What BSA Rules get in the way of a Good Program/Image?

[GaHillBilly 10]

OK; fair enough.

 

But do this for me, please. Identify precisely which SINGLE document (page #, please) answers these two often asked and basic questions:

 

(1) Is an LTP *required* for a local area, non-overnight troop trip or activity, and if so, precisely when and under what circumstances is it required?

 

(2) If such an activity or trip takes place without an LTP, does the lack of an LTP have any DIRECT impact on whether the activity or trip is covered under the "BSA General Liability Insurance" policy, and if so what is the impact, and what triggers it?

 

GaHillBilly

[Bob White 20]

1) Yes probably, the requirements for the Local Tour Permit say that any unit event away from the regular meeting site would require you to file a tour permit. Not all the sections will be applicable however.

 

The only real exception I am aware of is a patrol activity when no adults will be present and no vehicles are involved. Since none of the permits sections would be applicable.

 

2) Yes, not filing the permit can have a definite bearing on liability protection. As an example we had an ASM in our district who held a Halloween party at his home at which he was the only adult present and no tour permit was filed. Since he did this under the pretense of being a troop activity the scouts' accident insurance was in force, however had a lawsuit ensued you can be sure that there would not have been liability protection for him as the BSA would have denied that it was a scouting activity based on the fact that no permit was sought or approved and BSA policies were not followed.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[GaHillBilly 10]

"1) Yes probably, the requirements for the Local Tour Permit say that any unit event away from the regular meeting site would require you to file . . .

 

The only real exception I am aware of is a patrol activity when no adults will be present and no vehicles are involved. Since none of the permits sections would be applicable.

 

2) Yes, not filing the permit can have a definite bearing on liability protection. . ."

 

 

Uh . . . you're not 'following the rules': I asked for a citation, with document name AND page number. What I'm looking for is the specific official BSA text, identified by title, location available, and page number which DEFINITIVELY answers these questions.

 

Lots of people have opinions on this topic. And while I'm glad to add yours to my collection, it's not really what I asked for.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[Bob White 20]

You have asked the question in such a way that it you may not be be able to find precisely as you want it.

 

The best that can be offered is read the requirements for a Local Tour Permit, the second is to read the section from the BSA liability document that was referenced recently in another thread. The third is to use the available resources of the BSA. Contact your local office and ask for whomever handles the insurance claims there. Or contact the National office, they will be happy to assist you as well.

 

But to say I want to see a specific document that says specifically XYZ, well things are not always documented the way you see them in your head.

[FScouter 24]

As my dad would say, I've got a sneakin' suspicion the objective of asking the question was not to get the answer.

[GaHillBilly 10]

"But to say I want to see a specific document that says specifically XYZ, well things are not always documented the way you see them in your head."

 

. . . which is the long way round of saying what I said in my original post . . .

 

The LTP questions is one of many *basic* questions are NOT answered clearly and specifically in BSA literature, but have to be 'teased out' of a complex and dispersed body of regulations, standards, and guides.

 

FScouter is correct, however.

 

I wasn't really looking for the answers. I already know one of them. I don't know the other, but I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

 

Contrary to your post, an LTP is NOT *required* by BSA regulations for most non-overnight local outings. Most of the official BSA statements I've been able to find *imply* a preference for LTP for all non-meeting locations, but don't actually state even that. I don't know the answer concerning liability insurance for a certainty, but my experience has been that you NEVER know exactly what a particular policy will cover, till AFTER the event. The evidence I've seen suggests that this same rule applies to BSA insurance as well. But, I've seen no credible evidence that the lack -- or presence -- of an LTP will, by itself, significantly affect coverage in any particular situation.

 

As I suspect Fscouter realized, I posed the question in order to reveal the difficulty Scouters face in finding clear and authoritative answers easily. It seems to me that your inability to offer a single clearly definitive reference to answer these basic questions brings us back around to my original claim: "It seems to me that this 'need for knowledge' is the real barrier. In order for adult leaders to navigate 'the rules' successfully, they are going to have to do a LOT of reading, and a fair amount of real thinking about things like, "what does this really mean?", and "how would this actually apply?". "

 

To blame troop level Scouters for this situation is, I think, rather silly. Not all guys that are great with boys, are also great with forms, codes and regulations. If you accept only Scouters who are good with rules and regs . . . you'll likely end up with "Boy Scouts of Accounting"!

 

My impression, Bob White, is that you trust rules and regs a great deal more than I do. I've ended up working in areas professionally where rules and regs often impair, rather than increase, the public good. Overall, I'm very impressed with many aspects of BSA structure, but it's not perfect and it is complicated.

 

I'll leave you with this. G2SS now includes a boil and chlorinate sanitation process for drinking water. (http://www.scouting.org/healthandsafety/gss/gss03.aspx#e) Not only is this a mangled 'belt AND suspenders' conglomeration cribbed from more reliable guides, such as this one from the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/faq/emerg.html) but they add a novel method of 'testing' for chlorine, that will results in SERIOUSLY over-chlorinating clean water! This is precisely the sort of messed up regulation that I've learned to know, 'love', and dodge around in my professional life!

 

GaHillBilly

 

[Bob White 20]

It can't be that complicated if millions have been able to understand it for almost 100 years.

 

I don't trust rules. I respect their purose. If the speed limit is 30, I go 30. Not because I trust the sign, I go 30 because that is the rule and going over 30 while it might be great for my needs can cause injury to someone else. So I respect why the rule exists. But no I do not trust it.

 

I follow the rules of scouting not because I trust them but because not following the rules could be unfair or harmful to others. I follow the scout rules out if respect and understanding of why the exist.

 

Isn't that what most of us were taught by our parents?

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

GaHillBilly,

 

I agree with you that it's frustrating not to get definitive answers on these topics, and I myself can't provide them.

 

In the Cub Scout Leader Book (I'm looking at the 2005 printing) it lists six reasons why you should file a Local Tour Permit. It does not list insurance as one of those reasons. It seems to me that if a LTP actually affected insurance, this would be the perfect place to list that.

 

I'm sticking with the theory that the permit does not affect the insurance - but I can't point to a document that specifically says that.

[BrentAllen 10]

GaHillbilly,

Your EPA site says essentially the same thing as the scouting.org page, so what's your beef?

 

From scouting.org:

"Add eight drops of liquid chlorine bleach per gallon of cool water. (Use common household bleach; 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite should be the only active ingredient; there should not be any added soap or fragrances). Water must be cool or chlorine will dissipate and be rendered useless.

Let the water stand 30 minutes.

If it smells of chlorine, you can use it. If it does not smell of chlorine, add eight more drops of bleach and let it stand another 30 minutes. Smell it again. You can use it if it smells of chlorine. If it doesn't, discard it and find another water source."

 

From the EPA page:

"Mix the treated water thoroughly and allow it to stand, preferably covered, for 30 minutes. The water should have a slight chlorine odor. If not, repeat the dosage and allow the water to stand for an additional 15 minutes. If the treated water has too strong a chlorine taste, allow the water to stand exposed to the air for a few hours or pour it from one clean container to another several times."

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

" If the speed limit is 30, I go 30. Not because I trust the sign, I go 30 because that is the rule and going over 30 while it might be great for my needs can cause injury to someone else."

 

I know that you're a traffic engineer but I once studied traffic modelling. Speed limits are rarely set based on safety, they are usually set for political reasons which is often related to revenue generation.

 

For example, the interstate system was designed for speeds in excess of 80 MPH. However, you rarely see speed limits that high. Why? The DOT says that there is no correlation between speed and likelyhood of an accident. The answer? Politics and revenue generation.

[Bob White 20]

For interstates that's true, but I think most people would realize that a 30MPH street is not going to be aninterstate, and you do not get federal funds based o naighbood spped limits.

 

But lets use the interstate speed limits if that helps you to comprehend the the approach.

 

If the speed limit is 65, I go 65 because while going faster might be more convenient for me it could be harmful to others. I go the spped limit not because I trust the signs, but because I respect the rules. I understand what they are and why they exist.

 

 

Altering the speed limit does not seem to alter the reason for following the rule. It seems that the reasoning behind the decision is sufficiently sound that it can adapt to a variety of rules and situations. Thanks Mom and Dad

 

 

And while DOT finds that there is no relation between speed and the likelyhood of an accident, you failed too mention that there is a proven relationship between speed and the severity of each accident that occurs.

 

You have the same niumber of bad drivers on the road regardless of the speed limit so of course the likelyhood of an accident does not change much.

[Gold Winger 9]

"If the speed limit is 65, I go 65 because while going faster might be more convenient for me it could be harmful to others"

 

How could it be harmful to others? Are you such a bad driver that you'll run into other cars? Must be the case.

 

I've driven for over 30 years and I can't even begin to count the miles that I've driven. Maybe two million. I've been in a number of accidents all when my car was stopped or nearly stopped. I've been broadsided, rear ended and hit head on. Of course there was the one that was my fault, I creased a fender in the parking spot next to mine. :-( Speed limit? Never came into play.

 

So I'm guessing that if you'r worried about the safety of others, you must panic when you get going too fast and you know that you'll lose control of the car, crashing into pedestrians, mailboxes, and stray dogs.

 

" that there is a proven relationship between speed and the severity of each accident that occurs."

 

Following that logic, no one should ever go faster than . . . walking speed.

 

You amuse me Bob.

 

BTW Bob, you never did answer my other question. You said that you obey the laws of the community that you're in. I asked what you would have done in wartime Germany if you knew where a Jew could be found. You didn't answer that. I'm guessing that you would have turned them in because that would have been the right thing to do by the rules.

 

(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[evmori 11]

Local speed limits are politically driven! There are roads in my area that are 25 mph that are nearly impossible to drive at 25 mph.

 

A lot of the BSA rules & regs are clear. Many aren't and there are tons that are worded so poorly they are impossible to interpret.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[GaHillBilly 10]

"It can't be that complicated if millions have been able to understand it for almost 100 years."

 

You ask this, in a thread about how BSA rules make Scouting more difficult??

 

Bob, you are practicing an 'evidence-free' approach to truth!

 

You claim that BSA rules are easy to understand and follow, yet when you are asked a simple and common question, you cannot point to a simple and definitive answer. Even worse, you get the ANSWER to the question WRONG, yourself! You make the claim quoted above, which assumes that ALL Scouts and Scouters have found the rules easy and helpful, in the midst of a thread which itself is IMMEDIATE evidence that many Scouters find at least some of BSA policy and rule making an obstacle, rather than an aid.

 

Bob, you seem determined to ignore any evidence that conflicts with your preferred conclusion. This is NOT behavior worthy of trust!

 

GaHillBilly

[GaHillBilly 10]

Brent, just to avoid a distracting side issue, I'll try to clear up the differences between the EPA and G2SS sanitation.

 

1) EPA recommends boiling OR chlorination; G2SS calls for boiling AND chlorination. This is why I referred to it as a "belt AND suspenders" approach. The G2SS "AND" complicates the process greatly, without adding much to safety.

 

2) The EPA's chlorination method includes settling and filtering; G2SS does not. Without getting into water treatment tech too much, this is a hugely significant difference. The chlorination of dirty, unsettled and unfiltered water is VERY complicated, and it's very hard to determine if such water is 'sanitized'.

 

3) The EPA recommends "household bleach"; G2SS does too, but specifies 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. This is confusing, since 5.25% bleach is no longer sold. Current formulations are either 6% (common) or 3% at some 'discount' stores.

 

4) The EPA recommends a SINGLE dose (8 drops = 8 x 0.05ml = 0.4ml = 0.4 gm) bleach in one gallon (3.78L = 3780ml = 3780gm) of water. At 6%, this works out to roughly 24mg chlorine disinfection equivalent per 3780 gm water, or about 6 ppm. This is an adequate dose with CLEAR filtered and settled water, but not with unfiltered turbid water.

 

5) G2SS instructs users in a novel and utterly untrustworthy method of measuring chlorine residual: the 'sniff test'! Not only is this unreliable for all sorts of reasons, it will actually result in OVERDOSING chlorine on clear well-sanitized water, and UNDERDOSING on turbid unfiltered water. The reason is that, in normal water that is not excessively acid, chlorine concentrations below 100ppm are very unlikely to have a distinctive odor. The strong odors most people associated with chlorine are actually volatile organic chlorine compounds that form when chlorine reacts with various waste products in the water. These compounds are, by and large, ineffective sanitizers. Worse, they are more likely to associated with INCOMPLETE sanitation, rather than with finished sanitation.

 

Fortunately, the exceedingly high chlorine levels that are likely to result from trying to treat clean water till it "smells of chlorine" won't poison anyone, contrary to what most people think. However such water will taste really, really bad, and is not particularly good for you.

 

All in all, this particular element of the G2SS is SERIOUSLY flawed! Whoever cribbed it from the EPA doc and stuck it in the G2SS doesn't understand water treatment well at all.

 

GaHillBilly