Whenever 2 or more troops meet

[PACAN]

I had a friend ask me about this.   Her Girl Troop wanted to go on a campout with another Girl troop or possibly a 3rd one.   She heard that she cannot do that because 2 or more troops constitutes a district/council event.   She said that is one of the most insane things she has heard since starting her troop. 

I told her that I had heard that and it probably has to do with money but can anyone point me to the actual rule on this.

[fred8033]

Guide to Safe Scouting, page 21. ... III Camping ... 2nd major bullet   

• https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf 
• https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/

With that said, there are "grey areas" and a "continuum of progressively" camping together. 

• Send the district DE an email saying:  Our troop #1 and troop #2 will be camping at ****** and may plan to interact / work together during the camp out.  Let us know if this is an issue.   I'll assume all is okay unless I hear back. 
• If you use a council property, I'm not sure I'd even ask as camping at a council camp is inherently camping with other troops.  The council camps expect your scouts to interact with the scouts of other troops.  
  • High adventures ... troops often partner with other troops to fill slots ... I've never seen permission asked if that was okay. 

Grey areas

• Shared camp site or each troop reserves it's own? 
• Shared food and resources or each troop on it's own?  ... Middle ... troop #1 cooks breakfast and troop #2 cooks dinner
• Shared schedule / activity plan or each troop has it's own with overlap? ... Middle ... a one or two scheduled / coordinated activities ... a hike ... a game
• Offered to individual scouts instead of the whole troop ... Troops often bring scouts from other troops and/or potential scouts with on adventure trips / campouts.  I've never seen permission requested from the local council.  I've never seen the council broadcast that units are failing to do this and it's expected.  

Continuum of progression

• One end ... same place same date, but independently setup/scheduled... each troop reserves it's own site ... prepares / plans on it's own ... arrives and leaves on it's own ... pays it's own bills
• Other end ... looks and smells like a district event ... advertising ... Single plan/schedule/reservation ... One troop pays another troop 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by fred8033

[Better4itall]

Wait, what?  We have to get permission from the district to work with another Troop?  Our council cancelled all inter-troop events - camporees a year before Covid. And there’s no sign of anything on the horizon. We have talked with other Troops about joint events and that is about the the only it looks like anything will happen. And in the mean time there are a lot of small troops that are struggling. Did I miss something in the thread?

[fred8033]

8 hours ago, Better4itall said:

...  And in the mean time there are a lot of small troops that are struggling. ...

What you wrote is what to tell your DE.  Your unit is too small and "event"ing together will help build the troop.  With COVID becoming the norm, I can't see them saying no.  If anything, I can see them saying ... you have standing permission to work together unless you hear different.  

[Eagle94-A1]

9 hours ago, Better4itall said:

Wait, what?  We have to get permission from the district to work with another Troop?  Our council cancelled all inter-troop events - camporees a year before Covid. And there’s no sign of anything on the horizon. We have talked with other Troops about joint events and that is about the the only it looks like anything will happen. And in the mean time there are a lot of small troops that are struggling. Did I miss something in the thread?

National came out with this rule a few years back. Page 21 of the GTSS states "Local council approval is needed for unit-coordinated overnight camping activities involving other units not chartered by the same organization. Units that wish to host events involving other units that do not share the same charter partner must have approval from their council. This includes events for packs, troops, crews, and ships from the same council; neighboring councils; the same territory; or other territory"

Stupid rule I know. I Think it was put into place to prevent some units from doing their own summer camps and camporees. I know 3 troops in one council use to put on their own summer camp, and invited others to attend. It was a better quality and cheaper summer camp, although limited to 1 weeklong session. That took away the council. I do not know if other troops are still involved, but since the 3 troops had the same CO, they can still get away from it. 

[Eagledad]

That is interesting. We once organized a Trooporee with three other troops. I could see that being interpreted as taking funds away from the District Camporee. I don't think the rule existed then, but if it did, we would likely have figured a way around it because our Trooporee was so much better than the Camporee.

Barry

[Better4itall]

We have had similar experiences as well and came to similar conclusions.  I think it will come down to asking forgiveness rather than permission, and working in forums like this to develop ideas, methods and so on.  We've got our eye on a summer camp site that could handle 4-5 Troops well.  The most important thing is to have the Scouts engaged, learning and having fun.  

I'm thinking a good next step is a "trooporee" or "camporette" weekend with a handful of Troops, and a strong activity focus and planning. Maybe late fall to give enough runway. Thoughts, responses? 

[PACAN]

The rule was likely put in for the reason Eagle 94-A1 states.    Of course once again the BSA missed why troops were doing their own summer camps and camporees.  Their  events were unsatisfactory and uninteresting to the scouts and the usual "blame the units" defense for their failures and low attendance was used.

Wonder if this applies to events other than camping?   One unit here invites all troops who want to come to do their swim test for camp, others do MBs with other troops such as Cooking events.

 

 

[Better4itall]

We have had similar experiences as well and came to similar conclusions.  I think it will come down to asking forgiveness rather than permission, and working in forums like this to develop ideas, methods and so on.  We've got our eye on a summer camp site that could handle 4-5 Troops well.  The most important thing is to have the Scouts engaged, learning and having fun.  

I'm thinking a good next step is a "trooporee" or "camporette" weekend with a handful of Troops, and a strong activity focus and planning. Maybe late fall to give enough runway. Thoughts, responses? 

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid rule I know. I Think it was put into place to ...

IMHO, it's a lawyer / legal liability issue.  It came out of the same generation as other G2SS changes and YP improvements and insurance changes, etc.  If you have multiple units from different COs camping together, there is no clear single answerable CO being responsible / owning the event.  So then, it's automatically a council event.  Seriously, if three groups camp together, how does CO #1 know that CO #2 has vetted their leaders and being responsible.  It creates a legal mess.  Who is making sure each piece-part fulfills G2SS ?

Edited March 10, 2022 by fred8033

[Better4itall]

OK - Let's see if we can change the focus here from the rules/regs and open the discussion more to ways Troops can collaborate, combine skills and resources and make good things happen for Scouts - especially when Troops are shrinking and disappearing.  Let's get back to how to's and what works. Ideas mentioned so far include:

- joint campout

- small scale camporee-ish weekend 

- self-contained summer camp with 2+ Troops

- Certification/Advancement events - i.e. BSA swimming 

What else have Troops done that worked, or are considering?  

"Scouting is fun, with a purpose."

[skeptic]

We simply need to do what works best for the individual units and their youth.  The idea that two units working together is not allowed without permission is ludicrous.  It flys in the face of the whole program, most importantly the brother/sister hood of the program.  Efficiency, sharing resources, and so on.  As noted here already, it allows smaller units to do things they might not do otherwise.  As far as YP is concerned and liability, it should not be an issue.  If all adults are following the rules, then if anything, it should make it easier to keep aware.  Most of our issues with the lawsuit things is due to NOT following the in place protective rules, and Not sharing in group interactions.  I was just asked by our CE to NOT try to work with other troops within our our council that share the same church as a sponsor.  My first campout as a boy in 1955 was an all Luthern gathering for So Cal.  That is what I want to try and implement here, both for the greater opportunity, but also strengthening our program in conjunction with the sponsor.  Our church regions have access to a number of fine camps, for example.  It is foolish in the extreme to limit cooperative efforts and those shared resources.  Sort of like the GS mostly refusal to interact with the BSA.  Adults being idiots, in my old man view.  

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Better4itall said:

What else have Troops done that worked, or are considering?  

One troop runs a campout and invites scouts.  Other troop attends but as individual scouts under the other troop.  No different than what is often done now.  Just instead of one, two or three scouts.  It's 8, 12, 15.

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

We simply need to do what works best for the individual units and their youth.  The idea that two units working together is not allowed without permission is ludicrous.  It flys in the face of the whole program, most importantly the brother/sister hood of the program.  

I agree it flies in the face of the program; the brotherhood of scouting; the fellowship of scouting.  It's against the vision.

My challenge is G2SS is not a cafeteria plan anymore than YP is a cafeteria plan.  You can't pick what you like and don't like.  If you ignore the no camping with units from other COs, what else do you ignore?  What liabilities do you open?  Do you ignore two deep because you don't have abusers in your troop?  ... Work to find a solution or a currently used method.  I would hesitate to escalate too far or too loud, but I would pursue to the level of an honest answer.  A scout is trustworthy.  

With that said, an all Lutheran scouting event does smell / sound like a council / district event.  You need to work with council leadership to get it cleared.  I can't believe the council would say no unless there are other issues going on (people, conflict, turf, etc)

[Better4itall]

There are lots of things I won't say here - a Scout is courteous - but I think that the general drift of this discussion is that the G2SS directive, while intended to protect Scouting does a lot more harm than good.  A far better way to put it is something to the effect of "Activities and events involving more than one unit are defined as District, Council or BSA national events. Guidance and coordination, but not permission should be sought from the appropriate levels of Scouting when needed.  Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among troops is strongly encouraged and recommended."  Something like this provides a liability umbrella for planned as well as incidental meetings of Troops, and would seem to align better with the spirit of Scouting.

Scouting desperately needs to turn from its "Mother may I . . ." approach and adopt a "How can we . . ." stance. Just in case anyone is listening.