InquisitiveScouter

No.  Mr. Dad just has to sever the "connection" for the overnight...

You could take that ad absurdum.

All adults staying overnight in connection with a Scouting activity must be currently registered in an adult fee required position as listed or as an adult program participant.

So, at bed time, he just says "Goodnight folks! I'm going to sleep on my own in a campsite I rented for myself.  See you at breakfast!"

LOL, they should DRIVE over a bridge

27 minutes ago, jcousino said:

SAFE sounds good on first reading , when carefully looked  is at first clear the the troop leadership has the responsibility for safety other part are more vague as to what makes up skilled 

the very form states that "Motor vehicles used to transport Scouts must complete Pre-Trip Transportation Inspection before travel for each driver and vehicle" 

GSS - Transportation #9 Motor vehicles used to transport Scouts must complete Pre-Trip Transportation Inspection before travel. This includes correcting all deficiencies.

Yes if all goes well no one will ask, Have a problem involving a transportation issue (car wreck) everyone will be wanting to see the form.

If this form works t its best it should make you look and access travel and hopefully stop and cuorrect problems before they come real problems

Thanks!  I have read through the G2SS many times, and never really registered that.  Appreciate you citing it.

We have not been using that checklist, but now we will.

Wonder when that became part of G2SS?

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

they have no real choice in having to tighten the screws. 

No.  But they can clearly articulate coherent policies.  Not come up with more incoherent ones...

For example, there should be nothing wrong with having MBCs be the second adult.  They have to be registered, have YPT, and background checks.

Simply put in the additional instruction: "MBCs may fulfill only one position of supervision at a unit event, with the permission of the CO."

Unless, councils aren't really doing the background checks? ($$$)

1 hour ago, PACAN said:

This is all designed to make more MBCs registered as paid adults.    I'm guessing they don't want all MBCs to be paid positions because a number of them that are MBCs only will walk away.   I wonder how many  MBCs are already dual registered.

@PACAN, the loophole @mrjohns2 is referring to is this (I think, because this is what we did...):

Not too long ago, the G2SS required only one registered adult over 21, and a second "registered adult" form the supervision team for an overnight outing (it wasn't "all events" like it is now.)  The rules did not stipulate this had to be a "unit registered adult" (it still does not stipulate that, but that is the intent).  So, to save money, units would register the minimum number of adults required to have a unit on the charter, and then have everyone else register as MBCs (for free) so that they were "registered" and thus meet the G2SS requirements.

Councils and National figured out this "loophole", and have moved to close it. 

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Previous unit I was with, I registered as an ASM when my son joined the troop. Most meetings and campouts, there would be 8+ of us there that were identified to scouts/parents as ASMs. Second year my son and I were there several folks who were Committee wanted to step down, as their sons had aged out several years prior. CC asked a few parents if they would register to join the Committee, and only 1 agreed. CC asked if I would switch from ASM to Committee- I agreed, would still be registered and could still go along on campouts, so no big deal. Then we hit re-charter time, and Committee meeting discussed youth who were on the roster that we assumed would not be re-chartering (the usual "we haven't seen Fred since March" type of conversation). Then I saw the adult roster, and saw we only had about 1/3 of those "ASMs" on the charter. I had to question that, and the response was they are registered as MBCs because they really didn't come to everything, so why should they pay the fees. When I volunteered to be a part of the IOLS training team for the district, several of those "MBC ASMs" had looked at me sideways and couldn't understand either a) what IOLs was, and/or b) why would any adult go through IOLS. After seeing that adult roster, I understood then why these folks were so confused about IOLS. SM specific training? Nope, foreign concept. The unit ran because SM Tom knows what he is doing and he tells us what to do, so why do we need to need to go through training.   

We used this scheme before it became "illegal."

Also, in our state (PA), state law requires all adult volunteers to have three background checks: 1) A State Police Criminal Record check, 2) A "PA Child Abuse History Certification" from the Dept of Human Services, and 3) EITHER a signed Affidavit attesting no other charges OR  an FBI Fingerprint background check if you have not been a state resident of 10 years. 

When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National.

Which really begs the cynical question:  Is this move more about collecting fees than it is about protecting children?  (I think I know the answer.)

17 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@InquisitiveScouter, keep complaining about it and those 19-20 year old ASMs will be reclassified as program participants.

I want to make it clear how much of my life involves deeply personal one-on-one conversations with 19-20 year olds of the opposite sex. It is very hard for some young adult women to navigation their world — many are facing abuse, caregiver burdens, financial stress — and they open up about it to very few people. They often look for second father figure and, along with their friends, arrange a meeting with him. Sometimes that person is me, often I can rope a second elder into that conversation, but often time is of the essence and we can’t ill afford time to screen that fellow qualified elder by sex.

This is how the real world works and will continue to work. By imposing this kind of restriction, BSA will remove itself further from meeting the needs of young adults.

Yeah, we are able to train them and put them into combat, but the 18-year-old (legal adult) cannot have a personal conversation at Starbucks with their Crew Adviser without another registered adult present?

No logic or sanity in that thinking at all...

That is one of those "rules" where conscience, principle, and ethics dictate ignoring the rule and doing the right thing.

I support you 100% @qwazse

And even if reclassified, I'll still ignore it 😜

16 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

Interestingly, our new CO wants to see the policy, and we are still going through those hurdles now. It is a dark tunnel, with no light in sight.

I am actually surprised it isn't asked for more by COs, especially now.

Please let us know how this turns out.

9 minutes ago, qwazse said:

What it means @Eagle1993, is that if the proportion of females is nonzero, I could not meet collegiate adult Venturers for coffee without me finding 21+ registered female adult to join me.

It effectively makes it pointless to be a male crew advisor.

Now that is just plain stupid...

Supposing those were assistant Scoutmasters for a Troop.  They are not over 21, nor are they "adult program participants."  So, it's ok to meet with them.  But, the second one of them let's you know they have registered with a Venturing crew, you are a YPT criminal!! LOL

Oh, the humanity 😛

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

So I interpret this to mean if you willfully ignore BSA rules and policy, such as the G2SS, you are not covered.  I believe this is being discussed in another thread.

@scoutldrI revived this one because the other thread is about the SAFE checklist versus insurance.

9 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

A big thing for me is that I am the policy holder and not the BSA. 🙂

Have you ever, in your BSA life, seen a copy of the policy??  I haven't.  Haven't asked for one either

8 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

So that's a "no," correct? You do believe that there is insurance coverage, but that like in every situation in life, the insurer will use means to avoid payment? But that simply not following the GSS isn't some sort of voiding of coverage?

I honestly don't know.

I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers.  I believe this is a great fear they have.  So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults.

But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

3 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

I don't know. I only know in the single instance in this thread where we know what happened, the plaintiff got paid despite Scouting policies being violated, and even the law. A single data point doesn't prove the case, but clearly the insurer saw liability or exposure of some kind (maybe just PR? We don't know.) and paid to make it go away.

I get it. I am the only one who doesn't believe that the insurance won't cover you if you are violating the GSS. I would say that your belief is healthy and is probably a good indicator that you will follow the GSS. I am sure that was a good part of BSA's intention in using their language. Does my belief make me less likely to follow it? Thus far, no.

I follow it religiously, to protect Scouts and Scouters, and to protect my family assets and security (in that order).

Just now, 5thGenTexan said:

I dont know.  At Webelos Woods last November I was carrying a dutch oven back to the trailer in the dark.  I tripped over one of those really big rocks that are supposed to keep you from driving into the camp site.  I didn't just kind of trip either...  I went down, the dutch oven ended up under the middle of the trailer.  My lower abdomen was sore for two months, I had a spot on the side of my chest on the right side that hurt just as long.  My knees are just down getting to the point where they don't feel swollen all the time and dont hurt when I stand up.  So... 3 months to recover from that.  I was told I should have filled out an accident report while still in camp, but I didn't.  I don't think the GTSS prohibits doing something stupid in the dark, but things do happen.  I guess if I had done the paperwork and tried to force the issue if my condition didn't improve I could have give the BSA insurance a go.

You still can, but it will only cover your co-pays.

And that is Accident and Sickness coverage... that's a different policy than General Liability.

Also, did you know??  If you kick the bucket (heart failure) within 90 days of participating in a BSA event, your survivors can claim a $10K benefit?

*Includes loss of life resulting from Heart Failure within 90 days from the date participating in an approved Boy Scouts or Learning for Life (if purchased) activity: ———————————– ■ Life* $10,000

Your council plan might vary... 

HSR Brochure.pdf

8 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

Yes, and I'm sure that the decision to pay isn't binary, as language saying "they won't cover you" would imply. Note that in @HashTagScoutsexample above, though we don't know if the driver was at fault in the accident, we know he was not only violating Scout policy, but the law itself, and guess what? They got paid.

Did they pay just to make this go away, and not tarnish the image of BSA??

And maybe the offending driver had nothing really for anyone to go after, so the lawyers went for the deepest pockets and hoped for this settlement regime...  again, just to make it go away...

Guessing and smh...

3 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

That's true, but they do cover you, at least in my state. Perhaps with the array of options, auto is a bad example. Home owner's insurance pays out even if your Christmas tree started the fire.  Health insurance pays for injuries you cause through negligence, once they determine it's your fault and not someone else's (e.g., a workman's comp claim). I'd wager that behind virtually every serious Scout injury is a violation of GSS.

Agreed, and there is a difference between negligence and willful (or criminal) conduct.

13 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

I don't actually believe that BSA 's insurance only covers you if you are following the GSS. That would be like saying your auto insurance only covers you if you are following all the traffic laws.

@RichardB, can you shed any light on BSA actions in other instances (without too many specifics, obviously)??

I could see where, if unit supervision allowed Scouts to play Vertical Dodgeball, climb up 20 feet in some trees (tree climbing and Dodgeball being prohibited activities), and one fell to his death, that they could deny coverage and allow civil suits against the adults to proceed without any support.

Anyone have any light to shed on this??

5 minutes ago, jcousino said:

The points of tour permits were transferred to the unit level when Councils did not want the liability. While there is not a council level form the checked item are now still required to be done at the unit level. Do you have records of current diver licenses and auto insurance? Leader training, non-scouter leaders on trips?

Fr. John

 

Although I concur with the practice of checking for this, could you please point out in the literature where it says a unit is required to do this?

There is a SAFE checklist to help with this...

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/680-696(21)-SAFE-Transportation-Checklist-FPO3-5172021.pdf

But, other than you, who else is actually running this checklist?

8 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

100% agree. The issue of negligence is at the heart of many liability cases that end up in the legal system. I think about the case against McDonalds where a person burned themselves on coffee that spilled on them when they had to stop short. Can't imagine that McDonalds could be liable on how people drive and have an expectation someone was going to spill coffee on themselves (then again, I also readily recognize that coffee is hot). 

Recommend you read up on that case.  She was not driving at the time, and was also found 20% culpable in the incident, which reduced the damages awarded.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

28 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

BSA is trying not to scare the daylights out of folks

A forthright and mature discussion or clarification about behavior, risk, and consequences is always appropriate.

I had these many times with troops at my Commander's Calls.  Funny, how we had less disciplinary actions than other units in the command...

Of course, a very different situation, as I had many other disciplinary tools at my disposal (UCMJ, pay, leave, promotions, assignments, deployments, etc.), but there are some similarities in principles... 

25 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

BSA is trying not to scare the daylights out of folks, but, essentially if you don't follow BSA guidelines, your unit may very well find themselves on the liability hook. A good friend of mine is an attorney, and represented a family that was involved in a lawsuit with a neighboring Council. The Unit Leader and Chartered Organization were also named in the suit. Ironically, it was a case that involved exactly what Fr. John alludes to. The unit had an outing in NH, had a parent that was not a registered adult leader attending and transporting his son and two other scouts. Vehicle got into a car accident on their return leg, and one of the scouts he was transporting had some pretty significant injuries (he was seated on the side that took the impact from the other vehicle). Turns out the parent had a suspended driver's license. Council argued that they were not liable as the unit did not follow BSA policies. Council ended up settling for low amount (situation that it can be cheaper to give a few thousand to settle than pay your attorneys thousands and suffer the PR ding). 

Scouter Code of Conduct:

"When transporting youth, I will obey all laws, comply with Youth Protection guidelines, and follow safe driving practices."

Maybe another reason BSA wants all adults to be registered... 

Remember old Tour Permits, where you had to record valid driver's license and insurance info??

https://www.boyscouttrail.com/docs/formlocaltourpermit.pdf

23 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

BSA is trying not to scare the daylights out of folks, but, essentially if you don't follow BSA guidelines, your unit may very well find themselves on the liability hook. A good friend of mine is an attorney, and represented a family that was involved in a lawsuit with a neighboring Council. The Unit Leader and Chartered Organization were also named in the suit. Ironically, it was a case that involved exactly what Fr. John alludes to. The unit had an outing in NH, had a parent that was not a registered adult leader attending and transporting his son and two other scouts. Vehicle got into a car accident on their return leg, and one of the scouts he was transporting had some pretty significant injuries (he was seated on the side that took the impact from the other vehicle). Turns out the parent had a suspended driver's license. Council argued that they were not liable as the unit did not follow BSA policies. Council ended up settling for low amount (situation that it can be cheaper to give a few thousand to settle than pay your attorneys thousands and suffer the PR ding). 

Here's the real question:  What happens to a BSA volunteer, if they act out of accordance with BSA guidelines???

Doesn't the policy cover those cases?  Read the verbiage from G2SS:

"This coverage provides primary general liability coverage for registered adults of the Boy Scouts of America who serve in a volunteer or professional capacity concerning claims arising out of an official Scouting activity, which is defined in the insurance policy as consistent with the values, Charter and Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, operations manuals, and applicable literature of the Boy Scouts of America. This coverage responds to allegations of negligent actions by third parties that result in personal injury or property damage claims that are made and protects Scouting units and chartered organizations on a primary basis."

It even seems to imply that you will be defended (except in cases of intentional or criminal acts.):  "The general liability policy does not provide indemnification or defense coverage to those individuals who commit intentional and criminal acts. The Boy Scouts of America does not have an insurance policy that provides defense for situations involving allegations of intentional and criminal acts."

Here's some other good gouge I found.

https://montanabsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/BSA-Insurance.pdf

Kudos to Montana Council for being a little more forthright:

"The Guide to Safe Scouting contains a listing of unauthorized and restricted activities. Unauthorized activities are not considered official Scouting activities. Volunteers (registered and unregistered), units, chartered organizations, and local councils are jeopardizing insurance coverage for themselves and their organization by engaging in unauthorized activities."

EDIT:  Just found that last blurb in the G2SS as well, so my kudos to Montana Council are downgraded a bit 😛  

Reviving this old post, if you don't mind 😜

Can anyone out there tell me what BSA General Liability Insurance provides for you that a personal umbrella policy does not?  And vice versa?

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/

https://content.naic.org/article/whats-umbrella-policy

--------------------------------------------------------

Comprehensive General Liability Insurance

This coverage provides primary general liability coverage for registered adults of the Boy Scouts of America who serve in a volunteer or professional capacity concerning claims arising out of an official Scouting activity, which is defined in the insurance policy as consistent with the values, Charter and Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, operations manuals, and applicable literature of the Boy Scouts of America. This coverage responds to allegations of negligent actions by third parties that result in personal injury or property damage claims that are made and protects Scouting units and chartered organizations on a primary basis.

The BSA general liability insurance program provides volunteers and chartered organizations additional excess coverage for motor vehicles above a local council’s automobile liability policy or a volunteer’s or chartered organization’s automobile or watercraft liability policy. The owner’s motor vehicle (automobile) or watercraft liability insurance is primary. The excess insurance, whether the local council auto or BSA general liability, is available only while the motor vehicle or watercraft is in the actual use of a Scouting unit and being used during an official Scouting activity.

The insurance provided to unregistered Scouting volunteers participating in an official Scouting activity through the general liability insurance program is excess over any other insurance the volunteer might have to their benefit, usually a homeowner, personal liability, motor vehicle (automobile), or watercraft policy.

The general liability policy does not provide indemnification or defense coverage to those individuals who commit intentional and criminal acts. The Boy Scouts of America does not have an insurance policy that provides defense for situations involving allegations of intentional and criminal acts.

Scouting youth are not insured under the general liability policy.

---------------------------------------------------------

And, does anyone know the limits of this BSA coverage?  If I am an insured party, do I have a right to know? 😜

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

No, adult program participants are clearly defined as members who are 18 but not yet 21 and are registered in programs like Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Exploring. So those two positions are not adult program participants, nor are they "an adult fee required position as listed," since they aren't on the list. Obviously they can hold additional registered positions, like at the unit level as mentioned above, but that shouldn't be a requirement, should it? I think those positions should be listed, for clarity if nothing else.

13 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

Both Chapter and Lodge Adviser seem to be missing from the list of adult positions approved for overnight camping. Are they just considered committee members, or are they prohibited from attending overnight OA events? 🤔

It's not that they are not approved... It's that those positions are not part of the "adult fee required position(s)"   That is, you must be registered in some other position before you can be a Chapter or Lodge Adviser, insofar as I understand this...

As @HashTagScouts alludes, they must first be in a District (or unit or council) fee paid position, before they can wear the additional hat of Adviser.

15 minutes ago, jcousino said:

Here is my log for this fire BSA will never put out some thing that could be viewed as negative. (but True) do not scare the volunteers off

If most volunteers  and charter partners  where told that if a event occurs and BSA insurance determines that you where not following BSA  safety rules your on your own , remember what you signed in that charter agreement (Personal Defense and liability costs in the 9 figures for wrongful death of an 12 year old.) No rational person would knowingly take that on. Even more so in the light of BSA past insurance issues,

Love the study of outdoor risk management from my little formal training Most Troop and District level events are scary. Now with  NCAP (short term) standards most activities that i am aware of would have several safety gaps. Then at the troop level even who,s watching

Just an easy example do you know if the person driving others youths to camp  even has a valid drivers licensee . Have you checked?

Fr. John

Fr. John,

Agreed, but BSA is literally keeping their volunteers in the dark as to their own risk.  Could this be on purpose?

Instead of "If you ignore our recommendation from the Guide to Safe Scouting, you open yourself to financial ruin through lawsuits!" ... I'd turn it to the positive side:

Hey volunteers, we carry liability insurance to protect your Scouting activities!  That, along with the federal law puts a strong team in your corner should an accident occur.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter139&edition=prelim

You can help keep your Scouts and yourself safe by strictly adhering to all of our direction in the Guide to Safe Scouting 😛

"... BSA has liability insurance to protect its volunteers, but compliance with BSA safety guidelines is required for that insurance to be available." (2:30 in the video)

I really think BSA should clearly elaborate on what this means for volunteers who are not in compliance with BSA safety guidelines.

And the video ought to be redone for a myriad of reasons, but one of the biggest is at the end...

Way to go shooting a safety video, and then putting that final scene in...

"Appropriate personal protective equipment is required for all activities. This includes the recommended use of helmets for all participants engaged in winter sports, such as sledding and riding other sliding devices."

LOL