sandspur

Worse than I thought! He did not need rescue, and was well behind schedule but well in the process of walking out on his own. He did not call for rescue, and could have made it without the effort, so why is he liable? If the manned weather station and cog railroad was up it seems far from negligent to choose to continue up instead of down. As far as injuries to the rescuers, while I bow to no-one in my admiration for the rescue squads, if they, with their training and equipment, choose to do a traverse and sustain injuries, why are they not at fault? It would be one thing

Remember Colin Fletcher? Hiked the Grand Canyon alone, moving from pre-placed supply cache to cache. He made a vocation out of long solo hikes and became the guru of the hiking fraternity. I cant help but wonder if he had fallen and broken a leg, if he would have been lambasted as a reckless maniac. Accidents happen and when they do there is a lot of second guessing. I know parents who think it negligent to take scouts out of cell phone coverage. Reading the article, it seems the alleged negligence here was in continuing up instead of down and leaving the trail to take a shortcu

I propose a new requirement: All professional scouters may NOT, under any circumstances, attend a management theory course.

Herbie: Others can probably answer the official pathway question. But this is political too. You dont want it to leave more of a bad taste in anyones mouth than you can help. This is the way we handled it a few years back: Since the commissioner and COR are on board, and you have said there is a new SM waiting in the wings, I would suggest a quick committee meeting with as many members as you can get a hold of immediately, the CC and ASMs and definitely the most active scouters in the troop (sounds like a small group in your case). In short, get the movers and shakers in the

KCS hiker wrote: The suspension was passed down in hopes that he would go away. It hasn't worked... now what? Now, you take him back. If the committee intended a permanent ban, they should have said so. They said one year, so thats what it is. We are told there have been no further incidents to date. If the committee now does not allow Jack to return, it goes back on its word with no further incidents or evidence to justify it. That is not trustworthy. And I still maintain the focus should be on the scouts, not the adults. Jacks son is still in the troop and is a second

John: Yes, officially its a CO decision on the SM. However, in many troops (and ALL I have been part of) the CO and COR actually play a minor role and the committee runs things with the SM. I suppose there are some Charter Organizations where the CO takes a strong hand in the troop. I have just never been part of one. In my current troop (a very large and active troop chartered by a church), the pastors sole connection with the troop is to sign the re-charter document once a year. The COR representative occasionally gives us feedback from the church property committee on our shared fa

Herbie: Where is the committee in all this? Do the CC and the COR agree there is a problem? If so, they can take the lead in talking to the SM in private. If that doesnt work, it can be addressed in the committee more openly. Last resort: the committee and the CO can replace the SM with another. I have been in a troop where that happened. In our case, the SM simply couldnt make the transition from a cub/younger scout leader to earning the respect of the older scouts. But his heart was in the right place. Best advice is to have the replacement SM ready to go and try to put a good p

Well, I guess I was the poster who used the term backrubs, which admittedly has a connotation of a specific type of touching. To be clear, the OP wrote rubbing their backs while licking his lips, lingering over a bra clasp while rubbing a parent's back, lingering a bit too long with a "hello" hug, etc. Sure, there may be a lot of excuses. He is an affectionate guy, he may not have a sense of personal space etc. etc. Still, I have limited tolerance for these excuses. Jack is not a 22-year old. If he has a son in second year scouts it is fair to assume he is at least in his thirties. No

SM 224 writes: After a couple of these experiences, we decided that if any went to Mass, we all went - Catholics and non-Catholics alike. We are very transparent in this and announce two-weeks before and then again a week before a camping trip that we will be attending a Catholic Mass either on Saturday evening or Sunday morning. We have had no non-Catholic Scouts, parents, or leaders raise any kind of objection to this. SM224: If this works for your troop, more power to ya! But I am curious, what would you do if, say, a Lutheran scout insisted that he had to attend a Lutheran ser

Gutterbird: You are right. Stick to your guns. The CC needs to have your back but doesnt. Sounds like you are on the right track. However, give a quick read to the thread Eagle Problems.Big to see what can happen if there is a dispute at the end. What if the scout and the parents say we never knew or The SM has it in for us? Document what you say to the scout and his parents in writing and be very specific. Keep copies. Make it clear in writing the scout has not completed a POR and you have issues with his scout spirit requirement (I assume that is the case if he is essentially inactiv

True Believer wrote: This is not an easy issue. It is not one that can be wished away by a Scouts Own Service But, with respect, I think it is an easy issue. You are misreading the letter and intent of two deep leadership and creating an issue where none need be. There is nothing to prevent the Catholic scouts who desire to do so attending Mass with one or more adults. No need for two. The adults are never alone with scouts in a one-one-one setting or in a compromising situation. There is nothing to prevent other scouts (Catholic or otherwise) attending a non-Catholic or non-denomi

Isnt there a way around the two deep leadership issue here? Of course, beavah was right if the Protestant leaders get off their rears and camp with the troop, the issue disappears. Still, a church service seems to be a public occasion. The scouts attending a church service with a single protestant scouter are hardly alone with said scouter. They are in a public place with dozens of other adults and clergy around. Maybe not registered to the troop, but still. So I ask the group, is a group of several scouts attending a public worship service with a single scouter a YPG violation?

Well, whether or not an appeal to national works or not is out of our hands. Of course, it was never in them. This is just a forum with limited information. But, I do have some advice, worth what you pay for it as the saying goes. When a fair number of people tell me I have an issue, maybe I have an issue. Of course I KNOW that I am correct and they are wrong. I know they just dont see my point. I know they have suspect motivations etc. Still, I find that if I back off, let the emotions cool and come at it with as open a mind as I can muster at a later time, maybe I find that the ot

Certified and licensed (as required by the form) does not mean you need to be in active practice. It is easy to maintain a license, even getting required CE, but not practice. It is certainly possible Mom is certified and licensed even if she is not in an active practice. And it is true filling out the form does not require extensive expertise. I have seen some MDs do it as part of a well-performed physical, others barely glance at it. Some just have someone in their office fill it out and stamp it. And yes, I am willing to bet that some parents, having filled out school physicals, sport

Slightly different opinion here: First, I do not see the WWR incident as a big deal. When I first read it, I thought it was a hamhanded attempt at discipline, not horseplay, but in any event, the parties involved reconciled long ago. Case closed. You and your son are the offended party, you accepted the apology. Mike has no standing to be involved. Second, I guess I see the backrubs as more indefensible than some of the other posters. Having spent most of my life as a manager and director, I must say that in this day and age any adult, married male who decides to give a backrub to a wo

Actually, there is another problem I should have thought of right away. Jacks son. He has been in the troop for a year now. If his dad is barred, eventually, he will want to know why. By the time he is 16 and a Life scout and dad is never there for him, it will be impossible to avoid. Can Mike and the others ask themselves what is best for Jacks son? I might find it hard to forgive Jack for touching my wife, but I would probably be willing to tolerate his presence for the sake of the boy. Might be worth giving him one final chance on that basis. Ask Mike in private.

Sounds like a bad situation, but then you knew that. I am curious why the committee told this guy he had what amount to a one year suspension when it seems that the intent was suspension for life? Now he has done as you asked and you are in an uncomfortable spot. Would Mike and others bail if Jack participated as a parent but not as an adult leader? I am conflicted here. On the one hand, what Jack did was so far out of line it is indefensible. On the other hand, he apologized, did his suspension and penance and is trying to participate again, even on probation. So, is Mike simply unw

He was told verbally to not bother any longer as he would not get his Eagle Project Approved, would not get merit abdges credited and would not get Scout Spirit or SM review due to his being totally absent and un engaged. HE learned he wouldn't win the battle and disappeared. Highcountry: Sad! I am 90% with you: You have more than enough to justify not signing off on scout spirit and getting a poor SM review. Approving much less completing an Eagle project would require he show up. However, I see no justification for failure to credit MB. Probably wouldnt matter in the end, since he w

So, to the case at hand, I would suggest Mom (who knows the medical issue and is also a physician) type out a brief, clear guide to the adult leaders of the troop stating what (if anything) they should watch out for with this scout and what actions they should take if something should occur. It would be kept confidential among the leadership and not generally distributed. Copy the Summer Camp medical director. But realize she probably doesnt want the youth to know about this. I can sympathize with her position. She needs to protect her son more so than most of us, but also probably wants him

Ed: I hope I didnt imply you were. Didnt mean to. Sorry if it came out that way Still, I think some folks are too worried here. And, worrying too much about lawsuits can tie you in knots. I recall a few years back when a company I worked with (not for) wanted to add a safety shut off switch on the business end a device, they were advised not to by legal since by adding the switch they were implying that someone might be near the business end of the machine during operation which was not recommended. So, as far as I know, operators are still losing fingers I really think that if the t

Aw Ed, I cant resist. If you want to be paranoid about lawsuits, it never ends. How about this: By asking for her credentials, you are establishing the precedent that you, your troop, verifies the status of the MD, DO, RN or PA who signs a health form. So, when another scout has a problem not disclosed on the health form and perhaps a parent too lazy or cheap to get a valid signature just scrawled something on the signature line, YOU are at fault, because YOU have established that YOU can (and therefore should) have verified all signatures. Nah, the form is signed, thats where it ends.

Not as insulting as that lawsuit that could get filed if something happens to her little darling & you then find out her license has been revoked. You can FILE a lawsuit for anything. Winning is another matter. If she falsified the health form, hard to see her winning. Besides, there are lots of reasons a physician might not be in active practice other than incompetence or having a revoked license. I speak from personal experience. I am in the pharmaceutical industry (PhD) and the place is crawling with medical professionals who do not practice in an office setting (rather, they are

Here we go again! I find myself agreeing with twocubdad in principle. Active means active. Just because you registered nine months ago and the SM sent you update e-mails doesnt mean youre active if you havent been around much since then. Trouble is, the devil is in the details. There is always someone trying to quantify and measure the word active. These efforts run all the way from reasonable (hey, you havent been to a meeting or camped in six months!) to the ridiculous. Ridiculous: The ASM in charge of signing off on this requirement who uses a computer to calculate achievement ba

Lets all take a deep breath. There is nothing unusual about a parent physician signing a scouts health form. I have seen it happen and even seen a parent/physician accompany his son on outings with a medical kit by his side due to the lads health issues. It worked out just fine for his son (who probably couldnt have participated otherwise) and for the troop as well (hey, we got a physician with response kit on our campouts!) We do not demand confirmation of status on other health forms do we? Do you have any way of knowing if the signatures on all your other forms are valid? Maybe Mom

Eamonn: Isnt a Queens scout (Kings scout in my fathers day) the equivalent of an Eagle? Not to quibble, but I would maintain you are an Eagle. A rose by any other name. Perhaps that was your point and I missed it...