Beavah

A Scout is Trustworthy. A Scout is Obedient. These are basic values of the program. I was a scout for 1 year as a boy. I remember goin' to scout camp, and having some guy lecture me on waterfront rules for an hour, then on archery range rules for an hour, then on the rules for the dining hall, then more waterfront rules. Then some guy screamed at me for violatin' rule 79 which I didn't remember from lecture number 3. Guess I wasn't obedient, eh? I went to another camp the next year, and it was fun. Never looked back. Didn't get back into scouts until my kids came in. I still watch the same attitude among adults at summer camp. Makes me sad, eh? Makes me angry too. I watch it here on this forum as well. I see it as a commish all the time, from uniform police to handbook mavens to buffoons who talk nonsense about "liability." Why is it we feel comfortable bandying about "obedient" and ignoring helpful, friendly, courteous? Getting stuck on "trustworthy" but missin' "mentally awake and morally straight?" The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. And honoring the sabbath was a divine rule. Human rulemakers vary in both competence and honor. Rules must be looked at on their merits before they are followed, and on whether they really fit da circumstance. That's mentally awake and morally straight. And rulemakers must be conscious of never writing a rule without careful analysis of its negatives as well as its positives, including the loss of freedom all rules entail. Banning all bicycles on the grounds that doing so will save a number of children's lives is not OK, no matter how we wax poetic about "if we can save just one child..." And havin' 79 waterfront may really not be better than havin' 9. Yah, and there is also an obligation to follow authority or rules even if they're wrong, if the damage done by disobeying them is greater than the damage done by obeying them, which is often the case. Societies do need some structure, eh? So, yah, there is a role for "obedient" for sure. It is part of the values. But only part.

If the 8 points cannot be met, the SSD-trained adult is trained to understand that the swimming activity cannot be conducted safely and will stop it or not allow it to start. Imagine the astonishment of every city and school and YMCA swim program in the country at being told that they cannot possibly be conducting swimming safely because they aren't following all 8 points of SSD. SSD is a good system, if a bit overboard. That doesnt mean she must be the one to carry out a 100 lifeline to a drowning boy. Yah, dat's smart, eh? Lots of heavy rope in the water with a pair of struggling, desperate humans? I hope someone has a knife. Let's hope no one is carryin' a bunch of line out to a drowning person. Durned dangerous.

If we as a Council have not done and are not doing a good job of informing people what the rule is? Shame on us. If they know and choose to ignore the rule? Shame on them. Yah, Eammon. But you missed one, eh? "If we as a Council did not do and are not doing a good job of developing and updating the rules, with input from all of our members and a recognition of differences in abilities and needs, shame on us for writing a rule in the first place." We hear about those not following the rules who have incidents sometimes. But we hear about plenty of people following the rules who have incidents and accidents, too. The numbers aren't that different. Do we ever check how many who don't follow the rules have a good and safe time, that works well for their kids? And if that is the case, do we reconsider the rule?

Result: Victim loses lawsuit. As far as I know, the result would be the same in every state. Yah, from your lips to God's ear, eh? "Reasonable" is a question of fact. And juries do the darndest things interpretin' fact when confronted with a juvenile victim. And ya gotta admit, there's fairly little required BSA trainin' compared to most other youth services, and precious little real supervision. But if ya look back, supervision wasn't a condition of the original question to which I was respondin'. He just thought absence of notification was sufficient to prevent liability.

BTW - The online Aquatics Safety materials are NOT the training itself. They are considered to be an introduction to the training units. BSA has this to say Sure ya can get SSD or SA by just doin' the online course. Even print yourself up a card. Automatically recorded at your council and all that. And completely useless. Which is why the disclaimer you mention, eh? It's not enough to do the trainin'. Ya gotta have the resources and know what you're doin'.

However I've met some leaders for whom common sense is apparently in short supply. Hence, the "guidelines" from the BSA. A good citizenship discussion for your youth, eh? There will always be fools and villians. But is it always necessary to respond to fools and villians with laws that bind everyone? Do we really as a society need disclaimers on every ladder? How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for trivial gains in security? In da northern parts of our state and most of our neighboring states, a lot of kids get to school on snowmobiles when it's 20 below out, and a lot of families hunt and therefore have fine cold-weather gear. Should a city kid with a dime-store sleepin' bag go out winter' campin' in da bush? Of course not. Can a rural kid who has da gear and does it all the time anyway? You bet. The reasons why things are guidelines, even in the G2SS, is that there are people and places that may be different from you, eh? Safety depends on knowledge and alert citizenship, not on regulations. And no rule will ever stop a fool.

Webelos may not winter camp. Nah. Guidelines, people, guidelines. Age appropriate guidelines. But Believin', they are all correct that winter campin' is not something to be done lightly or without experience. Da guidelines are there for a reason, and are pretty sensible for most kids and programs. In southwest Ohio, I'd say you should find a cabin with a sleddin' hill nearby and a bunch of snow for snowball fights and other mayhem, eh? If you want to pursue it, get some Boy Scouts to come and demonstrate how to sleep out to your Web 1's, then the next year if they're prepared and have all the gear maybe let them sleep out next to the cabin, with an easy "escape" to a spot in the cabin (and some "midnight checks" by adults or Boy Scouts). But do this only if the weather is reasonable, eh? (not too cold, no horizontal sleet, etc.). Might become a nice tradition. Somethin' for da Web 1's to learn and look forward to.

Beavah, we require that charitable organizations take only reasonable steps. We indict them only for their own failings, not for the unforeseeable crimes of their volunteers. On the current facts, I see virtually no possiblity for BSA liability here. Lots of differences between states on this, eh? Some states offer immunity to NFP's, others may limit exposure as you suggest, others do not, some have not addressed the matter. Dangerous to comment across state lines. For a discussion of the matter from a New York-based firm, see http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/nwsltr/archive/volunteer05001998-p.htm

Looks to me like this Scout Master and CO are opening themselves up to a major lawsuit. Not likely to be a successful one, eh? I think a suit against a church for not letting people of another denomination into their youth program only ends in summary dismissal, if not a nuisance penalty.

ohadam has the easiest solution, eh? Da whole BSA notion and congressional charter is building character by supporting community organizations in their work with young people. The membership choices should be left where they belong, with the CO. It seems like there would be a lot of work to be done buildin' character and fitness and citizenship among non-religious youth for some service-minded CO out there.

Yah, dat's the hard part, eh? Volunteers need to understand about the revision cycle on program documents. So the info was updated on charter agreements and sent to council execs, but it takes a long time for everything to get updated. It might be right in da new printed COR training materials; it isn't in my old copy (I just edit my presentations). The oddest thing is how many council websites still have it wrong. Probably a great test of whether your council is on the ball or not. This was, after all, a change that was made over five years ago.

I'm with SR540, eh? You can leave a lot of skills instruction to the troop, but it really helps if da webs have gotten past the basic social/emotional hurdles to camping with other guys: Using a stinky latrine Sleeping in a tent, without mom or dad Being out in the dark. Cleaning their own dishes. Eatin' some food that isn't their "first choice." At least trying to keep track of their own gear (without someone pickin' it up for 'em). Knowing how to dress (themselves!) properly for conditions. Coping with weather and mild discomfort cheerfully. Dealing with bumps and bruises without excessive tears. Being away from home&family for longer than a weekend. Being fit enough to keep up with an active peer group. Developing some basic swim skills. Have some (successful) experiences pushing themselves physically & emotionally. Have some experiences with older boys (particularly for da lads who don't have older brothers, eh?)

I wasn't giving my opinion. I was giving you chapter and verse from the BSA. Yah, SR540. Thanks for demonstratin' how easy it is for well-meaning volunteers to very authoritatively give people the wrong information, eh? It's not enough to quote things, eh? Understandin' is required. The internet is full of old documents. The ones you were pointin' to are in the COR training materials. I don't think they've updated the print ones yet, either. And when you Google the question, you can see immediately that half of the councils out there say one thing, and half say another. A quick phonecall to Phillip Moore at BSA National Risk Management this morning reveals that the BSA liability insurance protection is in fact primary coverage for registered volunteers at scouting functions, with the exception that it is excess coverage for vehicle (boat and automobile travel). This is reflected in the current Charter Agreement (form 28-182Q) which states: "The Council agrees to... provide primary general liability insurance to cover the chartered organization, its board, officers, chartered organization representative, employees and volunteers currently registered with Boy Scouts of America." When asked about the web site pages you mentioned, National Risk Management said "Oh, thanks, we'll pass that along. That comes out of Program, and they have a lot of documents and are sometimes slow to update." Pretty slow, since National confirmed that da expansion in coverage was effective March 2001. the part I copied and pasted lists the responsibilities of the CO and insurance is not one of them. Yah, this is true, eh? The BSA does not require da CO to purchase insurance as a condition of the charter agreement. That's a lot different than whether a responsible CO has or should have its own insurance, eh? Most do. In many cases, it's wise, and inexpensive, for the BSA, the CO, and the individual all to have coverage. I certainly would never want a BSA volunteer to recommend to a CO that it not have its own insurance. That would be a lot like a well-meaning volunteer giving the wrong information, eh?(This message has been edited by Beavah)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hi NJ, Da CO (an Episcopal Church) would be the superior. The BSA is probably the insurer, though I'm sure the BSA is also named in the suit, eh? There was apparently a prior complaint to da BSA in this case. I'm thinkin' that requirin' notification / filing a complaint only applies to workplace harassment or peer-on-peer student harassment at school. Otherwise, fair or not, it's da responsibility of the organization to supervise its volunteers. The suit I believe is for $150M, which goes back to CO's needin' insurance on top of the BSA coverage limits sometimes.

John-in-KC is correct, anytime you do a scout activity (not just a Pack overnighter) that involves a water activity, you MUST have an adult with CURRENT Safe Swim/Safety Afloat training running it. Yah, because dat 40 minute online animated "training" is really goin' to improve safety, eh?

Old document, ScoutNut. I'm pretty sure the "primary coverage for registered volunteers" is in the current charter agreements, least dat's what I remember from recharterin' my units this year. See also da webpages of up-to-date councils like http://www.samhoustonbsa.org/Home/AboutSHAC/Resources/VolunteerInsurance/

Don't shoot da messenger, Herm. FGoodwin is just doing his usual bit of keeping us all informed about the news. Saves us from being blindsided if someone brings up this article at our next community event.

I'm not a whiz at this insurance stuff, though my brother works for an insurance outfit. But it seems like in scouting circles da craziest stuff gets passed around sometimes. So I'll kick this off as the thread for insurance questions, and maybe some knowledgeable people will offer words of wisdom. (Real knowledge, mind you... insurers or attorneys with that specialty, not Joe who heard from Fred at the Round Table). SR540 wrote in the original thread: Also, CO's are not expected to provide insurance for a unit. CO and unit liability insurance is provided thru the council. I think almost all CO's these days also have their own general liability policies, especially if they are runnin' any kind of youth program, eh? That's certainly goin' to be true for schools and churches. The large churches' policies are likely to match or exceed the BSA's; and they have the advantage that you can read the policy. That's probably a smart thing, eh? This past year, the Forest Service handed down a $15M fine against a unit that started a forest fire. That almost exceeds the stated BSA coverage limits. It'd be good to have that CO insurance as "backup." For PTO's and service organizations, general and volunteer liability coverage is really quite inexpensive and well worth it for peace of mind, especially when some training nutcase threatens that "the BSA insurance won't cover if....". Unit leaders are covered in excess of any personal coverage they might have, or if there is no personal coverage, the BSA insurance immediately picks them up on a primary basis. This I think is incorrect. BSA coverage is primary on registered adults, and excess on unregistered adults (parents) who are acting as leaders. Da exception is vehicle liability (cars and boats) where BSA insurance is excess of the person's vehicle coverage. That's been true since 2001 according to our SE.

Yeh say this is a medically diagnosed condition, eh? Well, then, what's da problem? The age requirements in scouting do not apply to disability conditions. Just as a boy can be allowed to be registered as a boy scout and work on ranks past his 18th birthday, same should apply to cubs. I think if the parent, the boy, the den leader, caring people like yourself, etc. are all in agreement that this makes the most sense, then you know better than any of us out here in da ether, eh? Do what you think is right. And talk to your DE who is paid to help you with the paperwork.

Was the sex consensual? The sex could not be consensual. Da victim had not reached the age of consent. However, similar to the BSA, unless the school and it's leadership is made aware of the situation, how can they be held responsible? As long as they did their normal background checks and due diligence on a teacher,(or in the case of the BSA, Scoutmaster), unless brought to their attention, neither the BSA or the school is in a position to take action if they are not made aware of the situation. Because da "supervisor" or "superior" is responsible for supervision, eh? They shouldn't need to be "made aware," they should be makin' themselves aware. Dat's the legal doctrine. What's unclear here is whether this is da scouts or the insurer. Often an insurer will take an aggressive line for its client that the client may not like, in an effort to reduce the settlement. But if you tell da insurer to take a hike, the insurance goes with it, eh? Puts even ethical organizations in very tough spots.

Had to go look dat up, campcrafter. Yah, you're right. There's one page in the Webelos Leader Guide that talks about da plan for LDS. This is in a section describing 5 different alternatives to the webelos plan based on timing - dens with 4th graders, 4th and 5th graders, just 5th graders starting late, etc. LDS units present an age-based timing issue that is addressed in that section. Could as easily been called "Plan E for a pack with age-based instead of grade-based transitions." Might be da future though... could be nice if the BSA customized books for all kinds of kids and CO's. Then the Wiccan, Jewish, or Buddhist scout could have a scout handbook that talks about reverence in his context instead of da generic Christian context Kudu goes on about, eh?

Technically speaking, can he even do this? He is in 5th grade now and did earn his arrow of light prior to crossing over in Feb. However, he was only in cubs for a bit less than a year. Who cares about technically, eh? Our job isn't to be technical, our job is to do what's right for da boy. The Oath and Law don't have an exception for "technical." I've long thought that 5th grade crossover is developmentally "too soon" for many boys. So does the BSA, because they created the hybrid "new scout patrol" to partially pull the young ones out of the regular patrol structure. Dat creates other challenges, though ... like maintaining a kind of Webelos 3 group (supported by an adult and older scout instead of a mom) in the midst of a troop that is doin' other things. NSP's tend to be really high-energy and rough on quiet kids because the older leaders have the troop program in mind, and don't usually provide quite enough "structure." So let him move back if that looks like the best solution in this odd case. Get a waiver of registration requirements from your SE (call it a disability if you need to), or if you've got a good CO forget about registration and just bring him as a "guest" on the CO's insurance. Keeping a reg. in the troop works fine, too, and might be easiest. Dat's the troop committee's call, not the SM. Our duty is to the boy. We adjust or ignore the paperwork to do what's right, while being mindful of our duties to protect da adults and best serve all the boys in the program.

As for a differnet version of the program - my Webelos Den Leader book uses many pages of paper to outline the LDS agenda for the WEBELOS program for LDS units. But it's da same WEBELOS program and materials as the rest of the country, eh? Da Catholics publish supplementary materials, too, as far as I know. So can anybody... VFW posts can add materials on veterans and spell out their agenda for da use of the BSA programs in their posts. Same program, different CO's with different goals. What LDS does is da way the program is designed to be used by everybody... to support the goals of the chartering org. And dat's da way it is, eh?

You decide to take legal action to stop the sale of the widget division. just how long do you think the company is going to keep you on the payroll when you are publically working against them? If you're in one of the many states that prevents companies from takin' employment action against people for legal outside-of-workplace activities, a long time. If you are a union representative acting on behalf of da union, a heck of a long time. Bein' an employer doesn't make you king. In da Red Dog Maynard case, Red Dog was apparently da president of the association that had given the camp to the BSA on the condition that it be used for a camp. That he acts as directed by the association he is president of to protect their interest seems like an honorable thing to do, eh? And I note the council backed down on that revocation. I'm with jmenand... beyond legal, der's right. And when da paid BSA officials are no longer serving as stewards of da principles of the Oath and Law, it should be "the right of the people to alter or to abolish them."

All da LDS bashing is gettin' a bit annoying, eh? The Mormons do not have a "different version" of the BSA program or anything of the sort. They use and charter da same BSA program as the rest of us. And they do what every CO has the right and obligation to do... they adapt it to provide the best service to youth that they can, within their context and accordin' to their goals. That's the way BSA scoutin' works. If ya don't like it, as others have said, don't disparage those who use the program. Leave and start your own highly centralized, one-size fits all youth outdoors association. I'm not in favor of ever puttin' kids on da front lines of adult disputes the way that happened in this case, eh? But units are owned and operated by CO's, and they have da same freedom of association that the BSA does.