Tour Permits

[rraffalo]

Thank you for the advice everyone... all of you have been so helpful!

 

BTW, I have been very calm with them, continuing to ask for their support and trying to see how their decision in this case makes sense. Instead of telling me that they have a problem with me (that until now I would not have known of), and are just simply trying to get me to do it there way... just for fun! Instead, of that they lie about the way we have run the troop.

 

I have been very relaxed with them and my emails to them support that... I may cut and paste them in here in a later post so that you can see the sugar coating that has been slopped all over this mess! It's like one of those sticky buns that we have on Sunday mornings during camp outs.

 

What is an IH, and a DE? Also who is the UC (unit commissioner I know, but that's not the committee chair, right?

 

I've not yet told all of you this, but obviously you could tell I've been venting here, and while I know this is a public board, I've kept the venting here for the most part. I don't really have any worries they'll endeavor to seek a board like this on their own because they will not even call me back. They do not feel there is any further reason to talk. They want me to step away, so they can seek a replacement. But, I will likely make them pull the plug. The longer is goes the harder it will be for them to find a replacement.

 

That said, I have the support of my co-leader and the other parents of the other two scouts. So, if they all say they will not go if I do not go, then it potentially leaves the CC's son with a canceled trip. Since the COR is buds with the CC he may sign it so that the CC does not have to tell his son the trip is canceled. While they can likely replace me (and even my son) in the time left. They probably cannot find two leaders and five other scouts at this juncture which will then, at a minimum, cost the CC additional money. For example, they may find two leaders and three other scouts to keep the trip alive, but it will cost our CC twice as much to send his son.

 

In any event, that may be the next step...

 

5yearscouter: Your steps are under consideration as well. Once we do the above, however, the trip will have effectively been blown up, unless the CC can then get the COR to sign (because like you all have said... it's in the COR's hands now).

 

Beavah: I agree with you regarding the options I have left.

 

Thanks everyone... I just need to know what those initials mean with respect to the titles of the Troop leaders.

[5yearscouter]

IH= institution head, the head of the chartered organization.

CO= Chartered organization.

DE=District Executive may be able to help unruffle feathers, but has no real power.

UC=unit commissioner, someone who is not a committee member usually, not COR not CC. They can sometimes help as a friend of the unit, has no real power but may settle feathers.

 

You really have no other recourse but to hand the paperwork you've completed, the research you have to the CC. give them a blank copy of the tour plan form if they want to start over. You can suggest that they should call a committee meeting to see if another adult can go on the trip, or if they decide to cancel the trip.

 

your opinion on the matter has been spoken to them, don't go into it again you guys are just butting heads over the details.

 

you could write 1 sentence summary, reiterating why you will be unable to fly with the group. It can be that you are thrifty and it would be unkind and potentially unsafe for your wife to have to drive alone back home from the family reunion.

 

 

 

[rraffalo]

5yearscouter: When you said,

"Stop where you are right now!!"

 

Two things jump into my head:

 

1. You are pleading with me not to scorch the Earth because it would be bad for our Troop and scouting overall.

 

2. You have thought of a better way to handle this "THAT WILL GET THIS DONE MY WAY" with a high degree of probability for success!

 

 

Please rate, on a scale from 1-10 your meaning behind telling me to "stop where you are right now" (maybe it is neither, maybe you are just a police officer :-)

 

Rating for: "Please don't scorch the Earth Stupid:"

 

AND

 

Rating for: "I have a better way that will likely help you WIN your case and go on that trip your way!:"

 

Thanks again ~

[5yearscouter]

Stop right there!

 

=

you have talked, nagged, tried to reason and told them to read the documents.

 

to what appears to be no avail.

 

YOU are at the point that YOU cannot fix this.

A call from the program director, DE, UC, etc is potentially only going to embarrass them and make them more argumentative.

 

so put it all on their desk, in their hands.

tell them a short summary of your findings, and then IT'S UP TO THEM!!!

 

Keep poking and they are going to go to war, talk bad about you, kick you out, more hard feelings, etc etc. quit poking.

 

give them the paperwork and tell them to figure it out. don't do it in a petulant way. the stuff is filled out, the form needs their signature. It's now on them and the scoutmaster as leaders of the unit to fix this.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, what 5yearscouter said, eh? Sorry for da alphabet soup.

 

IH: The institutional head of the Chartered Organization. If the COR is the head of the scouting department in the organization, the IH is the CEO of the organization. The pastor of the church, the President of the PTA, the Head Guy of the men's group. The only person who with the stroke of a pen can wipe the entire troop from the face of the earth.

 

UC: Unit Commissioner. A volunteer "nice fella" who volunteers for the district/council rather than for a unit, and whose job it is to be an "outside helper" to the unit. Experience varies. Presence varies in different councils. A good one can be a great help, but mediocrity is more common.

 

DE: District Executive. A paid staff person at the council office whose job it is to serve a particular geographic area. Is expected to meet with IH's once a year but few do. Frequently the point person at the council office for unit problems, but has no real authority other than lookin' official. Can be very good, can be very bad, often is very young.

 

The point being "take someone who looks official and can express the BSA's position so that the IH doesn't have to take your word for it."

 

Good luck with it. Listen to the others, eh? Do what's right for all the boys.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[moosetracker]

Beavah can correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me if the trip is cancelled due to their actions that then you and the others would have a leg to stand on in court to ask they refund you the money.. And they should as 2 others should not be allowed to go for free on your dime..

 

If they find two replacements, or at least a 2nd adult, and the trip is canceled due to the other scouts backing out, then the cancellation was not their fault, but yours and the others who followed you in support, therefore I think they may win the battle that it is you guys who would need to pay the bill..

 

Now from what I took from your statement of .. "Our CC has said he will make no further ruling on this; he is deferring to the COR. Our CC's is going on the trip with us (awkward now) and he is fighting against us, "

 

That you now have your 2nd adult the CC was going as your replacement, but they have yet to find a replacement for your son.. If that is the case, the trip would not be canceled due to the CC & COR ruling, as they got 2 adults and have replaced you.. If the others now cancel out, I believe it would be their actions causing the cancelation, and since they were rallying to your cause to rebel, you would not get out all lily white.. My guess would be if taken to court, it would be you and the others who would then loose the battle as to who needs to pay for the cancellation.

 

You guys are so heated on both sides, I can see this going to court..

 

But I agree with NealOnWheels - At what expense to the troop.. You are about to blow the whole unit apart, due to the both of you being very stubborn, and not able to back down but needing to be victorious regardless of who gets hurt in the process. And believe me it will be the kids, the scouts that will be the ones hurt..

[ScoutNut]

>>"You have thought of a better way to handle this "THAT WILL GET THIS DONE MY WAY" with a high degree of probability for success!"

[Twocubdad]

Since being accused earlier of playing the guilt card I've bit my lip and stayed out of this. But I can't stand it anymore.

 

Other than just giving you your way, rraffalo, I don't know what more the CC can do. When he found out about you plan he immediately told you it may be a problem and confirmed that a week later. He has been consistent and within his authority. Now, because you won't step up and fulfill your commitment to the crew, HE has stepped up to the plate and is going on the trip. And you're worried that's going to be uncomfortable. Gosh, and your comfort is what's important, right?

 

Instead of complying with the wishes of the head of your organization, you've spent the last month sawing on his limb, filing a "draft" tour plan with council knowing the unit wouldn't approve. Committee Chairman won't sign off on your plan it's because he's on a power trip and is just lying anyway. Now you want to get him fired and take over as CC yourself. And if that doesn't work you'll get a new COR and move the troop to another CO if need be. You seem perfectly willing to burn the troop to the ground to get your way. And make no mistake about it, that is the direction you are taking the troop.

 

I thought a line of yours was especially telling. "In the end, I'm willing to miss this trip with my son if they keep pushing .... But, I'm going to push them to go so far as to have to remove me."

 

In the first place, this isn't a lad-dad trip with your son. You are the advisor of a crew of six Scouts and responsible to and for all of them. And instead of doing what's best for the crew, you continue with your scorched-earth approach and will force them to go through the aggrevation of removing.

 

Hope you enjoy the trip to Seabase, dude, because it would be the last one you take in our troop.

[rraffalo]

Moose Tracker and TwoCubDad:

 

I put a post out there this morning at 6:45 am... Not expecting you to have noticed it. No one should have to go back and read all this. It said,

 

"Sorry, third paragraph above should say: "Our CC's son is going on the trip with us..." (Not the CC himself)

 

No, they have not found replacements yet. I appreciate the advice, even the objective and somewhat harsh commentary... I'm a big boy and it's all good! Hopefully you've all read the post of mine that stated this is where I have been venting, but more professional with the troop leaders (particularly the CC and COR). This board contains the stuff in my head and your help is very valuable to me.

 

This was my last email to our CC, back on the morning of June 8th: (It's definitely fair that you have some insight as to my behavior outside this board; and, a good bit of it is thanks to all of you!)

 

Transcript of Email:

 

June 8, 2011

 

(Name of CC),

 

Thank you for speaking with me last evening I really appreciate that we are working together on this. I felt our conversation was productive and I think we are making progress.

 

I gave some additional thought to your request of me in terms of my commitment to the trip. I agree it is appropriate for you to know my intentions, prior to us working through the final details of the Sea Base tour plan.

 

If you would review the tour plan Mary has sent to you, and help facilitate this process by signing it, then I will do whatever Council requires to ensure that I am co-leading that trip. In other words, if you support us and Council does not like the plan the three of us will have created together, then I will do what Council requires of me to conform with all the rules of the Travel policy as they see it.

 

And, if they do approve it then we will have the satisfaction of knowing that we listened to each other, worked together, and came to a beneficial resolution for the crew and the troop, even though we may not have agreed on everything, every step of the way.

 

I have great respect for you (name of CC), for everything you do and everything you have done for the troop and our boys. That hasn't changed because we've experienced a small bump in the road.

 

After you have had some time to think about it please let Mary or I know if we can have your support.

 

Kind Regards,

 

(Me)

 

End of Transcript..

 

The CC has not replied and will not speak on the phone because he feels there is nothing left to talk about.

 

SO, I'm not scorching the earth, and no one is going to court. It's really not that important to me, such that I would ever want the boys to affected by this squabble. While it certainly seems wrong, not everything in life is right.

 

One more question, and then I'll follow up with this board as to the final outcome. Now that they have taken such a hard stance on two deep leadership "every step of the way," and will be making me and my son miss this trip don't you think now they have to uphold this standard with all Troop trips?

 

Previous posts show what they are insisting of me has not been the Troop's practice. So, is the Boy Scout organization really set up with all its structure, and all its rules and with no lack of documentation (that's for sure), such that one man (the COR) can play favorites? I feel that if the COR does this to me, then he should insist that all summer camp vehicles also have two adults in each vehicle, Eh? (Beavah, that Eh? was for you :-)

Think about that... all vehicles having two adults in each, particularly because caravanning is highly discouraged, right?

 

I do not suspect, however, he will require that. I suspect that his "every step of the way" mentality will revert to the hint, hint, wink, wink, approach that we have been using all along. So effectively, he will have said "no" to me but will have allowed it with others. Why doesn't the Boy Scouts have a way to govern such misuse of power by one of its leaders or even a CO? I understand the idea that they cannot referee everything, but with all the consistency that the BS organization represents and requires there surely should be a way to ensure consistency with this, particularly when we are talking about the precious few opportunities there are to attend High Adventure activities.

 

What would you do if you were me if in the future you saw one of your Troop leaders traveling alone in a vehicle with several scouts?

 

Would you skip down the road with a big smile on your face, knowing you did the right thing for the other crew members of your Sea Base 2011 adventure, or is there some other form of action you would take?

[KC9DDI]

What would you do if you were me if in the future you saw one of your Troop leaders traveling alone in a vehicle with several scouts?

 

Why would you want to go out of your way to make trouble? There's nothing in BSA policies that would prevent this, and apparently your CO allows it as well. And there's no real safety issue. So, really, what would you gain? All you'd be doing is trying to twist some pseudo-legalese that you perceive exists because of one specific event and basically just using it to annoy people. Which doesn't seem like the kind of behavior a Scout leader should be modelling.

 

I'm not saying you've been treated fairly in all of this, and I can understand why you're angry, but at some point you're going to have to move on. You can do that however you want, and maybe that means you move on to another unit, but you shouldn't be planning on bringing up the incident for the rest of your Scouting career any time you perceive some inconsistency in the way the troop operates.

 

We obviously are only hearing one side of the story. We don't know the CC's motivations for sure, but its already been pointed out that there are potentially some VERY GOOD reasons for taking the CC's course of action. Be honest, can you really not see the differences between driving Scouts to a weekend camp out, or even to summer camp, versus a cross-country trip the ultimately ends at a high adventure base? Can you not see why the committee may want to have higher or just different standards for such a major event as compared to a weekend camping trip close to home?

 

Why doesn't the Boy Scouts have a way to govern such misuse of power by one of its leaders or even a CO?

 

With out knowing the whole picture, I'm not prepared to stipulate that there's a misuse of power going on here. And, based on the way the Chartered Partner program works (as flawed as it may be), the BSA at the council and national level by necessity has very very limited influence over their Chartered Partners.

 

I think you're being unreasonable in trying to demand that the troop have identical standards and procedures for routine camp outs versus a high adventure activity that's probably been in the planning phase for the past year or more. I would expect the troop committee to take into consideration the extreme nature of the activity itself, the complicated transportation logistics of getting to and from the activity, and even the personalities and capabilities of the Scouts and leaders participating in the event when approval various parts of the whole event. So, while it is quite possible that you got the short end of the stick in this situation, its NOT clear that there is some abuse of power going on here. I personally like to presume that people are acting with the best of intentions, unless irrefutable evidence suggests otherwise. Thus far, you've shown that the CC might potentially be a little over-cautious in some respects, but have not shown that his actions are entirely unreasonable.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[ScoutNut]

Personally, I feel there is a big difference between a car, and an airplane. Your CC, and your COR obviously feel the same way.

 

Would I push to force them to require 2 adults in every car, for every outing, from this point forward. No, I would not.

 

You state -

 

>>"It's really not that important to me, such that I would ever want the boys to affected by this squabble.">"and will be making me and my son miss this trip."

[rraffalo]

Well... I just printed all the emails that 5yearscouter suggested in a few posts back and they are all as sweet as the one I embedded in my last post. So, you can keep the Baloney on that.

 

Also, we have not yet purchased our airline tickets... the additional money I have been speaking of is the difference between in air fare between flying directly to FL and having to plan a multi-city trip through Chicago. My son is the one that prefers to have me on the trip, being that he is just turning 14; two other scouts are 15, and 3 are 16. Doesn't seem like a big age difference to you and I, but at that age it's big with both emotional as well as physical maturity. My wife also feels more comfortable if I were there.

 

Yes, the CC is fine with my son joining the trip and flying ALONE. Doesn't that defy logic? He's not good with one leader flying with 5 scouts, but he if fine with 1 scout flying alone.

 

If I were employed and had the financial ability none of this would be an issue.

 

I agree a plane is much different that a car, and it is very well documented that air travel is safer than traveling by car. Remember, we are willing to provide another adult leader right up to the gate upon departure in Illinois and I would be arriving from CT prior to the Illinois team such that I would meet them at their gate in Florida. Besides, that the one leader on the flight from Illinois would have a well trained pilot and airline crew assisting her with the safety of our 5 scouts while in flight. Don't forget my son and I would be in flight from CT at nearly the same time, so we too would be assisted by our pilot and crew in arriving to Florida safely. Overall, that is much safer than one over weight, middle aged, dude driving our kids 6 hours from summer camp back to our home base. I'm just sayin'... So ScoutNut, I'm glad you see the difference between the two.

 

Also, revisiting Richard Bourlon's post from June 6th says this...

 

"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."

 

The unit/ CC/ COR can choose to NOT have the leg of the trip where we are all traveling to Florida as part of the scouting activity, when there appears to be no other reason to travel as a group.

 

Clearly there is no other reason for us to travel as a group if the CC is fine with my son traveling to the FL airport separately from the rest.

 

ScoutNut: read my last post and see the nice email that I sent to the CC. I've printed 6 other emails just like it suggesting that we meet for coffee, and that I want him on board with us. "It is important for the Crew and I to have his blessing on this trip, etc. "

 

Remember, the CC's job is to assist and serve the process. Instead of helping us to find ways to make this work he fighting against us. It's not like I'm asking him to help us fix a bad plan so that it will pass Council's approval process. Our plan has already gotten verbal approval from Council by reviewing our Itinerary. He just needs to say, "ok, go!" and we're done! But, for some reason he is expecting something he has not demonstrated requiring in the past, and his new, higher standard does not work for me being unemployed.

 

SN: Do you always do what higher leaders of yours tell you, even when they are requiring you to do something that is unnecessary and beyond the requirements of the governing body or policy? If so, we are simply cut from a different mold, that's all.

[rraffalo]

Thank you KC9DDI... good stuff!

 

I am being honest when I believe the air travel is safer than car travel, particularly because we will have two deep leadership at the gates on each end of the flight.

 

I'm a Committee Member... we do not have higher standards. This is a one off, shoot from the hip mistake that he made. He went off in an email telling me how irresponsible I was for not knowing National's policy. He said, "It's not my policy, it's not the Troop's policy, it's not the Council's policy, it's the BSA National policy and we cannot change that!!!!!" Yes, with all the emotion and all the venom spewing from the email. So, I politely sent him a return email asking him to call me so that we can discuss some potential options. He emailed me back, refusing to call me, saying there was nothing else to talk about because I was ignoring him. All I wanted to do was point out that I had read National's policy prior to planning to be a leader on the trip and it did not seem that there would be an issue according to the policy. So, I got some advice from this Board, particularly Beavah, Moose Tracker and Richard B (Richard Bourlon who is an executive with National). I then called Council, spelled out the details to them and they emailed me back saying that they have reviewed our one leadership situation on the plane ride and they were fine with that. So, I emailed our CC who was still, at that point, refusing to talk to me on the phone or meet me for coffee, and I told him what I discovered with Council. He then came back and said, "It's not National's policy, rather it is his and the Troop's interpretation of the National Policy"

 

I know you are not hearing both sides and I consider that with each post I read. I am, however, spelling out exactly to this Board what I can support with emails back and forth to him and our COR. I want you all to know that I do appreciate all of your input very much, and even though I have vented a fair amount in this thread (ok, maybe even a bit much!) I can assure you that cooler heads will prevail. I just emailed our COR to see if he will meet me for coffee. Wish me luck!

[KC9DDI]

rraffalo - With all due respect, I still seem to think you're missing the point. Sure, air travel is safer than automobile travel by certain metrics. But I don't think the two-deep policy is targetted towards potential airliner or automobile crashes. I think its instead targetted at the numerous other complications that can occur as part of air travel - delayed flights, diverted flights, lost luggage, etc. Yes, you're planning on having 2-deep coverage at both gates, but you can't guarantee that you will. And with something as high-stakes and high-cost as a sea base trip, I can understand why the CC would want to further limit the chances of something going wrong.

 

Remember, the CC's job is to assist and serve the process.

 

The CC's job is to ensure that the troop operates in a way consistent with the BSA's policies, and also with the CO's policies and general vision for Scouting within the organization. His job is NOT to rubber stamp paperwork that meets some minimum requirements, and ignore other applicable policies, as well as good judgement.

 

But, for some reason he is expecting something he has not demonstrated requiring in the past, and his new, higher standard does not work for me being unemployed.

 

Again, I can think of plenty legitimate reasons for doing this. And, again with all due respect, but the committee cannot and should not make decisions based on one single adult leader's status in regards to one single trip. I am truly sorry that you are unemployed at the moment, but that's not really high on the list of relevant factors when the troop and the CO determine the standards that this trip should be held too.

 

Do you always do what higher leaders of yours tell you, even when they are requiring you to do something that is unnecessary and beyond the requirements of the governing body or policy?

 

It sounds like the CC is enforcing the policies of the CO, your question here is not relevant to the situation. The CO may set higher standards than the BSA, they are well within their right to do this. The fact that you believe that they have not done so before does not mean that they may not do so now.

 

I still think you need to take a deep breath, and step back, and take an honest look at the situation. Look at what's really relevant. "Well trained" airline pilots and crews helping you supervise your scouts? Not relevant (or accurate). The BSA's non-caravanning policy that you keep mentioning? Not at all relevant to this situation. Auto transportation to summer camp or local campouts? Not relevant. Someone else's council's approval? Not relevant. The fact that you, your wife and your son would prefer that you be on this trip? From the troop's perspective, that's not relevant either. So, before your next conversation with the COR, why don't you take some time to examine their potential legitimate concerns, and be prepared to help address those. There's no need to bring up anything else.

 

It seems to me at the attitude this far as been to continually gear up for a fight. At first you were preparing for a fight with council, and begging forum members to post their own experiences that you could use as ammunition. But council didn't need to fight with you. So then you want to fight with the CC, but it seems that he's refusing to fight with you. And now you're getting ready to fight with the COR. My advice: stop viewing this as a battle. The troop really shouldn't be viewing you as a parent who wants to accompany your son on this trip - they need to be viewing you as a leader and an advisor who will share responsibility for the entire crew. The CC is charged with ensuring that the best possible leaders oversee the crew at this event, and the CC and CO seem to feel that the best possible leader for this trip is one who will be involved in the entire travel process. Can't say for sure if this is reasonable or not, but they are within their rights to set that standard. I think that if you want to get anywhere with them, you need to stop viewing this as a personal battle that you must win at all costs. Instead, approach it by looking at what is best for the crew as a whole. Show them that the option you presented is better for the whole troop (not just for you, your son or your wife) than the options that they bring up. But, be prepared to honestly evaluate whether their solution is a better option for the whole troop.

 

 

[rraffalo]

KC9DDI: Delayed flights, diverted flights - I've already addressed our mitigation plans. While I cannot make a guarantee, no one can. What if I get delayed or my flight gets canceled, returning to Illinois to get on the plane with the others? If I don't make it there are they going to not get on the plane and fly to Florida without me, expecting that I will meet up with them as soon as I can redirect and get with them? In that case I would think they would just wait for me in the Florida airport. Would you expect them to STOP, miss their flight, and wait for me, so that we can all find a later flight to get on together? I fly a lot and I think they would find it hard to justify to the airline why they did not get on that flight, and as a result, the airline would make them pay more because they waited for me to take the later flight. If we follow your logic of ALL the legitimate things that could happen we would be paralyzed and never go anywhere. Maybe what we really need is three or four-deep leadership, Eh?

 

Beavah: I love those, Ehs! They really add a nice touch when accentuating a point! And, I mean that sincerely by the way :-)

 

KC9DDI: Also, I know you are far removed from this (even though you sound like you may actually be our CC ~ where are you from anyway :-), so I'll just tell you that the CC is not enforcing the CO's policy. It sounds real good. You sound very convincing saying that, but they do not have a policy. They are certainly using their RIGHT to do what they are doing (feel that POWER, baby!), but in fact they are winging it!

 

I would still question this if I were employed or not, the fact that I'm not is truly not relevant to this situation and you are correct about that one. But, the fact that I am not makes me concerned about the economics they are pushing me to. I feel bad that I cannot financially do this, because I know my son really wants to go on this trip. Subsequently, I feel incompetent in my ability to provide for him in this situation. Because there is no policy there was no communication of such requirements until we planned the trip. Now, this requirement has come out of the blue. I know it's their RIGHT, no argument. But, they can as easily sign off on the plan. It is as tight as a plan gets, without offering 100% guarantees. No plan has 100% guarantees.

 

I have taken an HONEST look at this and much of what you claim is not relevant, surely is. I think if the CC and COR look at this honestly, they would realize their position is overkill (but in their rights to take on as a position). The only way some of the things that you shunned in your post as irrelevant are not relevant is in a dictatorship. Again, I know it's their right to dictate, so I will end up living with their decision.

 

I have told them what I can do and I have encouraged them to replace me if they cannot find a way to approve our plan. They don't want to replace me, really. They want me to live up to the commitment I made to the Troop five months ago. Given the information they provided at that time, the precedent created by other trips I have personally volunteered for, and the BSA policy I am living up to the commitment I made. If they want extra money spent to keep me on the trip, they'll have to front the funds.

 

Like a church is the people gathering to worship, and not the building they gather in; the Troop is the people, not the trailer, the gear, or the meeting place. In this case doing what is right for the Troop is the same as doing what is right for this crew. The 8 people on this crew are what matter right now, not the other people in the troop. Being that none of the CO decisions of the past or the future are relevant in this case, according to KC9DDI and perhaps some others on the Board here, it is solely this situation that matters with respect to doing what is right for the Troop. Clearly, the CO's decision is not going to be the right thing for 2 of the 8 people (25% of the crew) on this trip. I'm not saying he cannot decide how he has I'm just saying it will not be the right thing for the Troop in the context of this trip.

 

I will once again recommend that he remove me from the trip and give him the opportunity to find another leader.