The Blancmange

Say something happens and I am named in a lawsuit involving scouting. Does the BSA provide me an attorney or is it on my dime????? They have a duty to "indemnify and defend" you. This means that, in addition to paying any settlement or verdict, they must pay the costs of defense, including attorney fees.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about scouters, volunteers, and chartered organizations potentially becoming personally liable for an injury in a scouting setting, or having BSA decline coverage for a claim. Personally, I've never heard of it actually happening. So, I'm curious, is anyone aware of such a situation? Just to be clear, I'm not talking about criminal and/or intentional tort situations like abuse or molestation. Just personal injuries involving ordinary negligence, or even something that is arguably gross negligence or the equivalent. Is anyone aware of a situation where: 1. BSA declined to provided liability coverage to a scouter, volunteer or CO under its contractual obligation; 2. A judgment was rendered against a scouter or CO which the BSA or its insurers refused to indemnify (or which exceeded BSA's multiple layers of coverage); 3. A scouter or CO had to contribute his/her/its personal funds toward a settlement;or 4. A scouter or CO had to spend his/her/its own money on defense costs (including attorney fees) because BSA refused to do so.

Why did this person not raise this issue at the time of the board elections? Did he vote in favor of this slate? Did he miss the election and is now trying to make up for that? Some other agenda? I would call is bluff and tell him to bring it up at the next district committee meeting. I'm no expert on Robert's, but I'm sure there is a rule that would allow removal of an officer that was not properly elected.

I hadn't previously seen the FAQ's. Thanks for the link. They certainly don't do much to clear up confusion, espcially when one part says, quite clearly, that the guidelines apply to "Wood Badge training courses," and another part says they "generally would not apply" to "Wood Badge courses in a typical resident camp setting." Now, I haven't been exposed to that many WB courses outside of my area, but are there really a significant number of courses held somewhere other than in a "typical resident camp setting?" Enough to justify an exception that makes the rule meaningless? It's almost as if there are two different people who have never spoken to one another writing these documents.

I hate to say it, but in today's sue happy society I'm going by the book by the book. You can say that again! :-) I like to follow the rules too. But it's kind of difficult to "go by the book" when you can't figure out what the book is saying, or worse yet, which book to go by when "the books" conflict with one another. As for Eagle007's question, it's hard to answer that without the actual certificate of insurance, or whatever the document is called, that spells out the coverage provided. However, they only things they have explicitly said are not covered are the specifically enumerated prohibited activities. Courts are generally pretty reluctant to limit coverage when the exclusion is not quite specifically spelled out. I would say they would have a hard time excluding coverage for someone who didn't follow a vague recommendation. I would hope that someone (RichardB????) would clarify this before the form goes live.(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

>>>>>> Blancmange - where did you read about it being "all other events"?? It's the last line ine the black box about 1/3 of the way down on the Part C page: "Enforcing the height/weight guidelines is strongly encouraged for all other events." Great drafting, eh? This isn't the first or only time we've seen what sounds like a rule or policy (and a poorly drafted one at that) appearing only in a form. >>>>> I also read something really odd that stated that you could not attend Woodbadge without meeting the risk factor.. Now I am not sure where I read those (if anyone can re-point me to that link).. It's on the cover page (the one that is all text) on the old form. I don't see it on the new one. (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

It's not just Philmont that is at issue. It's your next weekend campout or day hike in the state park, and maybe even Court of Honor, because, according to the form, it is "strongly encouraged" that the guidlines be enforced for "all other events." Can those of you who operate in constant fear of lawsuits be seen as turning a blind eye to BSA's "strong encouragement" ?(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

I live in NE Iowa, basically the same climate as Chicago, and I would say that there is a pretty good chance that you will have a warm up and thaw before the end of February. You don't have to spend hours on this project - walk around the block or through a local park.

Clemlaw wrote: And philosophically, I don't think it's [waivers] the right thing to do. If some Scouter truly is negligent in some particular case, then compensating the victims of that negligence is the right thing to do. I agree entirely. Run the best, safest program you can, and if someone messes up and someone else gets hurt, make it right. Who is in the best position to absorb the financial hardship of such an injury, the organization as a whole, or an individual participant?

>>>>>>Really? You would describe real story the death of a boy as "sensational"? >>>>>> >>>>>>Wow. Well, I described the story as sensational, which seems entirely appropriate after viewing it and in light of the other comments as well. I'm glad that Engineer61 found my vocabulary usage impressive.

I don't know if it's [heat injuries] even touched on in ARC standard first aid anymore. In the materials from when I last took it in in 2009 (the book is copyright 2006), it devotes roughly 2/3 of a page to heat-related emergencies. The only symptoms which it indicates emergent care (calling 911 or otherwise seeking medical attention) is necessary are refusing water, vomiting, or starting to lose consciousness. For the lesser stages of heat exhaustion, it does not specify immediate medical attention, but rather the more common steps of moving the person to a cooler place, removing tight or perspiration-soaked clothing, applying cool, wet towels and offering small amounts of water.

I was curious about this, so I did some more research. Here is a copy of the legal complaint for anyone interested: http://media.naplesnews.com/media/static/Stamped_Boy_Scout_Complaint.pdf Some random facts of interest: - The Scout, Michael Sclawy-Adelman, apparently had 2 64 oz. water bladders at the start of the hike according to a park ranger report - He was 5'6" and 210 lbs. This is just above the disqualifying weight on the height/weight guidelines being discussed in the medical form thread. (Note that I am not making any statement about the presence or lack of any causal connection between his weight and cause of death, just thought it was worth noting). - No autopsy was performed due to religious objections from his family - He had earned 39 merit badges - He was awarded Eagle Scout posthumously. The only requirement he had not completed was the leadership project. Apparently he had planned some sort of bird habitat for injured birds and the scouts from his troop completed the project after his death.

After reading the height/weight chart, if a scouter is beyond the maximum requirements are they not allowed to participate in activities which require medical forms? According to the form itself, it is disqualifying for a high adventure activity that is "more than 30 minutes from an emergency vehicle-accessible roadway." It is also "strongly encouraged" that the guidlines be enforced for "all other events." So expect a scale next to the sign-in table at your next Roundtable. Sarcasm aside, this language actually is an improvement over the old form, which made it sound like you couldn't attend a regular troop meeting if it was more than 30 minutes from a hospital.

This makes for a sensational story, but it is missing so much information that would allow one to form a reasonable opinion. First and foremost, what was the cause of death? Was it heatstroke, or was it some other, unknown medical condition? Living in Florida, I would expect that this was not the first time these folks had undertaken hikes in these conditions. If it was heat stroke, it seems unusual that he would have gone from minor, non-specific complaints and being able to hike to collapsing and respiratory failure so quickly. One statement by one of the adults piqued my interest - "they didn't feel like eating" They didn't need to be eating; they needed to be drinking. How much had the boy drank before becoming ill? Without knowing what happened, this emphasizes the need to make sure that all participants are drinking enough water. That's the big question mark in my mind in this case - this scout was 17 and had been a scout for probably 6 years - Was he not drinking or not reporting more severe symptoms - or did the leaders overlook more severe complaints?(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Looks good to me - not required on ALL trips and outings, only out of council or over 500 miles or specific higher risk activities. It might sound that way until you look at the last item in the list of circumstances where the new plan is required - "At a council's request." That would appear to allow to continue the current practice in many councils - requiring them on any activity which is not held at the regular meeting place.

"Leadership and Youth Protection Training: Boy Scouts of America policy requires at least two adult leaders on all BSA activities. This would appear to be the much rumored ban on patrol activities.

The best backpacks are named for national parks or mountain ranges. Steer clear of those named for landfills. What about the Denali Landfill? http://tinyurl.com/459pjt5 Or the Teton Landfill? http://www.tetonwyo.org/AgencyHome.asp?dept_id=recycl Does a trash consulting firm count? http://www.manta.com/c/mmjxr33/adirondack-landfill-services-llc (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Our council will provide troops with contact information for 5th grade webelos specifically for purposes of recruiting them. I think our area has a greater percentage of troops that are not "associated" with packs, and I think that is part of the reason for this practice. Ask your service center for such a list. If you can get it, contact these Webelos families directly and invite them to your events. Does your District do recruiting events or hand out literature in the schools? If so, make sure they are including your open house or contact information on whatever they are handing out. As for access to the B&G, while the CM's actions are decidedly un-scoutlike, I don't think you can compel it. Ask the parents of the Webelos who want you there to go to the pack committee or COR and point this out. They might have more pull, especially if they also have younger Cubs. I might also push the DC a little harder and find out why he is "shying away"(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Look at the Current River in MO. http://www.current-river.com/ I offer that commercial link only because it showed up first in a search and appeared to have some good information. I have no idea about the quality of their services. I know you initially ruled out WI, but if you're going in the summertime, the north country has great weather, with low humidity. Here is a really underutilized, inexpensive resource, with some great scenery: http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/StateForests/SF-NH-AL/NH-AL-rec-canoe.htm (This message has been edited by the blancmange)

I'm in Iowa, so can't provide any specific advice. I get a weekly mass email "fishing update" from the Iowa DNR. In the wintertime, it includes specific information about ice conditions, including warnings of areas with unsafe ice conditions. I know Minnesota does something similar. Call your local DNR office and ask if they do anything similar, or maybe just talk to a friendly conservation officer (Please, no comments about that being an oxymoron). Stop at or call a local bait & tackle shop and ask for advice. Try this web forum: http://www.icefishingchat.com/forum/

Hmph. I just meant this post as a mildly humorous anecdote, but ended up getting some useful information about using Google Calendars. I like that idea. Yah, just another sign that you're an addict, and raisin' a family of addicts Blancmange. I think there is a 12-step program for that. Oh wait, that's the Scout Law. (Apologies to anyone involved in a real recovery program).

We use Grand Prix Race Manager. It wasn't the easiest program to initially set up (hint: run a simulated race the day before you run your first real race with it). Now that we have it tweaked we like it. Lots of options for scoring and brackets. You can download a demo here: http://grandprix-software-central.com/gprm/

>>>>Those appetizing zip-lock omelets are without doubt extremely toxic.

"Active" for Webelos purposes is defined right in the book: (Active means having good attendance, paying den dues, working on den projects). Interestingly, and perhaps counterintuitively, this definition is more onerous than the Boy Scout definition of active. Of course that doesn't specifically answer your question. Personally, based on your description that he is making effort to attend when it does not conflict with wrestling, I would conclude that he is "doing his best" and does meet the requirement. I think scouting should be flexible and accomodating to boys who want to try other things as well.

I've found many tasty dutch oven recipes here: http://www.macscouter.com/Cooking/DutchOven.asp