Scouts-L Mail Archive for August of 1999: Re: I'M WRONG re: parent camping
Re: I'M WRONG re: parent camping
Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:34:44 -0400
I do NOT think training is necessarily bad. I do think it is
counterproductive in most cases, and certainly in what-if scenarios, to
REQUIRE it before a parent can participate.
Playing devil's advocate for a bit ...
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Jim Peterson wrote:
> per scout in our district. Our troop policy states that if you want to
> attend camping activities with the troop you must register, attend SM
> Fundamentals (a two weekend, two weeknight course), attend troop meetings
> regularly. The ONLY exceptions we make to this rule are that we will
> accept registrations and leadership from Eagle scouts IF they commit to get
> SMF training within a year. Our summer camp leader attendance policy is
> even more strict. Our current numbers are 78 scouts and 30 VERY ACTIVE
And your answer when some parent who does not WISH to do all that DOES
wish to see goes on while you have custody of his son? What is it you're
doing that he can't even observe until he's been indoctrinated/brainwashed?
> I FIRMLY believe that holding a firm line on training INCREASES parental
> involvement for these reasons:
> 1. As most any marketing pro will tell you...."if it's free, it's not valued".
May I mention "fresh" air, sunlight, and life?
> 2. The more training one gets, the more respect they have for the program and
> the more interested they become in being PERSONALLY involved in delivering
> the promise.
NO, that's not what happens. The more training one gets, the more VESTED
one becomes in continuing the status-quo. It becomes a matter of holding
on to one's own status by denying similar status to others.
> 3. Training makes them more confident and successful at being good leaders.
> Everyone wants to be successful.
It makes them THINK they are more successful at leading. There's a
> 4. As your troop begins to boast of the increased numbers of registered scouts
> and leaders and as you boast of your adult leadership cadre being 100%
> trained, your troop becomes even more desireable. Success breeds success.
(g) well, sure ... those who don't have star upon thars always want 'em
because those who do brag about having 'em. That does NOT necessarily
make stars q e d desirable, anymore than my bragging about my 15-yr-old
Swedish Ivy makes it universally desirable for everyone to have one.
> In addition, I don't know about your council's policy, but our council
> provides liability insurance for registered leaders. If you take
I don't know anything about the NCAC's policy here, but I was under the
impression that it covered everyone who was ACTING IN A LEADERSHIP CAPACITY.
> non-registered adults on a campout and something happens to scouts in
> his/her charge, you just opened your window of liability.....obviously, YOU
> approved this adult as competent.
I fail to see how YOU can be held responsible for MY inability to keep
HIS son from tripping over HER son's sleeping bag and breaking his wrist
when he falls. This is very much like a school field trip -- you need
chaperones, not instructors; and so far as I am aware, not even here in
sue-happy NCAC are chaperones required to be certified teachers,
employees of the school system, or even responsible. The Good Lord knows
these folks turned our son son loose in douwntown Baltimore on more than
one occasion with the rather nonspecific admonition to "be careful and meet
me back here in two hours." [Of course, I also fail to see how a mother
"contributed to the delinquency of a minor" by leaving said minor in a
car in the parking lot. Is it now illegal to sit in a car in a parking
lot? Mind, I think it was stupid for her to do it, but I can't
quite wrap my mind around the use of contributing here -- Steve? any
clue what the thinking is?]
And, while I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea for all registered
leaders to be trained, I don't agree that training should be REQUIRED for
participation. What is it you're doing with the boys you don't want me
to see until I've signed on as partially responsible?