BSA rules police

[DeanRx]

ASM -

 

Beevah and Eamonn have some good insight on this one.

 

As for your questions about who brings up the violation at a group campout.... well I'd say if your name is on the tour permit, then you are responsible to BSA that your group is following the rules. So, if you are signed on the tour permit or you hold a position of authority (CM, ACM, SM, ASM) within the pack / troop / crew, then you are well within your scope of duty to have a talk with the individual(s) involved.

 

If you are an adult along for the ride, then bring the issue to the attention of one of the adult leaders and let them deal with it. If they choose not to act, then ask yourself if the violation is severe enough to warrent you bringing it to the attention of the district or council. At this point, the issue is with the unit leadership in addition to the individual(s) involved in the issue.

 

Frankly, its this "overzealous" - "I'm right and I'll tell you why you're wrong...." attitude that prompted my rant about what scouts can and cannot do anymore. Unfortunately, it seems to be a pervasive theme in some units / districts and I don't really see it benefitting the boys OR the organization in any way.

 

I recall friendly, courteous, kind, helpful, in the Scout Law. I don't recall 'right' or 'bossy' in the Scout Law. I remind myself on occasion about the 'cheerful' point in the Scout Law (especially after spending too much time on the message boards)

 

Police yourself, lead by example. Unless in a position of authority, bite your toungue unless imminent danger to youths or others is involved (knives, fire, co-ed bunking, YPG, etc...). Otherwise, state your case to the leader(s) present and then be done with it.

 

AS for the OP and the DE bunking with his fiance - he's a smuck for doing it and looses big time credibility points with all who have knowledge of it (both adults and youth). That should be "punishment" enough. Bring it to the attention of the council and then let it go.... if they give him a slap on the wrist, or fire him - its not up to you, you've done your due dilligence for the good of the group.

 

One other thought - No one is EVER going to question your personal integrity for not reporting something someone else did. People will however, question your motives if you make an issue out of every little thing that might not be "by the book". If a scouter is not in imminent danger, what good does it do to make an issue out of it at the time it occurs?

 

Might be better to use it as a teaching moment at a later date... Next campout prep, put out "Just a reminder regarding sleeping arrangements....and this applies to EVERYONE !!" Or it can be a topic of character development discussions with your scouts.... If they ask, you have a teachable moment about how hard it can be to have integrity, even as an adult. Point out (without specific details) that sometimes adults have a hard time "walking that line". Even the good scout leaders, very well intended, sometimes grapple with hard choices and make the wrong decision - its good for youth to understand that concept.

 

Your scouts will get a benefit from it, you earn trust instead of alienating yourself, and it gets the scouts to think about / discuss real world moral and ethical conundrums that we all must face in our day to day lives.

 

Sorry - can't be more specific than that. I truely believe its all situational leadership. So, how I'd act / what I'd do given a specific set of circumstances will differ as the variables change.

 

That's part of being an effective leader.

 

DeanRx

[NeilLup]

"One other thought - No one is EVER going to question your personal integrity for not reporting something someone else did. People will however, question your motives if you make an issue out of every little thing that might not be "by the book". If a scouter is not in imminent danger, what good does it do to make an issue out of it at the time it occurs?

 

Might be better to use it as a teaching moment at a later date... Next campout prep, put out "Just a reminder regarding sleeping arrangements....and this applies to EVERYONE !!" Or it can be a topic of character development discussions with your scouts.... If they ask, you have a teachable moment about how hard it can be to have integrity, even as an adult. "

 

Hello Dean,

 

I agree with almost all of your excellent post. However, on your first point, there are the eloquent words of Pastor Niemoeller:

 

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

However, the point that you are making that there are times to speak out and times not to is exceedingly accurate. As I implied in an earlier post, the "Pick a little, talk a little" gossip of the Music Man is something very different from what Pastor Niemoeller is talking about. Commenting on other people's private lives seem to me to be very much an area where it is very easy to stray into gossip and where one's personal integrity will not be questioned for not commenting on what someone else did.

 

That gets to your second point. I am not sure to whom the "Just a reminder about sleeping arrangements" would be addressed. If to Scouts, it would probably go over most heads with a few "nudge, nudge, do you know what he's talking about? Yuk, yuk yuk" among the older Boys. If to adults, reminding them of the guidelines in broad enough terms that it isn't pointed but rather is just a check of proper behavior, then that probably will do the job nicely. But one would need to be careful not to have it be a "zinger" interpreted as a shot at a particular individual deemed to be an offender.

[NancyB]

I have enjoyed reading all the different viewpoints on this matter. They all give me food for thought. But one thought - if the BSA didn't care whether we followed the rules, why did they make them? They are there for a reason. I personally disagree with a few of them, but that doesn't give me a right to flaunt those rules. Scouting is not about the leaders, it is about the boys. I have seen too many scouting leaders who are more interested in the politics, for lack of a better word, of scouting rather than about the boys. I would think that most of the rules and policies are about protecting the boys. And I'm sure many of them were created from situations that went bad. Years ago, when I was in college and living in my apartment, my neighbor was a scout leader. One day, he just stopped living there. Then I saw his name in the paper as having been arrested for molesting boys in his troop. And no, he wasn't a homosexual, he was a pedophile. Putting that incident into perspective of this thread, was he doing something (other than the obvious crime) that violated BSA rules/policies? Did he have this boy alone in the tent with him? Did other people see that he broke a few rules but looked the other way b/c those rules were really kinda silly? And it wasn't their job to say anything? And the council/commissioners didn't think it was that big of a deal? If the scout leaders/commissioners etc see this behavior and don't do anything, then their lack of action condones the behavior and the rule breaking. And if a child is injured and the parents find out that it happened b/c somone broke a rule that really doesn't mean much in today's society and no one did anything about it and let it happen.....well, guess what, your name is going on that lawsuit too. The family will sue not just BSA, but every leader involved with allowing the rule breaking to go on. And if the council finds out that there was a leader/commissioner who didn't do their job, they are going to have a choice to make between (a) defending your decision to fail to enforce the rules and to notify them of any problems, taking all the liability themselves or (b) claiming that they had rules in place to protect the boys and the leader didn't do what he was supposed to do, which puts the liability on the leader. Hate to say it, but they'll put the blame on the leader/commissioner for not enforcing BSA policy. Whether or not the family gets a judgment against you is irrelevant, you are going to spend a huge amount of money and time defending that lawsuit. And don't think this won't happen. The family will sue all those involved so that it can get all the information through depositions and other investigation to find out where the fault is. And there are already lawsuits and other legal matters out there that have arisen out of this scenario. And don't blame the legal system - if it were your child who was injured b/c no one followed the rules, you'd be upset too.

 

My bottom line is --- the BSA created the rules and policies and they can't be everywhere to enforce them. That's why they have commsissioners and other leaders. Don't take chances. If someone gets hurt b/c rules aren't followed - chances are it will be a child who is hurt. If there is a rule infraction, investigate and deal with it. I'm not saying fire or get rid of every person who is accused of breaking a rule. If necessary, "suspend" them while you investigate to get to the bottom of the problem. It might just be a misunderstanding somewhere. But don't just ignore the rule violations.

 

And Eamonn- can I join your troop??? Even though I may not agree with everything you've said, I like the way that you are putting the kids first and the way you look at this problem. You really made a lot of sense with this. And as a parent, my bottom line is that I want my child to be safe. And since I can't be there for all the functions, I have to depend on the leaders to do this for me and trust that they will follow the BSA rules.

 

[Eagle92]

A few things,

 

1) BW, unfortunately they don't teach about the Wreath of Service on the insignia at PDL-1. That was something I learned when I became a volunteer againand went theough commissioner training.

 

2) In reference to "BSA Rules Police," we all have a responsibility to keep them and enforce them. WE are all leaders. WE are all responsible. However there are diffeerent approaches to enforcement. And sometimes you need to "Be Prepared" for the consequences.

 

If you are the primary leader, i.e. the one on the tour permit, then yes you need to get involved. Be tactful, be polite, but be firm. But there are times when you need to go in charging like a bull, i.e. youth protection, Safe Swim Defense, etc.

 

Also there are times when we may not be the primary leader, but because of advance training, i.e. NCS, that if we know something is happening and we don't do anything to stop it, then we are legally liable even if we had nothing to do with planning or execution. Then you have to do something. This happened to me at summercamp. While I was not the COPE Director that year, I was still certified as such and had some legal liability if anything happened. The Camp Director was using the COPE Course without a director one week and I made a big stink of it, to the point of pulling my CIT from the COPE group. Although I caught all types of trouble form the other staffers, the CD, and my boss for interfering with a council's operations ( I was working supply division at the time), I stuck to my guns and kept my CIT out of the program. Further word was given to the council's Dir. of Sup. Services.

 

Then there are times when you are not the primary leader. This is when you need tact and diplomacy to make it into a learning moment for the leader, and eventually the scouts. I wa salways taught to Praise in Public, critique in private,a nd that is what I do.

 

 

[Beavah]

NCS, that if we know something is happening and we don't do anything to stop it, then we are legally liable even if we had nothing to do with planning or execution. Then you have to do something. This happened to me at summercamp. While I was not the COPE Director that year, I was still certified as such and had some legal liability if anything happened.

 

Yah, that's a really amusin' theory of liability there, eh? An employee assigned to supply is somehow personally liable if he doesn't act contrary to the terms of his employment and interfere in another operation of the employer, just because he was once trained in that area?

 

I think not.

 

More likely, you became personally liable when yeh acted outside the scope of your assigned duties in supply and interfered in another camp operation. It would be completely proper for your employer to fire you.

 

Except for a few circumstances involving public safety officers licensed by da state, there is no legal liability for trained bystanders who choose not to act. Do yeh have a moral obligation to at least raise the question to those who are responsible? Quite possibly. But dat's not the same thing, eh?

 

By and large, my experience has been that if anybody wearin' olive and khaki says somethin' about "liability" they are probably makin' it up to sound more important. Shame really. Because the conversation would be much more respectful, polite, and effective if instead they just talked about what we should be doin' to offer a quality program to kids.

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White]

Beavah writes"By and large, my experience has been that if anybody wearin' olive and khaki says somethin' about "liability" they are probably makin' it up to sound more important."

 

Beavah??? Don't YOU wear olive and khaki?

[Eagle92]

Beavah,

When I was at camp school, I was told about the liability issues involved in running a COPE Course without proper supervision. I was also told that If I knew something was happening in advance and did not try and correct the situation, I could be held liable for negligence since I had the training and was still certified at the time.

 

Also when I mention that I pulled the CIT out of the program, not only was he my trading post CIT, but also a scout in my troop that I recruited to work that summer. Since his parents entrusted him to my care as an ASM, I further felt it was my duty to pull him out since it violated G2SS.

 

You do bring up a good point, I could have been fired, and was even threatened with such by my boss if I interfered again. And yes I was prepared to lose my job over this. Funny thing is when I asked for a written statement that I would not be held legally responsible, she wouldn't give me one. However the DSS did thank me for interfereing since it would be the council's butt on the line if anything did happen, especially since the camp director was a DE.

 

Post Script the DE was reprimanded and not allowed to work summer camp again.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[ASM59]

"Do yeh have a moral obligation to at least raise the question to those who are responsible? Quite possibly."

 

Beavah? Is that you?

 

Moral obligation?

 

ASM59

[Eagle92]

Beavah writes "By and large, my experience has been that if anybody wearin' olive and khaki says somethin' about "liability" they are probably makin' it up to sound more important."

 

 

Beavah,

Good thing I don't wear olive and khaki, I wear spruce green and grey! LOL

[DeanRx]

NancyB- "I have enjoyed reading all the different viewpoints on this matter. They all give me food for thought. But one thought - if the BSA didn't care whether we followed the rules, why did they make them? "

 

As summized by all the armchair legal experts on this forum (some might be actual lawyers - so they're professional BS artists instead of amatures)...

 

BSA makes the rules to COVER THEIR COLLECTIVE *SS !!

 

What started out as safety precautions has perverted into litigation mitigation. Often at the COST of fun and enjoyment to the scouts they are supposed to be serving.

 

********************************************

 

NeilLup -

 

While I understand your point, the pastor you quote was talking about GENOCIDE for Christ's sake !!!

 

We're talking about improper sleeping arraingements by two ADULTS. Hardly the same thing.

 

Guess I should throw in a quip about "Make Love, Not War....." as it would tie the two topics together (This message has been edited by DeanRx)(This message has been edited by DeanRx)

[ASM915]

ASM59,

Thanks for the PM.

 

In another PM received,

"I don't think Lay, Skilling, and the Enron group would be considered liberals, also the vast number of Evangelists who have been caught in a variety of sexual indiscretions I don't think consider themselves liberals either. I don't think a liberal or for that matter a conservative way of thinking has anything to with promoting a disregard for rules. These are people with either way of thinking that are just greedy, selfish, or arrogant and don't believe the "rules" apply for them. But if you want to be honest yourself it has nothing to do whether you whether you are more conservative then me or not that will indicate if you or I are more likely to follow the rules."

 

"The rules don't apply to them/me". Let's go back 40 years, make that 50 (I'm losing track of time). 50 years back you might have had those people, but they were far and few, and society usually dealt out a fair justice. Then came the 60's and 70's, "PEACE NOT WAR", "MAKE LOVE", etc. The started the slow societal degredation of moral whether it be sexual, religious, etc. over the next 40 years, until we have what we have today.

 

Do you mean to tell me that the free loving people of the 60's were conservative and not liberal in their thinking? Most of the CEO's and people in power of the companies that you cited above, and the Evangelist that got caught with their you know what in the proverbial cookie jar were in college during this period. They may state that they are supposed conservatives, but their actions have spoken loud and clear to their true moral values and philosophy that they picked up in the 60's and 70's. Conservative, I think not! Moral is Moral. Immoral is immoral. No two ways about it.

 

DE sleeping with his fiance in a cabin at a Scouting event on Scouting property, is against the rule. Whether today or 40 years ago is still considered by most as immoral. But with the dumbing down of today's society and today's morals, everyone seems to want to turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen because society has become lackadaisical, and scared to stand up for what is right and moral. So much for what our Scouts are being taught today about moral obligations.

 

Give me a few seconds to get the flame retardent suit on. Okay, I'm ready, let's have at it.

[Bob White]

"everyone seems to want to turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen because society has become lackadaisical, and scared to stand up for what is right and moral. So much for what our Scouts are being taught today about moral obligations."

 

Everyone? Seems to me that not only have some posters agreed its wrong but you can't possibly think that the views on this forum represent EVERYONE?

 

[ASM915]

BW,

You are right, I should have phrased that as "a signifcant number of people in todays society....". But several of the responses at the start of this thread and the one it was spun from have appeared to have taken this stance.

 

And yes you are right, several people on this thread have take a moral stance, and several more via PM's have agreed, but have been reluctant to voice their opinions openly and be slapped down.

[Docrwm]

Having just completed Unit Commissioner Training and having had Tico Perez as one of the speakers I happen to own the newest copies of both the "Commisioner Fieldbook for Unit Service" and the "Commission Basic Training Manual" which I have in front of my as I type this message.

 

The Commissioner is said to have 5 roles:

Friend - this is said to be the most important

Representative - "To them [the unit volunteer] you may be the Boy Scouts of America. Be a good example."

Doctor - prevention is better than cure but sometimes you will need to be a paramedic by providing support to the leadership.

Teacher - "you will have a wonderful opportunity to participate in the growth of unit leaders by sharing your knowledge with them."

Coach - "you will guide units in solving their own problems."

 

The certificate that I am looking at states: The Boy Scouts of America on the recommendation of the XXXXXXXXXXX Council hereby commissions XXXXXXXXX as a COMMISSIONER (emphasis in original) for having been duly selected, properly oriented, and trained in commissioner basic training. Signatures are Council Commissioner and Scout Executive on the certificate.

 

Seems that BSA is commissioning the Commissioner NOT the council from the wording.

 

Also the Fieldbook states:

"As a commissioner, your role is different from that of other Scouters. The insignia you wear displays a wreath around Scouting's trefoil representing your commission to serve chartered organizations in the operation of Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, and Venturing crews. The quality of Scouting depends upon the men and women who wear this wreath of service."

 

Early in scouting in the USA the only people to wear the wreath of service were Commissioners. As the BSA grew professionals were identified as a separate group who also wear the wreath of service. However, they were the second group to wear the wreath - not the first. Volunteer Commissioners were the first.

 

This is weird to write but "Baden Powell" is just plain wrong about Commissioners, their role, the fact that they are indeed directly commissioned by BSA, and just about everything else he's asserted regarding Commissioners and their role in BSA. The Wreath is indeed a sign that they are Commissioned by BSA National and serve as BSA representatives. Their job is to support units in achieving the highest ideals of scouting and operating as efficiently and effectively as possible.(This message has been edited by docrwm)

[printman31]

Please let me throw in a mind bender in all of this. Which should we listen to?

 

 

OBEDIENT

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

 

 

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. Thomas Jefferson