Whenever 2 or more troops meet

[skeptic]

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

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)

This was in 1955 when I was 11 and brand new.  Just for clarification.  We are not a Lutheran sponsored unit, but another larger denomination.  It is interesting that every year or so, there are training couses at PTC that relate to the coopertive nature of sponsors, especially the major churches.  In those, they discuss how to integrate the program within the larger council and even area in relation to that specific sponsor.  So, it is actually contradictory to meet at PTC in such discussions, then say we should not do it.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by skeptic

[MikeS72]

I believe this appeared in G2SS about the same time that the bit regarding all district/council short term camping events must meet certain NCS standards.  Done to ensure that even when it is a weekend district/council event we are maintaining (hopefully) a reasonable level of quality and preparedness, such are sanitary facilities and the presence of trained personnel in case of emergencies.  One of the reasons our council has a director of short term camping.

 

[skeptic]

It just may be the curmudgeon in me, but at times I feel as if certain people in some of the National level decision groups think that the leaders in the trenches are all idiots or will be lemmings.  They seem to not give us credit for being able to actually be "leaders" in that we actually can be aware and respond accordingly.  But that may come from the fact that on occasion that has been exactily what transpired to cause an issue.  But we all need to not forget we are all prone to human error.  As long as we can accept our failings and work to avoid repetition and also "do our best" we should be fine.  That particularly relates to some activities with tools and such.  But, I rode in the backs of pickups and and climbed trees without ropes or something on which to fall.  I also pretty much took personal responsibility for much of my teen activities with little parental interference.  That was part of being a fifties era latch key kid. Those were the days when if we fell down and got hurt, we generally got up and went on our way if we could, often looking around to make sure nobody saw us.  We learned to work things out on our own without constant parental involvement.  My parents more than once told me that I needed to either stay away from somebody or some actiity, or learn to get along and do what was needed.  Want to go to the Jambo in 1960?  How much?  $400 plus $50 for uniforming and recommended $50 spending money.  Okay; we will buy your uniforms.  They did, and I went.  And I assure you that I enjoyed it more than a couple of guys at the time that just were sent.  

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by skeptic

[Better4itall]

Hey Skeptic - I can't argue with what you're saying.  Scouting grew up when folks made it up as they went along - based on the principles of Scouting, and it grew phenomenally.  Your story is just one of many. It's sad that unit leaders have to play dodgeball with the rulebook now.  I'm just going to keep on working with our Troop and   a few friends in other Troops, and looking for resources to support the work.  And hey Eagle 94-1A - saw another one of your posts about how your Scouts and Troop are doing - keep it up, man!  The answers won't be found in the professional ranks - there are Troops that are working the formula out and we need to share.  Sounds like both of you guys are at that spot.  Me too.  FWIW a lot of our leaders have stuck around after their sons have Eagled out, now we are friends as well as leaders.  

As for this latest example of rules to prevent scouting, it's just one more reason to keep your head down. 

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

This rule is ludicrous.

To the point, as an SM, I answer to the Troop Committee Chair and the Chartered Org Rep.

In the case of multiple units camping together, if all CORs approve, the district or council can't say squat.  This is probably the only lever that National wants the LCs to pull anyway.  If you have CO top-cover, thru your COR, you are good to go.

So, if you have say an email chain from the three CORs approving the event, you could send that to your DE, informing them of your outing, so they know, for 'legal' purposes only.

If your COR is not FULLY aware of the scope and program for your outings, then you have failed to 'let your boss know what you are doing'

 

[69RoadRunner]

One thing to always remember is that the rules imposed by national are created by people who don't have to live with them and make them work. They are also created by people who, in my opinion, are more focused on the big picture of keeping the organization financially solvent. That second part is definitely necessary, but it can come at the cost of frustrating the VOLUNTEERS who have to make their decisions work.

I'm sure they will deny it, vigorously, but I don't get the impression that National and Council leadership cares much about the effects their decisions have on us or if we don't like their decisions.

We haven't done a camporee in years because the scouts said it was the least enjoyable activity. It was the only activity I did because I had to be there, not because I wanted to. I hated being crammed together with other troops, many of whom disregarded quiet hours. Adults next to us started their breakfast at 4:30am. I really had to censor myself when I asked them what they were doing. They said their troop starts early. Fine, if you're by yourselves, go ahead. That was our last camporee.

And if you've got some very small troop struggling to survive, support their efforts to live. But I also get the impression that national would prefer consolidation of troops into fewer, but bigger troops. Well, you're going to have to dump the dumb (IMHO) charter organization way of operating for that.

Just my 1 cent. It's really not worth 2 cents.

[InquisitiveScouter]

50 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

One thing to always remember is that the rules imposed by national are created by people who don't have to live with them and make them work. They are also created by people who, in my opinion, are more focused on the big picture of keeping the organization financially solvent. That second part is definitely necessary, but it can come at the cost of frustrating the VOLUNTEERS who have to make their decisions work.

I'm sure they will deny it, vigorously, but I don't get the impression that National and Council leadership cares much about the effects their decisions have on us or if we don't like their decisions.

We haven't done a camporee in years because the scouts said it was the least enjoyable activity. It was the only activity I did because I had to be there, not because I wanted to. I hated being crammed together with other troops, many of whom disregarded quiet hours. Adults next to us started their breakfast at 4:30am. I really had to censor myself when I asked them what they were doing. They said their troop starts early. Fine, if you're by yourselves, go ahead. That was our last camporee.

And if you've got some very small troop struggling to survive, support their efforts to live. But I also get the impression that national would prefer consolidation of troops into fewer, but bigger troops. Well, you're going to have to dump the dumb (IMHO) charter organization way of operating for that.

Just my 1 cent. It's really not worth 2 cents.

Your wisdom is worth much more🙂💪😜

[SSScout]

I often comment to folks that will listen that it is a wonder any of our generation ever grew to adult hood.

Climbing trees? Building lash together (Pioneering !) towers more than 6 feet tall?  Hiking by ourselves?  Taking cars apart WITHOUT ADULT SUPERVISION?  Oh, the humanity....

One winter (!), I think it was in January, we went camping , in the snow, on a local farmer's land. Our Troop was wonderfully divided into four Patrols, on this event, each Patrol was represented, as I remember, by  maybe only three or four boys from each Patrol. Nothing unusual about that, eh?  Here's the thing.... A GIRL SCOUT TROOP camped with us.... in the snow,  20 some degrees all weekend,,,, And we learned from them...  They brought half gallon milk cartons of premade, frozen chili for dinner. Strip off the carton, into the pot, boil it up.  They learned from us.  Fire wood cutting and fire building.... We each learned/earned the respect of the other, as most of us went to the same schools. "You're a Scout?  Wow..."

Would that have been a "Council"  event?  

Edited March 12, 2022 by SSScout

[RichardB]

@fred8033 comes closest to the pin on the reason that multiple units of different Chartered Organizations need council permission to hold events together in the name of Scouting.    The charter granted is only for unit operation, not multiples.     

[MattR]

3 minutes ago, RichardB said:

@fred8033 comes closest to the pin on the reason that multiple units of different Chartered Organizations need council permission to hold events together in the name of Scouting.    The charter granted is only for unit operation, not multiples.     

Why?

Here's my guess. No training, other than YP, is required to take scouts camping. Even if, say, IOLS were required, it's close to worthless. I say that because I taught some sections once and after having just 20 minutes to teach how to safely use and sharpen an axe I decided I didn't want anything more to do with it. Of course, I was also the district camping chair who organized the camporees and there is no training required for that as well (or at least I never took any). Anyway, my guess is the BSA is worried about clueless leaders creating dangerous activities. Am I close?

I understand, but at the same time I don't see how a district event is any safer. The district people have the same training as the unit people.

[Better4itall]

On 3/10/2022 at 11:46 AM, fred8033 said:

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 ?

Actually, @fred8033 and @RichardB, This post demonstrates why the rule is unnecessary.  Who's responsibility is it to be sure that volunteers and organizations are screened and vetted? BSA National.  If two or more Troops collaborate on an event, as the post says; ". . .it's automatically a council event."  

So why is any "approval" necessary? Any good lawyer would blow through an objection of "they didn't get approval" in about two seconds.  A great lawyer will figure out how to craft rules to enable and not hinder the mission of the organization at a time when big Troops are getting smaller and small Troops are struggling or disappearing. 

Now let's assume that someone higher up gets the drift here and fixes the rule, and let's start figuring out how too get more Troops collaborating and cooperating to get more Scouts engaged in more fun stuff, and reinforce unit level leaders.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Better4itall
Typos and closing thought.

[T2Eagle]

23 minutes ago, RichardB said:

@fred8033 comes closest to the pin on the reason that multiple units of different Chartered Organizations need council permission to hold events together in the name of Scouting.    The charter granted is only for unit operation, not multiples.     

So this is what drives those of us running units crazy.  A rule, that almost no one on the ground has ever seen a need for, covering a situation that many of us have experienced without bad or even near bad outcomes arising from it, is pronounced from national BSA with no explanation at all.  The reason that you give here is not a reason, it is a statement of a fact that makes no attempt to tie that fact to an explanation for the NEW rule that you've imposed. 

And here's the two pronged problem YOU CREATE by behaving that way: the first is that absent a good explanation, as you can see from speculation here, folks suspect a venal rather than a rational explanation; second and more importantly, when you create rules that seem arbitrary, make no sense to people's lived experience, and come with no satisfactory explanation you lose credibility with the folks that you need to enforce the rules, which leads to people doubting your credibility in the need to follow other much more important rules.

I'm a licensed attorney, I've been a Vice President of a Fortune 500 company, if you speak slowly and use small words I can probably follow the reasoning for this and other proscriptions --- and so can virtually all of my fellow scouters. 

[Eagle94-A1]

A few questions.

1. What happens with the Webelos Den that wants to complete Scouting Adventure, but doesn't have a troop at the same CO?

2. What about the new troop that is having challenges that  wants to team up with an experienced troop to help them get better?

3. What if a Cub Scout Pack is doing a Cross Over at a camp out, and their Webelos are going to two, or even three, different troops, and wants the troops to camp with them?

4. What about the two troops that meet at summer camp and want to do a joint activity?

5. What about the troop that has some vacancies for ( Name your high adventure base), and no one else from the troop can go?

Yes, I have seen all the scenarios above happen.

 

If it wasn't troops getting together to create an event that competes with council, all two or more units would need is approval  from their COS to do this instead of the council. I have seen better run and cheaper events run by multiple units. Heck one event was going on for a number of years on it's own, and council decided to create their own to compete with it, and the volunteer event was still better and cheaper.

[skeptic]

26 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

A few questions.

1. What happens with the Webelos Den that wants to complete Scouting Adventure, but doesn't have a troop at the same CO?

2. What about the new troop that is having challenges that  wants to team up with an experienced troop to help them get better?

3. What if a Cub Scout Pack is doing a Cross Over at a camp out, and their Webelos are going to two, or even three, different troops, and wants the troops to camp with them?

4. What about the two troops that meet at summer camp and want to do a joint activity?

5. What about the troop that has some vacancies for ( Name your high adventure base), and no one else from the troop can go?

Yes, I have seen all the scenarios above happen.

 

If it wasn't troops getting together to create an event that competes with council, all two or more units would need is approval  from their COS to do this instead of the council. I have seen better run and cheaper events run by multiple units. Heck one event was going on for a number of years on it's own, and council decided to create their own to compete with it, and the volunteer event was still better and cheaper.

If the council is threatened by the cooperative efforts of the individual units, then they do not understand the program.  For the first fity to sixty years, at least, that was what made the program.  And, if we refacilitate that type of thing, it again will likely take off to some extent.  But, the dedidcated Commissioners that were key back then no longer exist to any extent. 

[Better4itall]

We've seen a lot of these too, and I absolutely am thrilled whenever it happens!  You get to meet other Scouters and you learn things that you wouldn't have otherwise.  I asked our CE about the order in which liability was assigned once, and he explained that the first in line is always BSA, then the Charter Orgs, and then wherever it it may fall.  That's why this rule is about as mission critical as the old tour permits, and really needs some attention.  And when we've done stuff like this I don't ever recall an incident that required the services of an insurer, or lawyer.

With that, let's talk about the situations you listed: 

1. & 3. The tradition in our district is that Weblos can cross to any Troop they want, and its up to the Unit Leaders to coordinate with leaders of the receiving Troops on logistics of joint campouts/outings and crossover events. 

2. We've been around a while and have visited other Troops to provide various kinds of support. 

4. We do a self-contained Summer Camp and have interacted with other Troops, but never really took that step of joint activities.  It's on my list to make happen.

5. We've brought Scouts from another Troop on a Philmont trek, and it was a win all around - and I got a bonus - I sat on an Eagle board for one of the same young men later as a District rep. Awesome discussion. 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Better4itall