No more "Parents of" Charter Orgs

[Twocubdad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that even a "Parents of" organizations has to have some sort of definition behind it, right? A simple LLC would be terrific, but at minimum I would expect a set of bylaws, officers, annual meetings, criteria for membership, etc.

 

Otherwise, what do you have? Are you a member of "Parents of" simply because you son is a "Scout of"? Does that automatically put you on the hook for potential liability?

 

If the latter is the case, I can't believe a council would accept a charter from such a loosely-defined bunch. Who is the IH? How is the COR appointed.

 

On the other hand, if the group is "Parents of, LLC" with the appropriate legal structure and requirements, I can't see why such an organization is any worse than any other.

[Beavah]

I can't believe a council would accept a charter from such a loosely-defined bunch.

 

Well, I reckon yeh should be more credulous.

 

Numbers are numbers, eh?

 

B

 

[packsaddle]

Kind of off-topic but I thought I'd ask,

Beavah, would you ever consider applying for that secretary general position?

[Jeffrey H]

It may be that this Council has a worse than average history of issues with "Parents Of" CO's. From a business risk standpoint, the BSA wants to partner with organizations that have a history of long-term existence and provide their own accident liability coverage for their meeting place. Sure, the BSA provides insurance but it's a secondary insurance just in case scouts or scouters are not covered during an official scouting activity. In my unit, it's possible I may have a few scouts that do not have adequate health insurance. If they get hurt during a scouting activity, I have comfort to know they are covered.

 

Being a CO with the BSA is privilege, not a right. The BSA can and should reject a charter org if it is deemed they are an unacceptable risk or some fly-by-night organization with no accountablility structure. The BSA has taken on the responsibility to provide insurance for it's members and needs to partner with responsible CO's that will help share the insurance burden.

[Beavah]

Beavah, would you ever consider applying for that secretary general position?

 

Of the United Nations? Become part of the New World Order? Nah. That sort of thing is for you liberal types.

 

Jeffrey H., continuin' my insurance education theme, it's important to understand that there's a big difference between General Liability coverage and Accident/Health Insurance coverage.

 

General Liability coverage comes into force when yeh face a legal suit alleging your civil liability for some act or failure to act. Much as everybody these days is afraid of attorneys like they're Death Eaters, in actual fact civil liability suits are fairly rare and relatively low-cost. As a result, General Liability insurance is cheap as these things go. Yeh can get a lot of coverage for not very much money. The BSA General Liability coverage is primary coverage for Chartered Organizations and registered leaders for everything except motor vehicle accidents. It is secondary/excess coverage for non-registered adults acting as leaders. As I mentioned, though, da real risk is to the CO, so the BSA is doin' it's job of protecting the CO. It is true that some COs do also have their own general liability policy that covers volunteers. That offers only trivially more protection for a scouter. Between the BSA coverage and the law, scouters have more protection within Scouting than they have anywhere else in their lives.

 

Accident insurance is a form of Health Care insurance, eh? It comes into force when a person is ill or injured. Most injuries in the outdoors are not the result of negligence by other people, they're the result of the natural risks of being outdoors and our own foolishness. So most of the time, when a boy or an adult are injured in Scouting, the only coverage which applies is Health Care Insurance.

 

Needing Health Care, unlike incurring liability or even getting into a car accident, is a common thing. Everybody needs it at some point. Accidents happen, genetics happen, life happens. As a result, Health Care Insurance is very expensive. Many of our scout families don't have it, which means if their son gets injured on a scout trip, that's goin' to have a big impact on the family finances, eh? Perhaps a devastating one.

 

The BSA offers an optional limited Accident/Health Care insurance plan through HSR. Some councils make this "mandatory" or pay for it for each unit. This is an extremely limited policy. It will help cover the deductible in an accident, and it's enough to get a lad through a basic ER visit. But if there's any real surgery or extended care required, forget it.

 

No Chartered Organization that I'm aware of is providing Health Care coverage for its scouts. That would require hundreds of dollars per lad... per month.

 

It's that issue that is at the core of the national Health Care debate, eh? We have in the BSA had families who were financially ruined by injuries their kids suffered in Scouting, because dad was laid off and had no health care coverage in place.

 

Agree with yeh completely, though, on da BSA preferring to partner with established entities. Beyond liability, there are all kinds of reasons for that!

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

So here's something that never happens on the forums -- I'm changing my mind.

 

To my knowledge we only have a couple "Parents of" units around here. The only one I'm familiar with is -- I think -- incorporated. I know at one point they were trying to get non-profit status, but I don't know if they did, so they're at least putting that much thought and effort into the process. I still have no problem with groups like that and think councils should be working with folks like that to shore them up, not getting rid of them.

 

But what you're describing are non-existant COs -- just a couple leaders signing the form and pretending there is an organization behind them. Yeah, that needs to get fixed.

 

Maybe it would help if we had better terminology to differentiate between legitimate, organized "Parents/Friends of" organizations and units which are essentially self-chartered or chartered to individuals.

[packsaddle]

Actually, I was referring to the 'positions open' ad in 'The Economist' for the position of Secretary General for the World Organization of the Scout Movement. You didn't spot that? It's been advertised in two issues that I've noticed.

I figured that you would be the best person I've read in these forums for the job. You'd have to hire Kudu, of course. Then the combination of your diplomacy with Kudu's purity....WOW!

[Beavah]

LOL. Oh, that Secretary General! Yeh know, the electronic version of the Economist doesn't have the same ad setup, so they're easier to skip or ignore. In the print version, they're always a bit of fun to scan through.

 

Yah, I know Eduardo Missoni, da former WOSM SG who was pushed out by the U.S. He and I still correspond some, as he still does some international youth work in addition to his medical stuff. I don't really know the current SG Panissod.

 

I don't reckon an American would ever be selected for that position in WOSM. Da behavior of the U.S. group is seen as too problematic by many of our fellow scouters across the globe. But I'm touched that you'd think of me. I really am more fond of Scouting as a Movement than I am of the corporate business model. I reckon it's the Movement that deserves our loyalty, eh? A corporation is just a corporation. It can be useful or not, but it doesn't merit loyalty.

 

Beavah

 

 

[emb021]

Hmmmm. I wasn't aware that WOSM was looking for a new Secretary-General. Looks like currently the position is vacant, which is unusual. (usually they would find a new one while they still have the current one in place).

 

Luc Panissod has been the S-G since March 2009 (after being acting S-G since Nov 2007, which is pretty long to be 'acting' anything). He replaced Eduardo Missoni after he was ousted because several NSO were dissatisfied with what he was doing.

 

The new position will start on Sept 2012, so I guess Luc is still in the position until then, and its a 5 year appointment (with possibility of renewal).

 

[packsaddle]

OK, I spun a new one. Let this one go back to the original topic. I feel so guilty....

[Jeffrey H]

Beavah,

 

Thanks for the insurance education. Basically, we are simply told that we're covered by BSA insurance for accidents on outings. Usually the information stops there. I did not know that it was very limited insurance.

 

My favorite "Myth" about BSA insurance is you must wear your uniform in order to be covered.

[Engineer61]

Here is the rub on the BSA Liability Policy ... did you catch this Beav?

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/512-018_WB.pdf

 

"The general liability policy does not provide indemnification or defense coverage to those individuals who commit intentional and/or criminal acts. The Boy Scouts of America does not have an insurance policy that provides defense for situations involving allegations of intentional and/or criminal acts."

 

This is where the CO's are put at risk. Since CO's select/approve certain adults that may engage in "intentional and/or criminal acts", the CO's are on point should such acts occur.

[Beavah]

Hiya E61!

 

No insurance covers intentional or criminal acts. If yeh think about it for just a moment, if we insured people for criminal acts that would be little different than payin' 'em to commit crimes. It's an unenforceable contract. Of course the perpetrator is strictly liable to pay for the damage done by those crimes, but he's on his own in defendin' the civil case by the family.

 

The issue for the CO is different, eh? That would typically be negligence through lack of proper supervision or vetting of the miscreant volunteer, and that negligence would be covered by a general liability insurance policy, includin' the BSA's. Whether the Chartered Org. is actually liable in such cases is a question that would turn on what they knew or should have known, or what they did or didn't do. It's probably safe to say that in the case of serial molestation that went on for a while within the program, there's goin' to be liability. We all know, though, that most youth molestation by youth program adults like coaches or scout leaders happens outside of the activity on private events, and then things are less clear, eh? If an employee of yours robs banks in the evenings, are you liable as his employer? That would suggest yeh have a responsibility to supervise your employees 24 hours a day. But what about if your company does deliveries to banks durin' the day?

 

Either way, your company's general liability policy would defend and indemnify you if such a complaint was brought, just as the BSA's and Chartered Org's insurance would cover them.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Yah, Jeffrey H., two examples might be in order just to make sure yeh have it clear. We'll assume the unit or the council has paid for the optional BSA/HSR accident coverage.

 

Case 1: Your troop goes on a water outing. Yeh fail to check river levels, ignore Safety Afloat, don't pay any attention to the park ranger who says the river is at flood stage, and launch anyway with a group of inexperienced scouts. Two scouts in a canoe experience a near-drowning, one ends up in a coma in intensive care. The BSA Accident policy covers the first $10 K of hospital care and then is exhausted. The family sues you and the Chartered Org., and the BSA's liability insurance settles for a reasonable dollar amount that mostly covers the medical expenses. You and the CO are protected.

 

Case 2: Your troop goes backpackin' along a trail. Unbeknownst to you or anyone recent rains have eroded the trail at the top of a 50' cliff, and as the group hikes by the trail collapses and two boys plunge down the cliff. One requires five surgeries to fully recover, the other is paralyzed. The BSA Accident policy covers the first 10K of hospital care and is exhausted. The family's attorney advises them they have no negligence case against you. The family is saddled with the entire remainder of the hospital bill for both boys, and the long-term care of the second boy (with some help from Medicaid). Their savings is wiped out and they lose their house, and might not ever be able to get insurance again because of preexisting conditions. You and the CO are protected.

 

I'll add as an aside that it's this second case which is da fundamental debate about Obamacare, eh? While I'm opposed to the ACA, it's important that we as Americans understand that this is what we're discussin'. Young folks and young families are lower risk than old folks, and are therefore net payers into the health care system if they are required to buy insurance. But when they don't have insurance, the effects are tragic, and the public still pays quite a bit through ER costs, Medicaid, and the family's loss of long-term productivity.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[JMHawkins]

Last I looked, "parents of" were the 7th largest CO group in BSA, with over 100k youths enrolled in units sponsered by them. These units serve more youths than Rotary + American Legion combined. They serve more youths than any church-based COs except LDS, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian and Lutheran (it's very close with the last two). They serve about as many youths as VFW, Kiwanis, and Fire Department sponsered units combined.

 

Of all the non-faith-based COs, these groups are the second-largest, just behind non-PTA parent-teacher groups.

 

If you just look at Venturing, they're the third largest CO, behind LDS and private schools.

 

Just to put the numbers out there.

 

Eliminating such a large category of CO seems like a bad idea.