Re: TWO DEEP LEADERSHIP thread

Jesse E. Cross, III writes:

->Lets look at the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the
->work "policy"

Here's where a good many people are apparently going astray on the Two-Deep
issue. The operative word here is not policy, it is *requirement*.
In the last several years, I have trained more than 1000 scouters under the YPP
certification course. I have had many occasions to clarify or search out
the various aspects of the Two-Deep rule. So, with apologies to the "greatest
printing press in the sky", let me paraphrase the two-deep requirement, to
hopefully make it easily understandable for all Scouters reading this thread.

Failure to follow the "two deep" rule is a severe violation of Boy Scout
policy. Failure to follow the rule is grounds for removal from the organization,
and exposes the offending leader to civil liability, loss of any and all BSA
provided liability insurance, and severely increased possibility of false
accusation and its attendent criminal involvement. Leaders are advised in
the strongest possible terms to plan for and provide two-deep leadership in
the same way they would provide for food or clothing on a campout. Such
planning should include the eventuality of injury, or other incidents
which might reduce the number of leaders available to provide coverage.

->
->As a volunteer for Boy Scouts *I* am the adult and am expected to
->behave as such. This means that I'm supposed to know the policy and
->apply it. A well written policy works about 90% of the time.

As a volunteer wearing the uniform you have already agreed to follow the rules.
This requirement will work 100% of the time, because if you cannot meet it,
you are not authorized to continue the activity in question.

->of what I'm doing! The other hand is, if I as and adult am so
->paranoid that I'm not going to make any decisions and always defer
->to the written policy, then I'm useless as a leader!

A scout is obedient.

->If a direct accusation of sexually molesting a child is brought
->against an adult leader why not apply the wisdom of Solomon.

I doubt even Solomon could have resolved many of the abuse incidents to the
satisfaction of everyone concerned. There is no easy or all-encompassing
approach to this issue.

->It seems to me that an adult leader who genuinely cares about the
->boys in his troop will voluntarily remove himself from contact with
->the boys until the issue is resolved.

Care to take odds on how often this happens? It doesn't.

->The other side of the issue is, if we as adult leaders are informed
->of a suspicion of abuse, it is still just that, a suspicion. Until a
->boy or his parents approaches us either directly or through legal
->recourse with a direct accusation we can only be careful and watchful
->and do our best to make sure that the boys are not put in any danger.
->
->I think the point of confusion and disagreement in this
->thread has been the difference between a suspicion and an
->accusation. Lets don't ruin the lives of boys by ignoring an
->accusation! But, lets don't ruin the life of an adult by treating a
->suspicion as an accusation. Lets make *adult* decisions here!

It is a fact, that only the tiniest percentage of abuse cases have witnesses
to the alleged action, other than the suspect, and the subject child. Under
delineation you espouse, nearly *all* cases are "mere" suspicians. Perhaps
you were really refering to accusations based on "gut feelings". In my
experience (limited to my own Council), the SE will not usually pass on an
allegation made without witness (i.e. child) or evidence. It is also a fact,
that most child molestors are surrounded by people who "just can't believe my
friend and fellow Scouter would do such a thing" - but they do. Absent an
all-seeing and all-knowing crystall ball, the only prudent recourse is removal
until the authorities have cleared the accused individual.

Brian Davis
Youth Protection Chairman
Circle Ten

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message
• Previous message