Tour Permits

[rraffalo]

Any other people out there that absolutely agree with me on this?

 

Any one else have actual examples like mine in this thread? If so, please post them here.

 

Thank You!

[moosetracker]

Yeah, but remember National keeps tightening the rules due to one time issues that caught them up in large financial lawsuits. And it does not matter how you interpret the Tour Plan rules, how I interpret them, how Beavah interprets them or if you get 50 people on this board who agree with your interpretation.

 

Right now you have to figure out how does National interprets them, but that is to see if it will sway your CC or if not your COR to rule in your favor.. Because Bottom line it will be the CC & COR who will make the decision. COR will trump your CC.. If COR does not get involved in unit issues then your CC will need to be convinced their interpretion is incorrect.. Then it should SHOULD be a committee vote to pass a rule in the troop to tighten the rule.. But the COR can just voice their opinion, no committee vote, and trump the CC.. If they support you, you are golden..

 

We have lived with our COR requiring us to fill out a Tour Permit for EVERY outing regardless of it it 5 minutes from the normal meeting place held at the same time, even though our Council stated we did not need a Tour Permit for anything in-town. With the new Tour Plan we should need to fill a Tour Plan out except if out of Council or any of the other activities listed.. Guess what? We still need to do a Tour Plan for EVERY outing.. Why?? Because our COR requires it.. Why do they? Because someone put the fear in them that the insurance will not kick in without it.. We can throw them all sorts of paperwork from National stating different.. Does not matter. They have the belief this must be so, we can not shake that belief.. So guess what the Tour Plan is done for every little outing which has us stepping off the CO's property.. Way it is.. Their stricter rule will trump Nationals, regardless of how much their rule makes us bang our heads against a wall.

 

 

[rraffalo]

But you can change that Moose Tracker. Join a different troop, change your Charter Organization, or teach the COR that most of this rhetoric about insurance is a smoke screen for overly conservative people trying to get you to do what they say. "Insurance" has become the bad cop. I'm a conservative, but not to the point of atrophy.

 

First of all, most families have health and wellness insurance, even if it is Medicaid. If they don't they probably do not have a son in scouting. Second, it is not the COs insurance it is the Boy Scout insurance. Third, the Boy Scout insurance will pay if it is a Boy Scout event (plain and simple). File the claim and you will be covered. I've witnessed it.

 

Tour Plans are for planning, not locking in insurance. If you follow National's rules you will secure the insurance if something goes wrong. You don't need to have a higher burden as a CO to ensure the insurance covers. Also, you do not have to wear your uniform when you travel to be covered by insurance either. Does he/ she (the COR) know that?

 

I say, "Educate them, or move on".

[moosetracker]

We have tried to educate them.. I am the District Training Chair, but it falls on deaf ears.. And our family IS moving on YEAH!! I am already out, husband will be out at end of school.. Son.. Well he is moving out of troop to Asst Cub Master, but will not be in charge of Tour Plans any more..

 

The Unit will not leave due to this incident.. They have been with the CO since 1943, and have a rock solid relationship with them. Except for a few years when our old COR passed away, and the new one came on.. The COR is as much involved as the CC, which for the most part causes a tight bond that is not broken over disagreements..

 

Yeah it's making sure the BSA picks up any cost of anyone sueing them for a problem.. Not whether your personal medical insurance pays or BSA.. Our dearly departed old COR had grown up in BSA having a father in the buisness, then was a DE herself, and when she barked our Council jumped up and listened.. But this insurance thing she had wrong, and trying to tell them this saint of a lady had something wrong is like telling them that snow is made up of lead particles, and the earth is really flat..

[rraffalo]

Ah! Thanks for your help... and great insights.

 

I'm still not sure how this will work out, but I'm not flying back to Illinois with my son to satisfy the CC. If he doesn't support us and help keep us from financial hardship, then he can replace me and my son or tell the others that the trip is canceled because of his discomfort with one leader on the plane. That will be his choice.

 

That is my position on the matter and I'm sticking with it.

 

Any other scouting leaders that have been in a similar situation as me please post your example to this board now. I think it will be helpful to me when I approach council to show how many other troops have done something similar to what I'm suggesting. It's never easy to try to convince other people when you are on an island of your own. So, ANYONE, EVERYONE please post any examples you have of your troop doing the same thing. Thank you all in advance!!

 

 

[Engineer61]

OK...so I'll offer my 3.1416 cents on this.

 

My thought on this is that CC is covering his/her legal backside.

 

By signing (i.e. approving) the Tour Plan, CC likely takes partial legal responsibility for whatever happens on the outing. Sad, but true...

 

You might want to inquire with CC if that is part of the issue he/she has.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Time for da monthly review of the role of a board or committee chairman.

 

A board or committee chairman does not sign documents for himself/herself, nor are they ordinarily empowered to act on their own. When they sign, they are signing as the designated representative of the board or committee, certifying The Committee's approval. As such, there is no unique personal liability for the chair, unless the chair fraudulently misrepresents the position of the board/committee or substitutes his/her own judgment without board/committee approval. Of course in a BSA/NFP context, the actions of committee/board members are generally granted statutory immunity from all negligence claims, and da CO/BSA respond on their behalf, so da fear is silly, but it still can be real.

 

So da question in this case is whether the committee approves of the travel arrangements. If they do, then the CC must sign, even if he objects... or resign his position. And perhaps that will help break him out of da mentality that Engineer61 describes. He's not responsible for anything other than taking da action authorized by the committee.

 

Beavah

 

[KC9DDI]

It sounds like there's a lot of mountains being made from molehills, by all parties involved.

 

Here's what I would do: Call the council office, explain that you are a unit leader with a question about a tour plan, and ask to speak with someone who can address it. Explain your situation to that person, and phrase the question as "How should we fill out the paperwork for this situation?". Fill out the paperwork accordingly, inform the CC that so-and-so at the council office explained that this is how it needs to be done, and take it up with the COR if the CC is still putting up road blocks.

 

Don't bring up any real or imaginary liability concerns unless the council brings them up first. If they do, you kind of are stuck with following their rules if you want their approval on the tour plan.

 

I think it will be helpful to me when I approach council to show how many other troops have done something similar to what I'm suggesting

 

I honestly doubt it will matter. It would be like going to traffic court and saying that you shouldn't have gotten a speeding ticket because a whole bunch of other people also speed. If the council feels that what you are doing is in violation of the rules, you either need to accept that and adjust your trip plan, or you need to show them that you are not actually in violation of any rules. Saying that a bunch of other troops also violate the rules isn't really relevant, and won't get you anywhere. But I think its probably unlikely that this conversation would ever come up - my guess is that they'll just tell you what they need to see on the form for your situation, and send you on your way.

 

There are some legitimate concerns about the number of leaders who will be present at various points during the trip. I don't think that there's inherently a youth protection problem, but you do need to be aware of some of the hypotheticals that Beavah mentioned, and weigh whether you want to accept the consequences of those events, should they occur. If you do decide to move forward, just remember to Be Prepared to address those types of situations, should they arise.

 

Basically, I'd just say to stop stressing over hypothetical worse case scenarios. Just make a phone call to your council office and see what they say, and go from there. No sense in preparing for a major confrontation or conflict when there's no reason to predict that one will occur.

[Twocubdad]

The regulars on the forum frequently get criticized for jumping on the newcomers. Folks write in with one question and we end up picking apart another part of their program. Often, I think, folks are looking for simple answers to narrow questions and don't like the response they get when the old timers start pointing out the bigger problems and issues involved.

 

You're probably not going to like this and please don't take it personally. The forums are a bit like the fine print at the end of a Dr. Phil episode. It's not so much about solving your problem as much as it is educating all the other folks reading along.

 

I think your CC is doing his job. His Number One responsibility is ensuring policy is followed and the program is safe. Bottom line is your plan is to put five boys on a cross-country flight without the necessary two deep leadership. You seem to be interested in gerrymandering a solution through the rules which gets you the answer you want. But the larger, over-riding rule is two deep leadership. Frankly, if I were your CC I would have concerns about the trip plans as well.

 

Your CC has been nothing but upfront with you. As soon as he learned of your plan, he told you there may be a problem and a week later confirmed that. At that point, you had a choice: family reunion or Seabase. That you've continued to make plans and after that point is on your nickel.

 

You, and of course we, don't know what has gone into his decision making. Perhaps in week before he gave you a firm answer he did consult with other members of the troop committee or the COR (for all we know, he's serving in a dual role of CC and COR). Or it may be the culture of your troop is a very strict insistance on two-deep leadership and there was no reason to poll the committee. Although I think it is reasonable for you to ask if the COR and/or other committee have been included in discussion, don't get the idea that you should litigate this before the full committee. Beavah can further explain that unit committees operate on concensus not votes.

 

In all candor and with due respect to you, I suggest you give greater consideration to the commitment you made to the crew rather than the fine points of BSA policy.

[moosetracker]

KC9DDI - You express my view on this situation exactly.. Except he may have to knock it up to National if the CC views their Councils information as bogus and only Nationals as accurate..

 

First you have to knock the idea out of the CC's head that they are following BSA guidelines. If she feels she is following policy their is nothing for the Committee to vote on. You should not vote as a committee to disregard BSA policies(I wont say can not, because committees have, but that will not win you any arguement either).. Once it is shown not to be BSA's policy, then they would need to have the Committee vote to make the rule stricter for their unit.. So it is your opinion against theirs who is interpreting the BSA Tour permit correctly and if that is all you have, they win being a key 3 of the unit, and you a parent of a scout. Veiws on this board to if you are right or wrong, or who else has done something similar, will not sway your CC or your Council, or National.. They like your CC will tell you how they interpret your situation in regards to the Tour Plan.

 

But you can not go into Council or National ready to argue your cause, simply you need them to clarify the intent of the Tour Permit in this regards, per their interpretation.

 

[rraffalo]

I think it should be recognized that I'm not suggesting breaking any rules. Two deep leadership is only spoken of in scout documentation in the context of Youth protection. We have that part covered. It also states that one leader is fine when traveling in a vehicle to a destination. A vehicle is a form of transportation and not limited to a car. A plane certainly qualifies as a vehicle. So, for those that are hung up on the black and white must agree I am correct.

 

KC9DDI: I'm going to take your advice. If it doesn't work I'll let the CC replace me if he will not get on board, or he has the COR in his hip pocket.

 

If he and the council want to create a higher standard that does not exist in the rules that may be their right, but then I consider my obligation and responsibility to the crew as satisfied. I think the CC then will need to find us the resources to bridge the gap he has created with his higher standard. These two events do not overlap (family reunion and Sea Base trip), so something should be able to be worked out. If he wants to fly another adult to and from the airports for both the departure and return trip then that would be one way for him to provide the resources. But, I do not feel obligated to cover his higher standard by spending ~$600 of my own cash to fly my son and I back out to Chicago from CT to simply join the group in the O'hare airport so that we can all hold hands while we fly together.

 

TwoCubDad: I'm surprised you tried to pull the guilt complex on me. I feel that complex will reside with the CC who is raising the standards beyond the policy. Two deep leadership -Yes! But, it allows for one leader in a vehicle when traveling to a destination. And, that goes for cross-country flights in a plane.

[Beavah]

It also states that one leader is fine when traveling in a vehicle to a destination.

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Now you're playin' da same foolish game with words that your CC was, eh? You're usin' a G2SS section written and intended for automobile transportation for somethin' it wasn't intended for. And you're not quite understandin' that "youth protection" means somethin' far larger than "risk of sexual abuse." Sexual abuse prevention is just a small part of youth protection. It includes havin' enough adults on a trip to provide for safety and proper supervision, includin' the possibility of any single adult being irresponsible, ill, disengaged, or engaged with a problem and leaving the rest unsupervised.

 

So stop it. Yeh won't make your case by playin' word games. Go take a walk, calm down, and remember that in scoutin' yeh have to behave in a manner that provides the best example for your son and other young men... even if they aren't watching.

 

Yeh make your case by being reasonable, thoughtful, and involvin' the necessary folks on the committee to get approval.

 

Beavah

 

[shortridge]

Perhaps the CC does not trust the other adult leader who will be accompanying the group of boys to function solo, but he doesn't want to say that. If that's the case, no logic in the world will be able to win the CC over.

 

Just a thought.

[qwazse]

Y'all are making me real excited about filling out my TP. Two youth are departing on their own (19 y.o. male and 17 y.o. female) for the first leg of the trip!

 

Start throwing stones my way. Rra has taken enough knocks.

[Oak Tree]

[holds right hand up] I hereby promise to read all questions more carefully in the future.

 

rraffalo - As I think about it, I don't think we're going to end up with a situation where one leader will be responsible for multiple Scouts on an airplane. Not that it would be a problem if we did. If we had two adults seeing them onto the plane and two adults at the other end, we'd be fine. Today, with cell phones everywhere, especially on airline routes, it's not like you're ever really going to be out of touch except while you're actually on the plane, and not even for sure then.

 

I wouldn't try to argue about the letter of the law - I'd go with the intent. The intent is that there would be a second adult around to help out if necessary. Will there be? Sure, there will be a ton of them.

 

So for me, no big deal. However, your CC could reasonably say that when air travel is involved, he wants two adults traveling with the Scouts, regardless. You never know what might happen. There could be a problem at security.

 

I don't think the rule was written precisely for this scenario, so I wouldn't argue over exactly what it says. I'd have a discussion over the right thing to do.