T2Eagle

For the first time ever I received a notification that someone in my unit was suspended from activities because their YPT expired.  Two different volunteers in two different units in the last few weeks, so I know it wasn't an individual being singled out.

I was wondering if this was something new everywhere, or if it was something new just my council was doing.  I know it wasn't happening in my council at least as recently as last May because I was a bit late with my own renewal back then.

Has anyone else seen this type of action or notification?

Every state has some provision for registering a trailer if there's paperwork missing.  Either their website or a visit to the DMV where you explain the situation will get you the necessary forms or process.  It's actually pretty common for trailers to have missing or no VIN, so the process for getting it right is pretty straight forward.

Your Chartering Org owns the trailer, so you need to talk with them about how they want the registration to read.  It is possible that they will not want to own it, in which case you need to get together with the other adults in the unit and decide do you want one individual or several individuals to claim ownership, or do you just want to not have a trailer.

10 years ago I would have thought this was nuts.  Today, my son is attending college on an esports scholarship.  I was talking with one of the associate deans about why and how they decided to go that route, he said more people will watch their top esport team than will ever attend one of their basketball or football games.

Earlier this evening my wife and I were listening to him do live color commentary on one of his university's other esports, not the one he plays --- he was really really good.  His professional goal is to be part of the live gaming industry, and that looks like a promising career path to me.  Oh, and the world championship of his game was watched by more people than tuned in to the World Series (the baseball one).

80% of scouting is outing, but that leaves a healthy 20% for a lot of other things.  As a proud recipient of the Chess MB circa 1970 I'm hard pressed to find actual fault with Scouting's decision here.

I haven't read the law, but given that this alleged interpretation is coming from a piece written by someone who lists no bio with their writing, on a site that lists no identifying information or publisher on its website, I am deeply skeptical that there is much if any credibility here.

Here is the FAQ from the state:

Q: Do the new laws affect how and where hunter education training can occur?

A: No. Possession of firearms, rifles, and shotguns is lawful for hunter education training in “sensitive locations” including schools, camps, fish and game clubs, and public libraries. As was the case prior to the recent law changes, possession of firearms and live-fire exercises associated with hunter education training may only be conducted with permission from the property owner prior to the training.

I think if every camp in NY State had just lost the ability to run shooting sports we woud have heard about it.

1 hour ago, FireStone said:

Privately-owned rifles were found at the camp, although no info is available on whether one of those rifles was involved in the accident. The camp policy prohibits outside firearms being brought in to camp. So at a minimum, standard camp firearms policies were not being followed.

Privately owned rifles could easily mean the ranger's or someone else authorized to store a rifle at the range.

37 minutes ago, BPUMC said:

The desire to be a CO is still there, but there are some issues that need to be addressed.  As a CO, you have been told for years that you are covered under an insurance policy only to find out you weren't.  Then you are told that if you pay the organization millions of dollars, there is good probability they will extend coverage for you.  All of this is happening because of possible events that either took place away from your campus or took place on your campus but outside of your direct control.  Now you are being told to secure a COI from the organization, but you really need a copy of the policy to make sure it covers what they tell you it covers.  Then you get to wonder if the policy has undergone revision.  Being told to trust is difficult when violation of trust is what got us to this point in the relationship.

If I was head of a CO or potential CO I would absolutely want to see, and have evaluated independently, whatever insurance policy purported to cover me, and I would make presentation of an updated policy a condition for rechartering.

For the UMC, once bitten twice shy.  Once you've had that breech of trust it's really hard to rebuild

41 minutes ago, jcousino said:

It surprises me again to my why of thinking why if a CO takes on a unit why would allow them to meet somewhere else other than their location , it make no sense to allow them to meet where they have no control over. More risk no control.

 

Isn't that risk sort of inherent to both scouting and other youth activities?  By definition, a scout troop that goes camping is meeting at some place other than the CO's location.  But the same is true for all sorts of activities, sports teams are constantly playing in venues other than their homes.  Church youth groups do field trips and outside ministry.  FFA and 4H go to fairs, competitions, exhibitions.

The most important thing for a CO to understand is their responsibilities, they reduce their risks through their actions, and then unsure against the foreseeable and unforeseeable risks inherent as in all of life.  

43 minutes ago, PACAN said:

An unintended  consequence.   Unit asked a potential new sponsor about taking on the sponsorship.  Potential sponsor asked why the UMC was leaving.  Unit said liability.  P-sponsor says then why should we take on the liability?

Is "liability" the stated reason that UMC is changing the relationship with BSA?  People throw that word around having very little understanding of what it means.  Most people just seem to think it's a synonym for "danger".  

It's really important to be precise about these types of things.  If UMC didn't say it was liability than no one should put those words into UMC's mouths.  

I looked briefly through this thread to see if UMC gave a definitive reason for the changing relationship with scouts.  I couldn't find one, but it seemed the reason was more like BSA's bankruptcy left the UMC in a bad position for things that happened in the past, and the relationship soured.   

If asked, I would say honestly tat it's not entirely clear to me why UMC has changed, it certainly has something to do with the bankruptcy and things that happened previously, but as just the local guy trying to serve scouts my concern is helping these kids today.

I would be very up front about what being a CO means, and the responsibilities as well as rewards that can come from being a part of helping kids today.

13 hours ago, wearrepair said:

I know that some troops have a "hall of fame" to honor their hard-working members. Our district talked about doing this. Any comments? Should we grandfather some into it?  Any thoughts would be appreciated. 

Our district gives out annual Award of Merit, SM of the year, SPL of the year, Committee member of the Year, etc.  There are also of course the council awarded things like Silver Beaver.  

Does your council and district also already have these awards?  If so I'm not sure what else a Hall of Fame would capture.

28 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

What about other costs? I wonder if they own all images and writing in the pamphlets? Is any of it licensing? That is, do they have to pay anyone when they make / sell one? 

They're written and put together by volunteers.  One of our adults has authored two himself.  They're not paying anyone for content.

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I just looked at the survey via the link shared, and I frankly do not see what some suggest is trying to raise money, or make a profit.  Is the link not inclusive of the survey?

It's a marketing pitch pure and simple.  They're not asking any questions that would give them any real insight as to how to improve the program or prioritize any part of it.  At best they'll use the answers to either refine their giving pitch broadly, or they'll use your particular answers to tailor a pitch to you directly, but what it absolutely isn't is an opinion survey that would yield any useful insight about how to make a better scouting.

It is, frankly, crass.  There are very few times when I buy into "they're just doing it for the money", but in this instance I can't really think of a different  explanation than that.  The pamphlets are written by volunteers, and the value added from BSA central is just about nil.  There's no good reason they couldn't make these available online for free.

In answer to your question what do troops do, we keep a lending library.  We have all the Eagle required and most of the more popular ones offered at summer camp.  The troop budgets for those, and they get supplemented by scouts who choose to buy their own, either duplicates of what we have or some of the many other badges.

Honestly, they don't get much use these days.  Kids are used to having their information, even school books, electronically, and almost any info in the pamphlet is easily found through Google. 

Maybe they've already tried this, but I would start by asking what Pack(s) members of the troop came from.

17 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Following article gives an historical summary of council's sale process, at least what is known. IMHO, article raises questions about Executive Board transparency and ethics, My $0.02,

 

I have friends who are board members and pros, and though I think of all of them as people of good character, transparency has always been to me a big problem with their decision making.  Just because you have the position doesn't mean you posses all the wisdom regarding the position.  IMHO Board Meetings should all be open to the public, and decisions should all be removed from the Executive Committee and put before the full board and the CORs.  If your reasoning, discussions, and decisions can't stand up to the light of day than they are inherently suspect and probably flawed. , 

I split this topic off before RS chastises us all.

7 hours ago, skeptic said:

Why would we need a state law to mandate what is obviously needed?  And that can apply to the distant past too.  Why was the general public attitude so misdirected?  Protection of the innocent should not need to be a point of legal law, only moral law.  And, that too is part of the basic foundation of real Scouting, as well as most belief systems.

 

The sheer volume of failure clearly shows that the laws are needed, but they are actually very unusual laws.  In what other instance are you required to report a crime that you SUSPECT might have occurred, and subject to penalty if you fail to do so? You're not required to report crimes against yourself; you can be assaulted, robbed, stabbed, suffer property damages, etc., and you are under no obligation to report it.  Laws generally prohibit actions, describe things that you can not do, but there are very few laws that say what you must do, few instances where we allow the government to command us to a particular action.  

And it's no small thing to decide to bring the weight of the state down upon a person or family based on a suspicion.  Abuse investigations are intrusive and disruptive, and if not done exceedingly competently can in fact harm the family or the child, especially if the suspicion is mistaken and no abuse has occurred.  Children may be taken away from their parents and placed in care for weeks or months while an investigation grinds away. Investigators may speak to neighbors, teachers, employers, etc.  Employment can be disrupted or lost; reputations and relationships damaged beyond repair; and as I mentioned in another thread, law enforcement has no special powers of discernment.  They don't have a magic eight ball that tells them if someone is lying, and the end of their investigation is never a full exoneration.  They never say no abuse occurred. They can only conclude that they have no evidence that abuse occurred, and they don't back and tell everyone they spoke with, "we were wrong, this person was always innocent."

We've probably all seen the instances where authorities were called in because a child or children were playing alone in a park or just walking down a street --- a circumstance that was the absolute norm when I was kid.  Those families and those kids suffered as a result of that intrusion.

Having said all that, we have as a society decided that the risks of all these things are worth it to protect kids from what is probably the single worst thing that can be done to them.  I think that's the right decision, and it was driven by what you rightly describe as moral failings.  As we've seen in our own organization, massive moral failings, not to be excused by notions of 'society was different', or 'we didn't understand.'  

11 hours ago, yknot said:

I don't recall specifics and can't find the thread -- maybe because it happened in one of those tangential discussions -- but a year or so ago people were trying to clarify mandatory reporting requirements and there were a lot of comments to this effect. Sadly, it's not really new just not well publicized. 

I just double checked, and as near as I can tell scout leaders in my state, Ohio, are not mandatory reporters.  I know the YP training says we are, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see scout leaders on this list.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/?CWIGFunctionsaction=statestatutes:main.getResults

I'd report anyway, AND I fall under one the other categories not related to scouting.  

Although I'm pretty sure it's not part of the record, TCJC has incredibly deep pockets, probably the largest single non profit wealth in the US.  It is reportedly over $100 billion just in financial assets.  Whatever complications their withdrawal would pose to the plan, their victims in non SOL states should still be OK.  Hopefully they would take the opportunity to take care on non SOL victims also.

29 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

What's this "new Scout Patrol"?  

SAME AGE PATROLS

1. New-Scout patrols

As the name implies, a new-Scout patrol serves Scouts who have just joined the troop. The patrol elects its own leader, just like other patrols, but usually for a shorter term—perhaps one month instead of six months. An older Scout called a troop guide works with the Scouts to help them get acclimated to Scouting and to reach the rank of First Class. Backing up the troop guide is an assistant Scoutmaster whose main responsibility is to work with new Scouts.

Scouts typically remain in a new-Scout patrol for their first year in the troop or until they reach First Class rank (whichever comes first), although the transition happens sooner in some troops. At that point, members can either choose which regular patrol they want to join or opt to stay together as a regular patrol.

In some troops, Scouts join a patrol together and stay together throughout their time in the troop.

https://troopleader.scouting.org/types-of-patrols/

Lots of discussion in the archives here on the pros and cons.  My troop does them for 6 months, which effectively means crossover in March through summer camp.  

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

No the insurance settlements clear the insurance company of a BSA claim. A claim against the CO who didn’t settle would have to be paid fully out of their own pocket. 

The thing that has been most unclear to me in this whole process is what, who, and how the insurance contracts worked.  If the insurance policies named the COs as insured then their obligation to that CO should remain.  If the scouts indemnified COs and then insured themselves through their insurance than a non settling CO would have a claim against BSA for their exposure and they would become a creditor.

I suspect the answers to these questions and what the policies mean are essentially muck, and I suspect that litigation with non settling insurers will go on for years.

On 7/30/2022 at 6:52 AM, Scoutcrafter said:

I’m pretty sure what they’re doing is wrong. Feel free to confirm that, but what I really need to know is which entity has the last say when it comes to planning patrol meeting agendas, the committee, the SM, or the CC?

 

I'm afraid I can't confirm that they're wrong and what you are proposing is correct.  I think you may have a misperception about how advancement works at the troop level compared to Cubs. 

The biggest difference between the programs is that at the troop level advancement, not necessarily training, but advancement, is an individual rather than a group endeavor.  Patrols simply do not advance together the way dens advance together.  So while it's true that a patrol might do training together, translating that training into a signed off individual advancement component is the responsibility of the individual, not the patrol, not the troop, the individual. It's the norm not the exception that individuals in a patrol, even if they started at the same time and have been to all the same activities, will not have the same individual requirements or ranks completed.

To your specific situation, the goal of training is not necessarily advancement, it's preparing the scouts for the activities they're going to participate in.  Because 80% of scouting is outing, it doesn't seem unusual to me that scoutcraft like cooking or fires would be prioritized.  Requirements and advancement are themselves not linear, you can be working on many requirements and and ranks simultaneously.  For much of the time between joining and earning First Class a scout will have multiple requirements in multiple ranks completed, even if no one rank is complete.

What I would suggest is that you ask the SM or other adult leaders how advancement does work in the troop.  The are four steps in scout advancement: a scout learns, a scout is tested, a scout is reviewed, a scout is recognized.  The important things that you and your scout need to know at this stage are things like who signs off on requirements, who does a scout approach when they're ready to have a requirement signed off, when a scout completes all the requirements for a particular rank how do they request a Scoutmaster Conference (the final requirement for each rank).

A final couple thoughts about Scout Rank and then about older scouts.  Most of the requirements for Scout Rank are pretty basic; if a scout was a Cub they probably know all or almost all they need to now already.  If YOUR scout has mastered some or all of those Scout Rank skills they should be able to have them signed off now.  They don't need to wait for the other members of their patrol. 

The very best troops have all or nearly all the training that's conducted performed by the older scouts, not because they need to do it for their own advancement, but because that progression is key to the development of the scout as a citizen and as a scout.

Good luck to you and your scout, when you've gotten more information about advancement in your troop feel free to check back for more comments or insights.

I'm going to first try to answer the question you posed.  In a follow up post I'm going to comment on your specific situation.  This explanation is an abbreviated version of the guide we provide to all our families, especially the newest crossover families.

Change from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts

Both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts teach Scouting’s time honored values, but the way the scout experiences the program changes dramatically when a young man crosses over into the troop.  In Cub Scouts, the parents organize and provide the activities.  In Boy Scouts, it is the boys who plan and carry out their own program, and in doing so gain independence, self reliance, leadership experience, and maturity.  The adult leaders are merely facilitators who provide assistance and guidance.   

ORGANIZATION 

The Troop is first and foremost a boy-led organization.  

The Troop is led by the Senior Patrol Leader (SPL), who is elected by the boys in the troop.  The SPL presides over troop meetings, and working through the Patrol Leaders guides the scouts through their campouts, meetings, and other events.  The SPL appoints one or more Assistant Senior Patrol Leaders (ASPLs) to help him and to fill in when he’s absent. 

The Troop is divided into patrols comprised of six to eight scouts.  Each patrol elects its own Patrol Leader who leads and organizes the individual patrol with the help of his Assistant Patrol Leader.  The patrol is especially important during outings because this is the unit that works together to take care of and provide for themselves: tenting, cooking, cleaning, etc.  We refer to this structure as the “Patrol Method”. 

All of the boy leaders of the troop, elected and appointed, meet monthly for a Patrol Leaders’ Council (PLC) where they plan the activities for the upcoming meetings and organize upcoming campouts.   

To support the boys there are many adult leaders actively involved in our Troop.   

The Committee Chairperson assures that the Troop adheres to BSA guidelines, and recruits adults to oversee the Troop through the Troop Committee and Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmaster positions.   

The Scoutmaster, working through the scout leadership, manages the Troop at meetings and outings, and with the help of the Assistant Scoutmasters, Committee Members, other leaders, and parents, provides the most direct guidance to the Scouts. 

Assistant Scoutmasters generally are the adults working most closely with the scouts; they undergo the same training as the Scoutmaster, and can step in and take his place when needed.   

The Troop Committee consists of the adults, both parents and other volunteers, who help the Scoutmaster and the scouts carry out the Boy Scout program by supporting them with policy direction, planning help, recruiting, fundraising, and other ancillary functions. 

PARENT’S ROLE IN THE TROOP 

Parents are encouraged to help with the troop in whatever way they feel they are best suited.  We invite any parent who is interested to become a registered adult leader either as an Assistant Scoutmaster or a Committee Member. 

We have a tool box with a basic collection of wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, etc.  Plus the sum total of whatever everyone on the trip might be carrying around in their trunk.  We definitely have a hydraulic jack sized to lift the trailer and change a tire if necessary.  You want to be able to do some basic repairs if you have to --- enough to get you off the side of the ride and someplace safe to park, but you can't bring a garage full of tools, compressors, air guns, etc. on the off chance you might need them some day.

Once had a problem with the electric brake controller and had to leave the thing at an RV dealer 7 hours from home.  Everybody grabbed anything they really needed out of their packs and left the bulk of them in the trailer until the next week when two of us went back to collect it.

Also left a scout behind at the RV dealer.  Went back for him before the next weekend.

One of the things we make sure we have in our troop budget is enough money to cover an emergency like that if we need to.  Remember, 30 families own the trailer, so it's only 20-30 bucks each in the bank to cover a tow and a professional repair if need be.

7 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I've viewed it this way: Patches on my uniform are often conversation starters, both with scouts and with parents. Scouts often ask about my OA flap and square knots, which leads to discussions about things you can aspire to accomplish later on in your scouting journey. Parents have asked about my Baloo training patch, which leads to constructive conversations about training in general.

Are there other benefits to adults keeping their uniforms appropriately outfitted with patches?

 

I disagree that with the notion that leaders shouldn't wear any additional patches.  I think you've hit most of the reasons for having patches on an adult uniform, they're conversation starters, especially with scouts.  An additional reason is as modeling behavior: we want scouts to be proud of their achievements and to feel good about displaying them.

I wear all the square knots that carry over from youth to adult: AOL, Eagle Scout, Religious Emblem.  I don't bother with the training knots.  I think there are some others that are real distinguishing accomplishments that if I earned them I'd wear them.  I also wear the patch from Jamboree.

I think in all things moderation; I don't need to have every adult I meet read my history of achievements or lack thereof, and I'm not generally interested in theirs.  The test to me is whether wearing a patch can be helpful for the scouts I lead,  either for the reasons above or some other that I might not be thinking of.  If you think a patch helps you better lead scouts,  then you should wear it.  

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

When I was teaching YP (before online videos), the message was clear.  If you witness or suspect abuse, you are to call the Scout Executive directly on his private number, and NO ONE ELSE.  We were told the SE knew who to call and would handle it.  My spidey-sense was telling me this was wrong.

My early YP training as a rec league baseball coach AND as a CYO coach 20+ years ago had the same directives.  I challenged both orgs on it.  The explanation I received from both was about the same:  law enforcement would only act if there was clear evidence of a crime.  Which jibes with one of my earlier posts about the limitations of a law enforcement approach.  In addition, the authorities wouldn't reach back to the organizations, especially if they didn't investigate or didn't find any criminal activity.  That left the orgs in a tough place without vital information:  someone that's a jerk but not quite a criminal shouldn't be a coach or a scout leader 

So this was likely not so sinister, just best, or at least common, practices for a while in the earlier days of widespread formal YPT.  I gave feedback to both orgs that it should be both not either/or.  Within a couple years the directives had changed, even before volunteers were designated mandatory reporters.

24 minutes ago, scoutlaw74 said:

I can see that but we are both are now sort of thinking that we welcome law enforcement to investigate as he is fully innocent and we believe that the truth will likely come out faster and more directly with law enforcement being involved. It is a crime to lie to a police officer, and my son is not worried about being arrested or charged as he didn’t do this. We do welcome a law enforcement investigation. 

Respectfully, you don't ever want law enforcement involvement if you're the accused.  Law enforcement never "exonerates" anyone.  The best conclusion they can ever reach is that they don't have evidence of a crime.  They can't say a crime was not committed --- because they don't know --- because, --- and here is the magic phrase I learned in law school ---  "(I) (they) don't know, because (I) (they) weren't there."  Investigators don't have magic powers of discernment that allow them to KNOW whether someone is or is not being truthful, they are just as fallible as anyone else at that.  And, different people seeing the same events, even participating in the same events, will have truthful, but differing, recollections about exactly what happened, and different, but truthful, interpretations of the meaning of the what happened.

BSA, or council, or whoever in scouting is investigating this is not really trying to divine any ultimate TRUTH about what happened.  Again, they can't because they weren't there.  As mentioned above, they are deciding what is the safest course of action for BSA and for the scouts when they are under the responsibility of scouting.  They are going to be very cautious,  and may err on the side of safest is removing one, both, or multiple scouts.

I hope things work out for your son, but it's important to remember that membership isn't scouting, living the Oath and Law are scouting, and there is a lifetime of opportunities for him to do that.