ValleyBoy

9 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

The similar issue that has come up with YPT, but more as friends.  You are a leader in the troop.  Your child is in the troop.  Another child in the troop lives nearby, they come over to play video games and other (maybe) school stuff on a Saturday.  As you are the only adult there, and YPT specifies in and out of Scouting, you are in violation of YPT rules as there are two Scouts there and only one leader.

Oh the horrors

We have had this discussion inside our troop with adult leadership.  Our SM son's best friend is also a member of the troop and they spend a lot of time together.  No telling the number of times that only one adult was present.  Both of these youth are over 18 now but are still registered with the troop.  Our SM also works with his Churches youth group and they also use 2 deep adult leadership but it is our understanding that he is in violation of scouting youth protection if any of the youth that attend are scouts and there are not 2 registered scout leaders present at thoughts activities.    

37 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

Yes, I would think so.  All meetings and activities need to have 2 registered adult leaders age 21+ now.  Other adults being present would not meet the 2-deep leadership requirement unless they are also registered adult leaders with the BSA age 21+.

You are correct.  But has the scouting program gone overboard in certain situations when it comes to 2 deep leadership.  Example,  Timmy and Tommy are next door neighbors and best friends.  Both are in the same patrol which Timmy is the patrol leader.  They meet after school at one of them house to work on an activity for the next scout meeting with no adults present since there parents have not got home from work or only one parent is home but is inside the house and they work on the activity in the back yard.  Since this is a scouting related activity do you as a registered youth protection trained adult leader in there troop inform them that this activity is not allowed since it is scouting related due to the fact that they do not have 2 deep leadership.

Several years ago while I was SM of the troop over half the youth were members of the High School & Middle School band and there concerts were always on the same night (Tuesday) as our meeting time.  Instead of canceling our meeting we would move our meeting to Monday evening  at city hall and attend the city council meeting. 

Scouting can happen at many different places as long as the rules are followed.  If the Scoutmasters conference at the SM home works for that unit and 2 deep leadership is followed I see nothing wrong if this is the way this troop does this.  The troop that I am a member is sponsored by a Church and I am a member of another church.  Several week ago my church's men's had a breakfast and workday at the church,  I invited the scouts to attend and informed them that they could earn service hours for the event.  One other adult leader with our troop attended with his son but even if he had not attended the event 2 deep adult leadership was followed since other adults were at the event.  Alarm bells only ring if the rules are not followed.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

 

It's a tough sell, but really.  Also if the discussion is membership and units, they all talk about how the year ended, adding girls, good growth..but no detail about how things shook out after recharter.

Does not help when the council office about shuts down the last half of December. 

25 minutes ago, scotteg83 said:

My council has been talking about getting one of their camps sold to a land trust, which would help this issue if it happens.

The older camp was placed in a trust around 100 years ago.  Council sold another camp before leasing the Corp of Engineers property around 20 years ago.  I believe the lease is for 50 years.

If the local councils get pulled into the Chapter 11 some such as my local council might be able to survive.   The reason I say this is that my local council only owns the local council office building.  The two camp properties that the council uses are not owned by the council.  The main camp is leased from the Army Corp of Engineers and the other older camp property is in a trust that cannot be sold and would revert to the local community only if the scouts abandoned the property. 

3 minutes ago, malraux said:

Agreed, but what are we to do? 

I do agree that the current charter model is flawed. The idea behind it is that a youth serving organization would seek out the scouting program to become a franchise of the BSA as one of their elements. In practice, what happens is that a group of people say they want a scout group, and then find a chartering partner. The CO really doesn't care about scouting in particular. Not a good system. Not sure how to replace it, as my impression of the GSUSA system wherein the council owns all the units is even worse.

Bingo.

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

Then they are not fulfilling the terms of their Charter agreement.  To me, this is one of the biggest failures of the current model.  The CO/COR are ignorant of, or simply ignore, their agreed upon responsibilities...and the Professional staff are just as happy to be given free rein without outside interference, handpicking the Executive Board to do the SE's bidding.  Perhaps scout camps would not be sold off to continue paying 6-figure salaries if the CORs showed up and voted.

But what do you do when you have a good unit except for having a uninvolved CO/COR.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

The most positive change the councils could make would be to restore the role of the Chartered Organizations.   

I do not see it as restoring the role of the Chartered Organization.  I see it as a better line of communication between the council and the Charter Organizations.  Most units that I see that drop. drop because of losing adult leadership that were not members of the charter organization and have no youth that were members of the charter organization.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

My Chartered Organization would not normally approve of having a scout from our unit left at camp with people from a different unit.  We would want the scout to remain in our camp site.  But this was an extraordinary circumstance, and allowances must be made for extraordinary circumstances.

23 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

I don't think your CO would get much say in the matter. The Scout was removed from their care/custody by the parent and placed under the care of another willing individual/unit. I don't see how your CO could stop that if they wanted to. 

At this event I feel Pale Horse is correct.  The reason i feel he is correct is because  of the following.  My council has 3 fall family campout weekends in the fall that are all at the same location.  Most packs decide which weekend that they are going to attend an usually set up in one campsite. but each family attending has to register for the event with the council.   The pack can reserve a campsite for all there families attending if they so desire.  As a pack we would decide which weekend we would attend but each family decided if they wanted to attend that same weekend or were free to attend any of the other 2 weekends. 

18 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

You weren't in violation of any rules.  From the GTSS "In most cases, each youth member will be under the supervision of a parent or guardian. In all cases, each youth participant is responsible to a specific adult."

Your son was responsible to a specific adult, your friend.  There are plenty of times when neither of Jimmy's parents can go camping so Johnny's parent says "I'll be responsible for Jimmy."  And of course you can have one adult responsible for more than one Cub or else siblings would almost always be out of luck.

1 minute ago, Pale Horse said:

Unless the rules have changed since 17 years ago (and I can't believe they would have changed to be less restrictive), unless your son was a Tiger, there is no requirement that a parent must stay with a Scout on an overnight trip.

At different times we have got mixed signals from my local council on what is allowed and not allowed under GTSS when it comes to the scouting program.  The interpretation within my council on cub scout camping is that all cubs below webelos  have to have a parent, relative over the age of 18, or guardian ( foster parent) with them when camping overnight except for council/district overnight lock-ins.

As an registered scout leader youth protection is very important.  17 years ago while I was Cubmaster I was at a Council run cub scout family campout.  There were 4 or 5 other families from our pack set up in our campsite.  At that time I had only met each one of these families just several  months before when there son joined the pack.  About the time I was going to start cooking supper for my son and I, I received a phone call from my wife and was informed that she, my mother and daughter had been involved in a bad car accident.  I informed the parents of my pack of what had happen and that I was going to have to leave.  Where my automobile was parked at the camp there was no way I could leave in it without having several autos moved and no way of knowing who they belonged too.  Another couple that son was in another pack who I knew very well since they lived on the same street that we did and our sons played together with offered to carry me to my home 10 miles away from the camp so that I could go to the hospital in our other vehicle.  They offered to watch my son so that I did not have to take him with me.   I made the decision to leave my son with them since it was the only option I had except for taking him with me. 

I broke the cub scout camping rules when I allowed my son to stay over night at the campout without a family member being present at the campout.  Would I do the same thing again today in the same situation, yes I would. 

11 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

If you are on a troop camping trip at a non BSA property like a state park, and a parent who is non registered is walking off somewhere alone with a scout that is not their child, you propose doing nothing, because the YPT rules don't apply to them? They haven't broken any laws (yet.)

Do they mean any harm? No probably not. Is it worth doing nothing and hoping for the best? No. 

We can't forcibly apply YPT to every situation and place, particularly outside of BSA events, but at BSA events, I'm going to follow YPT and insist others do the same. 

As a unit leader I would have a talk with that adult and inform them that since they are part of an scouting activity that they have to follow scouting YPT rules.  Also that they now have one strike against them and another strike will mean they have to leave the activity. 

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Dino the brontosaurus is the Sinclair mascot ...  chosen by ad men back when it was cool to brag about extracting fossil fuels from PA substrate.

I must be getting old because I remember Dino and Sinclair gas stations in the south back in my younger days.  Have not seen one in right at 50 years.

4 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

We have never turned in the project book with Eagle application.  Our unit completes 12 to 14 Eagles annually.  The initial project is approved at the district, then reviewed at the EBOR, but that is it.  

Pre-EBOR we turn in 2 page application to service center and contact list, then post EBOR application with signatures

Pre EBOR we turn in the 2 page application, reference letters, and Completed Eagle Project workbook to the Council office.

15 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@ValleyBoy  Returned to council with letters yes.  Sent to National no.  Application is electronically sent to national 99% of the time.   SEs like to flip through their project binders prior to signing the application.

In my council if the SE wants to look thru the project binder he should have had the council register make him a copy when it was at the council office the first time before the BOR.   

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just went to council two weeks ago post Eagle BOR.  They only needed the advancement sheet and the 2 page signed application to go to National, not the workbook.  So perhaps this did change.   

I know for the Eagle BOR that I have been a member of that the above is what we have informed the scout that have to be returned to the council office. 

1 hour ago, le Voyageur said:

I say, why not!  But, take it up a notch where the Camp uses their Camp Commissioners as "traffic cops" in that  they write citations for infractions of pre establish safety rules.  Those cited would then appear before a judge (Program Director) at the Camp's "traffic court".....just my 2 cents, and thinking out loud

My locale camp allows bicycles to be used on the camp after the bicycle is checked for any safety issues and the scout is briefed on the camp rules on riding a bicycle such as areas of camp that they cannot  be used such as 2 very steep dirt roads that are used as walkways between most of the campsites and main area of the camp.    The scout is then issued a use permit that is attached to the bicycle.  No traffic court, break any of the camp bicycle rules and the scout loses permit and can no longer used the bicycle for the rest of summer camp.  ONE STRIKE and YOU are OUT RULE.  

I would not count it for either of the above 2 merit badges.  It is not one of the type meeting listed for the Citizenship in the Community merit badge.

15 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

Donating to the CO sounds like a workable plan.

Another possibility is to set up a revocable land trust to hold the title.

You might need to get an attorney to do this for you, or you may be able to consult with  your local "Bank & Trust". Better to rely on professional advice about this than it is to listen to most of us typical internet users...well intentioned as we might be.

Plus 1 to this.  The local scout camp that I attended as a youth and were my grandfather served on staff at in the 1940's was donated to the scouts sometime between 1911 and 1920.  This 40 something acre camp is held in a trust by the local scout council.   Around 1990 the local council became part of our neighbor council.  In the mid 2000's the local council closed the camp and the speculations were that they intended to sell the property.  What the new council did not know was that they did not own the property  so they could not sell the property.   The way the property was worded in the trust that the council held was that the scouts had the use of the property as long as they did not abandon the property.  If the scouts abandoned the property  the land would revert to the local city.

Eagle BoR are different from other rank BoR in my district due to the fact that other rank BoR are done by persons that know the scout on the unit level whereas the members of the Eagle BoR  may not have ever had any dealing with the scout.  There have been many Eagle BoR that I have been a member of that the board as not even asked the scout to say the scout oath or the scout law.  But one question we almost always ask is one of the following.  " There are 12 scout laws if you had to remove one of the laws which one would you remove and give your reason why you would remove it for the law.' or what law would you add and give your reason."  There is no right or wrong answer but as a board we are trying to get a feel for the scouts thought process.    

At my local councils summer camp each bath/shower house is shared between 2 campsite that will hold about 40.  In the campsite my troop was located during summer camp was shared by 4 different troops.  All female troops were placed in 2 campsites that shared the same bath/shower house.  Everything else stayed the same.

The scouter at the range in this case absolutely did the wrong thing.  I have a special needs daughter and would not have had a problem if she would have not been allowed due to the fact that I know her abilities.  The biggest issue to me is camp staff that do not know how to deal with special needs kids so there fallback position is potential safety issues.  

Well we had one scout that had 27 knife's on him during a camping trip.  His father who was on the camping trip removed all but 2 of the knifes from him.