rraffalo

Thanks qwazse... great words of wisdom right there. I think you are right.

To everyone else... thanks for a fun day of kicking all this around.

ScoutNut and 5yearscouter ~ I truly do appreciate your candid perspective, even though I bite back some times. No offense meant... Heck, I don't even know y'all so it's definitely not personal.

Have a great evening to everyone that has contributed to this thread over the past week or so.

Much Appreciated!

ScoutNut: You are Nutty... that's for sure. :-)

I gave the Crew's Committee Chairman all the details, and printed copies of emails between the CC/ COR and I. I also copied National's Policy, I shared emails from Council with him that approved our DRAFT Tour Plan, and I explained the exact position of the Troop's CC and his COR (for the Troop and Crew).

He agreed with me stating that their current ruling would set a dangerous precedent for our summer camp travels, which often includes only one adult in each of three or four vehicles.

Another thing is that I have not given this Board privy to the emails that my CC has sent me... very sarcastic and demeaning (stupid is as stupid does, kind of stuff)

The Crew's CC agreed with our side of it whole-heartedly and signed the Tour Plan the very next day.

Thank you for the compliment about having "big balls" moosetracker, but this isn't life or death or even a career position, so I really don't wish to tolerate being dictated to for no good reason, just because our CC gets a wild hair to make up rules on the fly. There are really no severe consequences here.

My son and I will be just fine not going ~ He's a Life Scout and will be 14 in July, we'll have plenty of other trips to go on. And, while it would have been much easier to come to that conclusion a month ago the CC kept jabbing me and taunting me to "live up to my commitment" which would have meant doing what he said to do, just because he said to do it, and shelling out another $600 to fly back to Illinois and join the others.

I've been of this mind all along, realizing full well that he could remove me from the trip. In fact, I told him three weeks ago to remove me from the trip and he refused because he thought it would make him look like the bad guy. So, he wanted me to follow his nonsense rules, and shell out $600 additional dollars so that he would not lose face with the others by ejecting me as a leader and potentially having to cancel the trip.

Had I known his "higher standard" when I agreed to be a leader of this trip, and had our past travel protocol made me think this might have been a problem, then I would not have signed up. But, I learned of this after other family arrangements had already been solidified.

I did ask the CC what he would do if he could not find my replacement and he did not answer that, but he told my former co-leader that he would have a person of her today. So, I must believe he has an outlet somewhere. He moved forward with my dismissal anyway, so the problem is all his now.

5yearscouter: Sorry about the hurt feelings; didn't mean to hit a nerve, but if you are going to quote language from a policy then read and post all of it. Don't just post the portion that serves your side of the argument. That is what my CC has been doing for the past 2-3 weeks.

Also, you've dished it out pretty hard yourself and I haven't gotten all weepy over your criticism. If you are going to hang around a Board then you should expect to be challenged from time to time.

So, everyone can dispense with all the drama, because this really is not an act of desperation for us. As much as I would like to lead the trip it has been fun watching our CC get all lathered up. The venom and the spit flying in his emails to me have really made him look like a mad man, very dictatorial, and pompous ~ being he knows better than Council and National such that we need a "higher standard" ... as if he knows better than an organization (BSA) that has been around for more than 100 years. If he has had time to sit around and give better thought to all of this than the BSA itself, then he simply does not have enough to do.

But no... I haven't jeopardized anything, or squandered anything, or cut off my nose to spite me face. I haven''t gotten the Crew's CC canned, and I don't particularly thing my actions gives me "Big Buckeyes". This is Boy Scouts... this is a Troop . I haven't committed treason or felony, and I'm not going to get Court Marshaled. I've simply fought for my belief in this situation and lost.

Life will go on !

He looks completely foolish to anyone in our Troop that I share the details with

FScouter: That's a pretty infantile interpretation of the policy. I feel like you are saying, nah-nah, na na na ! You actually sound as irrational as our CC: Are you sure you're not him?

5yearscouter: If I gave you another 5 years would you promise to read the remainder of the Two-Deep leadership policy with respect to Travel and Outings? Specifically the part that says: "you need to have a minimum of one adult in each vehicle..."

Gentlemen: READ, BE RATIONAL, and BE REASONABLE in the spirit of service as Beavah has been promoting.

5yearscouter: Yes, the COR is the same...

qwazse: I haven't squandered anything... The CC has said, "No" to our plans from the beginning and stated his reason as being it was National's policy to have two-deep leadership (from end to end). I asked him to reconsider because that is not National's policy. I asked them to reread the policy and to please reconsider. He continued to refuse to sign the Tour Plan, saying, "it's not my rule, the Troop's rule, or Council's rule ~ it's an National BSA policy. Because of the good advice from this Board I knew he could create a higher standard if he so chose, but many people in our troop believe that a higher standard is unnecessary.

But, after showing him it was not BSA's policy; he changed his story stating, "this is our Troop's interpretation of National's policy" So then, I showed him our Troop handbook that states, "we follow a two-deep leadership policy AS REQUIRED BY BSA". Which means, that having two-deep leadership from end to end is not our Troop's interpretation of National's policy, rather it is his interpretation of National's policy after being shown that his prior reasons for saying, "No" could not be substantiated.

So, then he started giving me deadlines to tell them whether or not I could do it the way he was demanding and I continued to ask him to explore alternatives with me. After a couple of demeaning emails about me being irresponsible for not knowing the National BSA policy prior to signing up for the trip I decided (based on advice from this Board) to call Council and see if they would review a DRAFT of our Tour Plan and get their input. To my surprise they said, "We are fine with this".

Now, from Beavah and others I knew he and the COR could really do what they wanted, but WHY create the higher standard out of the blue? To that they said, "this is our travel policy plain and simple". So, I shared examples where we have had many instances with one leader in each vehicle on many ground transportation trips that I and my co-leader have personally lead. Now, they are saying, "we have a two-deep leadership policy END to END for all High Adventure trips. So, then I gave them an example of where that was not the case on a Northern Tier trip last year!!! And, they said, "That's our Policy"

Really it's his policy for this trip, with no documentation, by laws, handbook language or BSA policy language to support that we cannot do this. Bottom line: It's a power trip.

And, with the demanding deadlines he was setting the only thing I could have done differently was two weeks ago for me to say, "OK sir, I will not go because you said so"

As the CC he should have called a Committee Meeting, or he should have checked with Council and he should have been working with me to find solutions, rather than to impose a "higher standard" on his own for no good reason.

Do you know what his good reason is? He says, "It's for the safety of the boys"

Well, my son is one of the boys and guess what? He said, "You need to be back in Illinois to fly with the other leader and five scouts, PERIOD! Your son can fly alone from CT to FL and that is fine with me..."

REALLY???? Well, there went his argument for wanting safety for the boys. It is certainly less safe for my son to fly alone, than for 5 scouts to fly with one leader.

At this point, his common sense should have kicked in... Hey, if I'm ok with rraffalo's son flying alone, then why don't we just let everyone fly as individuals, not considering the flight legs to and from Florida as not part of the trip, and build the tour plan that way?? Hmmm, let me work with rraffalo on that. Nope. Not an ounce of such creativity. Actually, it did not even require creativity. I put that suggestion out there two months ago, and Richard B validated my thinking on that subject.

Now, before those of you that haven't been following along, jump on me and tell me I'm circumventing the rules please go back to Richard B's first post, and I'll rest my case there. Go ahead, run along now..... go read it before you jump on me for trying to cut corners.

Bottom line: Our CC wants me to do it his way, because he said so. Period!

So, qwazse ~ I may have lost a long, futile argument, but I haven't squandered anything. This was dead a couple of weeks ago. I simply thought that continuing to ask him to work with me would get him to come up with an alternative. I will not rehash them all here, just re-read this thread if you dare, because there have been many good ideas thrown out here and I've basically used them all to no avail.

So qwazse, I could have rolled over and have allowed myself to have been dictated to a couple of weeks back, and I would have been exactly where I am today. Then, my co-leader thought of the approach with the Crew. The tour plan says you need EITHER the CC or COR's signature. Since Council and National do not like to over-rule a Troop I did not think the COR would over-rule his other CC (of the crew), because I thought he too (the COR) was really looking for an "OUT"

I figured the COR knew that the Troop's CC stepped in dog crap with all his mis-statements about whose policy this was... (first National's, then the Troop's interpretation of National's policy, etc., etc.), but was just supporting him on this because he felt he needed to in order to show he was backing his CC (like the way good college buddies back each other up).

qwazse, I do think you are correct, however, that the boys have learned nothing from this, because they haven't been involved. I'm not sure about your Troop, but trips like this cannot be turned over to the boys. Honestly, they are not mature enough to think through all the details, and with this kind of money on the line the guidance of adults is essential.

Beavah, I'm aware that Richard B probably does not want to step in and referee a squabble, but he did offer in his first post to speak with the Council Director if that Director did not get anywhere with our Troop's COR. I don't know if their discussion would change the outcome in this case, but I kind of got the sense that Richard might have some experiences and words of wisdom that would help a CC and COR come to their senses (perhaps about the notion of just letting everyone travel as individuals to Fort Lauderdale).

The CC has told me that if my son doesn't go on the trip he is going to keep our money for his trip fees, but the only way my son can go on the trip is to fly alone. Isn't that less safe than the other 5 flying with one leader? Well, it's that lack of common sense and circular reasoning that has truly been unbearable over the last week or so.

ALL suggestions and alternatives have fallen upon deaf ears, and quickly dismissed. Every time someone suggests a reasonable solution he just says, "no", which means he is desperately defending his original position.

And so, because he has the power he wins, and if I have to live with that then that is what I'll do.

I placed two phone calls to our Program Director at Council today and left voice mail messages, but did not connect with him. I know it is busy summer camp season... In any event I just want to get his perspective on all of this. I wonder how many times they approve a tour plan and then are asked to revoke it.

Now, now, let's forget about the Crew Tour Plan for a minute ~

different questions. How many times is a Tour Plan rejected by a Troop that both Council and National would have approved? How frequently does a Troop set a higher standard than the BSA? Now if you say that happens frequently then I have another question, but I've been with three different Councils in scouting (in FL, TX and now IL) and I've never seen anything like this. If you have please share the situation with this Board and then tell all of us what good it did for anyone...

If you are able to give such an example, then... Was the higher standard fabricated on the fly, and were the rules being made up as the situation was unfolding, just to support a stubborn argument? Or was it written down and well communicated?

If our CC does not authorize that my son's money be returned as well as mine, then I will take it up in a Committee Meeting in September and I believe I will get the Committee to vote to refund my son's money.

If anyone has anything helpful to add, then I would appreciate hearing it. Thanks everyone! (yes, even you qwazse :-)

I choose to look at it more like when brother says, "no" ask Dad.

BUT, the latest is our CC and COR went to Council today, threw a fit and Council revoked our Tour Plan with the Crew. Subsequently, I've been removed as the co-leader of the trip effective immediately and "Game Over".

They are now searching for another leader, which I believe they must already have a commitment from someone. Here's the kicker... they will give me my money back because they are kicking me out, but they told me if they cannot find another Scout to replace my son they will not return his trip fee.

That's really twisted, because I've told my CC from the beginning that I could not accept that he wanted me to fly back to Illinois to be with the other leader and 5 boys, but he was indifferent as to whether or not my son returned to Illinois also. He said, "he can fly alone to Fort Lauderdale for all I care". Well, if he can fly alone then why can't they just eliminate the first leg of the trip as Richard B suggested could be done, so that we could all fly alone (not as part of an official trip), and begin our trip in Fort Lauderdale?

That's when I began asking him to reconsider his position.

If his position is going to be that I must be on the plane for the safety of the scouts, then he cannot then argue that my son is free to fly alone. Doing that means his motive is not really the safety of all the scouts, because it's pretty clear my son is one of the scout.

Now, with me done as leader of the trip there is no way to send him without him flying alone. He'll either have to fly to Illinois alone to fly with the others (which would be ridiculous), or he will need to fly from CT to Florida to meet the others in Fort Lauderdale.

My son has known for a couple weeks now that we were not going to Sea Base, because we came up against a two-deep leadership issue we could not resolve, but he does not know that I've continued to try and work things out so that we could go. I asked him back when I knew this was going to be an uphill battle whether or not he wanted to go on the trip if I couldn't go. He'll be 14 in early July, and he said "No". Because he is on the younger side, with a couple of the others already 16, and one scout actually turning 18 in December (SHOOT, if he were only 5 months older we would not be in this position because he would be considered an adult at that point), I think he may feel a little intimidated to go without me.

Richard B... would you still like me to have my Council Program Director contact you?

Very interesting how Council's don't like to get involved and over-rule a troop, but then they'll take a phone call and revoke a Tour Plan they just approved 24 hour prior without getting either of the trips co-leaders on the phone to have an open discussion among all parties. Granted, they should not have to be involved, but before making a complete 180 degree turn there should have been some vetting of the issue.

I have not spoken to my Program Director at Council because the women who handles the Tour Plans in the front office has been very competent, and she has asked our Program Director several questions regarding our plans to keep him in the loop and to ensure everyone was clear on what we were doing and what we were seeking.

So, I will be calling our Program Director tomorrow to see where he was confused, such that he changed his mind. Was he under too much pressure from the phone call, were we not clear the day before? I need to get some closer from him on that... But Richard, if your offer is still open to have him call you I will ask him to do that once I've had a chance to understand his change of heart.

Oh well ! Easy come easy go I guess ~ Thanks again everyone for your thoughtful comments. Your wisdom, and the value it has provided, has been very helpful.

Much Appreciated!

FScouter: "Skirt the Intent of rules and policies"

Remember FScouter: We are in line with the rules and policies. In fact, we meet the rules and policies or we would not have the support of Council. If I felt we were "cutting corners" or trying to take an angle that is in the "gray area" I would not have pursued this.

It is better to teach boys not to allow themselves to be oppressed by a person or agency that is mis-using its power, than to teach them to wander along aimlessly as their leaders dictate, particularly without reasons that make sense to them.

I'm teaching my youth to be individual thinkers (leaders that can reason for themselves), and that there are alternatives that can be worked through with most problems if you are willing to work at it. I've invited our CC to work with me many times, and in his eyes it was his way or the highway. So, we took the highway ~

BTW, the boys have not been privy to any of the communication among us leaders, and I have not yet told my son that we have been able to work out this issue. So, he is still not aware that we are going on this trip.

Well... my co-leader actually thought of the idea, and it sounded worth pursuing to me.

As I said, the Crew's Committee Chairperson saw the issue clearly and signed the Tour Plan. My son and my co-leaders two sons are signed up as Venturers, but not all going on the trip have to be. So, we figured to keep it simple we would not require the others to join the Crew, including the CC's son. We have no desire to give them more paperwork to do, and so we are perfectly fine with them attending as Scouts. If they enjoy the trip perhaps they'll wish to join the Venture Crew on their own.

Richard, I was about to ask our Program Director at Council to contact you if he was unable to make any headway speaking with our COR, but then my co-leader thought of this approach. We called Sea Base in advance and they said, that it does not matter how the trip was initially booked. All they care to see upon arrival is an Approved Tour Plan. My co-leader is a Committee Member with our Troop and she is the one that found the trip, investigated the details and booked the trip. She is also our Troop's Treasurer. Highly doubtful they are going to mess with her by canceling the trip altogether, being that she has two sons that are expecting to be going on this trip. Obviously, Council sees no problem either, or they would not have approved our plan.

It is clear that the Troop's CC is not happy, but it has not fractured the Troop. Our Troop has 70 Scouts in it, and there is not a great divide among the Troop. The Troop families largely agree with our position on this matter and the CC is really on an island by himself, with the exception of support from the COR who feels obligated to support him.

But, truly this is a WIN/ WIN, and we should all go on our merry way from here. Nothing more need to be said or done with this from my perspective. Before you know it, summer will be over, and we'll all be back to our Monday evening meetings in September. Lets just let it be water under the bridge... BUT, as some of you have eluded, there may be more to come. I'll keep the Board updated as I learn more.

Here's the updated status:

The CC and COR were too committed to their original decision to reconsider.

So, my co-leader and I changed the Tour Plan to be a Crew instead of a Troop, and sent it to the Committee Chairman for the Venture Crew, which is closely affiliated with our Troop. After explaining all the details to him and providing him with a detailed travel itinerary he signed it, no problem!

We scanned it and emailed it to Council; they stamped and approved it in less than 24 hours.

So, now we have a green light to proceed and everyone WINS. Our Troop's Committee Chairman wins because he did not sign a Tour Plan he was not happy with, and I win because I still get to co-lead this outing. Most importantly, ALL the boys win!

I broke the Good News to our Troop's Committee Chairman last night and he is more upset than a grasshopper in a snow storm, and now he is deciding whether or not he wants to allow his 16 year old son to go on the trip. He told me I have extended myself beyond every boundary and that I was unbelievable having the audacity to change the whole program just to accommodate my personal travel schedule. He wanted to know if he could get his money back if he decided not to send his son as a Venturer. I told him that I would let my co-leader (the main leader of the trip) make that decision, but also told him that because Scouts can attend Venture Crew outings that we were not going to require his son to become a Venturer. I told him he could just continue as planned and, although the we have changed the organization with which we will be traveling to Sea Base, the Sea Base Program is the same. I encouraged him to allow his son to participate, and I hope he will.

Is this the end of the thread? Time will tell...

Something tells me there may be more to come ~ :-)

KC9DDI:

Thanks for the practice... I'll use the insights, for sure.

Look back at the post, I've never taken a position of legal mumbo jumbo. I've never spoken of suing or courts or anything, although I do know some of the others on the Board explored that avenue. I'm not a litigious person.

Since I know this Board cannot help me. None of you have the authority to fix this I have no reason to spend all this time posting if I'm going to slant the truth. It's best for me to give you all the specifics, so that you can give me good advice, which I have received tons of. Posting false accusations may get some to agree with me, but would have done me no good. Therefore, I have not mislead you in any way.

In fact, I have clipped and pasted a couple of the emails I've sent to the CC and COR into this thread so that you could get a sense for how perplexed I am, particularly that the CC's own son is going on this trip.

The only conclusion I can come to, which I have eluded to several times, is that we have and ego issue here, a very proud man. I explained that he lambasted me in an email, telling me how we could not change BSA's rules, and that I was irresponsible for not have planned accordingly. He copied the COR and several another 20yr Committee Member who is his buddy. They all jumped on his band wagon. Then I replied to his email privately and politely asked him to call me, not replying ALL - just replying to him. He sent another email copying everyone telling me there was nothing else to talk about and that is why he did not call me. So, I sent an email copying everyone, letting him know that his position was, in fact, not BSA policy but it was a higher standard. I acknowledged his right to do that and told him (and everyone) that I believed there was still room to work this out if he would speak with me and we were to work together.

He looked like an idiot because he was wrong about it being a BSA policy. Our Troop handbook even says: "We utilize a two-deep leadership policy, as per BSA" ~ Not above and beyond BSA. So, then it was no longer a BSA policy, rather he went on to say that his decision was based on our Troop's interpretation of BSA's policy...

So now, he is simply too proud to "change the call" ~ You know, good referees that blow a call should quickly change the call when possible before too much passes. The more time that passes the more awkward changing the call becomes. So much time has passed now, and I have asked him to reconsider several times that I believe he is ticked off and feels a changed call now would mean he lost.

I believe that is the bottom line...

As far as something not smelling right? I do get a little gassy from time to time, but I did not think computer technology was quite that advanced yet :-)

Thank you 5yearscouter:

No, my co-leader is fine with all this, and the parents of the other two scouts are fine with this. Interestingly, the CC's son is on this trip with us, and the CC has not stated he is uncomfortable with it. In fact, I know he trusts my co-leader. He simply does not want to sign the Tour Plan.

Here is the contingencies we've laid out thus far, and you've given me some additional ideas that I'm going to add to our Preparedness and our Planning. In fact, I will offer the COR that I will conduct a sit down meeting to review all that and I will equip each of us on the trip with a pocket card (that I will create) that will have all the contingencies complete with phone numbers, etc.

Read this excerpt from an email to our COR:

"I based my decision to sign Nicholas and I up for this trip based on the National rules I've read, and my personal experience with the Troop on outings my son has attended, and I have assisted with. Never did I think this would be an issue. When I learned it might be an issue my co-leader and I discussed some ideas that would reinforce our tour plan and mitigate as many risks as possible:

a. A second leader in Illinois assisting my co-leader and the other 5 to the gate at O'Hare

b. My flight landing prior to my co-leaders's in Fort Lauderdale so that I could be there upon their arrival

c. Taking early flights to reduce the risk of long delays

d. Booking non-stop flights to eliminate the potential for missing connections

e. I contacted Mr. X, Mr. Y, and my co-leader and asked if they were fine with not flying as a scouting organization, and actually beginning our official scout trip in Florida, which is fine by National. We all know that we would not be traveling as a boy scout troop in that situation, but everyone who is going is ok with that, except for CC. CC has not stated he has a safety issue with that specific situation for his son, but I'm inferring it because he refuses to sign the Tour Plan. I called CC last Friday evening to run that thought passed him and to get his opinion. Instead of calling me back as I requested, he spoke with my co-leader and then sent me an email that certainly read as if he were slinging mud at me. Now, I know CC better than that, so I politely requested in a reply email that he please call me. He did not; he still has not. And, while it is fine for him to not want his son to fly with only one adult leader, it still stands as an example of how I was trying to find a workable solution. I don't know that I've completely come up with the right answer at this point, but I need his support to figure it out. Instead, he refuses to speak with me, commenting that there simply is nothing else to talk about"

So, there you have it...

I'm going to go make my laminated pocket cards now! Thanks for that idea 5yearscouter ~

Ok 5 yearscouter: the first half of your post is moot, because we have plans to get the scouts to the gate with two deep leadership, through security and all.

If something happens to the leader on the plan. The scouts go with that leader wherever they go with whatever medical service is treating the leader. Just as in a car with one leader. If something happens to the leader they remain with the leader (and any official aiding the leader in his/ her state of incapacity) until the other leaders arrive... just as in the car situation you pointed out. Except on the plane the scouts would have the comfort of the airline crew.

Really?, you would want a contingency plan for my return from CT to Illinois? I would not do well with you either. Maybe everyone should just stay put in their homes 48 hours before the trip to ensure no one breaks a finger nail prior to the big meeting at the departure sight.

Your insurance reason is bogus. Do you want everyone to travel in uniform too, because you are afraid the insurance won't cover? We travel in uniform, ok? But, we don't tell the scouts that the insurance won't cover if we don't. You sound like THAT guy.

National claims that excluding that first leg due to no NEED to travel together is legit. So, apparently you find their minimum guideline ridiculous. Fine. You can do that Mr. COR, but it's a power trip... admit it!

What if last week I relocated my family to Orlando, FL for a job that I was offered a month prior, and what if no other leaders were available to take my position? Would you make me fly from Orlando to Illinois, just to return with the group to Fort Lauderdale. If so, you would find yourself canceling the trip.

Rather pompous of you, Eh? ...thinking that you need to one-up National, because you have obviously thought all of this through much better than they, right?

You are beyond a micro manager my friend and I'll leave it at that. It is leadership like that, which has scouting numbers on the down-slide.

To be fair to you, however, I believe you would have had all of this spelled out far in advance and you would have made sure it was well communicated. I believe you would even have a standard training program for all new scouts and parents entering the Troop each year and this would be a main topic of discussion and training. I also believe that if you failed to do that you might be fair and relax your personal, non-documented, uncommunicated, high standard and defer to the National policy just this one time. Then, I would expect you would sit down, write a clear policy, get the Committee to vote on it, and enter it into your new scout communication package and training program. I would also expect you to frown upon a High Adventure Tour Plan that has the two leaders departing from Northern Tier in different directions; one going to a Wisconsin summer camp with her son and the other driving the rest of the High Adventure crew 10 hours back to Illinois.

Doing anything else makes you a leader that shoots from the hip and then is unable to rationalize the right thing to do.

Anyway, I have all the good advice I need from the Board at this juncture. I appreciate everyone's help ~ This has been very beneficial (not to mention therapeutic). No offense taken from those that have shared the "sometimes" harsh reality of their opinion, and I hope those I've been harsh on at at times will forgive me as well. It is not personal, and perhaps we'll end up agreeing to disagree. That's ok with me. I'm resigned to the fact that I will be removed from this trip, and my son will not attend either (because he does not want to go without me). I have asked for a face-to-face with the COR so that I can share latest Tour Plan, the packet of emails I've copied, along with the short note that has been suggested and the leadership issue will clearly be in his hands.

I will get back to this Board with the final conclusion when all is said and done. Thanks again everyone... Peace Out !

KC9DDI: Delayed flights, diverted flights - I've already addressed our mitigation plans. While I cannot make a guarantee, no one can. What if I get delayed or my flight gets canceled, returning to Illinois to get on the plane with the others? If I don't make it there are they going to not get on the plane and fly to Florida without me, expecting that I will meet up with them as soon as I can redirect and get with them? In that case I would think they would just wait for me in the Florida airport. Would you expect them to STOP, miss their flight, and wait for me, so that we can all find a later flight to get on together? I fly a lot and I think they would find it hard to justify to the airline why they did not get on that flight, and as a result, the airline would make them pay more because they waited for me to take the later flight. If we follow your logic of ALL the legitimate things that could happen we would be paralyzed and never go anywhere. Maybe what we really need is three or four-deep leadership, Eh?

Beavah: I love those, Ehs! They really add a nice touch when accentuating a point! And, I mean that sincerely by the way :-)

KC9DDI: Also, I know you are far removed from this (even though you sound like you may actually be our CC ~ where are you from anyway :-), so I'll just tell you that the CC is not enforcing the CO's policy. It sounds real good. You sound very convincing saying that, but they do not have a policy. They are certainly using their RIGHT to do what they are doing (feel that POWER, baby!), but in fact they are winging it!

I would still question this if I were employed or not, the fact that I'm not is truly not relevant to this situation and you are correct about that one. But, the fact that I am not makes me concerned about the economics they are pushing me to. I feel bad that I cannot financially do this, because I know my son really wants to go on this trip. Subsequently, I feel incompetent in my ability to provide for him in this situation. Because there is no policy there was no communication of such requirements until we planned the trip. Now, this requirement has come out of the blue. I know it's their RIGHT, no argument. But, they can as easily sign off on the plan. It is as tight as a plan gets, without offering 100% guarantees. No plan has 100% guarantees.

I have taken an HONEST look at this and much of what you claim is not relevant, surely is. I think if the CC and COR look at this honestly, they would realize their position is overkill (but in their rights to take on as a position). The only way some of the things that you shunned in your post as irrelevant are not relevant is in a dictatorship. Again, I know it's their right to dictate, so I will end up living with their decision.

I have told them what I can do and I have encouraged them to replace me if they cannot find a way to approve our plan. They don't want to replace me, really. They want me to live up to the commitment I made to the Troop five months ago. Given the information they provided at that time, the precedent created by other trips I have personally volunteered for, and the BSA policy I am living up to the commitment I made. If they want extra money spent to keep me on the trip, they'll have to front the funds.

Like a church is the people gathering to worship, and not the building they gather in; the Troop is the people, not the trailer, the gear, or the meeting place. In this case doing what is right for the Troop is the same as doing what is right for this crew. The 8 people on this crew are what matter right now, not the other people in the troop. Being that none of the CO decisions of the past or the future are relevant in this case, according to KC9DDI and perhaps some others on the Board here, it is solely this situation that matters with respect to doing what is right for the Troop. Clearly, the CO's decision is not going to be the right thing for 2 of the 8 people (25% of the crew) on this trip. I'm not saying he cannot decide how he has I'm just saying it will not be the right thing for the Troop in the context of this trip.

I will once again recommend that he remove me from the trip and give him the opportunity to find another leader.

Thank you KC9DDI... good stuff!

I am being honest when I believe the air travel is safer than car travel, particularly because we will have two deep leadership at the gates on each end of the flight.

I'm a Committee Member... we do not have higher standards. This is a one off, shoot from the hip mistake that he made. He went off in an email telling me how irresponsible I was for not knowing National's policy. He said, "It's not my policy, it's not the Troop's policy, it's not the Council's policy, it's the BSA National policy and we cannot change that!!!!!" Yes, with all the emotion and all the venom spewing from the email. So, I politely sent him a return email asking him to call me so that we can discuss some potential options. He emailed me back, refusing to call me, saying there was nothing else to talk about because I was ignoring him. All I wanted to do was point out that I had read National's policy prior to planning to be a leader on the trip and it did not seem that there would be an issue according to the policy. So, I got some advice from this Board, particularly Beavah, Moose Tracker and Richard B (Richard Bourlon who is an executive with National). I then called Council, spelled out the details to them and they emailed me back saying that they have reviewed our one leadership situation on the plane ride and they were fine with that. So, I emailed our CC who was still, at that point, refusing to talk to me on the phone or meet me for coffee, and I told him what I discovered with Council. He then came back and said, "It's not National's policy, rather it is his and the Troop's interpretation of the National Policy"

I know you are not hearing both sides and I consider that with each post I read. I am, however, spelling out exactly to this Board what I can support with emails back and forth to him and our COR. I want you all to know that I do appreciate all of your input very much, and even though I have vented a fair amount in this thread (ok, maybe even a bit much!) I can assure you that cooler heads will prevail. I just emailed our COR to see if he will meet me for coffee. Wish me luck!

Well... I just printed all the emails that 5yearscouter suggested in a few posts back and they are all as sweet as the one I embedded in my last post. So, you can keep the Baloney on that.

Also, we have not yet purchased our airline tickets... the additional money I have been speaking of is the difference between in air fare between flying directly to FL and having to plan a multi-city trip through Chicago. My son is the one that prefers to have me on the trip, being that he is just turning 14; two other scouts are 15, and 3 are 16. Doesn't seem like a big age difference to you and I, but at that age it's big with both emotional as well as physical maturity. My wife also feels more comfortable if I were there.

Yes, the CC is fine with my son joining the trip and flying ALONE. Doesn't that defy logic? He's not good with one leader flying with 5 scouts, but he if fine with 1 scout flying alone.

If I were employed and had the financial ability none of this would be an issue.

I agree a plane is much different that a car, and it is very well documented that air travel is safer than traveling by car. Remember, we are willing to provide another adult leader right up to the gate upon departure in Illinois and I would be arriving from CT prior to the Illinois team such that I would meet them at their gate in Florida. Besides, that the one leader on the flight from Illinois would have a well trained pilot and airline crew assisting her with the safety of our 5 scouts while in flight. Don't forget my son and I would be in flight from CT at nearly the same time, so we too would be assisted by our pilot and crew in arriving to Florida safely. Overall, that is much safer than one over weight, middle aged, dude driving our kids 6 hours from summer camp back to our home base. I'm just sayin'... So ScoutNut, I'm glad you see the difference between the two.

Also, revisiting Richard Bourlon's post from June 6th says this...

"Initial thoughts (sorry I lost the will to continue reading after the first page) is that the two separate starting points is not the issue, the relationship / ratio of leader to youth and sex of youth / adults is more than likely the issue that will create concern. That and the assumption that the unit can at will chose not to have part of a trip as a scouting activity when there appears to be no other reason to travel as a group."

The unit/ CC/ COR can choose to NOT have the leg of the trip where we are all traveling to Florida as part of the scouting activity, when there appears to be no other reason to travel as a group.

Clearly there is no other reason for us to travel as a group if the CC is fine with my son traveling to the FL airport separately from the rest.

ScoutNut: read my last post and see the nice email that I sent to the CC. I've printed 6 other emails just like it suggesting that we meet for coffee, and that I want him on board with us. "It is important for the Crew and I to have his blessing on this trip, etc. "

Remember, the CC's job is to assist and serve the process. Instead of helping us to find ways to make this work he fighting against us. It's not like I'm asking him to help us fix a bad plan so that it will pass Council's approval process. Our plan has already gotten verbal approval from Council by reviewing our Itinerary. He just needs to say, "ok, go!" and we're done! But, for some reason he is expecting something he has not demonstrated requiring in the past, and his new, higher standard does not work for me being unemployed.

SN: Do you always do what higher leaders of yours tell you, even when they are requiring you to do something that is unnecessary and beyond the requirements of the governing body or policy? If so, we are simply cut from a different mold, that's all.

Moose Tracker and TwoCubDad:

I put a post out there this morning at 6:45 am... Not expecting you to have noticed it. No one should have to go back and read all this. It said,

"Sorry, third paragraph above should say: "Our CC's son is going on the trip with us..." (Not the CC himself)

No, they have not found replacements yet. I appreciate the advice, even the objective and somewhat harsh commentary... I'm a big boy and it's all good! Hopefully you've all read the post of mine that stated this is where I have been venting, but more professional with the troop leaders (particularly the CC and COR). This board contains the stuff in my head and your help is very valuable to me.

This was my last email to our CC, back on the morning of June 8th: (It's definitely fair that you have some insight as to my behavior outside this board; and, a good bit of it is thanks to all of you!)

Transcript of Email:

June 8, 2011

(Name of CC),

Thank you for speaking with me last evening I really appreciate that we are working together on this. I felt our conversation was productive and I think we are making progress.

I gave some additional thought to your request of me in terms of my commitment to the trip. I agree it is appropriate for you to know my intentions, prior to us working through the final details of the Sea Base tour plan.

If you would review the tour plan Mary has sent to you, and help facilitate this process by signing it, then I will do whatever Council requires to ensure that I am co-leading that trip. In other words, if you support us and Council does not like the plan the three of us will have created together, then I will do what Council requires of me to conform with all the rules of the Travel policy as they see it.

And, if they do approve it then we will have the satisfaction of knowing that we listened to each other, worked together, and came to a beneficial resolution for the crew and the troop, even though we may not have agreed on everything, every step of the way.

I have great respect for you (name of CC), for everything you do and everything you have done for the troop and our boys. That hasn't changed because we've experienced a small bump in the road.

After you have had some time to think about it please let Mary or I know if we can have your support.

Kind Regards,

(Me)

End of Transcript..

The CC has not replied and will not speak on the phone because he feels there is nothing left to talk about.

SO, I'm not scorching the earth, and no one is going to court. It's really not that important to me, such that I would ever want the boys to affected by this squabble. While it certainly seems wrong, not everything in life is right.

One more question, and then I'll follow up with this board as to the final outcome. Now that they have taken such a hard stance on two deep leadership "every step of the way," and will be making me and my son miss this trip don't you think now they have to uphold this standard with all Troop trips?

Previous posts show what they are insisting of me has not been the Troop's practice. So, is the Boy Scout organization really set up with all its structure, and all its rules and with no lack of documentation (that's for sure), such that one man (the COR) can play favorites? I feel that if the COR does this to me, then he should insist that all summer camp vehicles also have two adults in each vehicle, Eh? (Beavah, that Eh? was for you :-)

Think about that... all vehicles having two adults in each, particularly because caravanning is highly discouraged, right?

I do not suspect, however, he will require that. I suspect that his "every step of the way" mentality will revert to the hint, hint, wink, wink, approach that we have been using all along. So effectively, he will have said "no" to me but will have allowed it with others. Why doesn't the Boy Scouts have a way to govern such misuse of power by one of its leaders or even a CO? I understand the idea that they cannot referee everything, but with all the consistency that the BS organization represents and requires there surely should be a way to ensure consistency with this, particularly when we are talking about the precious few opportunities there are to attend High Adventure activities.

What would you do if you were me if in the future you saw one of your Troop leaders traveling alone in a vehicle with several scouts?

Would you skip down the road with a big smile on your face, knowing you did the right thing for the other crew members of your Sea Base 2011 adventure, or is there some other form of action you would take?

5yearscouter: When you said,

"Stop where you are right now!!"

Two things jump into my head:

1. You are pleading with me not to scorch the Earth because it would be bad for our Troop and scouting overall.

2. You have thought of a better way to handle this "THAT WILL GET THIS DONE MY WAY" with a high degree of probability for success!

Please rate, on a scale from 1-10 your meaning behind telling me to "stop where you are right now" (maybe it is neither, maybe you are just a police officer :-)

Rating for: "Please don't scorch the Earth Stupid:"

AND

Rating for: "I have a better way that will likely help you WIN your case and go on that trip your way!:"

Thanks again ~

Thank you for the advice everyone... all of you have been so helpful!

BTW, I have been very calm with them, continuing to ask for their support and trying to see how their decision in this case makes sense. Instead of telling me that they have a problem with me (that until now I would not have known of), and are just simply trying to get me to do it there way... just for fun! Instead, of that they lie about the way we have run the troop.

I have been very relaxed with them and my emails to them support that... I may cut and paste them in here in a later post so that you can see the sugar coating that has been slopped all over this mess! It's like one of those sticky buns that we have on Sunday mornings during camp outs.

What is an IH, and a DE? Also who is the UC (unit commissioner I know, but that's not the committee chair, right?

I've not yet told all of you this, but obviously you could tell I've been venting here, and while I know this is a public board, I've kept the venting here for the most part. I don't really have any worries they'll endeavor to seek a board like this on their own because they will not even call me back. They do not feel there is any further reason to talk. They want me to step away, so they can seek a replacement. But, I will likely make them pull the plug. The longer is goes the harder it will be for them to find a replacement.

That said, I have the support of my co-leader and the other parents of the other two scouts. So, if they all say they will not go if I do not go, then it potentially leaves the CC's son with a canceled trip. Since the COR is buds with the CC he may sign it so that the CC does not have to tell his son the trip is canceled. While they can likely replace me (and even my son) in the time left. They probably cannot find two leaders and five other scouts at this juncture which will then, at a minimum, cost the CC additional money. For example, they may find two leaders and three other scouts to keep the trip alive, but it will cost our CC twice as much to send his son.

In any event, that may be the next step...

5yearscouter: Your steps are under consideration as well. Once we do the above, however, the trip will have effectively been blown up, unless the CC can then get the COR to sign (because like you all have said... it's in the COR's hands now).

Beavah: I agree with you regarding the options I have left.

Thanks everyone... I just need to know what those initials mean with respect to the titles of the Troop leaders.

Yes... I get it. Thank you, and I would not want National to fight our battles. They have too many other things to worry about. Bottom line: The COR can do what he wishes, and in this case he is mis-using his power even though he is not breaking any rules.

Now, once he does this to me he will have to live with this in future decisions he makes. That means, two leaders in every car that is going to summer camp. While not requiring it would not be breaking the rules he is certainly showing this is personal.

I don't think our membership will tolerate this...

Are you saying that we cannot work with Council to change our Charter Organization if we have another, and we do, that is willing to be our CO.??

Moose Tracker:

Very thorough and helpful. I only need the signature of the CC or COR. If the CC is replaced and I were to become the CC can the COR stop me from signing it? I don't think he would get involved at that point. If he does I would move to get the Committee to remove them as the Charter Org and move to the other Charter Organization that we have on the sideline.

In the end, I'm willing to miss this trip with my son if they keep pushing, so I'm far from in a coffin in the ground. But, I'm going to push them to go so far as to have to remove me. If they do that and jeopardize the trip then they can take the heat from the others for making higher standards that make no sense.

Boy... this is getting good! It might even make a good newspaper article. How do you think they would handle that heat?

While they may win on technicalities; they certainly are not going to win the popular vote. Usually, people that mis-use their power end up in the coffin, and that is what I suspect is going to happen in this situation.

They are just going to end up looking ridiculous and eventually they will lose their power over poor leadership. It may be after our Sea Base trip, but it will be inevitable nonetheless.

Sorry, third paragraph above should say: "Our CC's son is going on the trip with us..."

ScoutNut (and all):

You are not confused. I've been busy! I've taken the advice of this board, called our tour plan person at Council and spoke with her. I then emailed her a draft of our detailed itinerary and explained the leadership situation with only one adult on board the aircraft. She not only told me that was ok, but then emailed me back the same day saying that the detail of our itinerary looked great! She appreciated how thorough we were.

I called the other Council and just spoke in generalities and quickly laid out the leadership issue on the plane, so as not to waste her time. She decided she wanted to check with National, quickly made a call and gave me her answer. So, while you could say that it was approved by "all three" it was verbally approved by her with an assist from National.

I still do not have a stamp on our Tour Plan from our Council, however, because our COR is not signing and instead he is lying. Our CC has said he will make no further ruling on this; he is deferring to the COR. Our CC's is going on the trip with us (awkward now) and he is fighting against us, apparently now because it's just a grudge match between he and I. He doesn't want to be the one to "remove" me from the trip, because it would be very unpopular to do that to me, so he is going to let the COR continue to be the bad cop, while he sits on the sidelines.

Sorry that my leadership status with the Troop did not come to the surface earlier. I have been identifying myself as an adult volunteer who assists with Boards of Review and other volunteer duties as needed. One of my biggest duties has been driving scouts to camping trips, pulling the trailer at times, and camping with the Troop. I have enjoyed that time with my son over the past three and a half years. It is not that I have been trying to hide that I am also a Committee Member I've really just been trying to keep is simple. I agree that the length of this thread totally contradicts my desire to keep it simple.

So, we have 13 committee members including our Committee Chairman. My co-leader and I are both Committee Members and we think we would have enough people on our side to win a vote if we had a meeting to discuss this.

There was an earlier reply to this thread that suggested the CC must do the Committee's will, and he must sign if the Committee votes that he must sign. Should he then refuse to sign he must resign so that we can get a Committee Chairperson who will sign. I think I also read that someone used the word: Consensus vs. winning a vote 7-6. Not sure what was meant by that, although I am aware that Consensus means unanimous. So, would the Committee have to be at Consensus? Clearly we would not because the CC is refusing us his signature. He will not change that in a Committee Meeting if we need to gain consensus.

Also, I am requesting that our Program Director at Council speak with our COR today. If he cannot get anywhere I am going to ask our Program Director to call on Richard Bourlon who offered his assistance earlier in this post. I'm hoping he'll have something up his sleeve that I do not yet know. I have suggested to the CC that we would build a Tour Plan that has the initial travel to Fort Lauderdale not considered part of the scouting event, since there is really no good reason for the success of the trip that we must travel together until we all arrive in Fort Lauderdale. Once we gather in the Fort Lauderdale airport we would then become the Scout Unit attending Sea Base, and have two deep leadership every step of the way. We would be traveling 2.5 hours by van to Sea Base, and as we drive up the front entrance to Sea Base we will have been together for over 100 miles and over two hours as a full crew with two adult leaders. The CC seems not to want to hear that solution. He is insistent that I must travel back to Illinois to be with the other leader and the five scouts will be traveling with. He does not care if my son travels back to Illinois to also be with the troop from the beginning. He has told me that I may leave my son behind in CT and he may fly alone to Fort Lauderdale if I want to save money. So, this is where Beavah's "doing the right thing comes into play". Basically, we should be doing what makes sense for the safety of all the scouts, including my son. We should be able to reason this out using the spirit of rules as well as the black and white. The interesting part about this is that I am on the right side of this argument when you look at the black and white words of the policy (as is clear by having Council and National's support), and I believe the way I am reasoning through this using common sense and the spirit of "doing what is right"; I think my stance holds far more water than his. I will not have him fly alone, not because I'm afraid of him flying alone. I'm actually ok with that. But, as for the principle of it... our CC is claiming he wants me back in Illinois because he wants to do what is best for the Scouts. Well, my son is one of those scouts. And, if he is going to use his "two deep on the plane" argument, then he should be equally concerned for the supervision of my son on the flight he would be on alone (completely alone). He argues that my son would be flying "on his own", not as a scout on the first leg of the trip. So he is ok with that, but he will not let us all fly the first leg of the trip as a non-scouting event. My co-leader and I are the parents of 3 of the 6 scouts on this trip. The CC's son makes the 4th scout on the trip. I have personally received the permission from the parents of the other two scouts on the trip to have their son fly the first leg as part of a non-scouting event. The CC is not giving that permission because he wants the trek to begin at our home base because that is the way it has ALWAYS been done, and he wants to gouge me for $500, making the point that I need to be more dedicated and more committed. He said I must choose between this trip and my 80 year old relatives, or I can do both, but unfortunately will need to spend money to fly back prior to the beginning of the trip. By the way, his son is 16 years old. It's not that he has a problem with his son flying with one leader; it's that he wants me to do it his way. So, he's blocking every potential solution by denying his signature. He wants me to fly back or step down; if they cannot find another parent to take the trek then I would be the bad guy because the whole trip would have to be canceled. I'm not stepping down. I believe he must remove me from the trip if he is not going to sign the Tour Plan. He is afraid to do that, because if they then cannot find another leader he will be cited as the one that blew up the trip. That's the impasse right now.

See... it is that kind of mixed up rationale that I have very little tolerance for. It's poor leadership on his part, and he is using circular logic to try to make a point to support his ridiculous position on this. He is also perpetuating a lie by saying that this is the way that our troop has ALWAYS operated. Not True...

So, I'll see if Council can make progress with our COR, but I don't think our COR will bend. I will then ask Council to call Mr. Richard Bourlon for his advice and Council.

BUT, since we have no troop bylaws I'm not sure as the Committee Member that I am (and my co-leader is) how to call a Committee Meeting with our CC presiding over the meeting. I'm contemplating tabling this issue in a Committee Meeting, taking a vote, and then gaining he CC's signature if we win the vote. If he then fails to sign I will then call for his resignation on the spot so that we can appoint or vote on another CC; A CC that will sign our Tour Plan...

Can I do that? And, if so is there a specific process I must follow to do it correctly?

I'm back gang, and I have updates... boy (and girl - moosetracker anyway) has the plot thickened!

First off though... 5yearscouter: "it's still a good idea from a safety point of view to have a 2nd adult on all legs of the trip.'

I agree it would be a good idea. If I were going to be at our home base the day just prior to our trip that is what would be happening. I would never fly out of town right before a trip just to mess with people and go through all this work for nothing. Of course it is a good idea, but it is not an option if I must be that person. I've offered forward the thought that the troop could pay to fly someone to escort them and I have proposed that as a solution, and that it could be on the troop or CC's dime, but not mine.

Quick summary for any newbies on this forum: Legitimately, both the Sea Base opportunity and the family reunion surfaced around the same time this past January. My son and I returned from a Troop meeting one night... "Hey honey, we want to go to Sea Base" Wife: "Oh great! when is it?" Me: "July 18th" Wife: "Ohhhh, I think that is the weekend we just finalized the family reunion" Me: "Hmmm... what is the exact day of the reunion?" Wife: July 16th" Me: "ok, well... why don't we drive to CT the weekend prior and spend time with family and friends, then right after the family reunion scout and I will get on a plane and fly to FL and meet the others from Illinois there. You, and our other two kids can remain in CT and do some other things you've been wanting to do there. Once scout and I return from Sea Base we will fly back to CT and then we'll all drive home to Illinois together"

Each of the past two years I drove 4 scouts 6 hours away to summer camp and I was the only adult in the car. Yes there were other cars, but we were not caravanning. In fact, my GPS suggested a different route and that is the route I took. Our troop has been fine with that. Also, last year we had my co-leader for this trip co-leading a trip at Northern Tier. Directly from that trip she left with one of her scout sons and met us at Tomahawk Scout Ranch in Wisconsin and that week of summer camp actually began the same day that their Northern Tier adventure ended. Guess What???? ... you guessed it! The other adult leader drove the other scouts ten hours back to our home base from Northern Tier by himself.

Now, our CC/ and COR have firmly dug their heels in saying only; "We have a two deep leadership policy". "We have always had a two deep leadership policy, and that means two adults must be with the scouts every step of the way" Clearly our examples above don't show that and there are many other examples over the past three years that are the same. So, I asked our COR: "when you use to take troops on camp outs or trips were there always two leaders every step of the way, even in cars?" He replied, "well no, but the way we use to take car of that is we lined all the vehicles up and followed each other" Big red flag, right? So, I then asked: "Have you read beyond the title that says: "Two Deep Leadership Policy"? and he replied "I don't want to be reading into anything, that's where you are getting us off track by cutting corners" . "No" I said, " have you read beyond the Policies title, not have your read into it, or have your read between the lines".

While Beavah spanked me for this earlier in the thread I'm trying to get my COR to see that the Two Deep Leadership Policy allows for one leader in a vehicle when you cannot have two. "Just read the policy", I told him.

You see Beavah (and all) while I am very much about the spirit of the policies and believe that approach almost always creates more rational decisions, sometimes you need to deal with the black and white words that are actually printed on the page when that is what your critics are doing. However, not only are they using the black and white words to make their case, they have not read any other words in the policy. And, on top of all that they are simply speaking untruths when saying that we as a troop have always adhered to a "Two Leaders with the Scouts at all times Policy".

So, I put together our Tour Plan, along with my co-leader and I called Council and asked how to fill out the forms so that it would work for them, given the detail itinerary we presented with one leader on the plane. They told me what to do; I did it; I emailed them a draft of an attachment with our Plan's detailed itinerary, and they emailed me back and said, "This looks great! I spoke to our Program Director about you having one leader on the plane and he said that is ok, and you can do it". "You are very thorough" were Council's final words in that email. I then called another Council because I almost couldn't believe how easy that was. I was pinching myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming and I verbally walked the second Council through our scenario. When I got to the point of one leader on the plane the Council Tour Planner paused, said, "Oooooh", and then said let me call National and I'll call you right back. Five minutes later the phone rings... she said, "yep! You're good. National is fine with that"

Wow! All this stressing in the thread for nothing, right? Well not exactly....

The CC and COR still will not sign it, and I think it is because they told me "NO" to this plan a month ago, and they wanted me to find another leader as my replacement if I would not spend $500 to fly back to Chicago just to satisfy them. But, being that I was being ruled with an iron fist by two people that were using the black and white words, "Two Deep Leadership" and they were making their case by speaking in total untruths about how we actually operate as a troop the actual words of the policy began to haunt me (sorry Beavah). My feeling is: if you are going to be a black and white person then be prepared to live by those same words yourself. The fact is: those words always seem to come back to bite you and that is why I believe Beavah is right about using the judgment God gave us to do what is right versus playing a game of semantics. But, in this case, I know for sure "the spirit of the policy" and "let's do the right thing" isn't going to work because they do not want to hear anything other than, "ok, I'll fly back to Illinois because you told me too".

The CC/ and COR are holding firm that when I learned of my reunion running so close to the Sea Base trip that I should have committed to one or the other. But, they don't really over lap. I built my family vacation around the Sea Base trip. And, by the way, the actual family reunion on 7/16 is not just me and my immediate family. There are people coming in from other states for it and there are relatives in their 80's and early 90's that my children and I may never see again.

Bottom Line: They will not sign it and they know that the Council is not going to make them sign it. I'm calling Council tomorrow to get their thoughts on next steps.

Can I get help from those on this board as to what recourse I have? But, before you answer that you need to know that I am committed to obtaining a stamped Tour Plan. I do not intend to give into there wishes at this point. They are not going to make me perform to a higher standard than National using untrue comments to make their case. That is just wrong and someone should be able to govern their power in this situation. Also, our Troop handbook says, "We follow a Two Deep Leadership Policy as per BSA". So, there is no evidence of a higher standard having been established, but now on a whim they want to rest their case on that. I will not tolerate lies ruining this trip for my son and I so I plan to keep pushing this.

We have no bylaws as a Troop; there is no higher standard that has ever been created, voted on, and documented with respect to this. They do not even have a way of training or communicating this higher standard to new leaders that join the troop every year. We do not always do what they are trying to say we always do, so there is no solid precedent that it must be the way they are telling me I must do it. Now, recognize, we have had many trips over the years, including High Adventure, many of which our CC and COR attended where there was two deep leadership every step of the way. I know there are many examples of that too. So, they are trying to make me do it like they always did it. If I were currently employed I might do it their way to just save me time at this point.

But, I owe it to my son to be in this for the long haul; while I have told him we are dealing with a leadership issue which may keep us from being able to go this year he is not privy to any of the detail. Right now he thinks we are not going, and he does not know that I continue to try to work through these issues with the CC and COR. So, when you answer the question above you need to know that I am digging in and this is far from over. In fact, it may have only just begun.

I'm looking for thoughts from you on... how do we schedule a committee meeting, and have a vote? Is it possible to do that? What are the rules behind scheduling a meeting, conducting a vote, having a quorum, etc.? (again we have no bylaws that I can turn to) Also, we have two, yes two, Charter Organizations. We do not, however, have a representative registered with our second Charter Organization. How long would it take to register one of their members so that we can get our COR signature from that person?

Please provide me your thoughts on whatever you believe I can do to resolve this. I'm sure many of you have had great experiences out there with challenging situations like this. Please help where you can.

Thank you ~

... And, an additional $181 for my son, and then we have to do the same on the return trip because we ultimately need to get back to CT to drive back to Illinois with my wife and other two children. I could let my son remain in Chicago with friends on the return trip, so he would not have to fly back to CT, just to drive Illinois but at a minimum it's $500 additional dollars.

Thank you Moose Tracker:

I'm driving to CT with my wife, daughter and two sons from Chicago on July 8. The first week we will be visiting family and friends and the reunion is the following weekend. The plan was then to leave for Sea Base with my oldest son, while the others in my family remain in CT continuing their visit/ summer vacation. When my son and I return from Sea Base we are all driving back to Illinois the following day. I'm not going to ask my wife to drive my other two children back to the Chicago area on her own. So, the additional airfare comes in making a multi-city flight reservation to Fort Lauderdale by flying back through Chicago, instead of flying direct to Fort Lauderdale from CT. That same multi-city trip would have to be created on the return flight as well in order to satisfy the CC.

We had never intended to fly to CT, so it's not that I would be losing out on savings I would be bearing additional expense.

Thanks again