Regulation Redux

I received a few e-mails with questions regarding my previous post and I wanted to clarify a few points.  When I began writing yesterday I was pulled away for things here and there at work and at the end of the day there was so much I wanted to write I found myself paraphrasing more.  So let me try to be direct about a few of my points.

I believe in regulations and I believe in standards.  However, if we are going to have regulations and standards then ALL Boy Scout resident camps (not Venturing, not National High Adventure, not Cub Scout Day/Resident camps) must adhere to them, no exceptions.  If that is the case then the standards have to be a) succinct, b) practical, c) reasonably attainable.  Mandatory standards should be one of safety such as clean drinking water, safe buildings, safe equipment, etc.  Things that put life and limb at risk and if the mandatory standard cannot be met then the camp is closed until those deficiencies are met.  It doesn't operate conditionally, it doesn't operate temporarily, it is shut down (the health department would if we had an outbreak of any suspected disease).  That makes the "mandatory" standards that much more important, as they have the proverbial teeth.  As far as the rest of the standards that pertain to quality go, then fine....if you get "X" percentage or more then you get an A rating and so on.  These regulations or standards have to have words like "will", "must" and "always" and never "should" or "may" in the requirement.

As far as the volunteer inspectors that come around to visit each year, I mean no disrespect to these individuals who give their time as well as travel expenses to come and visit our camp.  However if you are to take these standards seriously then you need to have people who understand the professional nature of scouting and the facility.  Every year half of our inspection team barely makes it around the camp.....I have the medic follow close behind with the defibrillator in his hand.  Each one has their pet interests (shooting sports, crafts, etc) and expect you to attain a standard they think should be happening NOT what the published BSA standard states.  The professional Boy Scouts have a vested interest in any facility they run, they should take a vested interest in truly inspecting their camps.

Certification for skill as opposed to Certification for training are two different things.  Being qualified as an expert marksman or as an instructor for rifle or shotgun use doesn't qualify you to manage a BSA rifle range, only NCS certification shows that you have had training on how to run a safe range.  These two things can be one and the same BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE.  Same goes for programs like the tower.  I may hire some guys who work for REI on their climbing wall but that doesn't qualify them to be the tower director, only NCS does that.  NCS doesn't qualify you to be an expert climber or rappeller but it teaches you to run a safe tower.  Can they both be the same?  Sure, but they don't have to be.  Same goes for Aquatics.  My point being is when regulations are so tight that it limits your ability to put on a program without any improvement in safety, you might find yourself regulating yourself out of business.  This is where the standards or regulations must be practical.  Having lots of lifeguards doesn't make your beach more safe and is very impractical as opposed to requiring everyone who gets on a boat to wear life vests which does improve safety and is practical.

Bottom line is that regulations and standards should be in place to assure we are doing our mission and doing it in a safe manner without unnecessarily hindering the challenges we want to undertake.  Despite my statement about standards across the field, if the Scout Executive sanctions some exception, fine.....they are the ones that will be responsible should something happen as a result of that (and that is fair).  When the new version of the standards come out, I hope this idea of practicality is sewn throughout the new policies.