National Policy Changing re: Unsupervised Patrol Outings

[MarkS]

In my coucnil, reservations are required in order to have permission to be on council property--even if you're requesting a no cost resource like a campsite for a unit overnight. They want to know who's there and I find nothing wrong with that.

 

However, considering myself to be a conscientious fellow, I called my council camping dept. about how a requirement for two-deep leadership at all activities in the rules and regs on the back of the reservation applies to patrol outings without adult leadership.

 

Well, first I had to convince them that I wasn't talking about youth protection and instead about how patrols are supposed to be able to go on outings without adult leadership per the SM handbook, PL handbook, and G2SS (section on Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings, item 1). Eventually, they contacted National for clarification and confirmed my understanding of the National policy but they also told me they found out that National is going to change its policy and no longer permit patrol outings without adult leadership.

 

I don't know what the time-table is but I was told the above documents are already being updated.

 

BTW... The final decision from my council was that even until the National policy change takes place, their policy is that patrols that want to conduct an outing on council property must have two-deep adult leadership or they won't approve the reservation.

 

I figured that a council owned property lent itself to being a more secure environment for patrol activities without adult leadership than, say, a state or county park.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[OldGreyEagle]

Are we sure about this?

 

I know the Advancment and Uniform guides are being looked at, could this have been confused with that?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Buffalo Skipper]

I am very distressed about this change. I really think it undermines what scouting should be about. I have been working hard with my SPL to build patrols' skills so that they can go on overnighters without adults. This will severely undermine my credibility with my scouts, but I will live if I loose a little face. On the otherhand, it removes this as a goal for my growing scouts.

 

Who can I write to complain about this potential change? After all, of all the incidents which have occurred which made national news in the past few years, how many of these incidents were while on Patrol activities without adult supervision?

 

Luckily for us in the meantime, I have worked with our council Program Director, who knows our older scouts sometimes camp without adults, and there have been no complaints thus far.(This message has been edited by Buffalo Skipper)

[MarkS]

I'm only sure about what my council camping dept. head told me. We communicated via email which wasn't ideal for the exchange of information and references we were discussing but he spent a great deal of time making sure he understood my question. In my council, patrol outings without adult leadership do not seem to be extremely popular. Even though he is the camping dept. head and certainly knows his stuff, I got a strong impression that no unit had ever asked him my question before.

 

If someone has a POC within National, maybe they can confirm. Should probably do that before writing letters of complaint.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[CalicoPenn]

The question was asked what events in the news occurred without adult supervision.

 

The biggest one I can recall in recent memory was a forest fire started by Scouts on a Wilderness Survival overnight at summer camp under the "supervision" of 15 year old "camp counselors". No adults were on that overnight, and it was at a Council summer camp, one of those more "secure" locations.

 

Let's see how National words their new regulations on patrol outings (or contact National with suggestions). It may be that the regs are to have 2-deep adult leadership available nearby, but not neccessarily at the campsite. I see nothing wrong with having a couple of adults camping a 15-30 minute walk away just in case of an emergency.

 

 

[skeptic]

Once again, we likely are seeing the "law suit fear" boogie man. It has surprised me, frankly, that they have allowed it this long. I can see a disaster ready to happen if a group, under the current rules, were to have an injury or cause damage. Even though we would hope we could encourage self reliance using this method, it has all the possibilities to cause serious consequences on rare occasions. So; CYA is the only way to go for the legal eagle protectors.

 

Too bad.

[BrentAllen]

Even if National changes the policy, there isn't anything that prevents a group of neighborhood kids from going camping on their own, as long as their parents give permission. Just leave the uniforms at home. What do you lose by doing that? Secondary insurance?

[emb021]

"Even if National changes the policy, there isn't anything that prevents a group of neighborhood kids from going camping on their own, as long as their parents give permission. Just leave the uniforms at home. What do you lose by doing that? Secondary insurance?"

 

If all those 'neighborhood kids' are members of the same troop, that would be seen as an 'unofficial event', and those of us aware of risk management issues, there is no such thing.

 

You got several members of the same group doing something, its seen as an event of that group. I'm dealing with that with a college group I advise. Some members went off on their own and had a little party with drinking, and the school administration is treating it like it was a group event. Their attitude: 3 people from the same group, its a group event.

 

It's little different from a troop trying to get around the prohibition on paint ball or laser tag. It won't work.

 

[shortridge]

emb,

 

I lack a background in risk management, so perhaps I'm off-base here. But count me as being just a wee bit skeptical about that assertion.

 

If there's no such thing as an "unofficial event," then what's the point of having "official events," and going through all the rigmarole of charters, tour permits, medical checks, etc.?

 

That can't possibly apply in reverse, can it? If a group of Scouts in the same troop were to get together and vandalize something or rob someone, could the victim sue the unit or council because its an "unofficial activity"?

 

That just stretches the limits of my imagination a bit. Any clarification would be most welcome.

 

=====

 

On topic, I just can't see National changing those rules. They've been part of Scouting from Day One. And think of all the overflow effects... no 16-year-old summer camp nature instructors taking students on a hike independently... no 17-year-old OA elangomats without adults on the spot... that's just rubbish.

[BrentAllen]

emb,

By your definition, you are saying the National BSA can prevent a group of boys from going camping on their own. Think about that for a minute. How exactly are they going to do that? How would they even know about it? What authority would they even have? BSA has more authority than the boys' parents? I don't think you thought this one through.

[BadenP]

Brent

I agree with you 100% National CAN NOT stop a group of teens from going hiking/camping on their own accord. If this policy change is true then I do think that Mazzuca is dealing yet another severe blow to the program, as some said earlier how are we going to get boys to become good leaders if National is now saying that they do not trust them with responsibility and leadership.

 

Personally I bet this is yet another way Mazzuca thinks he can bring these momma boys who have never spent a night away from home into scouting, what a waste.

[Beavah]

Yah, sorry emb021, that's a load of cow pies. What a private university does with its own organizations is just a completely different case, eh? And even then, in gets sketchy. Very sketchy if it's a public university or the kids have competent counsel. Personally, I really dislike that kind of bullyin'. Especially because yeh won't see those college officials shuttin' down the highly lucrative football team after several of their members get wasted at an "unofficial" event, eh?

 

I think what may be drivin' this a bit is changes in statute and case law in some states, eh? Texas in particular has some really expansive definitions of child abuse and neglect which can be read to include allowing patrol outings. Professionally, I detest expansive statutory language. At best, it's welfare for attorneys. At worst, it can easily be used as a creepin' assault on liberty.

 

IMO, however, the proper response of executives paid half a million dollars a year should be to confront such expansive language and lobby on our behalf to protect our programs, eh?

 

I'm not holdin' my breath. My observation has been that Irving has been overrun by legal risk managers rather than program people and professional outdoor risk managers for a number of years, eh? I'm not expectin' anyone to stand up and say "this is central to our mission and we accept the risk." I mean, we have G2SS prohibitions now on toy guns and water chugging, because no 40 page document can't be made better by turnin' it into an 80 page document.

 

If there is any societal trend that I wish we'd have the courage to stand up to, it's this one.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

Sorry for piling on emb, but you are just plain wrong. If a group of kids want to get together & go camping, they can! This isn't an "unofficial" event! It's just a group of kids going camping!

[Narraticong]

A SCOUT IS TRUSTWORTHY.

 

Whether legal or not, insured or not, official or not, does not matter. We all know we are talking about finding a way to get around this potential change in policy.

 

I find teaching our boys ways to skirt laws to be against everything we are doing. If it is a law or policy, you have several choices. You can obey it, change it, or no longer belong to the group.

 

But if we adults are going to debate how to bend the rule until just before it snaps, we may as well close up shop. If we go to the many "issues" discussions here, I believe this same problem is generally at the root. Shame on us for even thinking like that!

[evmori]

Whether legal or not, insured or not, official or not, does not matter. We all know we are talking about finding a way to get around this potential change in policy.

 

I find teaching our boys ways to skirt laws to be against everything we are doing. If it is a law or policy, you have several choices. You can obey it, change it, or no longer belong to the group.

 

But if we adults are going to debate how to bend the rule until just before it snaps, we may as well close up shop. If we go to the many "issues" discussions here, I believe this same problem is generally at the root. Shame on us for even thinking like that!

 

Nothing being skirted! Nothing to skirt! The rules & regs of Scouting apply to what goes on in Scouting, not outside of Scouting! That would be like apply the laws of one township to the people of a different township!