mds3d

7 hours ago, willray said:

Oh come on, it's too early in the day for blindsiding people with that kind wit.  I now need to clean the coffee out of my keyboard.

We've been on EPIC, I think pretty much from the start - probably 15?  17 years now?  And our physicians still need to keep backup paper copies of their charting records because EPIC so reliably loses or corrupts them.  My PCP, as well as a couple specialists, have been re-entering the same data about a cardiac event I suffered, at every visit for going on 4 years now, and the fact that I have a stent still comes as a surprise to every new clinician I interact with, because EPIC just keeps losing the data.

Don't trust EMRs to provide accurate information.  Not now, and probably not any time in our lifetimes.  The bureaucratic purpose for EPIC is as a billing system, not as a system to enable clinicians to provide care.  Unless you believe that some day bureaucrats are going to prioritize something other than their own interests, I wouldn't hold out much hope that it's going to improve.

Will 

While exchange of information isn't quite a simple as presented, there must be something wrong with your Epic build.  I have never experienced any data loss or corruption with Epic. None of the physicians work with keep paper copies of anything. 

17 hours ago, willray said:

I'm afraid I have to differ.  Having had one of our adults go down, with what looked like a heart attack when we were on an overnight weekend campout, I'm grateful for the medical history details in our adult medical forms.  We weren't at Philmont, we were just at a small state park campsite in Ohio, 20-minutes dead run from the nearest cell phone signal, and about an hour from the nearest emergency-response team that could launch an ambulance.  You don't need to be in the backcountry to need information now, and for that information to be critical for keeping you alive.  "They're an adult, they can tell you what you need to know if you need to know it" doesn't work, when they're unconscious.

I am curious what you did about this adult who went down and how you handled the situation differently than if you hadn't known his history. 

I am a big advocate for medical alert dog tags that include emergency contacts with all your info. I also never advocated that people can tell you things as you need it but that are things that just don't need to be shared. 

I'll give an example.  I have epilepsy.  It is 100% controlled on my medication.  I don't tell people about it because they freak out and if I have a seizure what they really need to know is first aid, not that I have a history of it.  

I am on the side of this discussion that thinks you don't want the BSA to try to even self-enforce HIPAA style privacy on BSA medical forms.  

First, my reasoning behind the thought.  HIPAA is important of several reasons. First, because interaction with healthcare is an essential activity.  You might need to go to the hospital where people know you.  Second, you don't have any real measure of control over what goes in your chart or who views it.  This in addition to the fact that many people from your nurse, to a pharmacy technician, to the lab staff, to the billing department, to your insurance company will need to view your information to treat, charge, and pay for your care. Because you don't have control or even knowledge of all the people who have a legitimate need to view your info, then it increases the likelihood that someone will accidentally or intentionally violate your privacy.  For example, someone might loose a copy of your charge sheet or the preacher's wife might work in the lab that found your STD.  This increase in risk with necessary actions increases the need for protection of your health data. 

You BSA health record is a voluntary document.  I know you have to have it for some activities, but you don't need to participate in those activities. I and the people who you volunteer for are glad you do, but you don't need to.  Additionally, the number of people who need to see your information is very limited and in most circumstances you have a great deal of control.  Personally, I like the idea of a sealed envelope that is returned to you with the additional question asked of "Do we need to know anything about your medical history ahead of time?"

Finally, I think the BSA should take the policy of "do we really need to know this information?" This is called a minimum necessary policy. If someone has medications that an adult who is not a guardian needs to handle we need to know that, if you have an allergy that requires you to carry and epi-pen we need to know that, if you have a history that might change how we react to a situation (like diabetes) we need to know that, if you have a history of cancer/depression/stroke we don't need to know that.  I would even argue that very few things fall into that third statement. If your doctor has to sign your form and you have something you are uncomfortable sharing talk to your doctor about if it really needs to be shared. I am sure there is a reasonable middle ground that doesn't require disclosure of everything. 

The interactions I have had with SE's regarding Lone Scouts are much of what has been described.  They are usually only approved when all other options are not available. They are not usually approved when it is just what the family prefers for one reason or another. 

I understand why you might not, but you will definitely get better answers here if you explain how you came to decided Lone Scouting was for your son.  

1 minute ago, qwazse said:

Fine point: linked troops share the same number. So ... /Troop100/Boys and ... /Troop100/Girls?

or /GirlsTroop /BoysTroop or /Troop-Girls or just /Boys /Girls.

If they share a number could easy do Troop100(someidentifertodistinguishyoufromalletheothers).org/boys  and /girls or boys.troop100.org

On 10/23/2018 at 5:55 PM, Buggie said:

Reading this made me wonder, do they have the "Communication" MB book on audio? 

Yes, my mind goes to strange places. 

They sure do!

LearningAlly used to be Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. They used to send my brother his required reading (on 4 track tapes!).  What bothers me about them is that they restrict access to those with documented print reading disabilities.  It made sense when audiobooks use to be so hard to come by, but they just aren't anymore (they still charge $135/year).   I really think that there is nothing wrong with the audio medium for learning. It would be great for those audio learners to be able to have that additional resource even though they can read.  

I think a lot depends on how much sense linking your troops on the web makes.  You still want your website to be good outreach.  Sharing information within the troop is good but can be accomplished without a website.  It may benefit you to make sure anyone who sees your website also sees you have a girls unit (and a pack or crew if applicable).  Let's say that your troops are sponsored by the St. Mark's Church.  You could register StMarksScouts.org or ScoutsStMarks.org or something similar.  The landing page for your home page could give general information and then offer links to each unit.  This way it will point people who need it to your linked troop and allows you to share resources more easily.  If your CO also sponsors a pack and crew then it would be easy to link them in the same place.  Each unit is responsible for their own subdomain or subpages (StMarksScouts.org/Troop100 and StMarksScouts.org/Troop101 and even StMarksScouts/Crew102).  

After having thought about it, then I think I have had a more formed opinion.  

This boy might need scouts, but he doesn't need this troop. Whether or not to bring this to the authorities is probably a personal decision as a parent.  As a Scoutmaster, I don't think you can make any decision to tell this boys parents that effective immediately he is not welcome at troop meetings.  The troop can be informed that you need to elect a new SPL because the previous one so violated the scout oath and law he will no longer be a part of the troop.  The ones who were there will get the point from that I think.  

If anyone else finds themselves in this kind of situation...

This is first a problem to handle as a parent.  Have you done all the things you would have done if these boys were not scouts and you were not their SM?   Only after that should any action be taken in regard to the Troop.  This is definitely a matter to bring in your CC/COR and SE in on.  Not only because you are the Scoutmaster in this situation, but also because this is pretty serious stuff.   "Boys will be boys" doesn't apply here.  

Here are things to be careful of, IMHO... Be careful of holding the entire group at fault.  As adults where the dynamic is known, inaction can be associated with approval.  In a group of young boys who we have no idea about the dynamic here (i.e. is the SPL a bully to the whole group? Did they not react because they thought it was funny or because no one has addressed how to react to things like this).  Finally if you can, take a step back, and think about what scouting does for these boys.  I continue to think that sometimes the boys that cause the most problems need scouting the most.  

If significant action is taken by the troop, might I suggest that the right person to talk with the boys is their parents, not the leaders.

9 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

The answer varies across the scale.  You have some units where the CO's word is law, and you have others where the CO is either virtually non-existent or gives SM complete reign in delivering program as he/she sees fit.

Our case is the latter.  Our CO is a CO in paperwork only.

I think that there are definitely correct/appropriate options along this scale along with inappropriate ones.  I am still really not sure where the CO would be exerting their influence when it comes to advancement.  Other things, sure... If a CO wants the troop to always stop some where for Mass on Sunday, or require trips avoid holy days that is reasonable.  If a CO wants the troop to refuse to advance scouts that they deem irreverent or unclean simply because they don't meet some non-BSA specified standard, then that might be a step too far. 

Why was Learning for Life not already following the same YPT guidelines as the BSA?

4 hours ago, acco40 said:

I'm very direct so . . .

The Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement in a troop.  The CO is in charge of selecting/approving a Scoutmaster.  So . . .

It really is that simple. 

That isn't quite as direct as I think you mean it.  In what way does a Scoutmaster exert this influence when administering the method of Advancement?  I would say that a Scoutmaster is in charge of delivering/directing the program of which Advancement is a part.  National is in charge of how a scout advances.  

Quote

1. As a Life Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God, how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life, and how your understanding of the Scout Oath and Scout Law will guide your life in the future. List on your Eagle Scout Rank Application the names of individuals who know you personally and would be willing to provide a recommendation on your behalf, including parents/guardians, religious (if not affiliated with an organized religion, then the parent or guardian provides this reference), educational, employer (if employed), and two other references.

^This is the only relevant portion of the requirements for Eagle.  Does the scout have an answer to this question?  Where has he violated the oath and law that others have not?  If you are interpreting this from a Christian perspective, I refer you to  James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (NIV)"  Is your board of review going to hold every scout to keeping the law perfectly?  Are Eagles supposed to be sinless?

As for the scoutmaster in your second example, I think he was in the wrong and wish the scout would appeal that decision to a higher authority. 

I used badge magic a couple of times.  It isn't great for patches that need to be exchanged (like rank) but I have had decent results (better than my sewing) with patches that are more permanent (Council, etc). I have rehabbed several donated shirts by getting the patches off with goof off and then taken the shirts to the dry cleaners to have the residue removed.  Most of the shirts came out almost good as new.  

I think that "official" here might mean "officially licensed" by the BSA in partnership with Thorlo.  For what it is worth, I have both hiking socks and running socks by thorlo and I love both. 

I am an eagle scout now in my 30s.  Throughout my young adult life I have volunteered off and on.  Most recently I was a Unit Commissioner.  We have now moved and I have taken a 2nd shift M-F job.  I would still like to volunteer, but have no idea how with my schedule. I would love to be a UC again, but would never be able to attend District meetings.  

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.  

I would say leave them be on this one.  I feel like you could only make it worse by being involved.  Unofficial online communication between youths is up to parents to police not Scout Leaders.  If for some reason an adult is invited, make sure at least 2 adults are included as being the sole adult involved in the communications would be a big no-no.  

I think there is a difference between caring about money and caring about solvency.  I want the BSA to do what needs to be done to stay solvent.  I am not convinced that was the only reason for this decision. Is any part of the BSA for-profit, or is there a concern with the salary of executives (haven't heard this complaint about the BSA before)?

Unrelated: I think it highly likely that Packs will be truly co-ed before long, however I think that Troops may stay separate longer (though I agree its probably inevitable that it will be permitted).  I think it is significant that they didn't do girls and boys patrols even though that would be easier than segregated dens. 

@@mds3d, just as a rule of thumb: keep the press outside the gate! 

I still feels like this falls under "shouldn't" instead of "can't." Being involved in both heathcare and education, if I say that I "can't" talk about it, I mean that if I do, I could be sued, be fired, loose my professional license, or go to jail if I talk about something. There aren't regulations that prevent the pack from discussing this, and as far as I can find there aren't any BSA rules that prevent it.  They have already been identified (and targeted apparently since their website is now gone), so anonymity isn't the motivation. The only reason I can come up with for not talking about it was that whatever they had to say would have made it worse (or opened them up for lawsuit).

Well, I think the articles left it unclear whether he was removed from the pack.  Where did you see that he ended up in a different den in the same pack?  If that is the case it isn't worthy of much attention.

My impression from reading a combination of articles is that he was originally told that he could not be in that den anymore, and Mom decided that she would rather him complete his Webelos year in another pack.

This is likely a personality issue that blew up. The scout was not thrown out of the pack, as previously reported. He ended up in a different den within the same pack. We hear the mom's side but not the den leader's or pack's side because they can't talk about it. Mom immediately posts a video to get attention rather than talk to the CC. I have no doubt the mom and den leader butt heads over politics. So what's new here? Pushy mom, tired DL, hot potato questions with a loon politician. Surprise! Scout Changes Den Because of Personality Conflicts Related to Politics, news at 10.

 

I feel like others have asked this.  Where do you get that the pack "can't" talk about it.  I will grant that they won't or that they think they shouldn't, or that they are likely to gain nothing from speaking out so late, but I can't find any reason that they couldn't give their side of the story. 

I think many involved in this discussion are projecting their personal experiences with difficult parents onto the situation in order to easily come up with justification for the unit's action.  In the same way, others outside the scouting community are using their preconceived views about the nature of the BSA to blame this action on the organization as a whole.

I don't mind being on the news. I have held public office, so I have been in the newspapers plenty of times. It doesn't scare me. I do, however, mind being misquoted or having my position mischaracterized by a politically biased or sensationalistic press.

 

I would never throw an employee or volunteer under the bus just to avoid the glare of the press. Never.

It's not about throwing someone under the bus.  Assuming none of the information we have is false, one of the theories is the Den Leader gave a "them or me" ultimatum regarding this particular family.  We could run under the assumption that this was not a long running issue but that the Den Leader had an issue with the one particular family.  That give the Pack Leader (CC) a choice, remove the boy or remove leader.  I was saying that I would have remove the leader in this circumstance. 

Can someone direct me to where this is at on the blog?  I don't follow the blog and I don't see anything regarding this when I try to find it (the topic, not the blog).  thx

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/09/05/exceptions-second-class-first-class-swimming-requirements-benefit-scouts-live-far-water/

There is a lot of speculation going on in this thread. I think we can only really form honest opinions from the facts we have availiable. Can I image a situation where this would be justified? Probably, but most of those would result in removal of the boy from the Pack entirely, not just the Den. However, given what we know, this does seem like an extreme reaction. 

A couple of other thoughts:

Regarding the recording, does anyone have a video/photo policy explicitly outlined in their unit?  I have never heard of one, and I don't imagine anyone saw this as a problem.  Maybe she is the mom that usually documents these kinds of things.  In the era of good cell phone video, it is nothing for me to decide to record something my kids are doing. I would have absolutely recorded this. 

Regarding the nature of his question, I have no problem believing this kid thought of this on his own.  Yes, his mom might be politically active, but if so that only increases the likelihood this scout has already been exposed to these kind of issues.  It is also a particularly contemporary one.  Also, it only makes sense that his mom would have influenced the question, what boy his age has political opinions different than their parents.  If this mom had already caused similar problems, who's brilliant idea was it to set up this meeting in the first place?

Regarding privacy: I deal with both HIPAA and FERPA on a daily basis, and while this is similar to the way schools and hospitals handle these kinds of things I am pretty sure the motivation is not the same. I am sure this is CYA on behalf of the council and national. They don't want to say anything specific until they decide if this was justified.  They might come down on the side of the unit and they might come down on the side of the boy. To say anything before that decision would not be wise.  I am sure the unit was given the same advice. Credit Mom for not naming names. I still can't come up with any regulations that keep anyone from providing more specifics that would support the units decision. They know that the longer they wait, the less likely they will have any impact on the image portrayed in the media.  This isn't likely to stay news for long.  

While this might have been an effort to keep a den leader, I truly hope it wasn't.  I would imagine that CC is regretting his decision now.  No individual volunteer is worth being on the news.

I just want to give a few thoughts.  I am not a current scouter, but have been an ASM and a UC.  

When I heard the announcement, I'll admit that I was excited.  I have a daughter in kindergarten, and would love for her to have the opportunity for the experience I had in scouts.  I looked into  GSUSA in our area.  None of the girl scout troops I talked to have any interest in focusing on the outdoors ("that is what camp is for").  They all seem really focused on business skills (cookies) and crafts. None were interested in dad involvement and most told me that they didn't allow fathers to participate. The one AHG group in the area told me that they felt it would be inappropriate for a male to come along on trips, but I could come if my wife was there. 

To say I was disappointed would be an understatement.  Now, I am hopeful.  I just hope that there are packs in the area willing to go "co-ed."  I think there was a hole in what was being offered to girls as far as scouting type programs go.  I can't imagine there will be any need to change the cub program at all, and I really can't find anything in the Boy Scout requirements that will need to change. I imagine that the OA will be the real sticking point. My guess is that we will see a co-ed OA with a drastic change in the way ceremonies are handled. 

I wonder if the announcement was made with less of a plan because National no longer felt they could continue the discussion without it being obvious what they had decided. They could have waited, but that would have given less time between the announcement and the program year start for people to both get ready for the change and to get over/through the idea the change was happening.  

Now, I just have to convince my wife that this is a good idea...

I don't post much, but had a thought here.  This seems like an article written by someone who thinks he remembers what scouting is like today.  I agree it isn't perfect. However, the fact that he seems to point to some things that are factually incorrect makes me think this was not targeted toward people who actually had experience with the modern BSA.  I'm curious, is there any rule that prohibits filleting and cooking a fish or running at camp (I know this isn't enforced at our camp except on the dock at the waterfront and inside the dining hall. I disagree with his points about the OA, as my experience was absolutely "richly gratifying."

Side note: A case of the "fumes" doesn't have anything to do with a negative stigma against scouting so much as it has to do with these new found interests that take up teenage boys time.   His Ben Franklin quote seems profoundly irrelevant as well.