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 if they saw him lying there injured and were trying to get to the victim, but they obviously did not know where he was so they need not have performed a risky maneuver to get into an area ASAP when they had no evidence the victim was there. They could have waited a short time for the dangerous conditions to abate or used another route or a safer method with more equipment/resources.

Come on, if I sprain my leg, splint it and take an extra few days to walk out on a camp-made crutch am I to be presented with a bill for tens of thousands if someone else calls the authorities to mount a rescue?

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 shortcut after a minor injury. The decision to go on the day hike was not considered negligent. Since I am not familiar with the trail or area, I cannot comment on whether or not that might have seemed a reasonable course of action at the time. On paper, it seems to be the wrong choice but the author of article does not interview the scout to ask why he made that choice. Could that have been the shortest straight-line distance to civilization?

I wonder if the authorities talked to the scout to ascertain his thought process and the reasonableness of his actions before they levied the fine? It would be interesting to know what he was thinking or if it was just a foolish move.

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 troop who are home at a quick meeting. SM in question not present.

Agree on the change needed (sounds like you have) and, then get a hold of the SM and politely suggest to him that we thank him for his service but the CO and committee would like to go a different way. Make a path for a graceful exit he can take. He sounds like a smart guy and will likely take the way offered. Publically, he can resign/retire for personal reasons, whatever. Thank him publically for his service and perhaps give him a nice parting token of appreciation as you would for any retiring SM.

The new SM is then announced by the COR and CC showing a united front.

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 year scout. If his dad is not allowed to participate when he clearly wants to, what will he tell his son is the reason? If he is always busy at work his son will soon detect the lie. The son will probably conclude dad doesnt want to participate with his son. How can this not hurt the son? Will you force the son out because of what his dad did? He may have to go to another troop to be with his dad so that is in effect forcing the innocent son out of the troop.

NancyB: I agree with what you said but not the meeting of all parents to discuss this. We dont know how widespread this knowledge is in the troop, especially among new parents. A public meeting will be impossible to keep quiet. The scouts will almost certainly find out. Rumors will be fueled, not spiked. Others will not think such behavior is allowed (as you fear) because, if they know about it at all, they also know he was suspended for a year.

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 facilities. I am sure our CO would take a very hands off attitude to troop leadership concerns.

We each speak from our own experience I suppose.

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 public face on things (the SM can resign for personal reasons).

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 fewer that four women in the troop found his behavior objectionable. So, either he acts this way in scouts but nowhere else (unlikely) or he has had plenty of opportunity to learn what the boundaries are. So, I find it hard to believe that he was truly surprised by the reaction to his behavior. One woman, sure, it could be a misunderstanding. Four? Never heard it before in the 13 or more years since he has been an adult?

But we all seem agreed. The committee ruled on a one year suspension. It was served. Jack should be back. If the committee goes back on its word, they are acting in bad faith and not supporting scout ideals. Jacks son suffers because his dad is not there for him when he wants to be. Dont let this happen. As for Mike, he should do what is best for the scouts, which is to let Jack back in.

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 service? Would you just allow that on a single case basis or stick to your policy and require all scouts to go to a Lutheran service? Or Methodist?, Orwell you get the idea.

This policy of if one goes, we all go can get out of hand real quick. As long as it works for you, great, but it just takes one objection to open the issue.

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 inactive). If he makes a big push for Eagle and you still dont think he has met requirements, asking the District/Councils advice might be a good move.

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-denominational service IF THEY DESIRE and are permitted to by their beliefs with one or more adults. No need for two.

There is nothing to prevent scouts remaining outside the church in an open, public area with multiple scouts and one (preferably two) leaders.

So, if you have ten scouts and three leaders, five scouts can attend the Mass with two leaders and the remaining leader can take the other five scouts to a Protestant church. Just an example.

The only issue I can see is if ALL adult leaders are Catholic and ALL insist they must attend THAT particular Mass. In that case, the non-Catholic scouts should not be left alone and might have to attend the Mass. I am not qualified to speak on the issue of a requirement to attend Sunday Morning Mass with no acceptable alternative. I can only say none of the Catholic scouters I have worked with for years ever brought it up in our troop. I believe you when you say it is an issue for some of your folks.

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 others had a point. Of course, I am still correct, but maybe they had a tiny, inconsequential, minor point (you get the idea).

mdsummer: All along the scouters who know your son best are saying there is an issue. Others looking at the situation at higher levels are agreeing. From the information given on the forum, we cant see a serious issue justifying the unit/district/council behavior. They seem unreasonable from the information given. But the response has been to deny the issue, whatever it is, and call bias and old boy network on the scouters pointing out the issue.

For your sons sake in the future, when emotions cool, ask if there is any, tiny, minor, inconsequential truth to the other side here. Next time, it may not be an Eagle, but a job. And the boss wont listen either.

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, sports physicals, and scout physicals who are told the local council camp has their own form which must be signed and submitted in addition to the BSA form just sign the darn thing Dr. Smith themselves to avoid another trip to the office and charge.

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 woman he doesnt know (or know well enough to know how it will be received) is as dense as a post. I find it hard to believe protestations that he didnt know it was wrong. If he was in his 20s and alcohol was involved, maybe it can be put down to youth and stupidity, but that is not the case here. I cannot imagine myself giving an unsolicited backrub to any of the female colleagues in my office. If I did, I would expect to be told in no uncertain terms to cut it out and I am sure there would be no second chances. I have fired people for sexual harassment on the second offense! (The first offense earned them a very uncomfortable half hour in my office)

The OP said several others were uncomfortable, not just Mike so no, there doesnt have to be more to the story. Multiple incidents of touchy feely is enough.

Still I agree that the suspension was given, served, and for the sake of the boys everyone should move on with the program. Mike and the SM should realize they dont need to be friends with every other scouter. But they can get along well enough to support the boys. Some of the scouters I have served with have became friends for life. Others, frankly I dont like on a personal level (I suspect the feeling is mutual) but we dont let that affect the program. As I said previously, Mike needs to be asked to think what is best for the scouts, especially Jacks son. Even having Jack and son move to another troop will be uncomfortable for the lad. Would Mike be willing to tell Jacks son to his face he needs to move troops because his Dad was a jerk a year ago? Of course not! So why do it behind his back? If Mike wont back off after a private discussion of the issue, I would have a committee meeting without Jack and lay the above on the line. I would be very surprised if anyone was willing stand up in the meeting and go against the best interests of a scout. By the way, is it Mike or his wife who holds the grudge?

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 unwilling to accept the apology and penance?

Can Jack participate on probation? As in: OK, youre back but one strike and youre out? Attend for a year as a parent but not as a leader? Or was the problem too upsetting to the troop for that? If the latter is the case, it is best for all if he stay away permanently and it would have been best, in hindsight, to say so a year ago.

Only your troops adults can decide this one. In the end, do what is best for the troop and the boys, not Jack. If he needs to go, so be it. If the choice is Mike or Jack, I go with Mike based on what you have told us.

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 would need it all to get his Eagle. Still, I think you should credit his MB. They were earned.

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 to live as normal a life as possible. She might be conflicted over this to some extent.

Something similar occurred when we had a diabetic scout who was very hard to regulate. His father made sure the adult leaders knew about the condition and what his symptoms might look like, and what action we should take if it occurred. Dad (also a physician) went along on more remote camps with appropriate supplies but made sure we knew what was up so we didnt misinterpret something or fail to take proper action.

Everything worked out just fine. He is a wonderful scout and Dad became a troop asset.

You want to make sure the scout will be safe but also do all you can to see that he enjoys as much of the scouting experience as possible. Explain this to her and come at it from the point of view of the best thing for her son on both counts and it may not only solve this issue but help with the helicopter parent thing too.

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 troop has a signed health form, presented by the parent, and we have no reason to suspect it is fraudulent (being an MD not in practice does not do that) that is as far as I would take it. In this case, the troop noted that Mom had signed, asked her about it, and she told them she was a physician. The form states it must be signed by a licensed physician or other (PA etc) and she signed.

In every troop I know of, when health forms are presented, someone looks to see if there is a signature and then puts it in the book. Who that signature is from, if one can even read it, is never verified.

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. Worry more about illegible entries or if the lad has a health condition you dont know how to respond to.

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 administrators, researchers, perform trials and product support, the list is endless).

Again, you do not verify license numbers or status from any other physician, RN or PA on any other health form do you? Do you even know who they are?

My wife is in a similar position. If anyone asked her to provide her license to prove she could practice, she would do so but I shudder to think of the lecture that would accompany it.

Ask yourself: Is there any requirement, legal or otherwise, that the scouts verify the status of those signing health forms?

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 based on a formula inputting attendance at meetings, service projects, camps, SPL evaluation, ASM evaluation, a couple of fudge factors and PRESTO! You get 3.5 months credit for a six month POR. I am not making this up!

I have come to the conclusion that you cannot write a requirement clearly enough to stop the pedantic among us. I just hope reason will prevail and try to work around the pedantic.

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 or Dad just scribbled in some ink there rather than go to the doctor to get the health form filled out for the third time? Think it doesnt happen?

If you are worried about legal liability, I am not a lawyer and it is true that a lot of crazy lawsuits get filed, but seems to me if Mom misrepresented herself and fraudulently signed the health form, a suit against the scouts would be pretty hard to win.

Now legibility, that is another matter. Also, if the scout has unusual health conditions, I would not hesitate to have a chat with the parent and ask for clear, specific, written instructions on how to respond if a problem arose. If mom is a physician that ought to please her not upset her.

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...