Safety Afloat question

[fling1]

So, CNY, there are two issues here:

CC says you need a lifeguard to take the troop canoeing

CC is willing to do a parent+child outing rather than disregard G2SS

Which of these is annoying you more?

For issue (1), as you have discovered, certified lifeguards are needed for your non-swimmers. So the CC is correct in this, if you have non-swimmers in your group. If your group can all pass the swimmer test, you need simply put your CC's mind at ease and educate him/her on the details of Safe Swim Defense. And issue (2) becomes moot, for now.

For issue (2), the difference between "wink wink" and full compliance is simply full disclosure. If participants know that they are assuming their own risk, including liability, just like they would if they went by themselves, then you are not skirting anything. You said that your training explained the standard as "promoted in troop meetings, attended by troop members and run by troop leaders." But if your scouts have parents who know they are responsible, then you are not running or leading anything, and are not liable for the actions of others. No need to feel dirty or dishonest about it. If you think your unit is not fully disclosing this, that is probably a pretty simple fix, too.

 

[FScouter]

"For issue (2), the difference between "wink wink" and full compliance is simply full disclosure. If participants know that they are assuming their own risk, including liability, just like they would if they went by themselves, then you are not skirting anything."

 

I'd disagree with that. A unit and it's leaders cannot abdicate responsibility simply by declaring "we're not responsible, it's a parent thing (wink, wink, nudge nudge)".

 

When push comes to shove and a non-swimmer boy with no PFD drowns when the leaky over-loaded boat capsizes on the class 5 rapids, does anyone really think the jury is going to relieve the adult troop leaders of blame just because they declared "quack, we're not a duck, quack, quack, it's a parent thing, quack, quack, (wink, wink)". Does anyone really believe BSA will defend these leaders?

[Beavah]

CNY, thanks for the detailed response, eh? Let me see if I can clarify where we differ.

 

The Troop has done nothing to inform parents the ramifications of doing this as a parent/child event. The only reason I understand this as I have attended training (and joined the training staff)... I have also sat though a presentation to a CO by a DE how the BSA insurance works.

 

I think you are overestimatin' your training. You're certainly overestimating the quality of understanding of legal/insurance issues of those on internet forums.

 

I'm not quite sure what the dire "ramifications" are that you're talking about. A parent/child event I'm assuming means each parent is present to supervise their child and make on-the-spot decisions about the activity. If the parent is there, the parent is responsible for the child. The duty of care (and hence liability) of the adult leaders and institution changes substantially.

 

If instead of the parents being present, Joe the SM and Bill the ASM are running a "private" trip, then if a kid gets hurt there might be a suit, and a legal tussle over liability. But there'd be a legal tussle over liability for an official trip, too. Depending on the facts of the case, the BSA may still cover, the CO's carrier may cover, the adult leaders' umbrella or homeowner's policy may cover, the canoe outfitter/guide's policy may cover, the local land management agency that didn't post warning signs may cover, and of course there may not be any finding of negligence so nobody needs to cover. This is annoying and time consuming, but no different than if a kid is injured at your son's birthday party or the CO's church picnic. It is ordinary liability that all of us incur every day.

 

From the training I took, if it is promoted in troop meetings, attended by troop members and run by troop leaders its a troop event, no matter what the Troop or anyone says.

 

Then the training you took was conducted by amateurs or you didn't hear it right. That might be the finding, or not. I know units in CO's where, for example, the troop promotes church youth group activities and other church events. That doesn't make the confirmation class service trip a troop event. Someone might argue that it is (the "quack" theory), but then our legal system allows people to argue almost anything, eh?

 

I would really have question the integrity of a UC, who coming to them with a safety concern, told me that if I didnt like it, to find another troop

 

But this isn't a safety concern. It's a troop management concern. You're telling me that they're payin' attention to real safety issues like requiring swim checks (in fact, they're being strict about not letting non-swimmers go), and that they're going to have a high level of adult participation/supervision.

 

Paperwork compliance is a different thing from safety. As a UC, I try to help with paperwork, but I don't waste a lot of my volunteer energy on it.

 

A Troop can play paintball, skydiving and do drag racing and not follow the G2SS by just saying this is a wink-wink parent/child event and explaining the risk?

 

A "Troop", no. A CO? Yes. The individual private members of a Troop? Of course. If a troop advertises an (outside activity) like a local film festival, open house at the skydiving center, or youth paintball day at the local park, and some of the troop parents go with their kids to that event, I think that's just fine. It's a great way to get the film festival, the skydiving center, and the paintball emporium to reciprocate by advertising Cub Scout Roundup or local boy scout troops. Crossmarketing, eh? Everyone wins.

 

I think it's just important that enough clarity of information is provided so that parents can give informed consent. If that isn't being done, then I agree with you. That's an important component.

 

Arent we as Scout Leaders supposed to follow the G2SS so youth can do these things in a safe environment and so the parents can trust that we are providing that safe environment?

 

The Guide to Safe Scouting is a (relatively poor) guidebook. It seems to be written for CMA purposes for da BSA, not really as a useful guide to people runnin' trips. As a former river guide, I honestly never look at it for river trips, I just run safe river trips accordin' to my professional trainin'. That's what wise parents trust. Experienced and caring people, not a rulebook or paperwork.

 

From what you say, most of the parents in your troop do trust the leadership. You don't, so it's not a good fit. Nor are the other local troops in your area, you've said in the past. I think your decision to leave is a good one for you. I think that's a better decision, and more consistent with the Oath and Law, than telling other new parents not to trust the troop leadership.

 

[Beavah]

When push comes to shove and a non-swimmer boy with no PFD drowns when the leaky over-loaded boat capsizes on the class 5 rapids does anyone really think the jury is going to relieve the adult troop leaders of blame just because they declared...

 

If a ski club organizes a trip to Vail and a family attends, are the ski club volunteer leaders (who organized the group transportation and tickets) liable if a child, while skiing under the supervision of his parents, runs into a tree without a helmet?

 

Almost certainly not, no matter how much anyone quacks.

 

Liability in the above whitewater "straw man" case probably falls on the outfitter, eh? With perhaps a child endangerment charge against the parent of the boy for taking a nonswimmer on a Class V river and not makin' him wear his life jacket.