A Scout is Thrifty?

[LongHaul]

I'm posting this in Issues and Politics becsue I think it is one and involves the other. In a thread in the Cub Scout section Scoutnut posted a link to the changes in the GTSS. http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gssay.html I pointed out that the on line version had not been actually updated and was in fact still the same as #34416E. Well it turns out we were both right! The on line version has been updated but not all the changes have been made, maybe its a human error. I picked up a copy of the new GTSS #34416 the letter denoting revision has been dropped again. In comparing the #34416E edition (yellow cover)with the new #34416 edition (red cover) I have to ask why National had to hire anyone to make these changes at all. The link which is provided on the cover of the new edition, which is bright red, is the same link Scoutnut provided us and describes three pages of changes. This UPDATE appendix says ; Aquatics Safety: Safety Afloat The content of this entire section was replaced with new copy from item 34368B (2006 printing). Updated: 1 Mar 2006   The text in the new version( red cover) is exactly the same as the old version.(yellow cover) except for five (5) words which have been deleted. The text is over four columns in length and deleting five words constitutes this entire section was replaced? Under Safe Swim Defense section three they swapped phrases!! Where it used to say deep water not more that 12 feet its been changed to deep water not over 12 feet AND where it used to say deep water not over 12 feet now it says deep water not more that 12 feet We paid for this! Look at the link Scoutnut provided and read the extent of the changes made and ask yourself if ONE this was necessary at all. TWO, why did we have to order a complete new printing. THREE, how much did we have to pay to have a RISK Management Firm come up with these changes? Aquatics Safety: Classification of Swimming Ability The "Swimmer test" was completely reworded. (Only the wording, not the requirements themselves, was altered.) Updated: 5 Apr 2006   Under "Swimming Ability", the phrase "Jump feetfirst into water over the head in depth, level off, and begin swimming." was changed to "Jump feetfirst into water over your head" Again dropping five (5) words qualifies as having been completely reworded? What does any of this have to do with RISK Management anyway? Other than the American Whitewater Safety Guidelines and the revelation that maybe 7 year olds shouldnt be allowed to use/carry pocket knives I find this revision to have been a total waste of time and money. National Camp School is now referred to as National Camping School speaking of which I am informed by those we sent to said school to be trained to provide Qualified Supervision for our Cub Scout Day Camp that the National guide is a ratio of 8 to 1 for Cub Day Camp. Two adults and sixteen 7 year olds is acceptable. I think there could have been other areas addressed if they wanted to address RISK in the current GTSS.

 LongHaul

[evmori]

The cost to reprint is probably minimal or would be the same as issuing updates to the existing G2SS considering there were 23 updates.

 

Are the updates necessary? If it is truly a complete change, yes. If it is just re-wording, no. Making a change for change sake usually doesn't make sense.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[LongHaul]

Ed,

That was my point exactly 23 updates of which 3 were actual changes in policy. Whitewater safety was a complete rewrite and the regualtions for Venturing Program use of fire arms was changed significantly, the first change listed had gone into effect on Jan 1, 2006 and was a change in policy, other than those three the other changes IMO were totally unnecessary and a waste of time and money. It seems that wording was changed to justify expense of having a Risk Management Firm look the thing over, which was the reason given for the rewrite. I just don't see how the rewording changes the risk factor or clarifies anything.

LongHaul

Four if we count the part about Tiger Cubs NOT having pocket knives(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[evmori]

I guess I just don't see it as that big a deal.

[t158sm]

Ed:

I think Longhaul's point is - how much did the BSA pay the risk management firm for the work they did? From the looks of it the work the firm did was minimal and mostly useless.(This message has been edited by t158sm)

[FScouter]

When the existing stock of books is depleted and more need to be printed, it would seem to make sense to include whatever revisions there happen to be at the time. They're easy to do. It's not like the old days when someone had to set type by hand and recompose every page.

 

Why do we think a risk managment company was hired to review these revisions?

[evmori]

I remember reading about the BSA hiring a risk management firm. Can't remember where or when, though.

[ScoutingEMT]

I thought the yellow was the new one, and the red cover was the older one.

[scoutingagain]

Well, thankfully they continue to save us from the inherent dangers of Laser Tag and it looks like they have done nothing to clarify the issue of whether the phrase "may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants." means smoking is prohibited or if adult leaders have the option of not allowing the use of tobacco products.

 

 

 

SA

 

 

 

[scoutldr]

Here we go again. The phrase, "(you) may not allow" answers the question, "May I allow the use of tobacco." (No, you may not.)

 

Aren't there any English teachers in the room? (Except Eamonn)

[evmori]

It actually reads

 

Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants.

 

All Scouting functions, meetings, and activities should be conducted on a smoke-free basis, with smoking areas located away from all participants.

 

 

If the BSA wanted to ban smoking it would read

 

Smoking tobacco on all BSA property & at all BSA function is prohibited.

 

but they didn't.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fuzzy Bear]

I may be jumping in over my head (*12 feet is more than enough) but Risk Management is of the highest priority/safety first and should always be given a green light when anything may be out of order in this kind of pamphlet. This is the document that will be held up in court and read aloud to a jury to show that somehow we are putting kids in danger by the very wording, the context, the vocabulary, the grade level, whether it is current and if it reflects the best advice or NOT. It may be more of a hiney saving technique that could be appreciated by most ambulance chasing lawyers. Give the BSA credit where it is due. They publish more books, more paper, more forms, more pamphlets, kill more trees than any other organization on the face of the earth. They are probably not attempting to make a few bucks but most likely are trying to save a few. FB

[FScouter]

If the BSA wanted to ban smoking it would read

 

Maybe BSA does not formally BAN smoking because it expects us adult leaders to live by the Scout Oath and Law, which includes keep myself physically fit .

 

How can we teach boys to avoid intoxicants such as tobacco if we are not man enough ourselves to keep clean our own bodies clean? We dont teach boys how to make ethical choices in their lives by laying down the law in BIG BOLD letters. So why expect BIG BOLD LETTERS about smoking in the Guide to Safe Scouting?

[evmori]

How can we teach boys to avoid intoxicants such as tobacco if we are not man enough ourselves to keep clean our own bodies clean?

 

Tobacco isn't an intoxicant.

 

So if someone smokes they can't teach the dangers of smoking to someone who doesn't? Don't think that makes sense.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutldr]

Ed, the root word for intoxicant is "toxin" meaning poison. The word is appropriate.