Boy Scouts get blame for Wild Fire

[Aquila calva]

Seventeen scouts at summer camp taking Wilderness Survival Merit Badge.

 

They go on an overnight. These are often supervised by the MB counselors at summer camp. 15-year-olds may well be the camp counselors.

 

At other summer camps, how many of these Wilderness Survival overnights have adults along? Probably not many. Things may change.

 

That was 2002. This is 2007. Those 15-year-olds are now 19. Possibly married, with children of their own. Future Boy Scouts.

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

The LDS Church, the Council, the Troop, the Patrol followed the BSA policies up to the point of starting an unauthorized fire as well as using aerosol flame throwers and then not extinguishing the fire properly. Once that line was crossed, then it became the responsibility of the individuals to pay for their actions. Scout insurance covers a unit (of any kind) only if the proper policies are followed. Hopefully, these boys and their families have some kind of insurance that pays for their personal illegal actions because if they don't, then those individuals will need to find another way to pay.

 

Scouting takes place within the boundaries of people following the policies set by the BSA, no tweaking allowed. fb

 

[Beavah]

Scout insurance covers a unit (of any kind) only if the proper policies are followed.

 

Nah, this isn't correct. If it were, insurance would be worthless. How many units do yeh suppose have memorized all da BSA policies and regs? Heck, they aren't even all located in one place, eh?

 

If you've done nuthin' wrong, you don't need insurance ('cept for a small bit for defense against frivolous actions). You haven't incurred liability. Insurance is for when you've done something wrong. Your auto insurance covers you when you run the "still pink" light and cause an accident. Your homeowners insurance covers you when you plug too many cords into a socket and burn the place down. Liability insurance covers you when you've done somethin' boneheaded for which you are liable.

 

BSA insurance is general liability coverage; self-insured for the first bit, then with several secondary insurers beyond that. Da BSA regs and guidelines are not exclusions in the insurance contracts (though a few things on the "unauthorized" list might be, like hang glidin' or sky divin' ).

 

Da BSA has an excellent reputation of stickin' by its volunteers and chartered partners. They work hard to maintain that reputation. It's a big part of how we "sell" CO's on the program. Yeh shouldn't give bad information that compromises that reputation, eh?

 

[GernBlansten]

At risk of commenting on "facts" we really don't know...

 

It seems that these "counselors" were employees of the summer camp run by a council of BSA. They were put in charge of the scouts and had responsibility over them. As employees, they represent the organization and the organization takes responsibility for their actions. Those employees should have been aware of the fire ban, should have been aware of regulations against fire play, should have been aware of proper campfire (cold out) methods.

 

If I have a minor employee who doesn't follow company policies and injures a customer, my company is still fully liable. Granted the employee is fired and I may seek judgement against him, but me as the owner am still liable for damages. What I find disturbing is that the BSA lawyers might be attempting to avoid responsibility because these employees were minors.

[John-in-KC]

I will say this,

 

If there was ever a situation which called for every unit contact by the Commissioner Service to have a chain teaching of wilderness conservation, fire safety, and LNT, this case is the justification.

 

Beavah,

 

You're right, the Council/National liability coverage protects Chartered Partners from the impacts of the program.

 

That said, we may have hit a point in the BSA life cycle where BSA owes its Chartered Partners better training about stewardship of the land. This includes Scouts and Scouters on the charter, as well as the COR.

 

My thought is the National Council should amend the Charter Agreement, or the annual roster renewal, to include emphasis on stewardship of the land.

 

If our program delivery vehicle is outdoor skills, then we (Scouts and Scouters Nationwide) need to be among the very best stewards of our recreation lands.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Beavah]

I agree with yeh, John. I'd like to see an emphasis on LNT, "how to work with kids", and safety in adult trainin'. We typically only give cursory lip service to each. I wouldn't drop this on the Chartered Partners, though. It's a BSA support function.

 

* Why aren't knowin' and demonstrating LNT principles part of the T-2-1 requirements (and explicitly "central" to IOLS/BALOO/OWL, etc.?).

 

* Why aren't techniques for workin' with, settin' expectations for, responding to behaviors of adolescent boys anywhere in da BSA trainin' or materials?

 

* Why is G2SS our sole safety document, and why is even that often a training footnote? Why is there nuthin' on case studies, nuthin' on judgment/skill/buildin' experience? And why is G2SS such a poorly written mishmash?

 

* Why is there no experience requirement for SM or Crew Advisor? Trainin' is all well and good, but we all know that trainin' is the first 10% of learning. The rest is experience and reflection.

 

This incident happened at a BSA summer camp. On BSA property. With BSA staff in charge. We should acknowledge and fix our own problems, not try to pass the buck to the CO's. Or hide behind 15-year-olds in court, eh? Maybe da CO's should amend the charter agreement to put an emphasis on BSA responsibility and service.

 

But yah, I know what you're gettin' at, eh? The statistics tend to point to one Chartered Partner a bit. Just like a rambunctions scout, though, I think we're best to respond with harder work toward service.

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[John-in-KC]

Beavah said, in part:

 

"This incident happened at a BSA summer camp. On BSA property. With BSA staff in charge. We should acknowledge and fix our own problems, not try to pass the buck to the CO's. Or hide behind 15-year-olds in court, eh? Maybe da CO's should amend the charter agreement to put an emphasis on BSA responsibility and service."

 

I agree with you, Beavah, in that the local Council, the SE, the Reservation Director, Program Director, Lodge Director, and Ranger all own a share of the responsibility. Funny. In my Council a youth staffer can only be an Instructor until the 18th birthday. Only then is he/she considered for a pay raise and promotion to Counselor.

 

I think your other points are valid, particularly on the quality of our outdoor skills training and certification for adults. I think we do need to improve the G2SS so it's not just an compendium of insurance liability findings, and that safety needs to be taught up front and as a key component of the adult curriculum, not as an afterthought.

 

I do think we need to emphasize the importance of the work the Chartered Partner does in its part of the Charter Agreement. I say that, though, looking across the board here, listening to how many uninvolved and pro forma Chartered Partners we seem to have. Leader Selection is their vital task. Maybe we are just hearing about the problem Partners, but where there's noise...(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gern says that as an employer that she is guilty for any wrongful acts of her employees. Follow the logic....

 

Let's apply the same principle of employer responsibility to the Forest Ranger that inadvertently started a fire due to her depression in 2002. She was not only found guilty of starting the fire but she also went to jail. Her employer, who was not responsible for the acts of a depressed employee, did not follow her to jail, and was not charged. It was not even a consideration. Most likely she paid for her own attorney and her insurance did not pay for the damage.

 

In the Agency where I work when an employee does something wrong like takes money, they are dismissed, fined and sent to jail plus they lose their license to work. The Supervisor, all administrators and those above them are not called into question. Liability is placed directly on the person committing the crime.

 

In the BSA, there are several regulations:

 

The Sweet 16

1. Qualified Supervision- an adult (trained) will supervise all activities

14. Applicable Laws- Compliance with all applicable regulations and statutes

15. Discipline- will be maintained.

 

All camping permits

"...members of this group are qualified campers and are familiar with the standards and objectives of good Scouting and will conduct themselves accordingly."

"...they will conduct themselves according to the best standards of Scouting and observe all rules of health, safety, and sanitation as prescribed by the BSA."

 

Obey all fire laws, ordinances, and regulations.

 

Chemical Fuels

The sentence The use of liquid fuels for starting any type of fire is prohibited was placed in boldface, to indicate that it represents BSA rules and policies.

 

Our Pledge of Performance

We will be certain that all fires are attended at all times.

We will apply for a fire permit from local authorities in all areas where it is required.

We will at all times be a credit to the BSA and will not tolerate rowdyism or un-Scout-like conduct, keeping a constant check on all members of our group.

We will, in case of backcountry expedition, read and abide by the Wilderness Use Policy of the BSA.

 

Wilderness Use Policy minimizes impact by planning well in advance to know the ordinances and to obtain the required permits.

Limit the group from 8 to 11 persons, including at least two adult leaders.

Conduct pre-trip planning by stressing proper behavior, rules, and skills.

Use backpacking stoves when open fires are restricted.

 

(*If it was the Wilderness Survival MB that these Scouts were attempting to obtain, what were they doing with aerosol canisters? From my point of view, several regulations and laws were knowingly violated.)

 

When there is a problem, the BSA will want to know that there was satisfactory cooperation and conduct.

 

I dont find the G2SS difficult to read or understand and it appears to be straightforward.

If the BSA based it on problems that have happened in the past so as to prevent future problems, then they are using sound logic to assist in maintaining the utmost care for all members.

 

Once again, if a person or persons knowingly violates the rules of conduct, then they have taken it upon themselves to not only break the BSA rules but local and state statutes as well. I am unsure why the BSA would want to support such actions in a court case and I am not sure why an insurance company would pay for those acts. fb

 

[rkfrance]

Gern said "If I have a minor employee who doesn't follow company policies and injures a customer, my company is still fully liable. Granted the employee is fired and I may seek judgement against him, but me as the owner am still liable for damages. What I find disturbing is that the BSA lawyers might be attempting to avoid responsibility because these employees were minors."

 

The emphasis was about minors. Laws are applied differently. As in "the court has to decide if they will be tried as adults", etc.

 

To apply logic, the Forest Ranger, a US Park Service employee and adult, was charged. The government will not sue itself for damages. One agency may be compensated by another agency however.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Responsibility for criminal actions by minors is varied by state and severity of crime. If Gern's minors commit a crime in her business, I doubt that she would be held responsible. 12 million dollars is noteworthy. If human life had been involved, then we would no longer be talking about the crime of burning down a large forested area. fb

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Two scenarios...

Ice cream stand staffed by minors. I'm the owner.

 

Scenario one: A youth loading the ice cream machine mistakenly puts in dish soap instead of ice cream mix. Another youth serves that mix to customers. Customers get sick and sue. Who's on the hook?

 

Scenario two: A malicious youth puts ground glass in the ice cream mix. Another youth serves that mix to customers. Customers get sick and sue. Who's on the hook?

 

In both cases, me as the ice cream stand owner (or ultimately, my insurance company) will have to pay. The reason? I failed proper oversight of my minor employees.

[Beavah]

Yah, we're mixin' things up here.

 

There's a criminal act. Dat's where someone violates a statute and may be subject to fines (paid to the State) or loss of liberty (jail/prison). Only a person who participates in committin' a crime, beyond reasonable doubt, is subject to this bit, eh?

 

If yeh commit a criminal act that's prosecuted by the People (in the person of a district attorney), your employer isn't on the hook for that. Nor is your insurer. You hire your own attorney (or use a court-appointed one) to keep you out of jail.

 

Then there's a tortitious act. Dat's where someone does something dumb, that may or may not be a crime in itself, but which harms someone else. They may be subject to liability - to payin' a person/company/agency restitution, if it's shown they should by preponderance of the evidence.

 

If yeh commit a tortitious act and are sued in a civil action, your employer (or the group for whom you are volunteering) is typically on the hook for that, if the act was committed while you were serving as a volunteer/employee. They have a responsibility to select, train and supervise you. More importantly, they are the one benefitting from your labor, so they must also bear the burden for your failure. Your employer's insurer (and your own) will defend you.

 

Of course, as a volunteer in a not-for-profit charitable organization, you individually are typically immune from civil action. But your CO is not.

 

So, for da Utah blaze, there's no particular question of a criminal case, because the state can't meet the evidentiary burden of identifying an individual or individuals who beyond a reasonable doubt caused the fire. Fuzzy's right, the BSA's insurers probably won't defend an adult in a criminal case (though in some cases they might, to help mitigate a follow-on civil case). But that doesn't apply here.

 

But this is a civil case, where the agency possibly can prove by preponderance of the evidence that the BSA through its employees/volunteers (and their lack of supervision of youth) were responsible for the fire, and should pay damages. The BSA and its insurers will always defend the CO/leaders in these cases, because the liability falls to the CO and thence to the BSA anyway. Defendin' the leaders is trivial, because they're typically immune. This is fair, because in the charter agreement the BSA assumes part of the responsibility for selecting and supervising, and all the responsibility for training the leaders. The BSA also benefits from the CO's labors (membership, dues, popcorn, FOS, public recognition). So it's "right" for the BSA to defend the CO. It's also necessary, if yer ever goin' to get CO's to charter units.

 

All this is hopelessly simplified, and must not be relied upon or considered as legal advice or guidance. Just as a basic outline of citizenship issues, eh?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gern, if someone wanted to commit a crime, there would be little opportunity to supervise their actions, unless, you are an accomplice.

 

Utah: From July 31, 2006 for all federal state and private lands...

(since rescinded in specific areas)

The following acts are prohibited:

1. Setting, building, maintaining, attending or using open fires of any kind except campfires within approved fire pits.

2. Smoking except within a closed vehicle

3. Discharging, or using any kind of fireworksor other incendiary devices in any location on federal, state and unincorporated private lands.

All other fire restrictions handled through local permits

 

[GernBlansten]

In no way do I think the CO is responsible for this particular act. It happened at a council scout camp. (as far as we know)

 

I understand that willful law breaking of an employee would relieve the employer of some if not most liability. That is if the employer had taken reasonable steps to train and supervise the employee.

 

However, in this instance, I would ask these questions...

Did the BSA/Council camp inform their employees of the fire ban?

Did the BSA/Council camp train their employees of BSA regulations of fire management? If so, can documentation of this training be presented?

Did the BSA/Council camp properly supervise minor employees to verify regulations are followed?

If those questions can be answered in the affirmative, then I could see the council and BSA be relieved of liability and liability shifted to the counselors.

If any of those questions were answered in the negative, then that opens a wide fissure for lawyers to place liability on the BSA/Council.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's assume for a minute that we actually know something about the overall happening.

 

2- 15 year old counselors, possibly first-class or better.

Some fire prevention, fire building, fire safety training is required before they ever got to summer camp.

 

17- other Scouts First class or better. Similar kind of training.(clear violation of the LNT by numbers alone.)

 

A fire is not required for the over-nighter on the Wilderness Survival MB, although they must show they can start fires using three methods. Nothing is stated that they were attempting to qualify for this requirement.

 

The group had to bribe the 2 counselors to start a fire. What reason was needed to bribe someone other than going against a rule. This demonstrates that the counselors had some knowledge about not starting fires before they left base-camp.

 

The group was playing with fire. Someone must have known that playing with fire is against basic fire safety rules. Most of the Scouts should have suspected that lighting spray aerosol was against the rules. Some of the Scouts may have even been trained to not use this method but it is strange that they would bring it on a Wilderness Survival MB outing. We are left to wonder about the reasoning.

 

Apparently, the group dug fire-pits for their fires, so there was little awareness of the state and local fire rules. They had some knowledge of fire safety, based on them digging the holes although, the whole group was unaware of the Scout Wilderness policy.

 

They did not have adult supervision as stated in the BSA G2SS, although there is some question as to a Scout Patrol doing an overnighter, if they are trained and if they have proper planning. Since this was a Summer camp, then the Summer Camp Staff may have felt they could rewrite the rules to mean what they wanted them to mean.

 

The Council has been noted in this forum before as being an independent entity of the national BSA. National has the most money and most Councils would love for National to back their negligence. I feel that when a person or persons decide to change the rules to meet their own desires then they must assume the responsibility for the consequences. I still think that the minors are all guilty of this offense and that National should not be involved. The Council may take some of the responsibility but most of it rests on the individuals that started the fire. I rest my case. fb