Broken Rules and

[evmori]

Bob,

I didn't know ignorance was an excuse for breaking a rule. So if I don't know a rule exists, I cna break it? I won't be in trouble with the BSA or I won't go to jail? That's pretty cool! IMHO, ignorance is no excuse for breaking a rule. I don't know all the rules the BSA has but I do my best to try to follow the spirit of the program. As far as guidelines go, they are nothing more than that - guidelines.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[OldGreyEagle]

I had some thoughts but after rereading them, they were not scout like and so I will bid you a happy thursday instead(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[eisely]

Let's go back to the scenario about transportation. It is a common practice among scout units to drop scouts off at their homes upon returning from an outing. This has never been an issue for me since I cannot think of a single instance where I provided transportation for a scout not my own son, where my own son (or sons) were not also in the car. Presumably the presence of my own son meets the requirements.

 

This is not a totally frivolous issue. There was an instance in Southern California in the town where we lived where a soccer coach was transporting girl players, not his daughters, somewhere. One of these girls later claimed he had acted improperly while driving the car. Upon investigation she subsequently admitted she made the whole thing up. Some kids are vicious and will make accusations very casually. Fortunately few scouts are like that, but it remains a concern.

[KoreaScouter]

You know, you can "what if" these things to death and come up with hypothetical situations that support any argument.

 

I'm making an assumption for the sake of argument that we are not child molesters, and that any youth protection rule violation is not committed with malicious intent, but out of necessity (even if the necessity was caused by leader stupidity). Those assumptions made, it seems to me that the leader about to violate the rule needs to ask himself if the violation is worth being kicked out of Scouting permanently. If nothing illegal occurred, that's the worst that can happen, right? And, if you more savvy posters are right in your assertion that a YP violation, if discovered, is grounds for excommunication from the movement, it's gonna happen. So, you better be okay with hanging up the shirt as a result of what you're about to do. Looking at the situation through that filter, there will be very, I repeat very, few situations that would compel me to commit a YP violation, and they'll be life/death, not just a cold, scared, or hungry kid. I agree with others that if you have done your homework you shouldn't find yourself in this situation...

[Dedicated Dad]

 

But DD, you haven't been talking about mistakes. You've been talking about knowingly breaking the rules because you felt your excuse was more important than the rule, or the rule didn't matter. No neither, I know there exists scenarios where the rules are not applicable and so do you. And dont use my situation, try-answering Roosters without the ludicrous analogy and invisible ambulances, the problem is that its a real possibility and youre not humble enough to admit it. And regardless, stop the intimations and embellishments please, cant you just copy and paste our quotes so you dont keep misrepresenting them. I have no interest in breaking any rules or finding excuses, the fact remains that certain rules cant be used in every situation, I wish you were gracious enough you could admit that. I have never taken anyone to task for breaking a rule they didn't know about. Only the rules they knew about and ignored. I have no problem with that and I agree in general. Every disagreement we've had you claimed you either knew and disagreed with, or once you were told where the rule was, you created skewed arguments in order to avoid responsibility. No, no ,no! If youre taking about your misunderstanding of the membership requirements, you were wrong, period. But I dont disagree with any of the Youth Protection Guidelines, I only made a hypothetical situation where they dont/cant apply to which you dismissed with ludicrous analogy and without addressing their real possibilities. You're not asking to be forgiven mistakes you seem to want approval to continue doing whatever you want without reprisal. There you go again Bob, innuendo saying I want to continue to do what ever without reprisal is not my position. I simply pointed out the permission to make mistakes clause and asked for a clarification, and though youve not given any direction on that I actually see your point that its not an excuse to knowingly make mistakes. To this I humbly agree and see my error. Respectfully The Corkscrew Debate Team

 

 

 

 

[fella]

I've been reading these columns and have been bewlidered by some of the ideas being expressed. OldGreyEagle said way back (he might not actually agree with this idea):

 

"Adults get permission to make mistakes but the hole in the ear thing is a character flaw?"

 

What a strange idea! I think that safety and precuations are very important but a hole pierced in a boy's ear ought to be, and is, no big deal.

 

 

[dan]

fella

I take it your are on a crusade for earrings.

I got it, you think earrings are okay, you do not have to bring anymore up for me, I got it the after the 3rd one you brought up!

[OldGreyEagle]

Fella,

 

I am not sure what your point was on your last post. My post had a question mark at the end of it. I as trying to imply that just because you (the rhetortical you, not actually you) have an earring doesnt mean you (rhetorical again) have a charactor flaw. Perhaps I could have stated it better.

 

My 17 yr old Eagle scout son who will be working at our Summer Camp this year just got a single stud in his ear. My wife and I figured as he will be having another surgery this spring to remove a 2 centimeter stone from his surgically reconstructed bladder which he drains through a stoma on his abdomen every 3-4 hours and sleeps attached to a drainage bag. He has so many surgical scars from suprapubic tubes and multiple surgical site scares that a pin hole in his ear was probably fairly minor

 

The heck of it was the stud he got came as a pair and I thought it only right that we not be wasteful (a scout is thirfty) and the second stud should be used so I volunteered the use of my ear lobe so it wouldnt be wasted ( the stud, not my ear lobe). Unforntunatley a hasty family meeting was called and i lost 2-1 in a vote as to whether or not I could get one too.

 

You know, this democracy stuff has its drawbacks

[fella]

OldGreyEagle:

 

Sorry to hear of your 17-year old son's health difficulties and surgical needs. Any other issue like the stud you allowed in his ear is of course vastly less important. As you say: "a pin hole in his ear was probably fairly minor". While not having known about your son's difficulties (for which I wish him the best recovery) your general point is kind of what I've been saying.

 

Dan: Hey, I'm not the only who thinks that way! OldGreyEagle wanted one for himself as well as allowing one for his son.

[dan]

fella

thinks what way!?!?

My point was not about earrings, it was about bringing up old post about the same thing, without adding any meat to them.

 

and the problem with OGE is he from the wrong "patrol" Foxes rule!

How is the ticket coming OGE!

[OldGreyEagle]

2 ticket items done, 1 more will be complete when I teach my three sessions at the Unversity of Scouting in March, the fourth one is 3/4 done and I am struggling with the 5th

 

Growing up, I was always one of the biggest, tallest kids in my class. I learned early about something called the Napoleon Syndrome where little guys try to prove their worth against a larger opponent.

 

The ranting and ravings of insignificant critters holds little interest to such a noble creature(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[littlebillie]

whew. whotta lotta spittin 'n' hissin...

 

Two-deep is a minimum. MINIMUM. And if there is the slightest possibility that the group will need to split, then it increments evenly, not by odd numbers. 2 adults, 4 adults, 6 adults and so on. You can have odd numbers, of course, provided the odd man is not stand-alone.

 

(gulp!) Bob White is absolutely spang-on about this - WILL it ever happen that a single adult is alone with one or more boys? Yes, in the real world, AND as a result of BAD PLANNING. Bad planning that should never happen again.

 

Are the boys splitting up into teams and moving off separating into the woods or up mountains? Folks, it's 2 per split off group in the woods, not 2 for the whole group that arrived at the site.

 

And any adult group that fails to plan for emergency response (yes, another TWO to drive to a hospital, say) has not honored the trust placed in them or the responsibility they have accepted.

 

THIS IS NOT JUST A 'LIABILITY' ISSUE, after all. This is for everyone's well-being. The best example so far has been driving the injured kid out and to the hospital - taking this, you need one to drive and one to tend the wounded, and then AT LEAST TWO MORE LEFT behind with the rest of the kids, if you don't want to pack things in altogether. (And if fact, if the injury is time-urgent, and you DON'T have adultS to leave behind, you may very well need to drive off with all the kids to take the injured one to help, LEAVING TENTS AND GEAR BEHIND. Folks need to think it through)

 

Yeah, it can be tough, and it suggests as well that not only do you need two deep, you need as many vehicles at the site as necessary for an immediate evacuation of all the kids and adults, but I haven't read that requirement anywhere - yet.

 

Rigid adherence to this policy might lead to canceled activities. Big deal. Considering the worst-case on this, that's a very small price indeed.

 

You can play what-if til the cows come home to try to come up with reasons why it won't always work, DD, but the bottom line is that with proper planning, the real exceptions will be few and far between.

 

eisely's snow case is especially frustrating - being the only responsible adult, erring on the side of child welfare, yet ending up in a questionable situation - but even here, there WERE workarounds. (Still, I doubt if I personally would have figured them out in a cold, hungry, exhausted, angry state of mind, either, if my own kid wasn't there to swap out and sleep with me.)

 

TWO DEEP IS THE MINIMUM. Keep that word 'minimum' in mind. More can be better, and given event, terrain and everything else, it probably is. You have to be ready to cancel if you can't meet the foreseeable demands of the minimum - and so be it. Let the parents know what's up, and what's at stake. They have an investment in this too - it's up to them to help protect it.

 

I got my Eagle in Arizona, a member of a small troop in a small town. Frequently, there was only one adult with us on campouts, middle of the desert, all that. Looking back, I have no concerns that any of us kids might have been molested, but I am FULLY aware of what could have happened so easily in that kind of situation in a simple emergency...

 

Two-deep is not optional, and frankly, it should probably be deeper! The minimum should not be the goal in advancement OR adult involvement.

 

 

[mk9750]

In littlebillie's example, is it permissible to leave the rest of the Troop at the campsite without leadership to provide two deep with the injured Scout? I seem to remember Bob White saying that adult leadership is not a requirement, but if adults are there, there must be at least two. My apoligies if I am wrong Bob.

 

Or - Could another Scout be sent with the adult taking the boy to the hospital (assuming two deep leadership is left at the camp)?

 

If the second solution is not permissible, how do Merit Badge Councelors meet with candidates? I was taught to make sure Scouts met with MB Councelors with a buddy. I was never told that the Councelor needed a buddy too.

 

And lastly, a question (really for my edification only - no agenda). Common sense aside (I know that common sense would prevent me from allowing this to happen), is it permissible for a registered leader to be alone with a scout outside of a scouting situation? For instance - My son has a buddy over that is a Scout. his parents are picking him up at 10:00, but they are late. My wife and son have to be somewhere at 10:30, so they leave me with the boy. This isn't a Scout event, but obviously, he is a Scout and I am a leader. Any opinions?

 

Mark

[Bob White]

Mark,

Just for clarification. The BSA program says that a Patrol activity can take place without adults present with the permission of the Scoutmaster and knowledge of the parents.

 

A troop activity "requires" two deep leadership. That is why the BSA now "recommends" 4 deep leadership on outings so that in case of an emergency requiring adults to leave, two leave while two stay.

 

Bob White

[mk9750]

Thanks Bob!

 

I did know the distinction, but didn't write it that way. But the question was meant to be posed that under those circumstances on a Troop campout, and a Scout gets hurt, could both leaders take the Scout and leave the Troop without adult supervision, knowing that Patrols can be without adults? Certainly, four deep is a much better idea. In our Troop, we can't do a Troop event without at least 8 adults to drive. We always have at least five or six stay. so it shouldn't ever be a problem for us (at least the way we are configured now). I am asking for information only.

 

Also, any opinion on the other solutions?

 

Thanks!

 

Mark