elitts

17 hours ago, MattR said:

Tumbleweed? In Michigan? A few miles from Lake Michigan? And not much further from Huron? Half way to the UP?

I'll be honest, I used to live in Washington and they had lots of tumbleweeds - the type where a single one would fill a 96 gal garbage can and if you hit one on the highway it would just explode. And I had to explain to people that Eastern WA is not anything like the Western side. So, tumbleweeds in MI? Really?

 

https://loyoladunesrestoration.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/our-native-tumbleweed/

18 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Agree. The Hartford settlement put the lie to there being billions more from carriers. Century Chubb will never pay more one an exposure basis than Hartford. Maybe a billion but that’s it. The Coalition is only in this for their own personal gain. The claimants aren’t stupid. 
 

Get BSA out of the equation and take aim at the others in state court where the balance of leverage shifts. It’s the only way to extract fair value which is on a state by state, council by council, CO by CO basis. 
 

5.0 has no chance. If BSA was smart it would immediately revert to the toggle. Going forward like this is suicidal.  

No, if BSA abandoned the LCs without doing absolutely everything they could to get them covered I suspect it would fundamentally destroy the relationships.  So while going independent might be smart in one sense, in the long run I don't think it would be the best option.

16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

But EVEN WITH those, I don't see how you reduce $30-$134 billion to only $2.1-$7 billion. And even if it is that low, why would a victim accept it when they were assured hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Zalkin just said: he's thinking he can settle for millions NOW against Orange County Council and Hartford. Why on earth would he take this deal?

I think any attorney who is thinking in these terms is either an idiot or is dissembling.  Yes, before all the claims got filed an attorney might have been able to get a multi-million dollar settlement out of a Council.  But now that everyone knows there are hundreds or thousands of claims just waiting to be litigated?  Nope.  Paying 3 million for a settlement to get an issue to go away so you can move on is one thing.  Paying 3 million to the first person in a line of a thousand is an entirely different story.  At that point, if the LC sees that the number of people indicates a bankruptcy is in the future, there's no longer any point in paying anyone at full value.

14 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Those laws are being ignored or circumvented. Look at CO and LA. 
Years ago in a political science class, my professor remarked that “nobody’s life or liberty is safe while the legislature is in session.” 
I think a survivor  if presentented with hope or 15k, will choose hope. 

That's a nice thought, but for anyone who actually needs the money, I don't think it's a realistic one.  Something like 40% of Americans are 1 paycheck away from being insolvent and for half of the country that 15k is more than 25% of their annual income.  I'm sure there are plenty who would rather wait and hope for more, but I don't think it'll be a landslide by any means.

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I will say this, Plan 5.0 keeps the RSA/Plan 4.0 element of having outside entity come in and come up with actual ideas.

Page 87-89 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/010161cd-594e-4b9e-8c88-a7402b49cf4d_6212.pdf

 

Well, I'm glad that portion was kept, at a bare minimum, the BSA needs serious reforms on it's reporting.  I just worry we'll end up with a bunch of stupid new rules because the committee feels like it needs to change something, but can't come up with any good new rules.

On 9/15/2021 at 4:18 PM, Muttsy said:

I like the TCC Plan. A LOT. Quite an about face. It is a much clearer path. I’m sorry it has taken so long to roll out. It could well be a game changer. 

I'm sorry but that's not a "Plan", it's a general idea on how they'd do things.  Developing workable details on that "plan" aren't going to be any simpler than what we've already be doing for the last 2 years.

On 9/16/2021 at 12:26 PM, Eagle1993 said:

If 637 kids drowned since 2010 in BSA I would think you would say we need to relook at our water safety program ....  637 is far too many CSA claimants.  I agree we have improved.  I don't agree we are doing everything we can.

You can't compare accidents with deliberate acts.  It's far far simpler to prevent accidents than to stop someone from doing something deliberately.

As far as your belief that "We're not doing everything we can"; well no, obviously we aren't doing everything we can.  But "everything we can" isn't the standard we want to hit it's "everything we reasonably can".  I mean, we could require that every scout be accompanied by a guardian at all times.  Or we could require that no adult every be in the presence of a scout without 2 other adults present and observing.  Or we could require that every scout and adult wear a body camera that's running at all times.  But none of those ideas are reasonable or functional with the goals of the organization. 

I've seen any number of people who seem to share your belief that "more can be done" and yet I've not heard any of those people come up with an actual idea that could be implemented; so I'm left thinking that what people really mean is "I wish there was something more we could do".

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

If you mandate, you will lose volunteers and members. Do we need anymore bad publicity and membership loses. Also there is no panacea for COVID.  Consulting with physcians AND doing your own, legitimate research ( medlineplus.gov for general info; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ for the primary sources)

Research is ongoing on vaccines. And there are questions about the efficacy of them. Google Israel and COVID if you do not believe me.

And before anyone says I am an antivaxer, not only has everyone in my immediate family been vaccinated,  but also my wife is now staffing on the COVID floor at her hospital.  Informed decisions on this is important.

 

I didn't read anything about Israel having any different information than we do here.  Basically "They aren't nearly as effective against preventing Delta, protection ebbs over time, even if you do develop an infection you are drastically less likely to have serious complications."

Was there something I missed?

22 hours ago, livitup said:

Thank you!

There is one female adult willing to volunteer, but my current understanding is that she wasn't willing to commit to being SM.  I think we are going to press hard to get two female volunteers registered, so we can maintain 2-deep and 1-female in the event one adult can't participate in an activity.

That's when you just register a few moms as merit badge councilors, and when a backup is needed just say "Hey, either a mom comes along or we can't go".

30 minutes ago, IndyDad said:

I'm a dad to a scout who crossed over this year from cub scouts and was considering being a merit badge counselor for this badge. In my opinion, this is a very useful badge to pursue for general life prep (the Arrow of Light related badge was also pretty handy to know). A couple of the possible projects though had me scratching my head on how the scout would perform these:

- Replace a pane of glass
The only windows I've come across recently have been double-paned sealed windows that the average homeowner wouldn't replace on their own. Maybe this project is more common with older houses having single-pane windows?

- Waterproof a basement

How in the world does a scout (or homeowner) waterproof their basement on their own? I'm envisioning a home builder installing drain tile and a sump pit system, along with waterproof sealant on the exterior of basement walls (before the ground is filled in around the basement). Could use some clarification on what is suggested by this one.

- Replace window blind cords / Repair or replace a window sash cord

Are these items that an individual can generally replace? I'm not aware of these cords just giving out, and if they did what you would do besides replacing the blinds.

- Reinforce a picture frame.

I've hung many a picture frame over my years, but I'm not sure what it means to reinforce a frame. Does this refer to frames that are falling apart?

---------

I was initially concerned that the project list is too limiting and reliant on the scout having access to items that are in need of repair, but the opening page does mention having some leeway on what can count (from the badge pamphlet):

 

• Yes, the "replace a pane of glass" is definitely aimed at older homes.  But even in newer ones you'll still find single panes sometimes in garage service doors.  Or interior "french doors".
• Waterproof Basement: I suspect they are talking about the more minimalist "paint-on" waterproofing products.  All you do for those is caulk holes and cracks, then paint on the waterproof barrier.
• Yep, pull cords on blinds are definitely wear items for people with expensive blinds.  With cheap blinds, they may well be integrated and intended to just replace the whole unit.  And yes, window sash cords are definitely replaceable since they were typically just cotton fiber rope.  It's just that people almost never do replace them because as soon as they run into a window that doesn't open, they just replace the whole unit.  But that will vary by geographic area.  The payback on replacing with double hung windows is only a sure thing in Northern climates where winter will suck the heat out of your house.  In a more Southern climate, if you don't have A/C, there's not really any reason to have more than a single pane of glass.
• The kinds of picture frames that need reinforcing are going to be the kind housing pictures in sizes upwards of 10"x12".  When you start talking about 50 year old 12"x18" family portraits and the like with reasonably ornate wood frames, eventually they'll need to be either reinforced or taken apart and re-glued and reassembled.  This could also be done on the more expensive wood poster frames or other artwork frames.

14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

CO's, if they want, could buy their way into the deal.  I expect the lawyers for the Coalition may be happy to leave them out as they can then sue them in state court.  Right now, my guess is almost no CO is included in the final deal and there will be hundreds of lawsuits against them over the next few years. 

 

I think the logistics of that make it pretty much impossible at this point.  If the COs were nationwide or even councilwide organizations it might be different, but you are talking about thousands (tens of thousands?) of COs.  I can't fathom how you could organize the lot of them into some kind of a coherent coalition in less than another 12 months.

12 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Technically you could be right. But what then for BSA? She has to find the BSA only discharge leaves it with what financially to start over? No cash, the bases and a donor base spigot it could turn on. It could close LC’s or merge them and grab their assets. Then it could quickly file another Ch 11 to discharge any other liabilities it carries out of Ch 11 1.0. 
 

Not sure how it operates without chartering orgs. I’m sure they have a plan for that.

Or maybe the mountain of blunders, bad legal advice and rank incompetence make the situation not resolvable.

I’m just not seeing the path, just the Road to Perdition  

 

As I've said before, there isn't any functional mechanism for the BSA to simply seize council assets.  Even for those councils that wrote the "everything goes to BSA upon shut-down" into the bylaws, the answer is a simple vote to change bylaws by the LC.  Attempting to seize the assets by force (legally speaking) would result in multiple lawsuits all across the country and the BSA can not afford either the legal fees or the bad PR that would entail.

And I highly doubt we'll see COs pull out of the BSA completely.  Most COs that have troops are generally happy to have them (even if you do get the occasional staff member peeved about messes).  If we do actually end up with COs getting sued into bankruptcy all over the country, I could see many of them being unwilling to charter, but they'll still host the troops/packs as lessors. 

Though I'm sure we'll hear more stories about COs that decide to throw a tantrum and refuse to re-charter while also confiscating all of a troop's equipment and re-purposing it.

On 9/3/2021 at 3:21 PM, 5thGenTexan said:

Separate SM - Check

Separate SPLs- Check

Adult Female Leadership  - Check

 

I just want to have the committee meeting at the same time with the appropriate leaders from each Troop to save a night in the week.  More and more I think we are going to have siblings in each group with adult leadership in both.

 

My CO has linked troops.  We have one Committee Chair and all Committee positions are joint except for Treasurer. (it was simply too much work for 1 person with 100ish scouts and scouters)  The only thing that I think you need to watch out for is meeting bloat like qwazse mentioned.  But that is fairly easy to keep a lid on if your CC can actually RUN the meeting.  Sometimes this might mean cutting off discussion of a contentious or unrelated issue and tabling the matter, or ending a discussion that has become repetitive. 

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

While I think the Webelos program is pretty well designed, I believe the 2nd year Webelos need to get more involve with Troops. Not a lot, but enough to make the program more fun. Webelos is where the packs suffer the most with adult burnout. So, if the troops could assist the leaders with program, that would be a huge influence toward improving the crossover numbers.

Barry

It's also where adults that were previously happy to run nice clean indoor programs start to cringe at the idea of actually camping and hiking.

On 9/3/2021 at 4:28 PM, CynicalScouter said:

The price tag I was quoted was that over the course of 3 years of local council service you had to contribute at LEAST the minimum $200 per year for Friends of Scouting AND sufficient funds to make West-Silver ($5000) in that 3 year time period. Basically, $150 a month for every month of board service.

For a Non-profit that intends to solicit funds, requiring some level of contribution from board members is reasonable and can be critical for the receiving of grants.  MANY of the grants available to non-profits of all shapes and sizes require (or at least weigh heavily) 100% financial participation by board members.  So even the smallish arts organization I'm a member of requires a minimum contribution of $100 per year. 

So, in the case you presented above, I didn't blink at the requirement for $200/yr for FoS, but another $5000 over the 3 year term is definitely going to be restrictive.

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Our troop is still relatively small and new. If we hit a 25% increase in sales, we get a lot of benefits. For us, that is $2000. When we hit $2000, all of the sales will be at 41% share AND we get 3 adults free for camp. With the value of adults, we will be getting 65% share. So, it is very worthwhile foe our troop. I can see where hitting a 25% increase would be hard for some, so they will be at the 35% level. 

Oh, I'm not arguing that the sale isn't worthwhile.  Clearly it is for many troops.  My primary hatred for it stems from the fact that (in violation of the BSA's own rules on fundraisers) the pricing is so radically out of line with the value of the product it is functionally just a mass beg for donations with a consolation prize for donating.  I feel dirty even asking someone to pay $20 for a $4 bag of White Cheddar Popcorn.  (There are few items that are only about double the retail cost, which is tolerable, but 5 times the cost!!)

51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

There are MANY studies & articles that argue for smaller boards.  

http://policylinkcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/What is the best size for your board.pdf

https://www.sumptionandwyland.com/resources/sumption-wyland-articles/what-is-the-right-size-for-your-nonprofits-board

WE HAVE >70!!! 

While I'm not arguing that 70 isn't too many, you should note that further down the article mentions:

Quote

One significant exception to the board size assessments is arts and cultural organizations, which tend to have larger and more fund development-driven board sizes and structures.

While the BSA isn't really an arts or cultural organization, it is certainly a "fund development drive board".

30 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The NEB voted to allow the volunteers to vote on gay Scouts - more than 60% voted in favor with an outside firm overseeing the vote.

The discussion at the NEC and NEB was vigorous but girls and gays were both highly supported.  It is my supposition that the NEC and NEB wanted unanimity on the official vote to show support for the direction.

 

Yep, that was my read on it too.  There was likely discussion and argument and as soon as they figured out that the "No" votes weren't going to win, they went with the whole "We really need to show unanimous support for this for PR reasons".

29 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

But, units generally get small percentage of the "profits" their LCs makes on popcorn and camp card sales. But, what ever small amount goes back to the units... it generally gets placed in the "unit account", which is nothing more than a credit at council, which can only be used to pay for council and district programs, activities, and events. Units cannot use it to buy things like tents, sleeping bags, unit campouts, or anything else the unit may do. It is essentially like the “company stores” that used to make their employees rent tools, pay for housing, and other fees to be able to “work at the company” and then most of the workers ended up in debt to the “company” and working for free. I am glad this was outlawed years ago, but it is rampant in BSA – who do it under the guise of a “youth program”. 

Don't get me wrong here, I agree with the general sentiment that you are conveying, but it's important to keep the feelings from overwhelming the truth.

I HATE the popcorn sale with every fiber of my being, but the Troop/pack portion of popcorn sales isn't "Small", it's either 30% or 35% of sales depending on if you opt for prizes.  And I don't know what LC you are in, but mine sends a check to the unit.  I think leaving it as a "troop credit" is an option with the council, but all you have to do is ask for the check and you get it.

29 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

 and they have to pay their LCs 30% of any fundraising for the right to use the "BSA Logo"; if a unit conducts a fundraiser without paying this "use fee", councils have their legal teams go after that unit - as a DC, I had to get involved a dozen or so time when this was happening because the LC wanted their 30% cut in little cub scouts were selling drinks at community events to raise money for their pack. Really? In addition to every other fee collected, BSA still wants more money from little kids trying to raise funds to buy themselves camping equipment? There is nothing anyone can say to justify that type of behavior. 

As someone else mentioned, I know the councils "suggests" a 30% donation back to the council would be a good idea, but I've never heard of them insisting on it.  And even if they did, all you do is say "this is a CO fundraiser and they contribute the funds to our program".  For fundraisers that don't require insurance coverage, (kids selling to friends and family) I don't even think this flirts with "dishonest".

4 minutes ago, malraux said:

Some councils and units conflict on this when the unit participates in none of the official fundraisers but only do events where the unit makes a big haul. I think one specific unit in my district had this as a threat over their spaghetti dinner fundraiser.

Yeah, my Cub pack had the council getting more and more demanding for a few years because we skipped popcorn entirely and funded our entire program off of a Wreath Sale.  There were a couple visits where they suggested "a 2500-3000 check would be appropriate" out of our 9k profit.  We didn't have much problem simply responding with "No.".  Though eventually we did end up building up enough of a "safety net" that we had extra funds and started sending a small check to the council.  Personally, I wanted to get a hold of the local camp director and let them know we needed a shopping list with $2000 worth of camp equipment they wanted and we'd drop it off in May.

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

What I know of Mosby comes largely from this forum.

But I see a pattern here, and it troubles me.

My experience with my local council, at district and council level, was that when there was bad news to deliver to a volunteer (we no longer want you to be Chairperson of District Boy Scout Outdoor...etc.) the appropriate level professional, DE, or mid level council staffer, would recruit a volunteer senior to the volunteer to be ousted, and have the senior volunteer to the dirty work.

Thereby, the face of the "ugly" would be that of a volunteer, not a professional.  I saw it time and again.

And so, Mosby, not of the Movement, it appears to me that he has been hired as the "senior volunteer" in my example, to deliver the bad news and he will be out the door when the dust settles.  He may or may not be complicit in this.

And thereby, senior National staff will remain nameless and faceless.

(So, the proof of my prediction will be how long does Mosby stay on post-bankruptcy?)

Those are really two different issues.  Farming out the responsibility of delivering of bad news to a subordinate (volunteer or otherwise) is just plain poor leadership and a dereliction of duty as far as I'm concerned.

Hiring someone specifically to lead through a re-organization or bankruptcy or other major change with the understanding (whether implicit or explicit) that it's going to be a temporary gig is pretty much standard practice in large organizations.  You don't want the people in charge who "created" the problem to remain and you want someone who can evaluate the situation without existing relationships clouding their judgement.  But at the same time, you know that whoever is responsible for drastic changes within an organization is likely going to have to generate a whole lot of hard feelings among the existing staff.  So the best option is to hire someone to come in and re-tool, then replace them with a 3rd person who can move forward without all the animosity.

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Curious, Walmart has insurance that covers for customers who hurt themselves falling in their parking lot. Does Walmart have a reputation of customers falling in their parking lot? I imagine just as much reputation as BSA's history of child sex abuse. 

Barry

Every parking lot everywhere is going to have tripping/slipping and falling hazards at some point; those in areas of snow even more so.  That's a foreseeable risk with prevention steps that can be taken to mitigate the risk.  And yes, I'd imagine that any given Walmart sees a significant number of fall complaints every single year; most businesses with high customer traffic get those claims with some regularity.

Most scout troops don't have pedophiles in them.  Regardless of the large number over the years nationwide, there's simply no evidence of it occurring frequently enough at this point that anyone could consider it a likely problem on the individual troop basis.

18 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Very illuminating post. Thank you. 
 

Something I don’t understand is why any COs believe that a facilities use agreement will protect them. Landlords/lessors can be held liable if the sexual assault happened on church property under a variety of theories. Many of the fact patterns in the IV files occurred at meetings in the church, school, Kiwanis basements. It wasn’t the chartering agreement that established their liability, it was the facts.  

You can’t let crimes be committed on your property, when you knew or should have known they could occur. You must do something. To do nothing is unreasonable. I suspect these CO’s will have difficulty getting their own liability insurance once they disclose on the renewal application that it is hosting a scout troop. 
 

And assuming the FUA has an indemnity provision requiring BSA to indemnify, what’s the value of that now? Fool me once…

Yeah, a finding of liability for negligent security in a church would be one hell of a stretch if you were trying to base it solely on "The BSA has a history of CSA." 

I mean, if insurance availability was based upon public opinion, you might be right; but insurance companies run on numbers, not publicity. 

The best solution I could see to this issue would be to extend "Youth" registration status to anyone that doesn't qualify as an "Adult".  In other words, anyone under 21.  Not that I expect the BSA to take that approach.

__________________________________________________________________________

Honestly, the only way I see any sort of rational adjustment to this policy happening would be to start taking the policy really, really literally and start reporting every single infraction to the BSA's official hotline. 

"Hello BSA?  I was at a meeting and I saw a 16 year old Venturer get left alone in a room with an 18 year old venturer because everyone else left the room and they were slow packing up their stuff.  They were alone for at least a minute or two."

"Hello BSA?  One of my 18 year old venturers was assigned a school project with a 17 year old venturer classmate and they spoke on the phone alone together."

Hello BSA?  One of my 19 year old venturers was on a family trip and was required by their parents to room with their 15 year old brother."

Hello BSA?...

You get the picture. 

Either that, or start entrapping the BSA officials and then reporting it.  I could have my 17 year old son call up the local SE to ask a question (assuming they could get through), then at the end follow up with "Oh, by the way, I'm a Youth Scout member of the BSA so you've just violated YPT by speaking to me on the phone without my parent or another registered adult listening.  Were you going to report this is or should I?"

When they start having to dedicate serious resources to investigating reports arising from the more inane aspects of their policy, they might think an adjustment is worthwhile.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Yeah. We’ve discussed this at great length before and I know it’s of little value to whip it some more. I will anyway. I have lots more coffee to drink, nothing much to do just yet and because the impact of that statement has loomed over the entire process. 

I can speak for myself (at least most days) and say the “equitably compensate survivors of abuse in Scouting” message was a huge banner of acknowledgment and hope. It certainly enhanced my desire to file a claim. Did I do any math? Not much. I guessed at potential claims and came up with between 5000 and 10-12,000 on the high end. Knowing a bit about the National asset base, that of my LC, and the deep and wide insurance coverage, I figured that would result in a meaningful award for all of us. Regardless the number of claims, they never should have used the word “equitable” — nor compensate in my book but that’s semantics — or implied that all survivors would get such compensation. It was a horrible unforced error and I can’t believe it wasn’t better thought out. Well, after hearing you guys talk about governance, I can.

I have a comment and a question.

You are an attorney, and as such, arguably, are in the top few percent of the US public when it comes to education and critical thinking skills.  You are also well versed in the nuance of language and the importance of using exactly the right terminology when making statements. Thus, when you read the words "equitably compensate", it has a fairly specific meaning to you.

That said, do you really think most of the victims out there would really have distinguished between a statement that the BSA wanted to "Equitably compensate victims" and one where they simply said they wanted to "compensate victims"?  Given the public's average (5th grade) reading comprehension level, was there really any reasonable way they could have phrased it that wouldn't have led to basically the same disappointment we are seeing now?  After all, for most people the only exposure they have to either jury awards or settlements is going to be from either fictional TV or the news and neither one spends much time talking about all the settlements that happen in the <$20,000 range, 

I mean, I send out a tax assessment notice each year to taxpayers that says in bold , red, 28pt font at the top of the page. 

THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL

and even then I get a dozen phone calls every year upset about the new tax bill they just got.

2 hours ago, NDW5332 said:

In some instances there will be four people: you may need to include the Scout's parent, cc'd on e-mails for YPT purposes, if the Scout needs to reach out to you to set up the initial meeting, or for completion of partials afterwards.

Just to state the rule in total for new parents or scouters that may read this:

Any adult using "private" online or phone communications with a scout needs to make sure either another registered adult or a parent is included cc'd in the email; not both.  So any email, social media post or phone call needs to include: Scout, MBC, and then a parent or registered adult.

On 8/11/2021 at 8:33 AM, ThenNow said:

Yup. Here I am.

As I've tried to say, love or hate, this man has represented victims of child sexual abuse against BSA since 1996. That's 25 years. ...

Hundreds of client victims. Hundreds of negotiations with the BSA and its counsel. Thousands of pages of documents and disclosures, including the years he spent reading, researching and reducing to data sheets the 3200 IVFs he dislodged from BSA. He knows this stuff very, very well. If he has decided it's unredeemable darkness, I give that to him. I've not seen, heard or been witness to what he has. Have any of us?

I am not saying his (apparent) endgame is the best for all, because I don't know. I'm just saying let's temper our accusations with fact, history and context.

When you spend a significant portion of your life involved in the more dark and horrible aspects of humanity, even on the side of angels (so to speak), there's just no way you don't come out of it a changed person.  Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if someone like Kosnoff suffered from secondary exposure PTSD himself after that much time being exposed to trauma.

4 hours ago, RichardB said:

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss02/#j if you reviewed Safety Afloat - #1 and #6 you will find the recommendation and the required skills training that this course could assist a leader in providing to the youth PRIOR to the float trip.

The course clearly would give an inexperienced adult the basic skills required to lead a canoe trip and it's surely useful for folks that are new to canoeing.  The only reason I'm even concerned about it is that I have some adults that think we can't go on a canoe trip because no one has a current certificate and we can't find the class being offered anywhere.  On the other hand, I think if it's not actually required and we have adults who possess the skills and knowledge, if not the piece of paper, there's no reason to pass up a canoe trip.

On a related note.  Anyone else think these two paragraphs in the text may have gotten written out of order?:

Quote

Content of training exercises should be appropriate for the age, size, and experience of the participants, and should cover basic skills on calm water of limited extent before proceeding to advanced skills involving current, waves, high winds, or extended distance. At a minimum, instructors for canoes and kayaks should be able to demonstrate the handling and rescue skills required for BSA Aquatics Supervision: Paddle Craft Safety. All instructors must have at least one assistant who can recognize and respond appropriately if the instructor’s safety is compromised.

Anyone engaged in recreational boating using human-powered craft on flatwater ponds or controlled lake areas free of conflicting activities should be instructed in basic safety procedures prior to launch, and allowed to proceed after they have demonstrated the ability to control the boat adequately to return to shore at will.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As @yknot said, it is recommended, not required at this time. 

When I first took the Aquatics Supervision training courses several years ago, we were told that there is a push by some at the national level to require the Aquatics Supervision Swimming and/or Aquatics Supervision Paddle Sports in order for troops to do aquatic activities. But that has not been implemented. 

Personally those two courses are better for troops than BSA Lifeguard. BSA Lifeguard is more of a pool certification now than waterfront. 

I wouldn't actually object to it being required, as long as it was permanent and offered all summer long at summer camps.  But there's absolutely no reason to make a basic skills class on canoeing need to be retaken ever 2-3 years.  I mean, it's essentially just the requirements of the Canoeing Merit Badge, plus a test over Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat.

Thank you for pointing it out.  The section further down that discusses it was rather incoherent and looks like someone dropped the text in accidentally,  but at least it's very clearly not a requirement.

I've got people in my troop making noise about how Paddle Craft Safety is required for an adult to take scouts canoeing. When I look at the language I can find on the course, it seems to indicate that a adultvis required to have the certificate, but I don't see anything in the G2SS requiring anything besides Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat.

Now, obviously those two classes don't actually teach you how to canoe, so I can see the Paddle Craft class being a good skills course for inexperienced paddlers in order to be sure they are providing Qualified Supervision, but if you already have skilled adult paddlers on the trip, is a patch/card actually required?