Sentinel947

2 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

How bad is national and LC's hurting for cash. A LC by me is advertising that the DE's will come to you to pick up any new registrations and the money of course. 

They said this is important so scouts can start advancement right away. 

National has been claiming they'll be broke imminently unless the bankruptcy goes through, but color me skeptical until it actually happens. They've been claiming that since they filed bankruptcy in 2020. 

10 hours ago, Muttsy said:

If Mr K is so low in your opinion, why would he oppose the Coalition/BSA Plan where he would stand to make tens of millions of dollars? He has a substantial contingent fee interest in 17000 clients. 
 

Is your devotion to the BSA so extreme that it clouds your perspective of reality?

Have you bothered to study his record? If not, you have no integrity to accuse him the way you have, Mr Boy Scout Skeptic  

 

 

Have you studied @CynicalScouters record? He's been largely critical of the BSA and on the side of the CSA victims. His legal analysis is typically accurate. At one point he was Mr. Kosnoffs favorite poster when He was reading our little website. 

Unless you've forgotten, this is a Scouting forum and the BSA in the Chapter 11 process. Most of the Scouters here would like to see the BSA survive and the victims compensated to the extent possible. If you can't stomach that position, perhaps you shouldn't be here in a Scout leaders forum. 

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think I struck a nerve.

The issue is that the Kosnoff Konspiracy holds that Siverstein was "CHOSEN" (note the word the word here) by BSA.

 

As I noted several times: cases are assigned to bankruptcy judges at RANDOM unless the Clerk of Court was part of the Kosnoff Konspiracy, too.

Which means no, Silverstein was NOT in fact "chosen by BSA". Silverstein was CHOSEN by random draw.

You went from his favorite to not favorite in a pretty short amount of time. 

4 hours ago, MattR said:

Or maybe the criteria for being an asm needs changing. Call an 18 yo that's still in HS a JASM and the problem is solved.

3 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

That doesn't change whether YPT applies to them @18. Whether JASM, ASM or Committee Member the problem is still there. 

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually, JASMs do not need YPT since they are 16 and 17 years old.

I was responding to @MattRs post. What you call an 18 y/o doesn't change anything. I'm aware that currently a JASM is a youth role. 

49 minutes ago, MattR said:

Or maybe the criteria for being an asm needs changing. Call an 18 yo that's still in HS a JASM and the problem is solved.

That doesn't change whether YPT applies to them @18. Whether JASM, ASM or Committee Member the problem is still there. 

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It is more of a statement to those suggesting that somehow carrying YP beyond Scouting should be in the YP material.  Perhaps I misread a few comments, but I got the impression a few thought National actually needed to put that idea into the program.  So, my circuitous thinking is simply that we do not need National or anyone to tell us to live the Oath and Law and other precepts of the program beyond Scouting.  I am old and confuse myself much of the time.  I mean, I still tend to use the left handed, three finger Scout Sign handshake.  But I get confused when confronted with the OA options, particularly since as a Vigil, I guess there is a separate finger grip.  I just let the other person decide how many fingers, but I draw a line at toes.

 

If people always followed the law, and ethical behavior, there wouldn't be a need for YPT rules. 

Because people don't always do that, YPT got created. Because some predators make connections in Scouting, but then commit the abuse outside of Scouting, the BSA has tried to expand YPT to apply outside of Scouting activities. 

I think as a policy it's a good idea, but it's an absolute nightmare to enforce. Well intentioned. 

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Does it make a real difference?  IF we claim to "live the Promise", do we need an official declaration or statement to carry it beyond the program?  Just asking, as my life view has almost always been affected by my Scouting experience.  

I'm not sure I understand your question. 

9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

YP rules were not extended outside of Scouting activities until 2018. So glad I was an 18-20 YO ASM when I was.

Was it really that recent? If so, that makes me feel a little better about my own decisions, but really concerns me that it took them that long. 

Hey @ScoutWithNecker a really neat function of the forum here is "Multiquote." 

You click the little plus sign next to the word "Quote" for all the posts you want to quote. 

Then you hit the button that says "Quote # Posts"
 

1 minute ago, ScoutWithNecker said:

I love the old full-squares.

6 minutes ago, ScoutWithNecker said:

You have a wonderful son.

8 minutes ago, ScoutWithNecker said:

I would never be without a neckerchief and I much prefer to wear mine over the collar.

22 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Which is why my son is not becoming a Scouter, and why I am backing him up in his decision 100%.

It's a loss for your unit, but I agree. I don't see any way for a an 18 year old to live their life normally and be a registered ASM following the YPT rules as written, if they have younger friends still in the Troop. 

Obviously, I'm a hypocrite, because I did it. I'm not sure how aware I was that hanging out with my friends outside of Scouts was a YPT violation. I'd like to say I followed the spirit of the rules, but not the letter of them. But I wouldn't recommend that to somebody else do what I did.

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And yes there are some jobs that do require folks to be one-on-one, and not have 2 adults present. @David COmentioned teachers. I can add health care providers. Do we really need to call National and report all the doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, etc who have had one-on-one contact with Scouts when the Scouts were their patients?

And don't say I do not take  YP policy seriously. You can read about some of the things I have had to deal with on this matter in other posts.

 

Regardless of the application of BSA YPT, I can still make a good argument that many of those professions don't need to alone with a minor all that much. 

Teachers typically have more than one student in the classroom at a time. After school activities typically take place in groups of students. If a student needs additional coaching from a teacher after school, the library or cafeteria could serve as a more public place than an isolated classroom. After the Larry Nassar/USA Gymnastics situation, I'm really questioning how much 1 on 1 contact with a minor a Doc, PA's, NPs, PT's really need without a parent present, especially in an outpatient setting. Maybe very briefly in order to ask embarrassing health questions. I know my pediatrician growing up in the 90's-2000's would ask my parent to step out for a minute to ask those questions, but otherwise they would be present. 

The one that I do think significant 1 on 1 is necessary would be a Mental Health Professional like a Psychiatrist or a Social Worker, who needs to interview or talk to the child privately in order to get accurate information from the minor. In an inpatient pediatric hospital setting, a provider may need to spend significant 1 on 1 time with a patient providing for daily care, assuming the patients parents aren't able to stay with them at the hospital. 

Again, I'm not advocating that the BSA be the ones to draw these distinctions. They aren't qualified to make rules for other organizations and professions. But it would make sense for other professions involving minors to seriously evaluate how much 1 on 1 contact adults have with minors, and whether it's truly relevant and necessary to the performance of those jobs. 

8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

It’s misleading and the brainless MSM report it has real. 

On that note, whenever you become very informed on a topic, you realize the typical journalist is not an expert on the subjects they report on. 

9 hours ago, David CO said:

Sorry.  I have to disagree with you here.  Many people work in jobs/professions that involve contact with children.  You can't expect people to forgo employment in order to comply with YPT.

Should I have quit my teaching job because we did not have 2-deep leadership in my classroom?  That kind of scrutiny to BSA rules would be ridiculous.  

 

Not two deep. 1 on 1. You likely aren't spending significant time alone with an individual student. They're almost always in groups. 

There does end up being some very minimal time where a student and teacher may be alone during a class change because a student is first in, or last out. Normally the hallway is filled with activity, so it's not really 1 on 1. 

Where there becomes some significant risk is before or after school. That can be easily solved by teachers grouping up in a shared classroom before or after school to meet individual students that need extra instruction. 

Not saying schools have to make that kind of application of 1 on 1 contact, but if I was a teacher, that's definitely how I'd cover myself. Not to comply with the BSA, but to remove any risk to me or a student. 

40 minutes ago, David CO said:

No school would apply or enforce the rule.  BSA would have to take action themselves.

I meant if the school was to have it's own rules that were similar to the BSA's. If I was a teacher, for instance, I would not want to have 1 on 1 contact with a student, nor would I have any need of it. Applying such a 1 on 1 rule to 18 and 17 year old students would grind the school to halt. 

35 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I thought so as well, but couldn't find any acceptations for family.

At this point, it looks like he will not register.  I talked with a few in our Troop and technically, if he keeps his participation to less than 72 hours he is fine.  

18 year old Eagle Scout ... sorry buddy, take a hike as the BSA doesn't need you.  What is crazy is that 18 year olds don't even count as adult leaders for 2 deep leadership... so 18, 19 & 20 year olds are pretty much considered nothing but a liability to the BSA (outside the hundred left in Venturing).

 

To me, BSA should allow high school seniors to finish as youth in the program (as long as they are under 19).  That would solve a ton of issues that I am starting to see (including having to Eagle before senior year).

When I was an 18 year old ASM, I counted for 2 deep. I will also admit,  I didn't stop spending time with my friends outside of BSA events. Mostly me and my friends who were 16-17 hung out in group settings anyways, not that I was worried about applying that YPT rule to them. I did apply YPT rules to any other Scouts, which was challenging given the number of youth that had my cell phone number and were connected on Facebook from when I was under 18. If I had my own son in a similar situation, I'm not sure I'd recommend him to take the same path I did. As I've grown older, my fondness for following rules, and my awareness of the consequences of not following them has increased.

I'm disappointed that the BSA has made folks like your son choose: follow the rules and skip some of the best parts of being a senior in high school, or don't be an ASM. Hopefully when your son's friends age out, he (and they) consider registering and being actively involved. If your son is going to be at BSA events, he really still ought to take YPT training, and as you know, those rules about adults on outing still apply. 

Allow me to digress a moment, accuse me of being overly sappy if you wish; being an ASM at 18 was one of the best decisions I've made in my life. I gained some excellent mentors I still rely on today. I had the privilege to serve as a mentor for dozens of youth, many of which I still stay in touch with and see regularly now they are adults. In a weird twist, I was the expert resource on Scouting and the Patrol method for a new crop of adult volunteers in my unit. That experience of training, management and recruiting led me into my career field of HR. Now at work, I'm frequently working with managers that are twice my age, and while I have to teach them and sometimes enforce policies, being a young ASM taught me the right way to train/correct folks older and more experienced than me in a humble and gracious way.  Troop volunteering also transitioned into District and Council volunteering where I've taken on new challenges, met new friends and mentors, and interacted with more amazing Scouts. 

Rather than sink into the college life of endless partying or playing video games all day, I was out volunteering and hopefully making a small difference in people's lives. My time as as an ASM in college did more to prepare me for post college life than my college degree did. 

This topic always makes me conflicted, because as said already, the rule is well intentioned, but the application of it in this instance is a train wreck. 

1 minute ago, David CO said:

There is nothing to propose.  He can't do both without violating YPT.   He has to choose one or the other.  Please let us know what he decides.

The really interesting part of this ridiculous discussion is about what he is supposed to do if he should be required to interact with youth members at school.  Should he obey the YPT or should he follow school rules and regulations.  

If schools attempted to apply such a rule it would grind the system to a halt. A senior QB wants to throw extra passes to an under 18 wide receiver after school? Nope. An 18 year old senior drives an under 18 year old neighbor to school? Nope. A 18 year old student and a 17 year old student meet at a parents house to work on a project? Nope. 

Again, I'm a big proponent of YPT. I'll defend it religiously. It's well intentioned, and for 99% of situations it makes a good deal of sense. When Parents and Leaders are following it and holding each other accountable to it, it should work well. In this particular scenario, it fails to account for reality. 

Here's a few of the challenges to trying to write an exception to the BSA YPT rules starting at 18. 

A 18 year old college freshman shows up at your unit to volunteer. They're new to the area having relocated for School. If I was running a unit, I would demand and expect that new ASM follow YPT rules, inside and outside of Scouting with any of my Scouts. 

Another scenario: an 18 year old senior just aged out of the Troop. I find out they spending of time with a 13 year old non-family Scout outside of Scouts. That would trigger me to act on that YPT violation.  

I'm really lost at how you write the rules to accommodate the common sense (an 18 year old senior should be able to hang out with their classmates, and be an ASM) without opening up the Pandora's box of violations like the two I mentioned. 
 

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

One other question, as I have one other 18 year old ASM.  Is it ok for an Adult to be one on one with their youth sibling?  I have a 18 year old ASM who has a 13 year old brother .. both in the Troop.  They are one on one many times outside scouting.  Are they violating YPT and should I report the 18 year old to my DE?  Just curious how far we are expected to take this.

What I am seeing, the rules as written, make it nearly impossible to have an 18 year old continue in scouting ... unless they have no friends in the program.

Your first point, my understanding is that YPT doesn't apply between family members, but I can't cite anything in the GTSS that would support that. 

To your second point, as the rule are written, the rules would preclude an 18 year old ASM from having 1 on 1 contact with their friends who are under 18. 

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Perhaps the commissioner corps (at the upper levels) should have a "common sense approach to scouting" RT wherein they discuss such things (to include inputs from scouters with boots on the ground - *speaking literally*. Post RT, they could draft a proposal for national to review...?

I would agree this particular area is grey in terms of "common sense", but... when it comes to YPT... there should only be black and white. I have about 15 ASMs and 20 committee members I deal with as a SM. We have had "0" YPT incidents during my tenure because I have constant discussions with the adult leaders and scouts regarding, "do try to seek out the grey areas and always err on the side of caution." The youth still have a great time, and there is zero tolerance for anything less what is expected under the YPT. 

In this particular case, if the scouts wants to remain in the unit during his senior year... he could have a lot of fun coking-and-joking with the other adults. Heck, maybe push him to attend Wood Badge and/or Powder Horn. Maybe even get involved with NYLT? There are so many different ways he could stay engaged in scouting that doesn't consist of hanging out as, "one of the scouts". 

Just my two cents... which ain't worth much. 🙃

I just want to clarify, we're talking about an 18 year old high school student registering as an ASM. He has friends who are also seniors.. or maybe they're juniors... and they're 16 or 17. YPT rules state no 1 on 1 contact between adults and youth, during or out side of BSA events. Nobody on this forum should advocate for breaking 1 on 1 contact rules during Scout outings, but pushing an 18 year old to chose between hanging out with their friends outside of Scouting events (hanging out and playing video games, going to the theme park, high school athletics, band, ect...) is a common sense overapplication of a rule that while generally a smart idea, breaks down when applied to this particular situation. 

Otherwise the rule is sound. There is literally no reason that literally any of us on this forum would have a reason to be alone with a Scout that is not our child, in person, or virtually, Scouting event or not. 

33 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

 

The whole outside of Scouting is an interesting over reach and while it has good intentions, that is what the road to Hell is paved with

 

The BSA had to draw a line and chose legal adult, 18. I totally get that. I don't think when the BSA wrote the rule to include outside BSA events contact, they thought of 18 year olds. They likely thought of "regular" adults. It would be very challenging, and create a lot of grey zones, to rewrite the rules to accommodate what is ultimately a fringe case. Most 18 year old's do not continue on with volunteering in the BSA. 

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

A scout is obedient.

So too should be scouters.

I couldn’t imagine being a hypocrite to say that I expect my scouts to follow the rules but I refuse to follow them and I’m gonna play games of “don’t ask don’t tell” involving adults making one on one contact with children in direct violation of YPT.

So what are you proposing an 18 year old senior do who wants to contribute to Scouting, but also wants to maintain contact outside of Scouting events with their lifelong friends who are 17? @CynicalScouterwhen your blood pressure goes back down, I'd love to hear your answer. 

Ah yes, the grey zone of YPT.. The way the rules are written, 18 year olds are Adults for YPT purposes, no 1 on 1 contact at Scout events and outside of them too. 

I became an ASM at 18 during my Senior year of High School. My Troop and I followed the no 1 on 1 contact rule in Scouting events seriously. The friends I had before turning 18 I still hung out with outside of Scouting. I wasn't going to give up spending time with my friends outside of Scouts just to be a Scout volunteer. 

The youth I worked with in the Troop that weren't my peers in school or close friends prior to turning 18, I followed the no one on one contact rule outside of Scouts as well. By the time I was 20, all my close friends from High School had also aged out of the Troop and the grey zone went away. 

The BSA had to draw a line somewhere for YPT and chose 18. It does create some weirdness to manage for folks in that 17-18 year age group. 

Happy to chat more about the young ASM experience, one of the only unique perspectives I provide here. 

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

I know. But what I am saying is BSA leadership may NOT have been stupid. Hear me out.

If the BSA cuts a deal with Hartford AND can get the Coalition on board, maybe they believe that the Coalition will deliver the votes for the plan.

Certainly possible. Thanks for your work in compiling the proceedings. 

Just now, gpurlee said:

Be careful Eagle 1993 or you will end up on his Christmas card list lol.

He'll get a another shout-out on Twitter. 😂

54 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Or we get into another fight. BSA got the Coalition to sign off but not the TCC. So

BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR (?)

I meant the BSA's leadership self sabotaging. 

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I cannot believe that BSA would cut a Hartford Deal 2.0 without having the TCC/Coalition/FCR sign off on it first. Then again, maybe I can believe they'd be that stupid.

That belief is one that nearly everybody on this forum can agree on. 

Still early, property damage looks heavy, loss of life looks light. We'll see what happens as the storm clears. About half of Louisiana is without power. 

I typically don't carry rain paints. I wear nylon/poly pants that are five when wet. My current rain coat is a Frogg Toggs, but I've been looking at upgrading. I miss pit zips.

Smart water bottles or Gatorade bottles for backpacking. Regular Nalgenes for day to day use it car Camping. 

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

In my unit, the COR has always been a volunteer.

And so, with every signature on an adult application, perhaps the COR has signed on to liability if the adult abuses. And National knew this was a problem, created risk, and gave no warning?

Trustworthy?

Is your Committee appointing the COR, or is the IH? 

When did BSA Adult applications start requiring COR or IH sign off?