Tour Permits

[RichardB]

Have the council contact me if they have questions / reach no conclusion AFTER talking to your CC / COR. Richard Bourlon

 

PS: Initial thoughts (sorry I lost the will to continue reading after the first page) is that the two separate starting points is not the issue, the relationship / ratio of leader to youth and sex of youth / adults is more than likely the issue that will create concern. That and the assumption that the unit can at will chose not to have part of a trip as a scouting activity when there appears to be no other reason to travel as a group.(This message has been edited by richardb)

[moosetracker]

Ooops.. rraffalo -- RichardB, would be the man you would have reached in National had you used the National email address I posted for you..

 

I do not know if he is in your favor or not from what he wrote.. I think he may be if your crew is all male, (for some reason I got the feeling that it was).. And that you were not suggesting writing up the tour plan to eliminate the plane trip, (That descussion must be after the first page)

 

So if you had fear of going to National with the question, fear it no more.. Any correspondance with RichardB either in this forum, or through emails to National has been very good.. He is a very easy going fair minded man, (the only one I know who works for National and has intrest in this board) and you should not feel intimidated by him at all.. But, sounds like he would like you to go to your council and have your council then reach him..

 

[Eagle92]

Yep RichardB will not lead you wrong. Not only does he work for national, he is also an ASM with a troop. So he is in the field with the rest of us on the weekends

[rraffalo]

Richard Bourlon... I don't know that this will get to Council. I've been trying to get the CC to speak with me to discuss potential alternatives, and he will only email me saying, "there is nothing else to discuss". Tonight I learned via email that the COR agrees with him, but I think that is more that they work closely together, rather than having both truly listened to the situation. Nonetheless, they told me I have until five o'clock tomorrow evening to tell them that I will fly back to Chicago (from CT) to join the other leader and 5 scouts, or they would work to replace me.

 

Just to clarify: My son and I would like to depart from CT and meet the other six people in Fort Lauderdale. I am a male. The other leader in Illinois is a female, and she would be traveling with her two sons and three other scouts, one of which is the CC's son; he is 16 yo. The parents of the other two scouts (one 15 y.o. and one 16 y.o.) have been contacted, the whole situation was explained, and they gave their permission for their sons to travel to Fort Lauderdale with only the one leader, even if that meant we would not officially be on a scout outing for the first leg of the trip.

 

Hopefully that helps...

 

I've offered many suggestions, some very similar to Oak Tree's thought right before your earlier post. In addition: direct flights to eliminate the potential for a missed connection; early morning flights to minimize the potential of a long delay; other adults escorting the Illinois crew to the gate at O'hare airport, etc. Basically, they (the CC and COR) have said if my butt is not on that plane, then I'm done. They will not listen to suggestions, and they have refused numerous requests for them to call me on the phone or to meet for a cup of coffee in order to find a solution. My son is a Life Scout with this troop and I have volunteered as a leader for the past two summer camps at Tomahawk in WI. I've driven 4 scouts 6 hours away by myself two summers in a row. No Caravans! I do not see the difference between that and my co-leader sitting on a plane with the 5 other scouts in Illinois. But apparently they do... I'm surprised at their behavior, particularly given my service and the work that my son has put in over the past three years. I am not an ASM, but I do volunteer as a parent and I participate in many of the scouts Boards of Review.

 

I'm perplexed and tired... time to sign off (1:12am CST). Thanks for listening, and having an interest :-)

[rraffalo]

Richard B:

 

P.S. Not sure where you are in Texas, but my son was a Cub and a Webelo in The Woodlands, TX (near Houston), and we spent quite a bit of time at the summer camps at Camp Strake. Not sure if you are familiar with the area there. But, we moved to Illinois from there 3.5 years ago.

 

Thanks again for any insight you may be able to provide tomorrow.

 

Kind Regards~

[moosetracker]

rraffalo - RichardB. may swing by again, he may not, you are chancing it when you have such a short narrow window. He does not live on the board like some of us.. You can try to send him a private message, or use the email I provided you earlier in the thread, which is his official "work" email.

 

The COR already siding with the CC is bad news.. Unless they are both just interpreting the Tour Plan and have no personal feelings about safety issues, then without a committee vote, the COR can put stricter rules in place above and beyond BSA policy, based on a personal view of what saftey net they wish to hold for the Crew..

 

OK.. I was going to hold of on this "different perspective" seeing that RichardB, sounded like he may agree with your interpretation (as long as your crew is not co-ed).. But, seeing that with or without RichardB's blessing, you may have to decide to fly back or not..

 

I know you are looking at this fly back as $600 extra expense that the CC & COR is demanding of you.. It is based on the weekend your family happened to choose for the reunion.. Suppose your family had choosen a different date, say 1 week earlier.. Had they done so, would you have gone to both the reunion & Sea Base, even though it would have meant flying to CT and flying home, then the next weekend flying out to Florida.. Had the date for the reunion been different that $600 would have been spent unless that would have forced you to decide on doing one and not the other.. I guess what I am saying, is the dates of the two events give you an opportunity to SAVE $600 dollars on plane fare, an opportunity you would not have had had the dates been different.. What the CC & COR are doing is not allowing you the opportunity to save that money..

 

It is just a different perspective to make you stop and think, is this due to you really not being able to afford the expense, or are you possibly cutting off your nose to spite your face, and standing on the principle of the matter, and a feeling of injustice..

[rraffalo]

Thank you Moose Tracker:

 

I'm driving to CT with my wife, daughter and two sons from Chicago on July 8. The first week we will be visiting family and friends and the reunion is the following weekend. The plan was then to leave for Sea Base with my oldest son, while the others in my family remain in CT continuing their visit/ summer vacation. When my son and I return from Sea Base we are all driving back to Illinois the following day. I'm not going to ask my wife to drive my other two children back to the Chicago area on her own. So, the additional airfare comes in making a multi-city flight reservation to Fort Lauderdale by flying back through Chicago, instead of flying direct to Fort Lauderdale from CT. That same multi-city trip would have to be created on the return flight as well in order to satisfy the CC.

 

We had never intended to fly to CT, so it's not that I would be losing out on savings I would be bearing additional expense.

 

Thanks again

[The Blancmange]

Not the solution you are looking for, but Southwest's website is showing Hartford to Midway for $181 on July 17th.

[rraffalo]

... And, an additional $181 for my son, and then we have to do the same on the return trip because we ultimately need to get back to CT to drive back to Illinois with my wife and other two children. I could let my son remain in Chicago with friends on the return trip, so he would not have to fly back to CT, just to drive Illinois but at a minimum it's $500 additional dollars.

 

 

[ScoutNut]

As you have already paid your Troop for the entire trip, make darn sure they give you a full refund because they are the ones cancelling, not you.

 

It is a shame to waste your time/trouble/money and Sea Base medical.

 

If you go to Scout "Connections", on the Sea Base Web site -

 

http://www.bsaseabase.org/ScoutConnections.aspx

 

There are plenty of crews looking for extra members for trips in July, and August, of this year. There is also an opening for 4 people on a Keys Adventure starting on 07-17-11.

 

 

[qwazse]

SN - it never works out that cleanly.

 

If the trip falls apart because rr won't make the extra effort his CC is requiring, then the entire crew loses the boat fee ($5800) plus whatever airfare is non-refundable.

 

If the crew is willing to pay extra in boat share for a replacement adult to come along. He might be reimbursed. But it would be a mess.

 

Obviously the cheapest solution is to be more flexible with the rules, but if the CC is not budging and the COR upholds his opinion, it's time to figure out the best compromise for all involved. If everyone pitches in another $100, they can have $800 for another adult to just fly down to FLL (and back, twice, if he/she doesn't want to stay the week) with the 6 other crew members.

[Engineer61]

Beavah wrote:

 

"He's not responsible for anything other than taking da action authorized by the committee. "

 

Huh? Maybe according to BSA, but not according to the Courts.

 

The BSA does not indemnify the CO from legal damages should they be sued by a parent of an injured Scout. The Oregon Case proved that....BSA is paying as is the LDS.

 

The Florida Case, will like show that Adult Leaders are culpable for damages as well.

 

The only thing that BSA and CO's can do is promise not to sue each other, or their Volunteers.

 

 

[The Blancmange]

 

The BSA does not indemnify the CO from legal damages should they be sued by a parent of an injured Scout.

They most certainly do. Read your charter agreement. http://cubmaster.org/charterpartneragreement.pdf   Specifically, the 5th bullet item in the right column. This liability program is administered by the BSA and is self-insured for the first million.

In the Florida case, all of the attorneys are on BSA's dime and any settlement or judgment will come from them, too. The Oregon situation involved abuse and church policies, and is not comparable.

[Beavah]

The BSA does not indemnify the CO from legal damages should they be sued by a parent of an injured Scout. The Oregon Case proved that....BSA is paying as is the LDS.

 

I reckon yeh should stick to engineering, eh?

 

The point being made was that da CC does not have any personal liability, because as a CC he (1) is not empowered to make the decision solo (2) is most likely accorded statutory immunity by federal law and (3) is otherwise indemnified by the BSA coverage.

 

With regard to the CO, (1) and (2) do not apply but (3) definitely does. When reading news reports yeh have to distinguish between a judgment and a payer. A court will render a judgment against the defendant, but then insurance will pay the judgment. So if you kill someone with your car, the decision reported in the papers will be against Engineer61, but your auto insurance will then pay.

 

Additionally as Basementdweller points out, with some COs an abuser is also working in other youth ministry roles, eh? Remember most abuse by scout leaders occurs outside of scouting. That means it might perhaps occur in a church ministry or school environment where the CO is directly liable and BSA coverage doesn't apply. In da Oregon case, if I remember correctly, only one or two incidents occurred in scouting. Most of 'em were in other activities.

 

The justice of leveling a hugely outsized judgment against the BSA for having deep pockets is left as an ethics and values question for da reader.

 

Beavah

[KC9DDI]

When reading news reports yeh have to distinguish between a judgment and a payer.

 

That is an important distinction, but I think that some people might prefer to take actions that will limit the chances of them appearing before a court in the first place, regardless of who's ultimately going to foot the bill. Having insurance shouldn't be viewed as having permission to act irresponsibly.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the CC's general thought process in this case (even if he hasn't thought through all the legal nuances that have been explored in this thread). Based on the information presented here, I would personally disagree with the CC's decision in this case, but you can't fault the guy for trying to ensure a safe, smooth trip for his crew, even if BSA insurance will protect his pocket book if something does go wrong...