA lawyers are going to back me, even though the unit signed a permit that said they cannot caravan? Yes. (in the way that you sorta mean the question. For vehicular accidents, your personal auto insurance is primary, so it would be your insurer that "backs" you. Neither they nor the courts would care a fig about G2SS. It'd be the quality of your driving at issue )(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Be Prepared takes on a whole new meaning when law suits are filed. Any time there is a dispute between people, things aren't pleasant, eh? It doesn't really matter where the dispute plays out. Every scouter knows that dealin' with an upset parent on a troop committee is a time consuming and frustratin' bit of work. So is dealin' with a pain-in-da-kiester neighbor. No difference with litigation. Like any dispute, it's a bit time consuming and frustratin'. Sometimes documentation can help your insurer, and it's good to help 'em out, eh? Sometimes, documentation can hurt a small bit, too, which is my problem with havin' too many well-intended G2SS rules like "no diving or swimming activity of any kind is done in water with a depth greater than 12 feet." In reality, they only help or hurt a bit, and it's your insurer that they help or hurt, not you. There is no reason why anyone, as a reasonably conscientious Scouting volunteer, should have any fear of legal issues. As for National backing leaders get accused of a YP violation and see how fast National stops taking your calls. Yah, well. If you commit an intentional criminal act, then your criminal defense is on your own dime. As it should be. Da BSA is honest, too, when it says that safety helps the program. Not just in terms of reputation, but because of the self-insured portion of coverage (and cost of the higher levels of coverage), being safe reduces the amount of money we collectively spend on sharing the risks of the program. We should be safe because we care about kids, and because we want to be good citizens. But not because of fear.

Yah, John, this thread emerged from da grave, eh? Don't reckon any of our guys are goin' to be droppin' trou' in this weather . But yeh gotta be careful. Statutory reporting requirements don't apply to pranks. Leastways not yet! They don't apply to sexual harassment, either. Only to a reasonable belief of child abuse. They are primarily designed so that people with knowledge are encouraged to report parents or primary caregivers who could otherwise hide behind parental rights. Fact is, the way child abuse is defined most places, it's not possible for another youth to commit. In many places, it's not possible for a scouter to commit, either. Though both can commit other crimes, which have moral reporting obligations . No need to fear this bugaboo, either. OK and even recommended to talk to a BSA pro if you need to, without any particular fear of things gettin' out of control. Leastways, any more out of control than usual .

It seems pretty evident that some poor trainin' is happening across the country with respect to liability and insurance. I know how it happens, eh? A trainer gets asked "Why?" by somebody, and not knowin' the real answer, he tosses out the "fear" answer - Lawyers and Liability! "Fear" answers are good ways to get people to comply, eh? Just ask any modern politician. Problem is, there's not a thing in any BSA training syllabus about liability or insurance, beyond a brief blurb in COR training. Makin' up a "fear" answer may be convenient, but it isn't honest. And it's not doin' the training right, either. For those of us who try to convince CO's to sponsor units and good adults to volunteer, spreadin' a lot of liability fear does real damage. It hurts the BSA program and ultimately the kids. So, an ounce of prevention bein' worth a pound of fear, here's some information for those of you who want to know (with some allowances for state/council differences, of course). 1. On unit outings, the leaders and the CO are responsible, as it should be. The BSA is not. 2. Generally speaking, with caveats for minor differences in state law, if your CO is not a NFP entity, or future developments in case law, you as a volunteer in a NFP service organization have statutory immunity from liability. 3. The BSA acts as primary insurer for registered adult leaders and for CO's. That insurance is structured as a self-insured portion, covered by a broad general liability policy, covered again by high-limits insurance through major vendors. 4. There are no G2SS provisions in the BSA's insurance coverage. Failure to follow G2SS, either as a matter of poor judgment or a matter of ignorance, DOES NOT compromise coverage or somehow magically make you (more) liable. Nor does forgetting to file a tour permit or any other "policy" violation. Insurance is there for when you screw up. However, a few things (skydiving...) may be on the insurance exclusion list for the outside insurance above the BSA's self-insured amount. O' course, any perceived "violation" might make some gents here at scouting.com yell at you . 5. The BSA has a very well-deserved reputation of always sticking by its volunteers and chartered partners. They work hard to maintain that reputation, because that's important to attracting CO's and volunteers. 6. Contrary to popular belief, most attorneys and most judges are honorable, decent people who do a difficult job. 99% of the court findings out there are thoughtful and intelligent. So, as a BSA volunteer who is trying to do your best for the kids, you absolutely should not fear legal issues. You should use your brain, and do what makes sense. G2SS is educational material, to help you. It is not a club which others can use to hurt you. For a unit that chooses to run an outing as a CO rather than a BSA outing, no problems there, either. Just be honest and up-front in your communication (written & oral) with the families and the CO. Most of the CO's have their own general liability coverage. CO's that run other youth programs, especially big CO's like major churches, usually have coverage that exceeds that of the BSA. Now this (and anything else we do) shouldn' be cavalier, o' course. It should be thoughtful and reasonable. And there's nothin' wrong with families who are in a unit choosing to run a private trip, either. You should be no more fearful of this than you are of having your son's birthday party at your house. You are not immune from liability in such cases, but your homeowners/renters (or auto) insurance would be in play. In the case of goin' to a movie theater or paintball establishment, it's the service provider (and its insurer) that is liable. I'd even be so bold to suggest it really isn't necessary to get signed permission slips and permission-to-treat documents to let your son's best friend play in your back yard, but your call . Yah, we really don't want our society to become so afraid of da legal boogeyman that our children can't have friends, eh? Yah, yah, before Scarecrow starts singin' "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!", no, I am not saying "anyone can do anything they want." I am saying that as scouting volunteers who care about kids, you should not fear to exercise common sense, ordinary judgment in the application of G2SS or any other "rule." Includin' things like continuing a good-weather campout when your Baloo leader has to leave for an emergency, but you've got great alternate adult coverage. Beavah CAVEAT LECTOR: The above text is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on any matter of law or insurance coverage. For reliable advise on a particular circumstance, consult your own attorney, eh? They're good people.

"Why were Webelos going to a Boy Scout Klondike?" They are encouraged to go up with Boy Scout Troops for Klondike and Pilgrimage by our Council. Yah, I agree with you there. As a general guideline, webelos is too young to do the winter campin' thing in the North. There are kids who'd be fine with it; it's always OK to make intelligent exceptions, eh? But it shouldn't be the baseline expectation. Too many kids who weren't ready would get pushed into it. Councils get to run the program in their area, same as CO's get to run the program in their units. It's OK to disagree respectfully, but it's their call. Just like it's your call in your unit, and they should respect that. Seems like yeh made the right call, too. Good lesson for your older boys on judgment.

Yah, to answer the original question... Yeh do what makes sense, and is in the best interest of the boys. One-shot BALOO trainin' doesn't make someone the be-all and end-all of a trip. Most of da BALOO issues involve proper planning and location, eh? Presumably in these cases the BALOO trained person did all that. Emergencies happen. When they happen, you do your best. Most of the time, you keep the campout goin'. But sometimes, the BALOO person really is a necessary ingredient for comfort and safety. Use your judgment, do what's best. To correct an ongoin' fallacy, Volunteer immunity from liability, and BSA Insurance coverage does NOT depend on strict adherence to G2SS. Anybody who's tellin' you that isn't bein' Trustworthy. Insurance and immunity are for tough situations and for mistakes. The only areas of G2SS that may affect coverage are exclusions on the master policy (like skydivin', eh? ). And there's nothin' wrong with families choosing to run an event privately even if it's been officially canceled. The communication should be clear, and people should understand what they're doin', fer sure. But all of us incur that kind of ordinary liability every day, when we drive the soccer carpool, have our son's friends over for a sleepover, or let the neighbor's kid play on our swingset. It's really not a big deal to be fear-mongerin' over.