2018 GUIDE TO SAFE SCOUTING

[David CO]

BSA first offered its program to Chartered Organizations with a clear understanding that the scouts and scouters would very likely have a pre-existing relationship with the CO, and with each other, that both precedes and supersedes the scouting relationship.  If this now causes them some liability concerns, that's just too bad. 

We are not going to sacrifice the relationships we have with our church, with our school, and with each other just to placate some paper-pushing execs in BSA. Not going to happen.

[WonderBoy]

Not even a theoretical- A friend asks me to bring his son home from a Den meeting, as he's running around with his other kids while his wife is working. And I, barely, remember to drop him off first so as to not violate YPT. Now, same kid and his brother (also a Scout) are also on my sons' soccer (football, for the rest of the world) teams. Suddenly I can't exchange rides with this family for out of town games because the soccer game is now a Scouting event because everyone in the van also happens to be a Scout?

If I can't lead my boring everyday life without violating some part of the G2SS, then the whole document starts to become meaningless. If it becomes impossible to follow, as written, then my choice is to lose my honor by only giving lip service to the G2SS or maintain my honor and withdraw as a Scouter. And I'd actually be OK with being "just" an active, involved parent, but it's clear from the ever increasing burden of training and requirements, that BSA doesn't even want that anymore. Sigh...

[David CO]

24 minutes ago, WonderBoy said:

If it becomes impossible to follow, as written, then my choice is to lose my honor by only giving lip service to the G2SS or maintain my honor and withdraw as a Scouter.

Not at all. BSA fully understood, when it created these policies, that they could not and would not be followed. Any resulting dishonor is on them, not on you.

[Oldscout448]

1 hour ago, Gwaihir said:

 

this whole discussion is evidence of litigation gone mad and the "safe space" movement Mike Rowe laments running wild on society.  I'm sorry, but if this is where Scouts is headed, that private interactions between families and friends who also happen to be in Scouting is now subject to all Scouting rules... Scout me out. 

 

And the primary reason for boys getting together is friendship, not their affiliation to Scouting.  Scouting was designed to put framework around friendship, friendship is first.

I think we have come to a sad point where we are forced to chose the letter of the g2ss and ... 

I started to type " the spirit of the g2ss " but it just dawned on me that I don't know what that is anymore. 

  I'm not even sure what  scouting is anymore, I'm waiting for the dust to settle.

I do know that if any of my sons were forced to pick between their friends and scouting, the uniforms would go right into the trash bin.   

I have no plans to even read the new guide, I just don't care anymore what the lawyers and national dictate.    We will be safe,  have fun, make friends, and learn things.  

If that means doing without uniforms and badges and handbooks so be it.  It's worth the price.

[ParkMan]

Being the internet, we like to take a point to it's extremes and then argue it's fallacy.  I was tempted to insert a meme her but don't want to insult your basic point.

This was started because a statement was made that if the BSA prohibits patrol campout the course of action was to:

On 5/29/2018 at 2:46 PM, Gwaihir said:

Patrols can still do overnighters by themselves.  They just can't do it under the banner of scouting.  I assume all but the perversely helecopterish of units, this will be the case.  it'll be friends getting together on a saturday to do something together... just not as Scouts...

I hear this point from time to time.  We don't like the rules, so we'll do it anyways and just say it's not Scouting.  The point is that any lawyer worth his salt can poke through that in a second.  Now, I'm sure your lawyer will argue it's not a Scouting function.  I'm sure the BSA's lawyer and the CO's lawyer will argue that it's not a Scouting function too.  It will all be messy.

I am sure the BSA has been burned by this multiple times and their lawyers understand what is provable in court.  So they instruct us to follow the G2SS when groups of Scouts gets together. Are some of these cases over each- I'm sure.  But I'm sure the cost of litigation is significant to the BSA and they are trying to do what they can to minimize it.

Clearly - if your neighbor is a Scout, you don't need to worry about following the G2SS.  Clearly if your son invites some scouts to his birthday party you don't either.  

It these cases where folks try to be clever to get around the rules that are the point.  

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by ParkMan
Wrong autocomplete

[qwazse]

Extremes ... like if a boy is helping a little old lady cross a busy street, he should send a selfie video of them to two registered leaders, thus ensuring that there was no inappropriate contact!

[Pale Horse]

On 5/28/2018 at 7:57 PM, David CO said:

My concern is that BSA is creating rules that it knows we will have to break. By doing so, it is teaching boys to not respect the rules.

 

This.  100% accurate.  There needs to be a simple set of easily-enforceable guidelines.  When the rules become too voluminous and impossible to enforce, people begin to willfully disregard all rules or volunteers simply walk away.  Neither of which is the desired outcome. 

[CalicoPenn]

It seems we may need a reminder of who the G2SS is designed to protect.

Ostensibly, the G2SS is designed to protect the Scouts and the Scout Leaders.  Follow the G2SS and things should go just fine for everyone.

But - the G2SS is not designed to protect Scouts and Scouters.  It is designed to protect the corporation known as the Boy Scouts of America.  It is designed to deflect liability back down to units and unit leaders.  Scout drowns while swimming on a Troop campout - parents sue (of course naming the BSA - deepest pockets).  Did you follow the G2SS and the Safe Swim Defense?  If the answer is no, or even a tepid "well kinda", National's lawyers and insurance company can make a case that they provided you specific guidance and you failed to follow it, therefore their liability is limited.

Why this language about no one on one both inside AND outside Scouting?  Too many cases of Scout leaders molesting lads they know through Scouting on non-Scout related outings/meetings, etc. where the BSA is sued because the Scout leader met the lad through the Scouts and the BSA response of "The molestation took place on a non-Scout related trip" not being strong enough to absolve the BSA of some liability - but if the G2SS says that a Scout leader can't meet one on one with a Scout outside of Scouting, their case becomes stronger - the leader, who the BSA can prove took the online YPT class, has been warned - and now is violating the BSA policies as well as breaking the law.  Lower liability for the BSA.

Does that mean your son's BSA friend can't come over to your house if your the only adult there?  Of course not - the BSA doesn't have police to enforce the G2SS and if a complaint is filed - unless there are criminal acts taking place - its doubtful it will really go anywhere. 

[Jameson76]

33 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

It seems we may need a reminder of who the G2SS is designed to protect.

Ostensibly, the G2SS is designed to protect the Scouts and the Scout Leaders.  Follow the G2SS and things should go just fine for everyone.

But - the G2SS is not designed to protect Scouts and Scouters.  It is designed to protect the corporation known as the Boy Scouts of America.  It is designed to deflect liability back down to units and unit leaders.  Scout drowns while swimming on a Troop campout - parents sue (of course naming the BSA - deepest pockets).  Did you follow the G2SS and the Safe Swim Defense?  If the answer is no, or even a tepid "well kinda", National's lawyers and insurance company can make a case that they provided you specific guidance and you failed to follow it, therefore their liability is limited.

Why this language about no one on one both inside AND outside Scouting?  Too many cases of Scout leaders molesting lads they know through Scouting on non-Scout related outings/meetings, etc. where the BSA is sued because the Scout leader met the lad through the Scouts and the BSA response of "The molestation took place on a non-Scout related trip" not being strong enough to absolve the BSA of some liability - but if the G2SS says that a Scout leader can't meet one on one with a Scout outside of Scouting, their case becomes stronger - the leader, who the BSA can prove took the online YPT class, has been warned - and now is violating the BSA policies as well as breaking the law.  Lower liability for the BSA.

Does that mean your son's BSA friend can't come over to your house if your the only adult there?  Of course not - the BSA doesn't have police to enforce the G2SS and if a complaint is filed - unless there are criminal acts taking place - its doubtful it will really go anywhere. 

Agree - 

G2SS original intent is good, but this has evolved into nothing more than a Corporate BSA cover document.  Very much like when you get a new lawnmover and it explain not to mow inside.  Obviously someone at some point did that, so the legalese solution is to pretty much put the kitchen sink into the "Thou Shall Not" section and move the liability down the road

[RichardB]

So, what is the GTSS:  

All participants in official Scouting activities should become familiar with the Guide to Safe Scouting, applicable program literature or manuals, and be aware of state or local government regulations that supersede Boy Scouts of America practices, policies, and guidelines. The Guide to Safe Scouting is an overview of Scouting policies and procedures gleaned from a variety of sources. For some items, the policy statements are complete. Unit leaders are expected to review the additional reference material cited prior to conducting such activities.

In situations not specifically covered in this guide, activity planners should evaluate the risk or potential risk of harm, and respond with action plans based on common sense, community standards, the Boy Scout motto, and safety policies and practices commonly prescribed for the activity by experienced providers and practitioners.

[Gwaihir]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Being the internet, we like to take a point to it's extremes and then argue it's fallacy.  I was tempted to insert a meme her but don't want to insult your basic point.

This was started because a statement was made that if the BSA prohibits patrol campout the course of action was to:

I hear this point from time to time.  We don't like the rules, so we'll do it anyways and just say it's not Scouting.  The point is that any lawyer worth his salt can poke through that in a second.  Now, I'm sure your lawyer will argue it's not a Scouting function.  I'm sure the BSA's lawyer and the CO's lawyer will argue that it's not a Scouting function too.  It will all be messy.

I am sure the BSA has been burned by this multiple times and their lawyers understand what is provable in court.  So they instruct us to follow the G2SS when groups of Scouts gets together. Are some of these cases over each- I'm sure.  But I'm sure the cost of litigation is significant to the BSA and they are trying to do what they can to minimize it.

Clearly - if your neighbor is a Scout, you don't need to worry about following the G2SS.  Clearly if your son invites some scouts to his birthday party you don't either.  

It these cases where folks try to be clever to get around the rules that are the point.  

 

A group of friends who happen to be in a patrol getting together, hanging out and doing stuff together is not even remotely "an extreme", that's normal everyday American teens.   The other examples provided were predicated on the premise that all events are considered scouting events even if not in uniform or outside of scouting... this is what you said the trainer stated.  

[scoutldr]

I spent a 40 year career writing, interpreting and enforcing Federal safety and health regulations.  Rule number one is "say what you mean" and then look for all the different ways it can be misinterpreted or circumvented.  It has to be "idiot-proof".  When you write a rule, standard, guideline, or whatever and tell people they can "use common sense and the Scout Motto" in assessing the risk, that is a trap meant to shift liability away from BSA.  As soon as the opposing lawyer asks "why did you not follow the G2SS when it is clearly written what you should do?" and you respond "well, my common sense and experience told me it wasn't necessary"...you're done.  As we all know, common sense is not very common any more...

[blw2]

22 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

I spent a 40 year career writing, interpreting and enforcing Federal safety and health regulations.  Rule number one is "say what you mean" and then look for all the different ways it can be misinterpreted or circumvented.  It has to be "idiot-proof".  When you write a rule, standard, guideline, or whatever and tell people they can "use common sense and the Scout Motto" in assessing the risk, that is a trap meant to shift liability away from BSA.  As soon as the opposing lawyer asks "why did you not follow the G2SS when it is clearly written what you should do?" and you respond "well, my common sense and experience told me it wasn't necessary"...you're done.  As we all know, common sense is not very common any more...

in a similar fashion - in aviation, there is an overarching concept of 'pilot error'.  When you really get right down to it there really are very few accident causes that are not in some way "pilot error"

then there is the regulation that says the Pilot in Command is the final authority....

in part:

   The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of thataircraft.

   (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

so

rules are in place that in my thinking puts 100% of any responsibility squarely on the pilot's shoulders.

Pages and pages of fine print rules and regulations apply, but it really all boils down to that

[ParkMan]

Uncle.  Ya'll do what you want here. 

I just don't think the answer to G2SS rules you don't like is to pretend you're not acting as a Scouting group while you break them.  But, if that what you want to do and argue it's OK - go for it.

 

[Gwaihir]

Just now, ParkMan said:

Uncle.  Ya'll do what you want here. 

I just don't think the answer to G2SS rules you don't like is to pretend you're not acting as a Scouting group while you break them.  But, if that what you want to do and argue it's OK - go for it.

 

I'll finish with this, no one here said anything about "pretending" anything.  What was said is if a group of boys want to go camping together in a similar fashion to the old ways of patrol camping, they would have to do so outside of the scouting paradigm.  That this was a perfectly viable solution to young men wanting to get the experiences old scouting prided itself on instilling in scouts and something American teens do now regardless of scouting.  It also might be a contributing factor as to why 90% of American teens don't want to be bothered with Scouting.