InquisitiveScouter

3 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm not aware of anything BSA does.

Ask you for more money and treat you like dirt?

16 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I know some COs had no problem with parents taking YPT, getting a background check by the BSA, and registering as an  MBC. We were told that MBCs also underwent a background check.

I had this "discussion" with Michael Johnson some years back (2018).

I still have the email...  my question was about MBCs attending an event over 72 hours (back when that rule was in place).

My question was this:

Given the following:

1.  BSA requires registration for MBC's in order to complete a background check

2.  The state of PA also requires a PA State Police Criminal Record check, a PA Department of Human Services Child Abuse History check, and an Affidavit of Residence Over 10 Years in the State (or an FBI Fingerprint Check if not in PA 10 years or more)

3.  The COR approves the individual.

4.  There will be at least two unit-registered adult leaders on the outing.

Then why must they pay an additional registration fee, when BSA will accomplish no further actions?

His reply was that my question was an attempt '...to evade BSA's registration and selection process...'

Which, of course, it was nothing of the kind.  It was an attempt to evade burdensome registration fees  and additional unproductive nonsensical paperwork 😛 

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Yet the MBCs  cannot camp.

This one baffles me.  Except from the COR standpoint.  That is, your COR has an absolute say over who participates in their Scouting program.  But, if you clear it with your COR, then I don't see the issue. 

9 minutes ago, cmd said:

Our council just increased our insurance fee from $6 to $20, and extended that to include MBCs.  So that has jumped from $0 to $45 this year.  That's a lot to ask someone to pay for the POSSIBILITY of someone asking to do a merit badge with them. 

An organization my husband is part of asked him to become a MBC because they had a troop asking them if they could supply one with the program they were signing up for.  But the process of vetting him as a MBC took 3-4 months and that program had long since passed by the time they approved him, and no one else has asked to work with him. If he had paid for that exclusive, it would be even more irksome! 

I really don't understand the reasoning behind the current version of the weird 2nd class MBC membership status.  Are they really costing us the same as all leaders, but being somewhat subsidized?  With restricted privileges so we're only subsidizing the ones who are unlikely to pay full price to join? I could accept that reasoning if they admitted that was the goal, but all I've heard is lawyer-blaming. 

A big piece of the MB role in the program is giving youth a reason to call an adult they don't already know and ask them to work together.  That seems like the obvious role for a groomer to step into.  If a person is safe enough to meet with my child in a MBC role, they're safe enough to camp with us, so I don't buy the official arguments about it. 

 

Our solution: have adults in the unit register as the counselor for as many MBs as they .  Then, have Scouts invite "guest" instructors in when you are having that piece of program.  When complete, you sign off the reqs as MBC.

This still does not quite meet the "Adult Association" method you were talking about... having the Scout learn to make arrangements for a MB with a new person.  (Because we usually do these in small group settings, so only one Scout is making the guest arrangements.)

Also, I have talked with several leaders in other units who say they just invite the "guests" to do the instruction, then sign off the MBs in Scoutbook, without being an MBC.  No, this does not meet the intent or design of the program, IMO, but the practice is underway...

3 minutes ago, Delphinus said:

I noticed that the fees on the Boy Scout side have gone up significantly this year based on an email notification a month or so ago.. Assistant Scoutmaster registration prices have increased about 50% this year, and Merit Badge Counselors, people who volunteer and freely donate their time and expertise, have gone from no fee to an annual $25 fee for the opportunity to volunteer their time. This will make it far LESS likely that people will volunteer. I'll help out as an ASM and merit badge counselor for a couple of years, but I am trying to get our son to get through the program and "Eagle Out" sooner. Once he does, my freely donated time and expertise will end. 

Not enough to volunteer my time, energy, and expertise, or even that I pay for that privilege, but now the price to pay to volunteer is going up? 

I think BSA does not really know what side their bread is buttered on.

IMO, fewer adult volunteers will only mean fewer Scouts for the membership rolls.

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Ah! Good. Which kind do you use? We couldn’t find any that seemed to be “designed” for dishes, but since we found the others, we stopped looking. 

BTF Chlor Tabs   https://www.webstaurantstore.com/national-chemicals-inc-13002-btf-chlor-tab-bar-glass-sanitizer-tablet-100-count/99913002A.html

We have a volunteer who runs a restaurant supply...  he gets them wholesale, and donates when needed. 

Check with your local restaurant supply... they might sell them at cost to a Scout Troop. 

One tablet per wash basin of rinse water, marked to two gallons, which gives more than 100 ppm minimum for recommended (depends on which source you use) chlorine concentration.  I think the bottle says 1 tab per 2 1/2 gal water gives 100 ppm.  Scouts will often not fill to the basin mark, but that just makes the concentration stronger, which I am OK with. 

As long as they keep the sanitizing water "clean" this solution lasts all day, so could be good for three meals.  I think directions say good for 24 hours?? 

BTW, tossing out dishwater ought to go like this...

1.  Rainbow toss your rinse water.

2.  Screen gunk out of wash water (we use old window screen) while pouring into empty rinse basin.  This goes in garbage...

3.  Rainbow toss  wash water.

4.  Pour half your sanitize water in each empty basin.  Let sit for a few minutes. 

5.  Rainbow toss.  Now all basins are clean.  (If your wash basin was especially yucky, dump out the wash basin first, then use the sanitize water from the rinse basin for a second soak.)

Postscript:  Advertised price for BTF puts them at about 27 cents per tablet.

Steramine advertised on Amazon is 6 cents per tablet (with Prime).  1 tab per gallon.  Might be a more thrifty solution if you have to buy.  (Don't know how long solution lasts.  I do not want to dive down the rabbit hole of test strips. 😛 )

Post-postscript:  Dishes usually aren't the culprit when things go bad.  Two highest causes of gastro problems are unwashed hands, and poor food prep practices.  Your time is better spent teaching/supervising those than worrying about bleach or ammonia concentrations!

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It sounds like you are not following your own advice. We don’t bring bleach, but you said that your troop does. Hummmm…..

Ahhh... I see how I got things crossed up for you...

@DannyG mentioned Steramine specifically.... so I was responding to that.  And yes @T2Eagle, Steramine is a quaternary ammonium product, so do not use with chlorine bleach.

We bring bleach tablets.

Apologize for the disorganized thoughts...

59 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Tablets. Easy to get on Amazon. It seems that the health departments are more on the ammonia tablets as well. 

Word of advice... Use one or the other in your Troop kit... never bring both.  You are asking for trouble if Scouts mix bleach tablets with ammonia products.

Ever hear of chloramine??  https://www.healthline.com/health/bleach-and-ammonia

Be advised, with either tablets or liquid bleach, you must make sure you are using it in accordance with the label. 

For example, this product, Evolve, available at WalMart, 

https://www.evolveproducts.com/product/evolve-ultra-concentrated-bleach-tablets-32-count/

specifically says, "NOT FOR SANITIZATION OR DISINFECTION"

Steramine, however, https://www.sanitize.com/products/

says "For Sanitizing Food Contact Surfaces"

Do your homework...

Also, make sure you are using a product consistent with the manufacturers instructions.  With liquid bleach, for example, a rose is not a rose IS NOT a rose.

Take the Clorox Liquid Bleach line, for instance.   You must be careful.   They have at least five different liquid bleach products on the market:

No-Splash Formula (do not use!!)  (For laundry and non-porous surfaces only)

Outdoor Bleach (do not use!!) (this is concentrated stuff... not for use on your dishes)

Disinfecting Bleach (you can use this one!!)   the label says "To Sanitize Food-Contact Surfaces"

- They recommend using this one... https://www.clorox.com/learn/how-to-sanitize-dishes-with-bleach/

- You can also purify water with this one...  https://www.clorox.com/learn/water-purification-how-much-bleach-purify-water-for-drinking/

Performance Bleach (you can use this one!!) the label says "To Sanitize Food-Contact Surfaces"

Germicidal Bleach (you can use this one!!)  the label says "To Sanitize Food-Contact Surfaces"

Of course, never use a scented bleach product on your dishes...  yes, they'll be lemony fresh, or lavendery (?) fresh, but those chemicals left behind on your dishes are not for consumption!!

We use tablets for the most part, but we have a small bottle of liquid bleach in the trailer as a backup for when the QM hasn't checked to see if we have adequate tablets 😜 (This is a health and safety issue, so we intervene here...)

For backpacking, we try to plan meals requiring no dishes.  We ask our Scouts to bring a metal spoon and cup.  Boil water in your metal cup to sterilize it.  Spoons get dipped in boiling water for sterilizing.

Here's a primer for more info: https://foodsafepal.com/approved-sanitizers-foodservice/

Bottom line:  "sanitize" means reducing pathogens to safe levels..., "disinfect" means kills all or most..., "sterilize" means kills all!!!

Washing dishes and washing hands... two of the most difficult habits to inculcate in youth AND ADULTS!!

I could tell you horror stories of military units in the field who didn't do these properly, either.

14 hours ago, DougJ said:

Apparently some medals were collected and destroyed and a new medal produced

I can confirm they were recalled by National.  Three different supply shop managers confirmed this.  And, you could not order one from scoutstuff.org until within the last few days.

The current picture posted at scoutstuff is the same as old medal...  except old medal stock number was 610646.  There is a new stock number now.

https://www.scoutshop.org/national-medal-for-outdoor-achievement-award-660210.html

Has anyone ordered one of the new, to see what change was made, if any?

If they did not make any changes, then it begs the question, why was it recalled, and unavailable for order for nigh on a year?

3 hours ago, BigCubr said:

The Sea Base (and others, I think) program guide gives weight limit tables by height. Is there any factoring for fitness? I know I have weight to lose, but even in my heyday of running (very slowly!) half ironmans, I was never under 250lbs, which is +20 over the tables. I completely understand the logic for safety reasons, etc.

So, do I spend money on a personal trainer to get fit-but-still-fat, a surgeon to amputate a leg to lose enough weight, or a therapist to get over missing this chance with my kid?

I am, of course, joking about the amputation. It all comes down to: How strict are they on the weight tables?

 

Thanks

It isn't necessarily about your fitness.  It's about others having to haul you out of a remote location if you are injured.

17 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

 I just don't believe BSA had any more responsibility than the rest of society. 

Not a legal responsibility, but a moral one.

7 hours ago, skeptic said:

If we are to make a comment, can we use the right spelling please.  Naught is another word for zero, pronounced not, or knot.  Still, I suggest this is not a good reason to knot up our emotiona, as it really really a naught sum discussion.  I suppose though we might at times be naughty and make waves.  Perhaps we need to have our backsides smacked with a knotty pine paddle.

What is the optimum speed in knots for that smack from a nautical implement? 😜 

Get a Special Power of Attorney... many are free to download.  Or, just find an example for your state on the interweb thingy...

Get parent signature notarized.  Two copies.  One for you, one for unit.  Bob's your uncle...

Might save you a headache down the road.

Here's a free one... so they say... https://www.rocketlawyer.com/sem/power-of-attorney-for-child

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The result?  The image is tarnished, and the membership roles have fallen.

I am so sorry... In my haste, I completely excluded the paramount result: more kids were abused!!

Please forgive my oversight.

3 hours ago, yknot said:

If an organization that is supposed to represent the very best in moral leadership couldn't collectively figure out what the right thing to do was no matter what the times, then I don't think it should have been marketing or presenting itself as such to America's families. Parents weren't trusting their sons to Men Who Camp in the Woods With Boys, they were trusting Boy Scouts of America, and all that they believed that implied: Honor. Duty. Morally Straight, etc., etc. 

This is the real crux of the issue.  BSA executives, at the time, knew they had a problem within the organization, but did not make a clarion call for policies to intervene.  They chose to keep the trends they were seeing private, and protect the image and posterity of the organization, rather than take aggressive action to protect the children under their umbrella.

The IVF files, then, became the double-edged sword.  While it was a method for excluding perpetrators, it was a mechanism to keep the trends "in house", instead of bringing them into the light of day.  Their fear was that by bringing the issues to light, the BSA image would fail, and the membership roles would plummet.  They are now hoist with their own petard, as the files showed the trends that were kept hidden.  The result?  The image is tarnished, and the membership roles have fallen.

Illegal?  No. 

Unethical?  You bet. 

Morally straight?  Not in my book.

On 8/31/2023 at 11:58 AM, mrjohns2 said:

I think it is to eliminate “outsiders” that have no other connection to scouting besides merit badges. Quite the change from when I was a youth in the ‘80s. 

Yes, I think this will lead to a little more isolation of Scouting from the community at large.  We have several MBCs locally that have nothing to do with Scouting other than being a MBC.

We do have a few parents who signed up to counsel who are now dropping, after their kid finished Eagle.  At least they counseled several other Scouts on the badges the were signed up for, instead of only for their own kid. 

Still think the optics on that will be really bad if word gets around, but it won't come from me 😜

47 minutes ago, Aarav said:

Hi ,

          Does volunteering for  community bike event  counts towards conservation service hours. Please advice.

What is the purpose of the community bike event?  Was it to raise money to support environmental efforts in the community?

These things are often a judgement call on the part of the leader approving the service.  Or, better yet, take it to the PLC.

Happy Scouting!

9 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

What value is the CO supposed to bring? Free meeting spaces? I don't quite understand why they exist, it seems extra complicated with relatively little payoff.

The Chartering Organizations are embedded in their local community.  They agree to use the Scouting program as part of their outreach in their community.  They also agree to provide support for the Troop, and be voting members of the council.  They are supposed to be the ones vetting leaders for the Scouting units they own.

Many did not, and many do not, take these responsibilities seriously.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-113.pdf

12 hours ago, AnotherScouter said:

I have some questions about the role and policies of the Chartered Organization. Specifically, our chartered organization recently has become more interested in controlling certain aspects of our Troop. I am wondering if these policies are in the purview of the CO or if they are overstepping:

1. They are requesting the key 3 members to use email addresses that are registered with the CO instead of personal email addresses
2. They have put Unit funds into an account controlled by the CO and not the Unit, and all payments go to the CO but are earmarked for the unit. The unit's balance and funds are then reconciled by the Treasurer of the CO. They have even gone as far as saying they want to take funds from one scouting unit and give it to another scouting unit, without the scouting unit having a say in the matter. The only exception is rechartering fees which are paid directly to BSA. 
3. They have decided that the unit leaders will have fixed terms and the CO will select the next unit leader. Again without any input from the unit itself as to who that leader will be. In our case, the Scoutmaster. The troop itself was very happy with the current Scoutmaster, who is very involved in Scouting (Wood Badge, etc). But none of that mattered. 
4. They are asking the Scoutmaster to work directly with the CO instead of going through the CoR. 

I'm not sure if I want to raise a stink by escalating up to the Council or district, but I am still wondering if the CO is within their rights here as a CO, or are they violating some BSA policies? 

Point by point:

1.  This is unusual.  What is the reasoning behind the request?  What is the problem they are trying to solve with this?  Does the CO wish to monitor the emails?  What if the Key 3 get these email addresses and still keep using their personal addresses for "unit correspondence"?  Does the CO really want to read the hundreds of emails that go around amongst the Key 3?

- My gut says no, but only for this reason:  The COR is the "trusted agent" of the CO.  It is the COR's job to keep the CO informed of what is going on with the unit. The COR acts as a filter between the CO and the unit, often screening out the minutiae of the unit that would just be so much noise for the CO.  As a member of the Key 3, the COR is (should be) plugged into everything going on in the unit.  If this is not the case, then there is your actual problem to fix.

- If they do not buy the point above (and this is the COR's job to convince them), then go ahead and try it.  Then, the Key 3 can go into those accounts, and automatically forward all emails to their personal accounts if they wish.  Just make sure a "Reply" or "Reply to All" from the personal account reflects the organizational account.  Alternatively,  the CO could have a single "Key 3" account, and the Key 3 could do an email cc to this account on all their correspondence.  Cumbersome, in any case.  Anyone have a more elegant solution to this?

2.  Yes and no.  Again, unusual. 

- But, yes, it is within the prerogative of the CO to have oversight of the unit's funding.  Does the CO really wish to burden their Treasurer with keeping track of all the receipts and accounting?  This is difficult just within the unit itself.  All the Troop supplies, and camp fees, and advancements we purchase... hundreds of transactions per year... yikes. 

- NO, because the unit should have a separate account.  This is part of the Charter Agreement.  See II.B.4 

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Annual-Charter-Agreement-Charter-Orgs_2023-2024-Year.pdf

- Hard NO, to taking funds from one unit and giving them to another.  This must only be the case if one of the units under their purview folds.  Then all funds and property should be used as the CO sees fit, but still for the purposes of Scouting, as per the Charter Agreement.

3.  Unusual. 

- Selecting unit leaders is well within the prerogative of the CO.  But, again, this is a primary role of the COR (the CO's "trusted agent").  That they do not get Troop Committee input (which would be more focused on the health of the unit, and all the interpersonal dynamics in play), would be a red flag.

4.  Hard NO.  This is the purpose of the COR.  If the CO (collectively) cannot find a "trusted agent" within its ranks to work with the units under its umbrella, then that is also a red flag.  Selecting a COR is one of the key points a CO agrees to in the Unit Charter Agreement.  See II.A.4. "4. Select a Charter Organization Representative (COR) to serve as a voting member of the council."

-----------------------------------------

There are details and history here that are probably factors in the CO making these requests.  Your Key 3 (primarily COR) needs to find out what the CO's concerns are, and work with the Troop Committee to find ways to address those concerns.

This all seems a bit heavy-handed and micromanaging.  I'd first try to find out who is driving this (this sounds like one, or a few, individuals) and have a discussion on why they feel the need to seek these restrictions on unit administration.

If you have a DE, put a bug in her ear about this.

Have an exit plan for you and your Scouts.  Begin looking for another unit.

5 minutes ago, ramblingfam said:

to act as a CO for the units

That's the piece that kills it...

If this new organization signs a Charter Agreement with the Council, and acts as the CO, then no.  Well, at least not without some coordination with council.

Para II.A.4. of Chartering Agreement states the CO must "Refrain from soliciting financial support except as authorized for the benefit of the Unit or the Local Council."  https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Annual-Charter-Agreement-Charter-Organizations_Short-Version_8.26.2022.pdf

So, the "as authorized" part there (I believe) means you'd have to follow all the BSA Unit Money Earning Guidelines... https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34427.pdf  ... and get approval from council before launching the fundraising operation.

Would the council approve this kind of money-raising??  Around here, no... well, not without at least 10% for the big guy 😜 (Probably more than 10%...)

NOTE:  "At no time are units permitted to solicit contributions for unit programs."  So, technically, the "Friends of" might be able to solicit, but certainly no one in the unit could.  (They can ACCEPT donations, but they cannot SOLICIT them.)

2 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Is any other council adding the council fee to MBCs? Mine is.

??? You mean more than $25??

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

And a Google search is proof of fact?

Hardly.

You said "anyone, anywhere"... LOL