KublaiKen

39 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, CO's should be given (or demand) a copy of insurance policy as part of chartering process.

My $0.02,

Right? On what planet would you want to put your organization in bed with BSA right now without seeing that first?

37 minutes ago, RichardB said:

Does anyone have any comments about this councils efforts to prevent injury and illness via SAFE Checklist use?     

I think it is another useful tool in the arsenal. I support anything that helps keep Scouts, Scouters, and our assets (personal and organizational) safe but doesn't kill the program, and I think this meets my criteria.

Wow, I totally missed that.

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Our troop, following in the footsteps of my youth troop, have a family campout each year. This is useful in many ways. It allows parents in new families to spend quality time with the troop adults. It also is a great answer for people who want to bring a sibling on other campouts - “sorry, but they can come on the annual family campout”. I guess we can’t do that any longer?

That would be my understanding of the rule.

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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

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.

12 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

I believe, that, like any insurance company, their attorneys will seek out ANY excuse to lessen their obligation to pay damages.  Those who choose to ignore rules and guidelines and "reasonable" decision making do so at their own peril.

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?

@HashTagScouts, do you believe that BSA's insurance only covers you if you are following the GSS?

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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

Ditto. It's insanely sound advice, whether insurance covers you or not.

At least we can all agree that insurance only covers you if you travel in Class A.

9 minutes ago, 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.

Wow, sorry about the spill, and the long recovery. I hope you're fully at it soon.

Yes, there are certainly exceptions, and perhaps instead of "virtually every" I should have said something like "most" so you don't feel singled out. 🙂

13 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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...

 

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.

Yep, CYA exactly. and it's good advice. But saying it doesn't absolve them of legal or fiscal responsibility, even if it could potentially mitigate it.

As I said to begin with, I don't actually believe that BSA 's insurance only covers you if you are following the GSS. I still don't.

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

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

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.

1 minute ago, HashTagScouts said:

Auto insurance laws vary by state. In some, there is very limited liability that an insurer must cover when it can be established that the operator was not operating the vehicle in accordance to applicable law. If you are driving under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit, see just how much your insurance company is going to willingly cover claims against your policy.

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.

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.

9 minutes ago, AltadenaCraig said:

 

The GSS wording states "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".  I'd expect both Chapter & Lodge Adviser would be covered as "an adult program participant."

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.

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? 🤔

So the awaited change to the GSS has happened. With some few exceptions, I think, adults camping overnight outside of Cub Scouts must be registered adults in fee-paid positions or program participants. MBCs are specifically excluded.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/?fbclid=IwAR3Va17cZl5U4Aj-HqKFXP4Havk9mtp530Mrw6GJ7ZFdBlRQX9I25GsfXNA

Delaware Valley Orienteering Association?

I think his question was directly to the person he quoted? It's late my time, so maybe not.

This is what we received from NCAC:

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

I think the real issue is why someone who has completed the Ordeal not want to be in good standing.

1. For us, a complete lack of OA in the Troop for many years. We didn't have elections for three years before 2019. And there was almost no interest, because:

• the Chapter meets on the same night as our Troop meetings.
• the older guys who were Arrowmen said, "All they they do is eat ice cream at the Chapter meetings." And this is blatantly not true!

2. All they do is eat pizza at the Chapter meetings.

3. Our Ordeals are completely uninspiring. They can barely drag four Scouts into the principal roles. That the parts be memorized or seemingly even read through sometimes seems out of the question. One of the reasons ceremonialists are hard to come by, in addition to the practice time, is that even now there is too much of #4.

4. The same old 800-pound gorilla: the Native American stuff. Guys around here are embarrassed by it and want no part of it. They're kids and young men, but they see which side of history they feel it belongs on, and they don't want to be associated with it. Many never complete their Ordeals, and the sash-and-dash rate among those who do has to be astronomical.

I find any rule that says my status as an Arrowman is terminated when my dues aren't paid to be at odds with the permanence of the Obligation. To be clear, I wouldn't wear a flap or attend a function without paying dues, but I am fairly certain the ties of Brotherhood are everlasting, and not ended when the roll of quarters runs out.

So disturbed as to why the election team had asked me about strikes after the vote, I asked about this, and after a delay brought on by Klondike, I have an answer. It turns out this is NOT how our Chapter conducts elections, and this was an error on the part of the newly-pressed-into-service election team, that will now  be corrected. I thought it might be one more new thing.

So my apologies for confusion g the discussion with my incorrect information, and thanks to all who helped me fix it.

We will be having two this year: the first on 2/12 with the UMC that was our CO for 72 years, and the second on 3/5, at our new CO. They weren't ready for us for today.

13 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

That kinda depends on what you consider to be "olden times"  I think it was a SMC until '73 then it became a PGAC.  I'm not sure when it switched back.

Yes, I guess there is nothing more relative than "olden." 😁

When did it switch to SMC, anyway? In olden times it was a Personal Growth Agreement Conference.