yknot

I have never known a CO or a COR that isn't absentee or at very least hands off and I have been involved with two councils that would never force the issue for fear of losing units, membership, or FOS dollars. In many of the units, the COR is just a name on paper -- they do not belong to or represent the CO because there is no one available at the CO. Many COs around here are smaller churches with declining, elderly leadership. I think this is very different depending on what council you are in or part of the country. This is a problem BSA has ignored or played footsie with for years. The CO m

I was also absolutely unclear to what our moderator was referring and I am neither an attorney, a client, or a victim. I'm just interested in trying to keep track of what is going on and who all the different players are. I went back and reviewed all of the recent posts including ThenNow's and could find nothing that seemed remotely commercial. It was a long thread of logistical discussions similar to you can buy tents at Walmart, Costco, or REI. With all due respect, this was a pilot error, not a passenger problem.

They said they were doing that at the last TCC town hall that Michael Johnson spoke at.

That disqualifier makes absolutley no sense. Certainly a thousand other review or oversight bodies aren't formed that way, whether it's sports injuries, accessibility, drunk driving, etc. If you want to fix something, you want people who are passionate critics and advocates involved. Otherwise you get lip service.

While I empathize with our volunteer moderators who may have felt they had to uncross swords 24/7, it did seem like people were continually baiting Cynical Scouter. Some of it was unwitting -- they were often newly arrived to the discussion -- but others seemed to enjoy poking the tiger knowing full well he would swat. I miss his analysis. I hope he comes back.

That's what I'm talking about with this badge as well as the disability badge. I really think those requirements should come out.

Just FYI some packs are completely pay as you go -- so you pay for your own expenses including advancements. Any fundraising would go toward pack expenses that everyone would use -- like camp stoves or meeting facility fees or web hosting.

I've been trying to keep up but my son just told me about another one -- A for Ally, not Asexual. His definition is that an Ally is someone who is either a friend or supportive of anyone who is one of the other letters or symbols, which basically means pretty much everyone is in the acronym. I've been trying to think and anticipate what the next one could be but I think the double AA along with plus might just cover it all?

One of the minor problems I have with this badge, which is the same issue I have with the disability badge, is the requirement to find and talk with someone who is disabled or, in this case, different from you. This kind of turns different scouts, as it does with disabled scouts, into unwitting and perhaps in some cases unwilling "specimens" for investigation to get a badge. We've all had scout who are pretty zealous in their pursuit of knocking off a merit badge requirement. I hope counselors for this badge will talk about tact when seeking out someone to talk to. Not every disabled kid wants

There are always rules.. I think the last time this was done by me it was joint councils. I think it was both by patrol and unit. In looking through some old stuff, before my time there was also something called a Mountain Man event that was a competition and there was also some kind of soap box derby race although that might have been cubs. At the cub level the Klondike around here is called The Yukon. I think it's more participatory than competitive.

What, do you mean like a Klondike? I think that's allowed.

You do see that you are doing the exact same thing? You are unilaterally making up language on your own here that is not in this article. I quoted the article exactly, aside from punctuation, in my comment. You are claiming because the statement disagrees with what your interpretation of what one on one means that it must be... wrong? ... So this article is somehow wrong on that but right on other things that agree with what you think? The below statement, also from the same article, contradicts your interpretation of alone: Question: One adult with two or

One adult leading multiple scouts on a hike IS breaking the rule. This is what I'm reading in this article: "While similar to two deep leadership in some ways, "no one on one" specifically states that adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult -- preferably a youth protection trained leader -- being present." Obviously, this article predates the registered leader requirement. There is also this from the FAQs on scouting.org: "Adults should not be alone with scouts who are not their children." There is also this under the Adult Supervision sect

Thank you. That is how I interpret as well although useful to note that even that is now out of date in some aspects.

Ditto

Where I am no one on one means no one adult with any amount of scouts, unless driving with at least one other scout. I'm not sure everyone interprets the policies the way you two are. Certainly you can have a one on one with a scout in a corner of a room in view of others but another adult has to be in the room, not somewhere in the building. I'm not clear at all how the interpretation you follow provides either no one on one or two deep youth protection.

I've heard that explanation before from some in scouting but every other youth organization that employs two deep leadership does so for youth protection reasons, not merely safety as you describe. It's to have two adults present as a check and balance against one another and thus protect the child. I think these are the kinds of issues that Michael Johnson was referring to. No one on one requires that two adults be present. If safety alone was the consideration, then being alone in an open door room with a scout or scouts in a building where other scout activities are taking place would not v

That's the loophole that people use. I think some common sense has to apply when you have an individual adult walking over to the health office or some other such task. On the other hand, people use that loophole to have only one adult in the camp site or to go off on a hike or take a bunch of kids to a swimming hole, etc., The rationale will be that there are "dozens" of registered adults present and the entire camp facility is the activity. The issue with the 72 hour rule is that it can inadvertently result in an unregistered adult being that sole individual supervising the camp site. I thin

I'm talking about leaving only one adult in the camp site with one bunch of scouts while the other adult goes off for a hike or something with a different bunch. That kind of thing. That's been discussed on this forum and people do report doing that.

What you see as a dream is the only way we attend camp. A lot of units somehow don't follow the two adult rule at summer camp, I think because it is not expressly ordered by BSA, which is to my mind a problem. Perhaps it's no coincidence that many of the abuse cases seem to be linked to summer camps.

In our case our unit was much more meticulous than our council. I am sure this is no longer the case, but within my recent memory the council did not perform background checks to save money. Their rationale was that people who had something to hide would refuse to agree to a background check and self screen anyway so why spend the money. At least that was the rumor. It's possible it simply happenened by default. We, like many councils, had a dearth of administrative support and paperwork processing was often late, incomplete, nonexistent, etc. They may simply have sat on a shelf so long, someo

You made off cheap. My neighbor's free fuel enterprise ended with a helicopter ride. He's back to using heating oil now.

Call them and say if they want to go home with the awards tomorrow they need to come with a check or cash to give you to cover what is owed. If they can't do that, tell them you'll hand their son an empty envelope so that he is at least verbally recognized and when they get the money together, you'll get the awards to them. You don't ever want to publicly shame a kid because his parents didn't pay. Normally I would say treat them as a scholarship case but if you have already been fronting personal money to keep the pack going, then you can't take that on too. I don't know what the

I think that's exactly the problem with YP that Michael Johnson and the TCC are pointing out. Too much of it is local and open to interpretation and loopholes. I am guessing Johnson and the TCC would like to see your Council's policy nationalized.

Actually, they are not. I think it's just a question of wording. Unregistered adults may not be in charge of the entire trip, but they are quite frequently put or left in supervisory positions at times while on trips. This happens all the time at summer camp and on camp outs.