What is a CO not allowed to do

[Missouri_COR]

Obviously by my Username, I am a COR. I have been a fairly active COR for 3 years for 3 units (Pack, Troop and Crew). I have been with the units for a total of 7 years - the first four in various leadership roles.

 

I know there are basic things you can't do at some COs. For example, if your CO is a public school, teaching knife safety with real knives is out of the question. Even if I asked them if I could, there are laws against bringing those items into the school. I still can teach knife safety at a scout camp, a scouts house, etc. Just not at the school. There are also activities that would also not be allowed for common sense reasons - for example teaching cub scouts how to build fires (at least I don't think it's illegal at a school). Especially if done in the play ground area, parking lot or gymnasium. Even if I ask, it's probably not considered a good idea. However, I could still teach them fire building at scout camp, or other area considered safe to do such activities.

 

But what about an activity that has a higher level of risk associated with it that is not illegal? For example, lets say I have 3 very well trained leaders (one being the COR) in the art of repelling and my CO is a 4 story school. Nothing illegal at any level or against the G2SS (perhaps CO policies, but nothing illegal). What if I submitted a letter to my CO asking permission to do this act on the school grounds and received the following response "We are denying your request and furthermore request that you not pursue any training or further participation in this type of activity either ON or OFF our property", and it was signed by the IH (institutional head). I completely understand not being allowed to do this ON the property, but OFF as well?!?!?!

 

General Questions

1) Does a CO have the right to make this type of statement to a unit about their activities? Can someone please cite the source please.

2) If they believe insurance is an issue, how much skin does the CO have in the game (in terms of insurance) for an activity conducted by a unit off their premises? Doesn't that belong liability to the individuals, the trained leaders and BSA insurance (not necessarily in that order)?

 

I have already responded asking them for a reason why OFF has been specified and I am waiting for their response. BTW - I am using repelling in this email as an example, this is not the activity that is being halted.

 

Anyone else had to deal with this type of situation before?

 

[bacchus]

As the COR, you and the IH should be discussing these things on a very detailed basis regularly. You need a relationship that includes trust and reliability on each other.

 

I would say if the IH already said no, he/she has that authority and that's the final answer. Anything other than completely following the denial and you are breaking down your relationship, and greatly weakening the entire charter arrangement.

 

As the COR, you are the IHs spokesman in his/her absence and he/she needs to believe you will follow through on directives.

[dg98adams]

"What if I submitted a letter to my CO asking permission to do this act on the school grounds and received the following response "We are denying your request and furthermore request that you not pursue any training or further participation in this type of activity either ON or OFF our property", and it was signed by the IH (institutional head)."

 

Since this is a hypothetical response letter and in your words, I agree with bacchus - then that's your hypothetical answer.

 

Honestly, I don't think the IH would mandate "OFF school property" activity, but if they did, then you can either abide or find a new charter.(This message has been edited by dg98adams)

[Eagle92]

Actually G2SS does prohibit rappelling for CSs,but that is another story. Also if memory serves, BSA certification in Climb On Safety needs to be done. Been a VERY long time since I taught that class, so changes in policy may have been made.

 

The CO via the IH is the ultimate authority with a unit, as long as it doesn't violate BSA Policy. If the CO says You cannot do that, on or off property, then you cannot do it. period and end of story. If a CO says, "No more scouting," guess what, you better start looking for another CO and FAST! ( been there, dealt with that).

 

Now COR, you are the IH's representative. Yuo represent the IH to the unit, to the District, and to the council, being able to attend and vote at district committee and council board meetings. YOu should be meeting on a regular basis with the IH and talkign to them. If they do not understand Scouting, adn the type of activities and training that leaders get ( and make sure you have trained leaders!) then you need to explain it ot them.

 

Good luck

[ParkMan]

 

Pardon the unsolicited advice...

I wonder if the formal nature of the request caused an over reaction on the part of the IH. Now that the decision has been made, it may be more difficult to "unmake it". Especially since you refer to waiting for "their response".

 

Sounds like you needed to submit a request for permission in writing to the IH. Perhaps next time you could have a verbal discussion with the IH about the request. You could discuss concerns, do additional research (such as you are doing on your #2 question), and make additional preparations before making a formal request. Then the formal request (if even necessary) becomes a formality and you'd know the response of the IH prior to ever making the request.

 

 

[Beavah]

Does a CO have the right to make this type of statement to a unit about their activities? Can someone please cite the source please.

 

Yah, the CO has da right and obligation to impose whatever requirements it wants, eh? They can choose not to use the BSA Advancement Program, choose to restrict certain activities, put in place additional training or YP or religious requirements for their adult leaders. They own the unit, and as a unit volunteer, you work for them, not da BSA. Ref. your COR training (yeh did COR training, right? ).

 

If they believe insurance is an issue, how much skin does the CO have in the game (in terms of insurance) for an activity conducted by a unit off their premises?

 

Da CO is the responsible superior/supervisor. So from a liability perspective, it's da CO who is ultimately on the hook for anything that happens or anything you (as their volunteer and agent) do. You as an individual volunteer probably do not have any liability for ordinary negligence because you are accorded statutory immunity under federal law. The CO is not so lucky.

 

The BSA provides primary insurance coverage for the CO, but that coverage has limits. Relatively high limits, but limits nonetheless. When those limits are exceeded, the CO's insurer, and ultimately the CO's property, is on the line.

 

 

Now, where do yeh go from here? Generally speaking, if yeh don't have good communication with your IH, yeh need to start that up. You don't want to handle this by exchanging letters and emails. Go sit with da IH and your DE, explain the relationship, explain the program, explain the training, explain the BSA insurance coverage as primary, and help 'em understand. Usually that's enough.

 

Yah, properly speakin' the CO should maintain good contact and a good relationship, but relationships are two way streets. IH's can turn over more frequently than the average SM. It's important for units to maintain good communication and relationships with their CO. Consider it part of Scouting service!

 

Now, can we ask what da real activity is if it isn't rappelling? That might help us give yeh additional insight. Climbing/rappelling is generally a liability concern, but other things (firearms?) might be more an issue of CO values / ethics.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[boomerscout]

was the question about teaching rappeling to Cubs? Es Verboten!

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/ageguides.pdf

Beavah is quite correct in that the CO can decide the overall program. That's why weekly facetime is important. The CO may have taken a look at the rappeling guidelines for Boy Scouts, and said nothing doing

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/Gss/gss09.aspx

Your CO may allow rapelling if done under the auspices of a council summer camp set up to offer rapelling

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I think rappelling was a "hypothetical", eh? It'd be nice to know what da real issue was.

 

Also worth mentioning, though, that the Age Appropriate Guidelines are just guidelines, eh? Not prohibitions. So rappelling is not recommended for cubs, but not forbidden either.

 

Beavah

 

[Missouri_COR]

Thanks for all your responses. To answer training question, yes I am COR trained, as well as committee, ASM, cub master, wood badge etc trained. Based on comments by the DE, I am definitely the most active COR in the district.

 

I have a very good relationship with my IH. I meet with him regularly and his boss upon occasion.

 

To beavahs question, yes this is firearms directed issue. I completely agree they have a right to not allow firearms on premises. It was a letter of permission as a certified NRA instructor to allow me to bring shotguns into the building to execute training that exacted the response I received. And yes they specified ON and OFF premises. Now what really floored me was the fact I am in the final stages of putting a shooting sports crew together. They have been made aware of what I was going to do over the spring and summer to prep for this.

 

What I still need to understand is the issue our unit executing the training OR the youth using firearms at all. I am waiting to hear how the unit needs to move forward.

[click23]

Is your CO a public school, private school or PTA/PTO?

[ScoutNut]

You might consider changing your Crew's CO to a gun club of some kind.

[acco40]

They can choose not to use the BSA Advancement Program, choose to restrict certain activities, put in place additional training or YP or religious requirements for their adult leaders. They own the unit, and as a unit volunteer, you work for them, not da BSA. Ref. your COR training (yeh did COR training, right? ).

 

I'm a little out of my swim lane here, but I don't think a CO can choose to not use the BSA advancement program, although I'm trying to guess exactly what you mean with that statement. They can't arbitrarily make up rank requirements. They may de-emphasize advancement, make up "awards" that are CO specific, etc. but I don't think they can just have a blanket "not use" the BSA advancement program and remain a unit of the BSA.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Beavah]

Sure they can, acco. BadenP described a few; I know of a bunch. Some COs just use da chartering relationship for access to camps and the insurance and values aspects. They don't offer advancement, and don't use it as part of their program. It's just a method, eh? We're happy to have 'em. They're otherwise good supporters and help da numbers .

 

Goin' back to MO_COR's situation, I like da notion of finding a sportsman's club as a CO for a shooting sports Venturing Crew. Seems like the best fit.

 

If yeh want to work it out with da current CO, I think yeh have to figure out whether the objection is practical or ethical. If da CO is a church that jus objects to firearms on principle, I don't think you're going to get anywhere. If it's more a concern over supervision and liability, then that's something yeh can have conversations about.

 

Beavah

[Missouri_COR]

I met with the IH this evening to fully understand what the concerns are. Basically it boils down to not understanding basic facts of the program. The directive actually came down from the IH's supervisor (executive director of a large church).

 

Their argument boils down to "If we teach the youth to do a skill, and they use this skill to do 'something' inappropriate, it will get back to the fact they are part of Boy Scouts and chartered by this CO. If it gets back to the CO, then it's our fault". If they carry this forward, I guess they will request we not teach the boys knife skills, or sleep in the woods with bugs.

 

The executive director (not the IH) was unaware shooting firearms is commonly part of the summer programs attended by the youth. He did not realize the broadness in scope of his statement. However, the IH is still requesting I hold to that decision. He also suggested I put a presentation together to be given to both of them next week to explain this part of the program to see if I can persuade him to change his decision. But as of now, it stands. I have a large number of youth signed up for shooting merit badges at summer camp in 3 weeks. They are not going to be very happy if the decision stands.

[Pack212Scouter]

Are you sure about that Beavah? I thought that a unit, co, or leader could not add to or take away from advancment requirements?