SAFE Scouting

[KublaiKen]

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I follow it religiously, to protect Scouts and Scouters, and to protect my family assets and security (in that order).

Ditto. It's insanely sound advice, whether insurance covers you or not.

At least we can all agree that insurance only covers you if you travel in Class A.

[5thGenTexan]

I might be too old.  It may be time if I go on campouts, I just need to find a tree to put my chair under.  😁

[HashTagScouts]

14 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

I don't know. I only know in the single instance in this thread where we know what happened, the plaintiff got paid despite Scouting policies being violated, and even the law. A single data point doesn't prove the case, but clearly the insurer saw liability or exposure of some kind (maybe just PR? We don't know.) and paid to make it go away.

I get it. I am the only one who doesn't believe that the insurance won't cover you if you are violating the GSS. I would say that your belief is healthy and is probably a good indicator that you will follow the GSS. I am sure that was a good part of BSA's intention in using their language. Does my belief make me less likely to follow it? Thus far, no.

My career is in insurance, and I can state that insurance carriers settle cases often simply because the cost of litigation and resulting bad PR are considered a better option. Generally settlement agreements will contain language like "payment under this agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession of any point of fact or law on the part of XYZ". 

8 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I might be too old.  It may be time if I go on campouts, I just need to find a tree to put my chair under.  😁

And let someone else do the cooking for you

[KublaiKen]

@HashTagScouts, do you believe that BSA's insurance only covers you if you are following the GSS?

[scoutldr]

41 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

@HashTagScouts, do you believe that BSA's insurance only covers you if you are following the GSS?

I believe, that, like any insurance company, their attorneys will seek out ANY excuse to lessen their obligation to pay damages.  Those who choose to ignore rules and guidelines and "reasonable" decision making do so at their own peril.

[KublaiKen]

12 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

I believe, that, like any insurance company, their attorneys will seek out ANY excuse to lessen their obligation to pay damages.  Those who choose to ignore rules and guidelines and "reasonable" decision making do so at their own peril.

So that's a "no," correct? You do believe that there is insurance coverage, but that like in every situation in life, the insurer will use means to avoid payment? But that simply not following the GSS isn't some sort of voiding of coverage?

[InquisitiveScouter]

8 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

So that's a "no," correct? You do believe that there is insurance coverage, but that like in every situation in life, the insurer will use means to avoid payment? But that simply not following the GSS isn't some sort of voiding of coverage?

I honestly don't know.

I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers.  I believe this is a great fear they have.  So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults.

But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

[DuctTape]

33 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I honestly don't know.

I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers.  I believe this is a great fear they have.  So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults.

But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

I believe that the insurance is for the BSA and not for individuals. When sued, insurance covers the BSA. The question at hand is whether volunteers and/or staff are indemnified under the policy as well. One can be certain that a lawsuit will name everyone and everything and let the court sort it out.

[RichardB]

23 hours ago, qwazse said:

One small suggestion … if it’s at all that important, a scouter shouldn’t have to click through and advance the video to find out what s.a.f.e. stands for.

It’s also not clear how the checklist would have addressed the incident that inspired it. I would love its implementation to forestall death. But how does this do what the sweet 16 does not?

The Sweet 16 has been phased out and simplified with SAFE https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/safe/ the checklist itself was not built because of Nolan's fall.  However, this council's actions to complete this video training piece was influenced by the incident.   However, supervision and knowing and following program guidance like Climb on Safely are all linked to the S, A, and even E in SAFE.

[RichardB]

@InquisitiveScouter not really anything I could comment on except to offer that the concept of SAFE and using checklists to prevent incidents is always the best way to not have to deal with injuries, claims and potential coverage issues.   Prohibited Activity Safety Moment explains some of the whys:   https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/safety-moments/unauthorized-restricted-activities/  

[HashTagScouts]

7 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I honestly don't know.

I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers.  I believe this is a great fear they have.  So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults.

But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

I think that the insurers are going to continue to make a very significant push on the BSA to tighten the screws going forward after the amounts that are floated in the bankruptcy case. These are some very massive losses they are (potentially) going to pay out. @KublaiKen, I would say assume nothing at this point, and be as vigilant as possible. Will there be a big visible change? If your council is like mine, Commissioners to this point rarely liked to rock the boat and truly get firm on anything other YP issues with units, so I question if they are going to suddenly start monitoring units on their programs outside of their "checklists" they have used up to this point. Doesn't mean they won't, but can't say I have a high degree of confidence in it.

[RichardB]

Does anyone have any comments about this councils efforts to prevent injury and illness via SAFE Checklist use?     

[KublaiKen]

37 minutes ago, RichardB said:

Does anyone have any comments about this councils efforts to prevent injury and illness via SAFE Checklist use?     

I think it is another useful tool in the arsenal. I support anything that helps keep Scouts, Scouters, and our assets (personal and organizational) safe but doesn't kill the program, and I think this meets my criteria.

 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

@RichardB, when you going to remove the lie about Dodgeball from the Prohibited Activities FAQ? Dodgeball, and several variants have been approved BSA games since at least 1929's  Scoutmaster Handbook.   As recently as 2010, it was approved.

 

A lot of comments from long time Scouters is the lack of trust and transparency we are seeing at the national and council levels. The Dodgeball lie does not help matters.

[Eagle1993]

2 hours ago, RichardB said:

Does anyone have any comments about this councils efforts to prevent injury and illness via SAFE Checklist use?     

I think it helps.  However, there is a huge variety in experience and culture between units.  There are units that are more engaged in training, rules, regulations, etc.  Many other units are either unaware (due to so many different sources of data) or just ignore the rules.

I think the only fix is for councils to be more aware of unit leaders and unit culture/behavior.  Relying on COs will not work.  So ... this video will be helpful for the units who follow rules and pay attention.  However, I question if that is the biggest safety issue BSA faces.  I wonder if the bigger issue is that there are too many poorly led units that violate rules.  I'm curious what injury investigations show.  Was the injury a result of the inherent risk of an activity, lack of a rule or was it due to violating rules?  If it was due to violating rules, was it due to lack of understanding the rules, lack of awareness of the rules or ignoring them?  This video helps with one aspect, but may not be the total answer or addressing the biggest cause.