Common rule misunderstandings taught by district

[Bob White 20]

packsaddle

to say that the rule is bad because there is always someone who will ignore it is what separates good people from bad.

 

Certainly you do not suggest that making it illegal to steal or kill is pointless because there are always those who will do it anyway?

 

Civilized sosciety is build on those that follow the rules whether they agree with them or not simply because they benit the welfare of those around us if not us directly.

 

The rule on liquid fuel is made not by the council but by the insurance company, it is publicized and enforced by the council. YES, national will remove the liability protection from leaders who ignore a policy that then results in an injury.

 

BW

[SR540Beaver 116]

BW,

 

Not to speak for Pack, but I think the point is that troops are going to use liquid fuel outside of council property whether it is allowed or taught by the council on their property. It does seem somewhat silly to teach liquid fuel use at Woodbadge, but just pretend. I don't know about you, but I want an airline pilot who has actually flown a real plane over one that has just flown a simulator. I understand WHY it isn't allowed on council property due to insurance company requirements. But the council could coordinate a function thru a troop to teach liquid fuel outside of the council owned property. It is irresponsible for the council to not teach liquid fuel use when G2SS has rules for it and they know their troops will be doing it on campouts outside their property. There has to be a way to protect the boys safety by teaching this witout risking the council's insurance. Good grief, boys do archery and shooting on council property. Teaching an adult leader how to use liquid fuel CAN'T be more dangerous than handing a teenager a loaded weapon!

[Bob White 20]

Teaching an adult leader how to use liquid fuel CAN'T be more dangerous than handing a teenager a loaded weapon!

 

Which adult, which teenager. If that adult causes a fire on property where the use of liquid fuels is prohibited then the loss caused by that fire would not be insured and could cause be financially devastating to the council.

 

If the section on liquid fuels is being taught as part of a scout leader training session then the staff needs to adapt the same way a troop would if they wanted to teach a scout how to use a liquid fuel stove (as required in the advancement program). That is, they need to be on property where the use of fuel is allowed, or only do as much of the training as the conditions allow and then complete the training on property that allows the use of liquid fuels.

 

This is not an issue of council property, it is an issue of following the rules for whatever property you are on. Not all scout camps have this restriction and not all properties that have this restriction are scout camps.

 

Bob White

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Holy smokes, I seem to have ignited an argument (puns intended)! KWC57 gets my intent, BW. I agree that the genesis of the local regulation is an insurance carrier (KS, I'm curious as to which ones too). And I see your point regarding property damage. Liability is a different matter, though, and I would like to hear from someone with more legal experience...or insurance experience. As surely as my boys will turn an aerosol can into a blow torch, some boy, some time (probably an adult or a troop, too) will ignore a reg on liquid fuels. I'm just noting that fact of life.

I have another question though, if anyone can answer it. If the council has such a regulation (and it clearly applies to their camp), does it also apply to their troops on troop outings? Putting the question another way, is it possible that the regulation only applies at the council camp? I guess I'm saying that is about the only place it could be effectively enforced anyway.

[Bob White 20]

Boy scouts are allowed to operate liquid fuel stoves providing the youth and the adult leaders follow the regulations regarding the use of these appliances as stated in the Guide to Safe Scouting. In addition the property you are operating the appliance on must allow liquid fuel uasage.

 

As far as the liability issue, it does not require a lawyer to explain the BSA policy.

 

If a any registered adult knowing allows the policies of the G2SS to be ignored, they can have their BSA membership permanently revoked and be subject to criminal and civil charges as a result of any injuries resulting from the improper activity. The adult would not have the benefit of the legal protection from the BSA and would not receive the benefits of the national adult leader liability protection coverage. Any youth injured would however be covered by the youth accident insurance protection.

 

(not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn)

Bob White

[Twocubdad 665]

"Our insurance company won't allow it" is the last great defense of all true bureaucrats. And it's 90% baloney.

 

Insurance companies aren't in the business of telling people what they can and cannot do. They assess risk and assign a cost (premimum) to that risk.

 

Someone at the COUNCIL made the decision that they didn't won't to either bother with the requirements for safely using liquid fuels OR didn't want to pay an additional premimum to cover the additional risk. An insurance company may suggest things that an insured can do to reduce their premimum, but taking those suggestions is the decision of the insured. Want to reduce your life insurance preminums? Give up smoking. Can't kick the habit? No problem, but here's your premimum.

 

Councils could also reduce their insurance costs by eliminating aquatics, climbing, archery and rifle and shotgun. Of course the premium on a vacant piece of property is pretty low, too. But someone has made the judgement that taking the risk and paying the premium for those activities is worth the cost.

[SR540Beaver 116]

BW,

 

You get two points for the Holiday Inn joke!!! I would have given you three points if you had got the phrase right by saying you had stayed at a Holiday Inn EXPRESS!

[Eamonn 61]

It seems to me, and this is just my opinion.

The BSA rules on Liquid Fuels, are very clear.

If there is a rule in your council, that you don't understand or for some reason do not agree with, talk with whoever is in charge of that committee.

With the Fuel question, ask your district camping chair. to find out why you can't use Liquid Fuels at your council camp.

After making a finding, if you still do not like the answer, you can again go through the proper committees to try and see if it can be changed.

You may not win, but you will have a better understanding of why the rule is in place.

Our council runs a really nice camp in Somerset Pa. A typical BSA, camp. For some time there has been a move to add a high rope COPE course. Something that I think would be great for the older Scouts. However, the camp is within a State Park, and while the council is prepared to cover the liability for Scout use. We would have no way of preventing non-Scout use.

When we were given the " Liability Line ?" We moved our question from the camping committee, to the properties committee, they went to Omaha Mutual, our insurance carrier. After much dialogue, the properties committee (Which has a district rep. on it) still said that it was not to be, due to the liability.

While, the main focus of any unit leader ought to be leading his / her unit, one way to understand what and why things are going on, is to get involved. Maybe in a few years, there will be a different committee, who will be willing to look at things in a different light.

One thing that we have to remember is that We are the District, and We are the Council and yes We are the National Council, it too is made up of people just like you and me. At the start of each day we all put our socks on, one at a time.

Even those who might stay at the Holiday Inn or where ever.

[packsaddle 753]

TwoCub, in my area if you don't have a secure fence around a pool, the insurance company simply declines homeowner coverage, period (at least that is what mine told me). I suppose you can see that as a voluntary incentive but I suspect most homeowners wouldn't. Likewise, our church will be denied coverage if we transport youth in one of the old 15-passenger vans. Insurance company's opinion, not mine. Because of that, I suppose we voluntarily purchased a real bus in compliance. The insurance company simply considered both cases to be unacceptable risks.

But back to the violation of G2SS...I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the assessment of the consequences of KNOWINGLY violating G2SS. I am concerned about local regs (not G2SS) that a unit might not know about or or might not understand because it hasn't been made clear. And THAT is where the legal opinion is warranted. (Nevermind the ludicrous image of liquid fuel training with empty tanks, in a council that doesn't allow such use, no less) I still would like to know if such regs apply selectively to council property or do they always apply in a blanket manner to all scout activities by troops in that council?

But G2SS aside, the liability issue may remain even where regs are violated. I'm pretty sure that a drunk volunteer (in clear violation of G2SS) that injures scouts in a church bus while traveling on a valid tour permit will attract legal attention to the church and BSA as well. Little consolation that the driver will no longer be allowed to lead and may go to jail, those injuries are real and the deepest pockets (perhaps church, perhaps BSA) will tend to pay or at least pay to defend.

[Bob White 20]

packsadlle,

As I have explained numerous times this is a property management issue not a scout activity issue. It does not exist in all councils, only those whose insurance coverage does not allow the storage and use of liquid fuels.

 

The BSA regulates the use of liquid and pressurized gas fuels and fuel burning appliances by scouts but does not prohibit their use as long as all the safety rules are followed and you use them in an appropriate location.

 

Any campground, whether owned by a scout council or not, thatprohibits liquid fuels is not an appropriate location for scout members to use this type of fuel or appliance.

[jbroganjr 10]

Boy this thread seems to only add to the "urban myth" with insurance and such...being from jersey, It doesn't matter what's covered, who's covered, etc, because jersey seems to be the lawyer capital of the world. Throw a rock and hit lawyer and at times it seems that all the lawyers need to sue...so that is why I carry an extra rider on my homeowners policy for scouting, make sure that there are always three when dealing with YP, etc.

It is this inane environment that breeds urban myths, and yes, dumbs down program in the name of "safety" or CYA I don't want to be liable for anything.

As for my mention of woodbadge (and that module was indicicative of the waste of time the entire course was) and liquid fuels...it would have served everyone better to one, not pretend, and two, explain the policy(s) our council has concerning liquid fuels (Which brings up a reality check here...how many of you OA guys use OA fuel?) Oh that's right its a society of secrets, not a secret society

To get back on track, it is imperative that us "super scouters" do not go around with all the answers (I have even seen BW post that he was mistaken...) and that the correct answer is..."I will get back to you"

Another CSRTC from a different district as well as I, love to throw these handgrenades out at RT, to one point out the silliness of being so serious, to demonstrate that we do not all have the answers, to see where the program may be going off track (by the answers received) and to provide a forum for positive engagement. Many times it has required calls out to Irving to get the correct answers (complete with the cited publication). Why do this? Not for harm, but in order to remind everyone about 1. Safe Haven and 2. Fun...w/a purpose. All these "common misunderstandings " ultimately lead to denying youth there experiences, at times there advancements and deviate from the program.

[Overtrained 10]

Councils can add to the national requirements. Indianhead council has set a two year requirement for Youth Protection Training. National High Adventure basis require your training to be within a year. If your council has no rule, then it is good for life. By the way, it is also available now on most council web sites to take the training via the web. A nice addition.

[packsaddle 753]

Overtrained, can an out-of-council leader take the training on another council's web site? How do you arrange for the documentation (cards, etc.)? This would save a tremendous number of man-hours and open the training to many more persons.

[scoutldr 739]

The training is council-specific only because at the end, you print out the local contacts and phone numbers in your area for reporting purposes.

 

It seems to be up to the Council as to how accomodating they will be to out-of-council participants...some will send you your training completion card in the mail, and others will send you an e-mail saying, "this is for our people only, please contact your local council." Another nice feature is that it will then update your training records in Scoutnet, but only if you are registered in that council and the name you entered exactly matches your registered name in Scoutnet (e.g., "Bill" vs "William"). Our experience so far has been that we get more "no match" names on the printout than we do matches, meaning the DE then has to figure out manually what went wrong.

 

Bottom line is, local Councils have had the information needed to stand up the on-line training since at least Jan 1. If it's not available in your area, you need to shake the tree and get it moved to the front burner. That's what I had to do.

[packsaddle 753]

Thanks!