Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question

Expand Messages
  • A. Dukovic
    Very true Frank but the reason we re following BSAs rules is so we re covered by their insurance I m thinkin??  Yep, we all want the best  program possible
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Very true Frank but the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance I'm thinkin??  Yep, we all want the best "program" possible for the boys and nobody really wants to "cancel" an outing for any reason, especially lack of "training" but some Parents unfortunately don't care about getting trained or "helping out" UNTIL Junior comes home complaining that his campout was cancelled for "lack of interest" by Parents?? 
       
      The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they "require" some training; being prepared also means trained for what MAY happen I'm thinkin??

      "Forced to cancel" is better than "why didn't we think of that before" or OOPS after something has happened!!


      - Art
      --- On Tue, 4/23/13, frank <ftooth@...> wrote:

      From: frank <ftooth@...>
      Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
      To: "scouter_t@yahoogroups.com" <scouter_t@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 10:43 AM



       



      The difference between "required/must" and "best practice" is decidedly different when the unit is "forced" to cancel their outing due to a leader not having completed the training.

      Frank

      >________________________________
      > From: A. Dukovic <artdukovic@...>
      >  
      >

      >
      >I do understand, but my message is the same; to do our best we've got to know just what the heck we're doing and yes, National is messed up at times but who cares??  If the boys are getting the "best" we can offer, who suffers??

      >Again, we know they're going to suffer from a "bad" experience so why take the chance??  I hate folks that make everything "required" and invent rules that aren't there but for Scouting training I always ask just how "comfortable" folks are with what they're going to do?? If an adult doesn't care about his/her "trained" strip but knows what they're doing, they're ahead of the game but if they hesitate I always suggest "training" so they don't look like dopes in front of other adults or the boys especially.

      >Again sorry, "should" or "have to" aren't much different when it affects "program" right??    
      >
      >- Art
      >
      >--- On Mon, 4/22/13, Connie Knie <mailto:cknie23100%40yahoo.com> wrote:

      >
      >Ok this may seem like splitting hairs BUT................. there are two different things being discussed.

      >First a disclaimer. I am all about training. I would much rather have all of the leaders trained before they take anyone anywhere...... BUT .......... the discussion started because the thought is that OWL and BALOO are required before a WL can take the youth camping.

      > The discussion is not whether they should be trained but do they have to be...........

      >Yes this is a training group, and misinformation is our worst enemy.........

      >And until I see it in official documentation I will maintain that National does not require these trainings prior to the leaders taking the youth camping.......
      >
      >Connie
      >
      >--- On Mon, 4/22/13, A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com> wrote:
      >
      >Thanks, some of the conversations made "required" sound like a "sentence" rather than what it is, help with the "program"??  

      >This is allegedly a "trainer" site correct, so why all the complaining; again, just a little knowledge makes everything run smoother and we all know the "networking" is the best part of BSA training??  

      .
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • frank
      ...the reason we re following BSAs rules is so we re covered by their insurance... What does that mean? Sounds like the ol insurance boogeyman ploy that has
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        "...the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance..."
        What does that mean? Sounds like the ol' insurance boogeyman ploy that has been repeated over and over for years and years, yet never in print, never in G2SS, never in a syllabus.
         
        "The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they 'require' some training..."
        Mandate? So is it two or some other number?  It is disingenuous and confusing to tell folks "two", and in the same breath say it's more.   When the trainer hems and haws about a rule or a policy, folks taking the training tend to dismiss it and wind up doing what they want for lack of clear direction.
         
        And look at this discussion.  38+ posts between training people and no agreement to a simple question:  is or is not BALOO required? 
         
        This is why I NEVER pay any attention to talk that cannot be backed up in writing. Tell me the rule, and then tell me where I can read more about it.
         
        Frank


        >________________________________
        > From: A. Dukovic <artdukovic@...>
        >To: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:24 PM
        >Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
        >
        >

        >
        >Very true Frank but the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance I'm thinkin??  Yep, we all want the best "program" possible for the boys and nobody really wants to "cancel" an outing for any reason, especially lack of "training" but some Parents unfortunately don't care about getting trained or "helping out" UNTIL Junior comes home complaining that his campout was cancelled for "lack of interest" by Parents?? 

        >The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they "require" some training; being prepared also means trained for what MAY happen I'm thinkin??
        >
        >"Forced to cancel" is better than "why didn't we think of that before" or OOPS after something has happened!!
        >
        >- Art
        >--- On Tue, 4/23/13, frank <mailto:ftooth%40yahoo.com> wrote:
        >
        >From: frank <mailto:ftooth%40yahoo.com>
        >Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
        >To: "mailto:scouter_t%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:scouter_t%40yahoogroups.com>
        >Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 10:43 AM
        >

        >
        >The difference between "required/must" and "best practice" is decidedly different when the unit is "forced" to cancel their outing due to a leader not having completed the training.
        >
        >Frank
        >
        >>________________________________
        >> From: A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com>
        >>  
        >>
        >> 
        >>
        >>I do understand, but my message is the same; to do our best we've got to know just what the heck we're doing and yes, National is messed up at times but who cares??  If the boys are getting the "best" we can offer, who suffers??
        >> 
        >>Again, we know they're going to suffer from a "bad" experience so why take the chance??  I hate folks that make everything "required" and invent rules that aren't there but for Scouting training I always ask just how "comfortable" folks are with what they're going to do?? If an adult doesn't care about his/her "trained" strip but knows what they're doing, they're ahead of the game but if they hesitate I always suggest "training" so they don't look like dopes in front of other adults or the boys especially.
        >> 
        >>Again sorry, "should" or "have to" aren't much different when it affects "program" right??    
        >>
        >>- Art
        >>
        >>--- On Mon, 4/22/13, Connie Knie <mailto:cknie23100%40yahoo.com> wrote:
        >> 
        >>
        >>Ok this may seem like splitting hairs BUT................. there are two different things being discussed.
        >> 
        >>First a disclaimer. I am all about training. I would much rather have all of the leaders trained before they take anyone anywhere...... BUT .......... the discussion started because the thought is that OWL and BALOO are required before a WL can take the youth camping.
        >> 
        >> The discussion is not whether they should be trained but do they have to be...........
        >> 
        >>Yes this is a training group, and misinformation is our worst enemy.........
        >> 
        >>And until I see it in official documentation I will maintain that National does not require these trainings prior to the leaders taking the youth camping.......
        >>
        >>Connie
        >>
        >>--- On Mon, 4/22/13, A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com> wrote:
        >>
        >>Thanks, some of the conversations made "required" sound like a "sentence" rather than what it is, help with the "program"??  
        >> 
        >>This is allegedly a "trainer" site correct, so why all the complaining; again, just a little knowledge makes everything run smoother and we all know the "networking" is the best part of BSA training??  
        >
        >.
        >>
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • A. Dukovic
        Ok, ya got me there??  The 2 thinnest books in Scouting are their Rules & Regulations and Charter & Bylaws which leaves the rest kinda to us; instead of
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Ok, ya got me there??  The 2 thinnest books in Scouting are their "Rules & Regulations" and "Charter & Bylaws" which leaves the rest kinda to us; instead of "volumes" of rules and requirements that only the friggin lawyers can figure out, I like it this way myself.
           
          And yeah, sorry about the "insurance boogeyman" but I've found most adults need an "attention getter" for them to listen at times but I never want to have the need to test the rumor myself??
           

          - Art
          --- On Tue, 4/23/13, frank <ftooth@...> wrote:

          From: frank <ftooth@...>
          Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
          To: "scouter_t@yahoogroups.com" <scouter_t@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 7:38 PM



           



          "...the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance..."
          What does that mean? Sounds like the ol' insurance boogeyman ploy that has been repeated over and over for years and years, yet never in print, never in G2SS, never in a syllabus.
           
          "The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they 'require' some training..."
          Mandate? So is it two or some other number?  It is disingenuous and confusing to tell folks "two", and in the same breath say it's more.   When the trainer hems and haws about a rule or a policy, folks taking the training tend to dismiss it and wind up doing what they want for lack of clear direction.
           
          And look at this discussion.  38+ posts between training people and no agreement to a simple question:  is or is not BALOO required? 
           
          This is why I NEVER pay any attention to talk that cannot be backed up in writing. Tell me the rule, and then tell me where I can read more about it.
           
          Frank

          >________________________________
          > From: A. Dukovic <artdukovic@...>
          >To: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com
          >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:24 PM
          >Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
          >
          >

          >
          >Very true Frank but the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance I'm thinkin??  Yep, we all want the best "program" possible for the boys and nobody really wants to "cancel" an outing for any reason, especially lack of "training" but some Parents unfortunately don't care about getting trained or "helping out" UNTIL Junior comes home complaining that his campout was cancelled for "lack of interest" by Parents?? 

          >The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they "require" some training; being prepared also means trained for what MAY happen I'm thinkin??
          >
          >"Forced to cancel" is better than "why didn't we think of that before" or OOPS after something has happened!!
          >
          >- Art
          >--- On Tue, 4/23/13, frank <mailto:ftooth%40yahoo.com> wrote:
          >
          >From: frank <mailto:ftooth%40yahoo.com>
          >Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
          >To: "mailto:scouter_t%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:scouter_t%40yahoogroups.com>
          >Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 10:43 AM
          >

          >
          >The difference between "required/must" and "best practice" is decidedly different when the unit is "forced" to cancel their outing due to a leader not having completed the training.
          >
          >Frank
          >
          >>________________________________
          >> From: A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com>
          >>  
          >>
          >> 
          >>
          >>I do understand, but my message is the same; to do our best we've got to know just what the heck we're doing and yes, National is messed up at times but who cares??  If the boys are getting the "best" we can offer, who suffers??
          >> 
          >>Again, we know they're going to suffer from a "bad" experience so why take the chance??  I hate folks that make everything "required" and invent rules that aren't there but for Scouting training I always ask just how "comfortable" folks are with what they're going to do?? If an adult doesn't care about his/her "trained" strip but knows what they're doing, they're ahead of the game but if they hesitate I always suggest "training" so they don't look like dopes in front of other adults or the boys especially.
          >> 
          >>Again sorry, "should" or "have to" aren't much different when it affects "program" right??    
          >>
          >>- Art
          >>
          >>--- On Mon, 4/22/13, Connie Knie <mailto:cknie23100%40yahoo.com> wrote:
          >> 
          >>
          >>Ok this may seem like splitting hairs BUT................. there are two different things being discussed.
          >> 
          >>First a disclaimer. I am all about training. I would much rather have all of the leaders trained before they take anyone anywhere...... BUT .......... the discussion started because the thought is that OWL and BALOO are required before a WL can take the youth camping.
          >> 
          >> The discussion is not whether they should be trained but do they have to be...........
          >> 
          >>Yes this is a training group, and misinformation is our worst enemy.........
          >> 
          >>And until I see it in official documentation I will maintain that National does not require these trainings prior to the leaders taking the youth camping.......
          >>
          >>Connie
          >>
          >>--- On Mon, 4/22/13, A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com> wrote:
          >>
          >>Thanks, some of the conversations made "required" sound like a "sentence" rather than what it is, help with the "program"??  
          >> 
          >>This is allegedly a "trainer" site correct, so why all the complaining; again, just a little knowledge makes everything run smoother and we all know the "networking" is the best part of BSA training??  
          >
          >.
          >>
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • jlshannon
          Has anyone consulted their commissioner about their concerns? Commissioners are there to help get the answers that you need to run your programs. Sent from my
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Has anyone consulted their commissioner about their concerns? Commissioners are there to help get the answers that you need to run your programs.

            Sent from my iPhone

            On Apr 23, 2013, at 8:34 PM, "A. Dukovic" <artdukovic@...> wrote:

            > Ok, ya got me there?? The 2 thinnest books in Scouting are their "Rules & Regulations" and "Charter & Bylaws" which leaves the rest kinda to us; instead of "volumes" of rules and requirements that only the friggin lawyers can figure out, I like it this way myself.
            >
            > And yeah, sorry about the "insurance boogeyman" but I've found most adults need an "attention getter" for them to listen at times but I never want to have the need to test the rumor myself??
            >
            >
            > - Art
            > --- On Tue, 4/23/13, frank <ftooth@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: frank <ftooth@...>
            > Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
            > To: "scouter_t@yahoogroups.com" <scouter_t@yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 7:38 PM
            >
            >
            >
            > "...the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance..."
            > What does that mean? Sounds like the ol' insurance boogeyman ploy that has been repeated over and over for years and years, yet never in print, never in G2SS, never in a syllabus.
            >
            > "The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they 'require' some training..."
            > Mandate? So is it two or some other number? It is disingenuous and confusing to tell folks "two", and in the same breath say it's more. When the trainer hems and haws about a rule or a policy, folks taking the training tend to dismiss it and wind up doing what they want for lack of clear direction.
            >
            > And look at this discussion. 38+ posts between training people and no agreement to a simple question: is or is not BALOO required?
            >
            > This is why I NEVER pay any attention to talk that cannot be backed up in writing. Tell me the rule, and then tell me where I can read more about it.
            >
            > Frank
            >
            > >________________________________
            > > From: A. Dukovic <artdukovic@...>
            > >To: scouter_t@yahoogroups.com
            > >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:24 PM
            > >Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >Very true Frank but the reason we're following BSAs rules is so we're covered by their insurance I'm thinkin?? Yep, we all want the best "program" possible for the boys and nobody really wants to "cancel" an outing for any reason, especially lack of "training" but some Parents unfortunately don't care about getting trained or "helping out" UNTIL Junior comes home complaining that his campout was cancelled for "lack of interest" by Parents??
            > >
            > >The minimum is 2 deep we all know, but trips to the hospital, emergencies, etc. mandate more leaders are always needed which is why they "require" some training; being prepared also means trained for what MAY happen I'm thinkin??
            > >
            > >"Forced to cancel" is better than "why didn't we think of that before" or OOPS after something has happened!!
            > >
            > >- Art
            > >--- On Tue, 4/23/13, frank <mailto:ftooth%40yahoo.com> wrote:
            > >
            > >From: frank <mailto:ftooth%40yahoo.com>
            > >Subject: Re: [Scouter_T] FW: Scouting Safely: Question
            > >To: "mailto:scouter_t%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:scouter_t%40yahoogroups.com>
            > >Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 10:43 AM
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >The difference between "required/must" and "best practice" is decidedly different when the unit is "forced" to cancel their outing due to a leader not having completed the training.
            > >
            > >Frank
            > >
            > >>________________________________
            > >> From: A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>I do understand, but my message is the same; to do our best we've got to know just what the heck we're doing and yes, National is messed up at times but who cares?? If the boys are getting the "best" we can offer, who suffers??
            > >>
            > >>Again, we know they're going to suffer from a "bad" experience so why take the chance?? I hate folks that make everything "required" and invent rules that aren't there but for Scouting training I always ask just how "comfortable" folks are with what they're going to do?? If an adult doesn't care about his/her "trained" strip but knows what they're doing, they're ahead of the game but if they hesitate I always suggest "training" so they don't look like dopes in front of other adults or the boys especially.
            > >>
            > >>Again sorry, "should" or "have to" aren't much different when it affects "program" right??
            > >>
            > >>- Art
            > >>
            > >>--- On Mon, 4/22/13, Connie Knie <mailto:cknie23100%40yahoo.com> wrote:
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>Ok this may seem like splitting hairs BUT................. there are two different things being discussed.
            > >>
            > >>First a disclaimer. I am all about training. I would much rather have all of the leaders trained before they take anyone anywhere...... BUT .......... the discussion started because the thought is that OWL and BALOO are required before a WL can take the youth camping.
            > >>
            > >> The discussion is not whether they should be trained but do they have to be...........
            > >>
            > >>Yes this is a training group, and misinformation is our worst enemy.........
            > >>
            > >>And until I see it in official documentation I will maintain that National does not require these trainings prior to the leaders taking the youth camping.......
            > >>
            > >>Connie
            > >>
            > >>--- On Mon, 4/22/13, A. Dukovic <mailto:artdukovic%40yahoo.com> wrote:
            > >>
            > >>Thanks, some of the conversations made "required" sound like a "sentence" rather than what it is, help with the "program"??
            > >>
            > >>This is allegedly a "trainer" site correct, so why all the complaining; again, just a little knowledge makes everything run smoother and we all know the "networking" is the best part of BSA training??
            > >
            > >.
            > >>
            > >
            > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.