HashTagScouts

7 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

I've been around troops who had their meetings by playing basketball and it was fun.  Before they played ball they had an opening ceremony and patrol meetings where they planned their own meals without adult influence.  If they wanted bologna and Captain Crunch every meal, then that's what they had.  Has anyone ever taken kids to the grocery store and helped them shop for their food?  If not, why not?  They are expected to do things that they don't know how to do and once they know how to do it they enjoy doing it which spells FUN. 

As we've said to our youth: If they want to have a campout where they sit and prepare nothing but hotdogs and s'mores, and play gaga ball and nap all afternoon, fine. Will the nights count as camping nights? Yes. Will any of that count towards advancement/MB requirements? No. If they want to change their plan to balance fun with purpose, we're available to help them with that.

32 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Absolutely.  

I'd highly suggest you sit down with the CC and SM to have coffee.  You might be the COR, but they see the day-to-day issue.  

Build relationships.  Let them do their jobs.  If they can't, then it's not just a member of committee issue.  

And give the friendly reminder that both the COR and CC have the system access to sign-off on Advancement. At the end of the trail is an Eagle Application, and it is the SM and CC who signs that, not the UAC. Try to diffuse this persons attitude by coaxing the other Key 3 members handle them rather than you coming over the top is my suggestion. 

34 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Ok, but this is something BSA paid money to develop.  All sunk cost once deployed. Probably no cost to maintain.  In fact, they probably had to pay to have it taken down.  At least least leave it in place until syllabus changes made it obsolete.

Again, the content was good.  I went through the courses myself, to gauge the value before an in-person class.

I'm really shaking my head on this one...  less options for training really isn't a good solution.

 

Especially where this is not entirely a required training, having the online available could have been the only exposure that some youth may have ever had to the content.

8 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Those risks are covered by BSA insurance as long as a health form and permission slip are covered. The insurance clearly covers non registered youth who are being recruited to join. 

I've always been given impression from our Council that it is for an actual recruitment event, but at no point should it involve an overnighter.

Circle Ten seems to give that same impression: https://circleten.org/posts/30577/insurance-policy-and-claim-forms

59 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

This could have been done by restricting camping to only "registered leaders".  The decision to make it "fee required" seems intentional and if so, purely financially motivated IMO.  A MB Counselor, in my council at least, is required to take YPT and submit to a background check - but pays no fee.  Previously, these persons could attend outings and support my unit as one of the 2-up.  NOW, they would have to fork over almost $100 (fees for registered adults in my area are close to $100 annually now) AND be welcomed onto the committee or as an ASM (higher bar in my unit than MB counselor) so in addition to the financial barrier, there's a qualification and level of commitment barrier added too. 

If you are concerned about additional responsibilities, use the Unit Scouter Reserve position. They are not ASMs nor Committee members. 

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

Now there's a stupid thing BSA does.

It's about time to have that conversation. Funny that the Declaration of Religious Principle states "Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership", but the BSA webpages and materials about joining Scouting have zero mention of this Declaration. 

Pretty sure it's up to the locality. We had asked local Walmart for a donation and helpful store manager explained that each store has a specific $ amount they can give to "community engagement" each quarter, and once the quarterly allotment is gone. it's gone.

When my son was planning his Eagle project, he inquired at both our local Home Depot and Lowes for donation of materials. Home Depot HR manager was in charge of their community program, and she asked him to come back at the first of the next month and she would be happy to give what they could (seemed similar to Walmart concept, but monthly rather than quarterly)- ended up giving him four vouchers that were essentially $100 gift cards. Lowes was more tricky, it took my driving him there for several attempts to connect to "the right person that can help with that", and ended up being a one-trip shopping pass for 20% discount (which is the same as employee discount). The pack and some of our Eagle candidates have asked to fundraise at that Lowes selling candy bars and they've generally been OK with it, but they get a lot of requests from other groups, so sometimes we've been shut out or had to wait several weeks for time.   

36 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Sensitivity is important.  Not offensive is important.  Being kind and considerate is important.

My issue is the yet-another badge that should have been covered in at least one of the Citz of community, Citz of nation, Citz of world or Family Life (Citizen of the family).  

If not just added as an item into Star/Life/Eagle rank requirements. At the end of the day, what the badge is intending to have the scouts spend time reflecting on are elements that are reflective of the SO and SL. So, if we just added this as specific discussion points to take place as part of the "demonstrate scout spirit" conversations, would we have not been able to achieve the desired result without the need of another badge? 

57 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We used this scheme before it became "illegal."

Also, in our state (PA), state law requires all adult volunteers to have three background checks: 1) A State Police Criminal Record check, 2) A "PA Child Abuse History Certification" from the Dept of Human Services, and 3) EITHER a signed Affidavit attesting no other charges OR  an FBI Fingerprint background check if you have not been a state resident of 10 years. 

When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National.

Which really begs the cynical question:  Is this move more about collecting fees than it is about protecting children?  (I think I know the answer.)

I'm generally ready to get right in line when it comes to kicking national in the shins. I really think that they would have been happy to have just kept grumbling when asked like you experienced, and not rocked the boat. Right now, with as much as they are having to open the notebooks and have all the minutiae questioned by outsiders, they have no real choice in having to tighten the screws. 

I had actually interpreted the prior guidelines on 21+ female adults the way it is written now- once they made 18-20 year old males non-compliant for two-deep, my minded just drawn the dotted line in regards to the same for females I guess.

22 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@mrjohns2....that's pretty cynical...loophole?  really?   MBCs have been "free"  for a long time and required to have YPT.  What's changed?

Previous unit I was with, I registered as an ASM when my son joined the troop. Most meetings and campouts, there would be 8+ of us there that were identified to scouts/parents as ASMs. Second year my son and I were there several folks who were Committee wanted to step down, as their sons had aged out several years prior. CC asked a few parents if they would register to join the Committee, and only 1 agreed. CC asked if I would switch from ASM to Committee- I agreed, would still be registered and could still go along on campouts, so no big deal. Then we hit re-charter time, and Committee meeting discussed youth who were on the roster that we assumed would not be re-chartering (the usual "we haven't seen Fred since March" type of conversation). Then I saw the adult roster, and saw we only had about 1/3 of those "ASMs" on the charter. I had to question that, and the response was they are registered as MBCs because they really didn't come to everything, so why should they pay the fees. When I volunteered to be a part of the IOLS training team for the district, several of those "MBC ASMs" had looked at me sideways and couldn't understand either a) what IOLs was, and/or b) why would any adult go through IOLS. After seeing that adult roster, I understood then why these folks were so confused about IOLS. SM specific training? Nope, foreign concept. The unit ran because SM Tom knows what he is doing and he tells us what to do, so why do we need to need to go through training.   

19 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I am going to hazard a guess that it varies from council to council , i.e. the number of MBUs they offer. I know that some MBUs are hosted by organizations and colleges, and they want those expert MBCs. I would guess 85%+ are already registered in a paid position.

 

 

Would tend to agree with that for my area as well. in that other 15%, probably half are folks who were involved with a troop when their kids were youth in the program, so really not big #s of folks who are just "community members". 

19 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

It works until the Camping MBC actually wants to see a Scout in action. Registering all your MBCs into Troop positions is kind of the antithesis of one of the stated purposes of the MB program, isn't it? Too many of our MBCs are already ASMs.

If you have two other registered adult leaders there, I'd invite that MBC along any time they wanted to come. You're compliant to the registered leader requirement, while not putting burden on that MBC.

As @mrjohns2stated, this is to stop those who don't want to pay-to-play. I'd say it is 50/50 on unit leaders that I've discussed this with that have always treated MBCs this way vs those who were viewing it as a way to avoid their unit paying the registration fee beyond ASM #2/Committee Member #4.

7 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I honestly don't know.

I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers.  I believe this is a great fear they have.  So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults.

But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

I think that the insurers are going to continue to make a very significant push on the BSA to tighten the screws going forward after the amounts that are floated in the bankruptcy case. These are some very massive losses they are (potentially) going to pay out. @KublaiKen, I would say assume nothing at this point, and be as vigilant as possible. Will there be a big visible change? If your council is like mine, Commissioners to this point rarely liked to rock the boat and truly get firm on anything other YP issues with units, so I question if they are going to suddenly start monitoring units on their programs outside of their "checklists" they have used up to this point. Doesn't mean they won't, but can't say I have a high degree of confidence in it.

14 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

I don't know. I only know in the single instance in this thread where we know what happened, the plaintiff got paid despite Scouting policies being violated, and even the law. A single data point doesn't prove the case, but clearly the insurer saw liability or exposure of some kind (maybe just PR? We don't know.) and paid to make it go away.

I get it. I am the only one who doesn't believe that the insurance won't cover you if you are violating the GSS. I would say that your belief is healthy and is probably a good indicator that you will follow the GSS. I am sure that was a good part of BSA's intention in using their language. Does my belief make me less likely to follow it? Thus far, no.

My career is in insurance, and I can state that insurance carriers settle cases often simply because the cost of litigation and resulting bad PR are considered a better option. Generally settlement agreements will contain language like "payment under this agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession of any point of fact or law on the part of XYZ". 

8 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I might be too old.  It may be time if I go on campouts, I just need to find a tree to put my chair under.  😁

And let someone else do the cooking for you

1 minute ago, KublaiKen said:

That's true, but they do cover you, at least in my state. Perhaps with the array of options, auto is a bad example. Home owner's insurance pays out even if your Christmas tree started the fire.  Health insurance pays for injuries you cause through negligence, once they determine it's your fault and not someone else's (e.g., a workman's comp claim). I'd wager that behind virtually every serious Scout injury is a violation of GSS.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/

Prohibited Activities

The Boy Scouts of America’s general liability policy provides coverage for a bodily injury or property damage claim that is made and arises out of official Scouting activity. The Guide to Safe Scouting contains a listing of prohibited activities. Prohibited activities are not considered official Scouting activities. Volunteers (registered and unregistered), units, chartered organizations, and local councils jeopardize insurance coverage for themselves and their organization by engaging in prohibited activities.

Please do not put yourself at risk.

This should be read as CYA. If you are involved in an allowable activity and took reasonable measurers to mitigate risk, accidents do happen. If you participate in a prohibited activity, you run the risk that all bets are off- there are no absolutes, but as someone who's made their career in insurance, this is pretty much language that I would expect attorneys would say should be used to not deny all responsibility, but also not to accept all responsibility.

9 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

I don't actually believe that BSA 's insurance only covers you if you are following the GSS. That would be like saying your auto insurance only covers you if you are following all the traffic laws.

Auto insurance laws vary by state. In some, there is very limited liability that an insurer must cover when it can be established that the operator was not operating the vehicle in accordance to applicable law. If you are driving under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit, see just how much your insurance company is going to willingly cover claims against your policy.

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

A forthright and mature discussion or clarification about behavior, risk, and consequences is always appropriate.

I had these many times with troops at my Commander's Calls.  Funny, how we had less disciplinary actions than other units in the command...

Of course, a very different situation, as I had many other disciplinary tools at my disposal (UCMJ, pay, leave, promotions, assignments, deployments, etc.), but there are some similarities in principles... 

100% agree. The issue of negligence is at the heart of many liability cases that end up in the legal system. I think about the case against McDonalds where a person burned themselves on coffee that spilled on them when they had to stop short. Can't imagine that McDonalds could be liable on how people drive and have an expectation someone was going to spill coffee on themselves (then again, I also readily recognize that coffee is hot). 

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Scouter Code of Conduct:

"When transporting youth, I will obey all laws, comply with Youth Protection guidelines, and follow safe driving practices."

Maybe another reason BSA wants all adults to be registered... 

Remember old Tour Permits, where you had to record valid driver's license and insurance info??

https://www.boyscouttrail.com/docs/formlocaltourpermit.pdf

I still think it is a good idea for units to operate in the same manner as when the tour permits were required. 

BSA is trying not to scare the daylights out of folks, but, essentially if you don't follow BSA guidelines, your unit may very well find themselves on the liability hook. A good friend of mine is an attorney, and represented a family that was involved in a lawsuit with a neighboring Council. The Unit Leader and Chartered Organization were also named in the suit. Ironically, it was a case that involved exactly what Fr. John alludes to. The unit had an outing in NH, had a parent that was not a registered adult leader attending and transporting his son and two other scouts. Vehicle got into a car accident on their return leg, and one of the scouts he was transporting had some pretty significant injuries (he was seated on the side that took the impact from the other vehicle). Turns out the parent had a suspended driver's license. Council argued that they were not liable as the unit did not follow BSA policies. Council ended up settling for low amount (situation that it can be cheaper to give a few thousand to settle than pay your attorneys thousands and suffer the PR ding). 

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

No, adult program participants are clearly defined as members who are 18 but not yet 21 and are registered in programs like Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Exploring. So those two positions are not adult program participants, nor are they "an adult fee required position as listed," since they aren't on the list. Obviously they can hold additional registered positions, like at the unit level as mentioned above, but that shouldn't be a requirement, should it? I think those positions should be listed, for clarity if nothing else.

Lodges are Council programs, not units. There are no BSA position codes for Lodge Adviser/Lodge Associate Adviser etc. 

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

Both Chapter and Lodge Adviser seem to be missing from the list of adult positions approved for overnight camping. Are they just considered committee members, or are they prohibited from attending overnight OA events? 🤔

We currently have only one (Chapter) Adviser that is not associated to a unit. They are registered as a District Member-at-large.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA will not go Ch 7.  Based on their most recent cash burn they can last over a year without looking at Ch7.  Even after that year they could get more money from councils, etc.  Ch 7 is utter disaster.  BSA trademarks and program materials would be sold.  All properties sold. There are legal arguments that would be pursued to pull in all council assets.  Then CO and LCs would be sued.  BSA would likely not survive.  Ch 7 was a threat to get approval of a plan. 

If it does happen, who knows the outcome for claimants financially.  I think it would be bad for everyone excluding those who simply want BSA to die as they would likely get their wish. 

Properties would become a significant issue. National properties would be a matter of their own (and with outstanding liabilities on them, can't see them being sold for anything other than a loss). Many Councils could be in real bad straits, as many properties today are not outright owned by Councils, they are held in trusts that grant managerial control/usage to Councils. If the Council has to file Ch. 7, those are not outright assets for them, and exactly what happens to some of them could be long costly legal cases trying to resolve the "ownership issue".  

28 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

Today it is not unusual for a Council Scout Exec to be compensated (benefits & salary) at a quarter of a million or more. A really great SE is worth that and more. A board that invests that much in a council exec should expect performance. I have worked for both great council execs and for really bad ones. Councils that consistently lose membership, merge districts, cut staff and run in the red or constantly raise less money year after year probably have a leadership problem. Councils that hold their own in difficult times and grow and rise to the challenges probably have solid leadership. The field execs generally work longer hours than their compensation would reflect and where there is poor leadership they tend to 'get out' and go where they will be properly compensated and appreciated. There will always be those in the profession that are highly competent and committed to the programs and mission and councils are blessed to have them at any level. Scouting needs solid, competent and dedicated professionals. Support the good and great ones and don't tolerate incompetent ones. 

It's a system that has just made a "good ole' boy" network the only game in town. Truly, BSA should take a solid look at itself and ask how inclusive it really is, and its dedication to that, at the number of females it has in the SE ranks. Don't see a whole lot on the horizon that is going to increase those numbers in the short term either. What we have is a bunch of folks who have four year degrees (but, in just about any major) with little to no work experience outside of BSA, who have managed to stick it out for 10-15 years and find themselves in positions to be "CEO". Yes, we have some good people who have used their experiences well and have been/can be successful with the position, but we also have quite a few that would be hard pressed to get a job in anything higher than lower-management in corporate America.

Holding them accountable- or, not tolerate them- is a whole other issue. How many of you can raise your hand and say your Council is transparent on when the E-board meets? Get any minutes from those meetings? Heck, get anything but disdain and conflict if you ask any questions of them? Our COR has never received anything from Council, so the idea that they ask every CO to have a voice is completely not true. Our current Council President has sent two emails total since the start of 2021. Predecessor had one FB live fireside chat in two years. Other than participating in that FB live fireside, the SE has sent exactly zero communications of their own in over three years. There should be plenty of motivation for these folks to be transparent and demonstrate that they are being good stewards for the sake of youth, but sadly there just is not enough of that happening in practice, and not nearly enough controls to hold them to account (other than packing your rucksack and moving on and let your feet do the talking- if they are even listening to that).

41 minutes ago, MacBrave said:

A link to the PDF that was used to present this new "Adventure Fee" to CAC volunteers at last week's district roundtables is here:https://crossroadsbsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PP.pdf?vgo_ee=PEyTUlc0mr504drzrLyWRWVLY1pGRWb2%2B0FTX4hhTec%3D

 

And as a long time volunteer in the Crossroads of America Council at both the Pack and Troop level I do not approve of this fee.

 

I do think we are going to see more and more councils that were not charging a separate liability insurance fee to units will start to. Spirit of Adventure Council charges $100/year on top of Nationals chartering fee.

Discount on "monthly specials" only at Crossroads Outfitters? OK. Not on everything, just what would probably otherwise have been a sale price on a monthly item.

What I would be wary of is the discount on activities/rentals. The councils here that put in the annual fee for "Adventure Card" just jacked prices up that same year for events/rentals, so the net benefit was really not much. And, considering that many of those things are booked by the unit and not the individual, it meant that the unit had to buy at least one adult that could handle the bookings an "Adventure Card" membership to get the discount for the unit.