DNRobbin

@Eagle94-A1, my scouting journey started over a quarter century ago, and I have been active since. I first started as a Lion in Cub Scouts, earned Arrow of Light, started Boy Scouts promptly at 12-13 years of age, then earned Eagle at 18. I'm also Order of the Arrow (Ordeal) and a Firecrafter. I was an assistant scoutmaster immediately after earning Eagle, and I am now Advancement Chair for the unit committee.

Unlike a few others voicing their passions in this thread, I don't see YPT as adding extra steps that would not or does not prevent abusive environments (or even mitigate risk of such environments) to our boys and girls.

I see them as essential features of a program that has been the subject of widespread and historic ridicule and criticism for being an "abusive" organization—sexual, hazing, or otherwise.

These rules are simply the product of that history. Perhaps someday, instead of 2 registered adult leaders over 21-years, we could have 2 registered adult leaders over 18 years. But that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, again, given the program's history.

The silver lining with that rule is that this should incentivize more parents (who will always be 21 years or older) to participate in the program as registered leaders. I see that as opportunity for growth, not a setback. Again, personally, I see no problem with these restrictions because the only time they're a "problem" is because they appear to us as mere inconveniences in the moment. The appropriate response to an "inconvenient" or "ill-advised" YPT requirement should not be "This is a terrible rule." It should be "This is the way we will have to do it, now how can we make it work?"

Since I can't walk and chew gum at the same time, I'll go for the latter response.

39 minutes ago, elitts said:

"You can't be trusted to have a video conference with each other without at least 2 adults monitoring you".

I cannot comprehend what would have a person so hung up on this single issue—right or wrong, well-interpreted rule or not—out of all others in Scouting. To devote one's attention to this in the manner few others have in this thread, it puzzles me. (And, it would seem, it has puzzled the majority of the posters on this forum.)

I submit we will not be able to understand one another, and I will leave it at that.

Best of luck.

On 5/8/2020 at 9:07 AM, elitts said:

"For example, our Scoutmaster recently mailed very nice congratulations and encouragement cards (for keeping going during the lockdown) to each of the boys on the PLC.  However, clearly under the new guidelines, Adults and scouts should not communicate via letter because 2 Deep Leadership can't be applied to written correspondence.  So obviously: THERE'S NO PLACE IN THE BSA FOR HANDWRITTEN LETTERS/CARDS"

I do not know if that is entirely accurate, and this may be jumping to a conclusion that possibly is unwarranted under the Guide to Safe Scouting, which is the text by which BSA has informed all adult leaders of the rules to be followed for the Scout's, the BSA's, and the Adults' protection. 

The purpose of two-deep leadership within Adult-Scout communications is to ensure that another adult is, at a bare minimum, made aware that a communication or interaction between an Adult and Scout has occurred. It is intended to put another responsible adult on notice and to be aware of this occurrence. Accordingly, sending a piece of mail addressed to a Scout at his or her home address puts that Scout's parent or guardian on notice that a communication has been received made from another adult. If the parent/guardian wishes, he or she could open the mail for the Scout and read the correspondence—or, better yet, read it with the Scout.

The possibility and opportunity is there, and the parent would be appropriately "carbon-copied" on the mailpiece, just in the same way as e-mail, or sitting in on a phone call over speakerphone, or sitting in the back of a videoconference in Zoom. Perhaps there is a rule in the GTSS directly on point, but as far as my YPT training and GTSS knowledge shows, I see no issue. Thus, I see no problem with a SM sending a handwritten card to one or more Scouts under the example the gentleman posed.

As for the rest of this thread, I disagree that the requirement of two-deep leadership for video-conference meetings is in any way detrimental to the goals of Scouting, and I must respectfully question those leaders who would be vehemently opposed to such a requirement (i.e., those who would call such things "stupid" or "nitpicking").