InquisitiveScouter

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

The call just came out from our council...

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

Thank you! for your willingness to serve youth in the XXX Council as a Merit Badge Counselor. 

There is more to merit badges than simply providing opportunities to learn skills. There is more to them than an introduction to lifetime hobbies, or the inspiration to pursue a career—though these invaluable results occur regularly. It all begins with a Scout’s initial interest and effort in a merit badge subject, followed by a discussion with a unit leader, continues through meetings with a counselor, and culminates in advancement and recognition. It is an uncomplicated process that gives a Scout the confidence achieved through overcoming obstacles. Social skills improve. Self-reliance develops. Examples are set and followed. And fields of study and interest are explored beyond the limits of the school classroom.  All this occurs because of the desire by a Scout to earn a merit badge through their association with you.

New this year (from the National Office) – effective August 1^st:   There will be a $25 annual registration fee for any Merit Badge Counselors that do not have a current Unit, District or Council registration.   Fees can be sent to the Council Service Center payable to XXX Council

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

The straws on the camel's back are getting heavy!

Have any of you had discussions with those who are registered solely as MBC's, and what impact this will have on them?

26 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The program is maturing when the scouts observe trends of deficiencies and act to correct them.

LOL.  This is a rare occurrence.  They keep observing the trends, but usually take no action to correct.  They talk a good game about how to fix something, often coming up with good ideas, but hardly ever implement their fix.  This is very annoying, but, in our Troop culture, the adults know not to step in and do it for them.

I have seen this malady in many organizations, including the military.  In exercise, after exercise, after exercise, you'd see the same "deficiencies".  They are supposed to be "Lessons Learned"... we often joked (on the inspection teams) that they were simply "Lessons Repeated"    We even implemented this in a Department of Defense-wide system: the Joint Universal Lessons Learned System (JULLS).  It's a database of "Start-Stop-Continue" if you will. Or, sort of a wiki on what went right, what went wrong, and how to correct.  But few military organizations (at least in my 26 years) seemed to have the bandwidth available to study them or learn from the successes and failures of others.  Often, it was just "Lessons Repeated."  Those that did study JULLS were often wildly successful.

Considering the age groups and stages of mental development we deal with in Scouting, I expect exactly what we are getting... a lot of "Lessons Repeated."  The mantra among our leaders is "Remember who you are dealing with."

I fervently hope you all reach a "mature program."

26 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Also, a scout should have more than one conference, or intimate conversation, with the adult leadership before a BOR.

Agreed.  Adult Association at work!!

4 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I'm neither mrjohns2 nor MattR, but I'm betting my internal reaction to Soros being mentioned was similar to theirs. Let's see if I'm right.

George Soros being some sinister dark force controlling bad things behind the scenes is a decades-old internet trope. There doesn't seem to be much George Soros isn't ruining. If you believe the internet, it's George Soros' fault if I burn dinner. Ok, not really, but he's cast as the evil mastermind ruining everything when most of the time, he's not actually involved. 

Of course, his philanthropy and its aims can and should be discussed and it is fair to disagree with what he's actually doing. But because of all the decades of internet conspiracy theories, any such real, serious, fact-based discussion needs to be very carefully framed before digging in, or eyes will predictably roll.

Forbes is a serious media organization, and I would expect them to have verified that Soros really did fund those election campaigns, but because of the sheer volume of false claims about what Soros funds my first thought was "is this really true though?" Normally I trust Forbes fact-checking, but even so I found myself wanting to see if any other serious traditional media are reporting this.

In the 00s, I couldn't figure out why Soros was blamed for so much random stuff, especially for being some kind of leftist when actual leftists were protesting Davos (where he was almost a dignitary). So I googled it, and it turns out it's the old Jewish cabal lie.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-george-soros-and-why-is-he-blamed-in-every-right-wing-conspiracy-theory/

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49584157

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/09/12/the-troubling-truth-about-the-obsession-with-george-soros/?sh=5c34404b4e2e

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/antisemitism-lurking-behind-george-soros-conspiracy-theories

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

Thanks, but I do not buy into all that other stuff you cited...  as I am not a conspiracy theorist...

Which is why I also looked into the veracity of Open Society Foundation's (using Soros's money) injection into the support of "progressive" (really poor word to describe) candidates into the justice system, before posting.  Everything in that article bears out to be factual.  (BTW, it is their constitutional right to do exactly what they are doing.  But that does not change the disastrous consequences of what we see happening in the justice system in the US.)

@SiouxRanger ask for examples of socio-political organizations (and how) which are undermining institutions.  I gave three instances of views that are out there.  I, too, and still awaiting @Tired_Eagle_Feathers response.

Your internal reactions are just that... as John Adams said "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Please put aside your inclinations and the dictates of your passion, and let me know which of the three instances I pointed out are untrue? 

Also, as I pointed out... the intent does not have to be nefarious... an organization can be undermined as an unintended consequence of the policy or change some seek to put in place.

I never said anyone came out with the express intent to destroy BSA (except Kosnoff?).  But the actions many take are doing just that.

I have also posted here, many times, that I am ambivalent to the existence of BSA.  BSA does not equal Scouting.  One is a corporation, the other a movement.  I support the movement.

Thanks for taking the time to post your views rather than just slapping a down vote on something.

9 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

There is a difference between a retest and probing with a scout about how well he knows a skill, how he learned it, how whichever scout worked with him played their role in testing him and making sure he had learned the skill, etc..  I never did the former, part of but certainly not the entirety of every SM conference I ever did included the latter.

Some scouts retain more some less, some scout-instructors were better than others.  SM conferences were a part of how I learned where all my scouts fell on those spectrums.  If I thought a scout really didn't have a skill I'd subtly work with my SPL and PLs to make sure the scout got the opportunity to review and work on it in the future so they did learn it better.  Same with the instructors.

For me, I always reminded myself that rank and advancement were means to an end.  I tried hard to not get caught up in "how can Johnny be First Class he couldn't tie a taut line hitch when I asked him."  I've learned and forgotten libraries full of of stuff over the years --- and truth be told to this day a taut line hitch usually takes me more than one try.

Agreed.  I'm more of the "How can Johnny be a First Class?? He never learned to tie a taut line hitch!" kind of person. 

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I find SM conferences are fine for random sampling and quality checks. The SM only needs to check a few Scout Books to see a trend. More than that has the appearance of checking up on the scouts. 

Barry

Although the guidelines are very loose for SM conferences, I see what you propose as out of place.

So what happens when you find out Johnny does not know a skill, but says he did it once and got it signed off?  If you aren't observing the instruction and evaluations, how do you know the instructors and evaluators are teaching correctly?

"The conference is not a retest of the requirements upon which a Scout has been signed off. It is a forum for discussing topics such as ambitions, life purpose, and goals for future achievement, for counseling, and also for obtaining feedback on the unit’s program. In some cases, work left to be completed—and perhaps why it has not been completed—may be discussed just as easily as that which is finished."  G2A

I see I touched a nerve there @mrjohns2  Care to elaborate?

3 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

SM can get their QA check at SM conference

That is too late.  SM & ASMs should be doing "random sampling" of sign-offs to gauge instruction and completion of the requirements as stated.  That is, they mentor the instructors and evaluators...

3 hours ago, NDW5332 said:

Scoutbook will allow a youth to mark items as "complete" and it would be up to the Scoutmaster, one of the designated ASM's, or the Advancement Chair to Approve the requirement.

We make it clear that this monkey is on the Scout's back.

That is, the Scout is responsible for completing and tracking his own advancement.  If he wants to mark something complete in Scoutbook, fine.  He must then go to any youth who is approved to sign off, or to the assigned Assistant Scoutmaster for his Patrol, to get things signed in his Scout Handbook.  Once the Handbook is signed, he notifies the ASM, who then marks completions in Scoutbook.  The Handbook is primary.  Scoutbook is a back up (for when the Scout loses his Handbook 😜 )

We even have our Scouts contact our Advancement Chair to request scheduling their Boards of Review.

Pro tip:  We use a highlighter to mark things in the Handbook when they are approved in Scoutbook.  That way, at a glance at the Scout's Handbook, we can tell if he is shepherding his own advancement.