fred8033

BadepP wrote: "The saddest scenario for me about this whole mess is I had some friends over for dinner the other night and in my den they saw some of the scouting awards I have received over the years, and a couple mentioned to me, "Why are you even involved with an organization that does nothing to protect their youth, I am very glad we never allowed our sons to join boy scouts." Some of the others chimed in agreeing, none cared about YPT saying it was way too little and way too late. My two sons were there, both Eagle scouts, tried to defend the BSA but the others told them "You two were ju

Eagle92 - It's not a matter of splitting by levels as one unit running two parralle programs. So one committee. One COR. One unit. BUT, make pack meetings are smaller because only the lions, tigers and wolves meet together. Then the Bears and Webelos meet in a different room, different time or different place. I think splitting into two separate units that recruit from the same source begs for big future problems. I think having separate pack meetings helps solve an issue of the age differential between K and 5th grade being too great.

#1 We will NOT transfer funds if the scout switches units. It's a situation we have not faced yet, but we documented the policy in advance. We believe that the troop program supported the scout raising the funds to participate in the troop's program. If he wants to participate in a different program, that's between him and his new troop. The existing funds were to support his participating in our troop. ... #2 On the flip side, we may let a scout cash out a scout account IF it can be considered a "reimbursement" of personal payments. The family MUST have personally paid in mor

A few years ago, our DE started suggesting we think about splitting because of our pack's size. It never went anywhere, but I was thinking that if we did continue to grow (not an issue this year) we would not arbitrarily split as much as split by rank as to have manageable pack meetings and events. Right now, I'd be tempted to split it by Cubs versus Webelos. Keep one committee and one COR and one unit. But run two parrallel programs. Just a thought.

Roundtable training and breakouts are way too hit and miss. IMHO, that's why roundtable attendance is so bad. People get burned a few times and stop coming. They only keep coming if they make personal connections. That's why I prefer the online training. Consistency, high quality and available when I'm ready to take it. I only go to round table for the in-person discussions and learning thru conversation.

BadedP wrote: "... then they were violating the law ..." You don't know that. It's just a reactionary statement to an ugly situation. From what I understand, mandatory reporting laws did not start applying to scouts leaders until recently, if even now, and the current laws vary state to state. In most cases I've read, parents knew the details. Did the parents violate the law? Did the police violate the law when they did not prosecute?

I've been reading the files from my state. I'm fine with how BSA handled that set of cases (10 so far) ... that I've read so far. I haven't seen any burying their head or hiding cases or protecting the bad guy. If anything, I've seen an effort to get complete information, record what happened and a strong effort to keep the person out of scouting. ... By today's standards, everycase would have been handled very different. But by the standards of 1960 to 1985, I'm fine with how BSA handled the cases. If anything, I'd say they showed professionalism. Several of the documents

Beavah wrote: "Perhaps we should put together a little group to do an investigation of da full release, and give a comprehensive picture instead of cherry-pickin' da worst incidents." Good suggestion. I'd be interested in the statistics trended over time. Essentially, 1965 versus 1985. I say that because the 1st national legislation on child abuse was in the 1970s, but that was focused on the battered child syndrome. Awareness on predatory abuse didn't start until the mid 1980s. As awareness and society changed, I'd like to see how that affected the organizational behavior. B

Great thread and good discussion. Glad to see everything worked out. I try to remember that as a registered leader YP doesn't end when the meeting is done. I'm still a registered leader outside of the activities and the YP rules still apply for my interactions with the scouting youth.

It really depends on your scouts. There have been times when our SM could not attend and I (CC) was the lead adult along with an ASM. I have no problem if two adults take 20 or more Boy Scouts on a camp out. Heck, the boys are to run it and have their program. BUT ... we currently have several special needs scouts, both autistic and emotional disorders. As such, we staff to deal with it. But if we did not have those scouts with us, I'd be perfectly fine with two-deep leadership. ... The year before I joined the troop, the SM only had one other adult at summer camp for t

Twocubdad - "never seen a cub earn rank?" - Not sure where you are coming from. The only cub rank requirement for the cub promise and law are in bobcat. Those requirements are "learn and say" for promise and just "say" for law. We use that as a time of dicussion about the parts of the promise and what it means to be a scout. I've never seen that requirement interpretted as memorize. The only memorize requirement is for AOL where it says "repeat from memory". If "learn and say" was to mean memorize, then AOL requirement would not say "repeat from memory". So when I say I've never m

Great change. In twelve years of cub scouting, I've yet to meet a den leader or cubmaster that knew the promise or law of pack by heart. Cubs were worse. Every former Boy Scout knows scout law and oath.

We have to write a check for $17.50 to pay for the background check.

Just reading the referenced policy. It was updated in April but announced to parents today in our school's daily email. The big change is that it's now like scouting in that you pay to volunteer. LOL. "The employee or volunteer will pay an amount for the criminal history background check that does not exceed the actual cost of the service. An applicant who accepts employment will be responsible for paying the cost of the criminal history background check, with the amount deducted out of the first paycheck the employee receives. School or program volunteers must provide a money

Our school district just announced radical new procedures. The school district adopted the idea that volunteers need to fill out an application to register as a volunteer. New also is background checks for volunteers who server as chaperones or interact with students without staff supervision. So before now, if you chaperoned a 5th grade field trip that stayed overnight in a hotel, you didnt need a background check. Now, you do. Pretty ground breaking ideas for thirty years ago. I was surprised five years ago when our state started requiring background checks for school

Amazing how the people wanting "flexible" youth protection policies are the same leaders willing to ding scouts because of minor issues during scout events or outside scouting events. I view that as hypocritical and I've seen many scouts complain about such hypocritical leaders. Hypocritical or not, it's a power struggle. An organization that says here's the rules and leaders that say they can't live within those rules. .... Oak Tree: "The G2SS doesn't allow Boy Scouts to drive "for Scouting activities". So does this mean I have to tell my 16 and 17-year-old Scouts that th

Beavah - You continue to twist information. I do see it that way. CDC and BSA have pretty clear statements. Your interpretations take work to arrive at the conclusions and are done by choosing tangential points to justify violating the key statements. When CDC says organizations should clarify, our organization has clarified. That's BSA. BSA chose the CDC recommended 1st path of no one-on-one contact. From the dark shadows of anonimity, you don't get to claim experience and authority; and, to choose an interpretation that on first sight and second sight directly contradicts the BS

yadda yadda yadda ... The danger isn't about false positives and statistics. The danger is in justifying "interpretting" youth protection rules because of tangential distacting arguements like the statistics of false positives. If you notice an adult going into a bathroom with a non-related youth such that they would be alone together for a period of time, you mention it to the adult that it's something we try to avoid. If it's a pattern that ASM X goes into the bathroom when scout Y is in there, then you deal with it. If you hear a scout can't come to a meeting because he doesn't

qwazse: Your riding the bus with your venturer is not an issue. DeanRx: This is not about being the moral police or monitoring non-BSA people outside BSA events. Beavah - You have a truely evil gift to twist peoples words. I've read the document. The CDC never says one-on-one contact is necessary. CDC's first advice is "Limit one-on-one contact". It gives three options of which BSA has chosen NO one-on-one contact. That's the policy. If ya don't like it, you should never have signed a leader application. I don't have BSA's reasoning, but I suspect BSA chose no one-on

Beavah, It's more than a claim. And youre saying you've dealt with more because of your profession and experiences is ignorant of at least 50% of the facts. Youve asked for evidence or reasoning. The trouble is that most of this is obvious common sense. Obvious that you follow the rules that youve put your name on the paper to follow. Obvious that you set an example by your own actions. Obvious that an organization that attracts child abusers needs to take child abuse seriously. Obvious that your example set boundaries that others use for appropriate behavior. That if you let

Beavah - I have no trouble believing you and most scouters mean well. One time events because of exceptional situations (car full of popcorn, etc), tolerable. Not preferred, but tolerable. Also, someone else can define if driving your "god-son" home is driving a "related" youth. But let's be clear. CHILD ABUSE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION YOUR TAKING. Absolutely. I'll stick with what I said. And this is not an extreme of being on an internet forum. If you regularly drive a non-related youth to and from scout meetings, I may or may not confront you on it ... depending on our

"active user number" - meaningless data. Press refresh 10 times and it increases by at least ten. Poor algorithm for deciding who's active.

Beavah, Often your advice is excellent. Often, debatable. But your advice in this thread is indefensible. It scares me that a BSA registered leader says this. It scares me that people might listen to you. And don't for a second cloak your advice and fallacious arguments in being Christian or doing a good deed. It is NOT a personal decision. We MUST follow BSA youth protection policies. No one-on-one contact is a key barrier to abuse. Once you have signed your BSA leader application, that rule applies between you and scouts whether you are in a uniform or not; whether it is

???? Big time virus infection?

SeattlePioneer wrote: "You return to your chartered organization after an outing. Parents stop by to pick up their Scout. One Scout is left over --- no parent has appeared to pick him up and you have no contact with the parent. What would you do? " ... Plan to have another of the leaders have his scouts picked up there too. Or have one of the parents wait with you until the last scout is picked up. .... Eagle92 wrote: Dad needing tarp situation ... No youth protection violation. That's one reason why we need two leaders on a camp out. One reason is to prevent abuse. Another