Back Pack

I think you've missed my point.

 

It's not an either or argument. It's not about hurting anyone's feelings or otherwise.

 

The US government can of course do what it wants with regard to security. It may also, and indeed areas of the country that are highly dependent on tourism may like it if, want to ensure that those who would otherwise not be turned away aren't scared off. It doesn't have to chose. It can do both. I am sue there are different branches of the executive there to do both. And if it chooses to do both a narrative, a story, something that makes it personal is a more effective method of doing so than dry statistics about all those people who have no doubt entered the country without difficulty.

 

I do get the point. Mine is we will err on the side of safety first, then fix whatever may be broken. We didn't before and we paid dearly. If that means fewer lines at Disney World so be it.

If the US government wants to sooth and alay the fears of those who wish to travel to the USA then they are going to have come up with as equally an interesting counter story. Statistics, much as the scientist in me wish they would, just don't cut it.

Your premise is flawed. We just had an election on the topic. Rather than be reactionary about security like the last administration did, the current administration wants to be proactive. It's got nothing to do with tourism. We'd rather be secure and accept credible travelers than to even risk letting in one Berlin or Paris bomber.

If that means a few folks get their feelings hurt because they were denied entry, so be it.

You can choose to believe that if you wish.  I believe the actual point is pure showmanship.

Then you believed this when the last administration did this?

Or you can read the executive order and eliminate any doubt your have.

Odd because the industry itself reports otherwise...

https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/Media%20Root/Document/Outlook_Back_Page_February_2017.html

My first awareness came from a Facebook posting of this article:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-church-volunteers-denied-entry-to-u-s-so-they-wouldn-t-steal-american-jobs-1.4022969

 

Seems this is a ripple effect, along with a bit of precautionary measure thrown in so youth are not getting stuck at the border.  With youth, things like this can really play havoc on their emotions from excitement to disappointment due to cancellation on the spot without really understanding the full scope, especially after months of planning and looking forward to their trip.

Ever entered Canada for business? You get grilled about the nature of your meetings and what type of advice you're giving. Your company must be very specific about its role or you run in to the same issues.

It goes both ways folks. If you don't follow the rules when crossing borders you risk being detained or sent back. It's not like America is the only country doing this.

Yep, this appears to be totally inappropriate if all the information is correct.  I can't apologize on behalf of the American people, but someone should!

Why? Do we have insight in to what the NSA or CIA or CBP might have? We have one side of the story.

Maybe he's on a no fly list. Maybe the database mixed his name with another. Maybe his name is the same as someone on the no fly list. Maybe a passenger complained about him. Maybe it's simply a mistake. Maybe the US intel knows more about him than MI-6. Who knows.

I was detained at Gatwick in the 1990s traveling through England to Sweden. No reason given. Held for 2 hours and then let go with a "you can leave now". No apology. No call to the press. I accepted people doing their jobs and moved on.

Why would someone get on a plane knowing they fell in to one of the categories a sovereign nation put on a travel ban?

If England were to say blond haired Swedes were not allowed to travel to London, regardless of the valid Visa I had I wouldn't be getting on a plane for Heathrow. That's just moronic.

I hear the Girl Guides are going to Pakistan. They stand a much better chance of freedom and being treated equally there.

South Park had it right: Blame Canada.

Good grief.

Really folks? Just read what the last administration did. No hysteria. No one with a valid visa was denied entry or return.

Good Lord, get real.

@@fred johnson, according to this section of the GTA, the SMs signature and other signatures not only indicate a completion of requirements, it signifies their support that the application and associated materials are complete AND they support the candidacy. At that point the BOR is just reviewing, not passing anything. Unless it is a disputed BOR then there are other issues and processes.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/EagleScoutRank.aspx

Actually, they can.  The signatures define a good project.  But the EBOR can look at the project and decide whether the scout displayed enough leadership through the project to meet the requirement.  If not, then the EBOR can consider other aspects of the scout's scouting career through which the scout displayed leadership.  Using those other parts of the scout's career, the EBOR can pass the scout on the project expectation of the scout leading others.

 

But the GTA says a BOR is granted when requirements are met. That means he's completed his requirements and been signed off. Can't add or subtract, so they can't fail him.

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/BoardsofReview.aspx

^{Our troop attended Medicine Mountain in 2016.  Every adult on the trip was very disappointed.  Some of the merit badges offered when we registered we discovered were cancelled when we arrived without any prior notice.  It was extremely hot, in the 100s, during our stay yet water was not available at several of the merit badges stations until some of our Assistant Scoutmasters made a complaint.  We had 5 Scouts suffer heat exhaustion. One spent the night at the small clinic with one male medical staff.  We found out after our Scout was admitted staff were not following YP two-deep requirements until we found out and again pointed it out to the director.  There was no system of chits at the waterfront to clearly indicate which Scouts were swimmers and which were non-swimmers.  Consequently, there were Scouts who were nonswimmers in the water at the Lake and staff had no idea they were nonswimmers.  The axe yard used for Paul Bunyan was poorly supervised and at one point one of our Assistant Scoutmasters discovered there were 3 Scouts in the axe year trying to split firewood for camp staff (their service project), but the staff member who was supposed to supervise the axe yard was in a cabin out of sight chatting with other staff.  There was no water for showers two of the six nights we were in camp and they ran out of potable water both days at the shower houses closest to the Scout campsites.  The camp is large and it was a 3/4 mile hike to fill up water jugs for drinking and wash water.  Menu options and food was good.  The area is beautiful and the Wednesday tour of the Black Hills and Mount Rushmore was the highlight of our stay.  None of our adult volunteers would recommend Medicine Mountain Boy Scout Ranch.}

How about the boys? Would THEY recommend it despite what the adults observed?

How can the EBOR "fail" someone? Doesn't the GTA say it's up to the SM and beneficiary? The latter says if it was done to satisfaction. The former says if it meets requirements. District signs off on the project being worthy. As long as all the signatures are collected in the right order the BOR can't fail a candidate.

I would not allow anyone to participate in our unit who does not fully understand and accept the fact that the Chartered Organization owns the unit.

Some COs don't get that they own the unit. Some COs treat the unit like a border or tenant. It might be the case here but I don't think we know.

I getting not wanting to be recognized. Some see it as doing their duty, nothing more. Some just like anonymity. It should be enough to point out it was Scouts who save the life. If people aren't smart enough to make the connection, adding faces to it won't change anything.

I don't know how to respond to people who believe that a volunteer can't be fired.

There's no contract of employment. You can ask them to stop being den leader or events chairman, but you can't fire them. BSA can revoke their membership, so that might be firing them. But asking them to no longer be a volunteer is not firing someone.

I get not punishing the boy. But is it fair to all the others that follow the rules?

I get a brief charter interuptis, but more than a month? At some point fairness comes in to play.

If you don't have a valid membership how can you work on requirements? Doesn't it say you need to be a member of a troopmor pack?

I don't like to make jokes about refusing someones participation in the unit.  It is one of duties that I enjoy the least.

 

You're the one who said fire volunteers. I'm still trying to figure out what the OP did that you'd consider firing her.

I wasn't aware volunteers could be fired. No joke.

I was in a similar Pack. Wanted to help at the committee level, suspected some financial and awards shenanigans but waited until I had more information to pass judgment. Was told to run my den and mind my own business. After that we never attended Pack meetings, did our awards at den meetings. Went to blue and gold but sold nothing. My den told the power that be if they won't supply a financial stanrment all they'll get from us is our dues. Pack chair tried to kick out the den but Council said they couldn't.

When it came time for them to leave for Boy Scouts we took over, grew the pack and set up a solid line of succession for those behind us. Sometime you just have to wait out the morons and focus on yourself.

"Fire" volunteers? ROFL. Okay.

I wouldn't put any money in that Pack. I wouldn't raise any money unless they could show a detailed financial statement. I'd also let Council know what's going on.

A few comments:

- ALL registered adults must complete YPT. If not then Council should not register them.

- Below is the link to YPT in the car.

- @@Stosh, while I agree YPT is to really protect adults and unit leaders, it should illustrate for those who take it what situations to avoid.

- Lastly, nothing prohibits the unit from prohibiting parent participation unless YPT is completed.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/12/how-does-two-deep-leadership-apply-when-driving-to-scouting-events/amp/

http://www.scouting.org/Training/YouthProtection/QA.aspx

Look back at previous reports to the present. They always understate the loss, only to be revised in the annual report (May) and then further revised in August. Expect that 2% to go up. Always does.

Also, the previous stats are for all of Scouting not just Boy Scouts.