InquisitiveScouter

How long do you think it takes a council to get a background check done? Parent wants to camp and unit turns in their application on Friday... goes camping that night. Background check won't be done for a loooonnnngggg time. Not buying that that is the drive behind this.

No, but they should be!

So, are you implying that MBCs are not background checked?

You hit the nail right on the head, partner 😜 Gotta pay those salaries. In 2019, Surbaugh made $1.1M (2019 is last public form I could find) https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/221576300_201912_990_2021030217778557.pdf $134M in assets sales in 2019 also... https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221576300 compare that to the 2018 numbers...

No. Mr. Dad just has to sever the "connection" for the overnight... You could take that ad absurdum. All adults staying overnight in connection with a Scouting activity must be currently registered in an adult fee required position as listed or as an adult program participant. So, at bed time, he just says "Goodnight folks! I'm going to sleep on my own in a campsite I rented for myself. See you at breakfast!"

LOL, they should DRIVE over a bridge

Thanks! I have read through the G2SS many times, and never really registered that. Appreciate you citing it. We have not been using that checklist, but now we will. Wonder when that became part of G2SS?

No. But they can clearly articulate coherent policies. Not come up with more incoherent ones... For example, there should be nothing wrong with having MBCs be the second adult. They have to be registered, have YPT, and background checks. Simply put in the additional instruction: "MBCs may fulfill only one position of supervision at a unit event, with the permission of the CO." Unless, councils aren't really doing the background checks? ($$$)

@PACAN, the loophole @mrjohns2 is referring to is this (I think, because this is what we did...): Not too long ago, the G2SS required only one registered adult over 21, and a second "registered adult" form the supervision team for an overnight outing (it wasn't "all events" like it is now.) The rules did not stipulate this had to be a "unit registered adult" (it still does not stipulate that, but that is the intent). So, to save money, units would register the minimum number of adults required to have a unit on the charter, and then have everyone else register as MBCs (for free) so that they were "registered" and thus meet the G2SS requirements. Councils and National figured out this "loophole", and have moved to close it.

We used this scheme before it became "illegal." Also, in our state (PA), state law requires all adult volunteers to have three background checks: 1) A State Police Criminal Record check, 2) A "PA Child Abuse History Certification" from the Dept of Human Services, and 3) EITHER a signed Affidavit attesting no other charges OR an FBI Fingerprint background check if you have not been a state resident of 10 years. When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National. Which really begs the cynical question: Is this move more about collecting fees than it is about protecting children? (I think I know the answer.)

Yeah, we are able to train them and put them into combat, but the 18-year-old (legal adult) cannot have a personal conversation at Starbucks with their Crew Adviser without another registered adult present? No logic or sanity in that thinking at all... That is one of those "rules" where conscience, principle, and ethics dictate ignoring the rule and doing the right thing. I support you 100% @qwazse And even if reclassified, I'll still ignore it 😜

Please let us know how this turns out.

Now that is just plain stupid... Supposing those were assistant Scoutmasters for a Troop. They are not over 21, nor are they "adult program participants." So, it's ok to meet with them. But, the second one of them let's you know they have registered with a Venturing crew, you are a YPT criminal!! LOL Oh, the humanity 😛

@scoutldrI revived this one because the other thread is about the SAFE checklist versus insurance. Have you ever, in your BSA life, seen a copy of the policy?? I haven't. Haven't asked for one either

I honestly don't know. I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers. I believe this is a great fear they have. So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults. But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

I follow it religiously, to protect Scouts and Scouters, and to protect my family assets and security (in that order).

You still can, but it will only cover your co-pays. And that is Accident and Sickness coverage... that's a different policy than General Liability. Also, did you know?? If you kick the bucket (heart failure) within 90 days of participating in a BSA event, your survivors can claim a $10K benefit? *Includes loss of life resulting from Heart Failure within 90 days from the date participating in an approved Boy Scouts or Learning for Life (if purchased) activity: ———————————– ■ Life* $10,000 Your council plan might vary... HSR Brochure.pdf

Did they pay just to make this go away, and not tarnish the image of BSA?? And maybe the offending driver had nothing really for anyone to go after, so the lawyers went for the deepest pockets and hoped for this settlement regime... again, just to make it go away... Guessing and smh...

Agreed, and there is a difference between negligence and willful (or criminal) conduct.

@RichardB, can you shed any light on BSA actions in other instances (without too many specifics, obviously)?? I could see where, if unit supervision allowed Scouts to play Vertical Dodgeball, climb up 20 feet in some trees (tree climbing and Dodgeball being prohibited activities), and one fell to his death, that they could deny coverage and allow civil suits against the adults to proceed without any support. Anyone have any light to shed on this??

Although I concur with the practice of checking for this, could you please point out in the literature where it says a unit is required to do this? There is a SAFE checklist to help with this... https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/680-696(21)-SAFE-Transportation-Checklist-FPO3-5172021.pdf But, other than you, who else is actually running this checklist?

Recommend you read up on that case. She was not driving at the time, and was also found 20% culpable in the incident, which reduced the damages awarded. https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

A forthright and mature discussion or clarification about behavior, risk, and consequences is always appropriate. I had these many times with troops at my Commander's Calls. Funny, how we had less disciplinary actions than other units in the command... Of course, a very different situation, as I had many other disciplinary tools at my disposal (UCMJ, pay, leave, promotions, assignments, deployments, etc.), but there are some similarities in principles...

Scouter Code of Conduct: "When transporting youth, I will obey all laws, comply with Youth Protection guidelines, and follow safe driving practices." Maybe another reason BSA wants all adults to be registered... Remember old Tour Permits, where you had to record valid driver's license and insurance info?? https://www.boyscouttrail.com/docs/formlocaltourpermit.pdf

Here's the real question: What happens to a BSA volunteer, if they act out of accordance with BSA guidelines??? Doesn't the policy cover those cases? Read the verbiage from G2SS: "This coverage provides primary general liability coverage for registered adults of the Boy Scouts of America who serve in a volunteer or professional capacity concerning claims arising out of an official Scouting activity, which is defined in the insurance policy as consistent with the values, Charter and Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, operations manuals, and applicable literature of the Boy Scouts of America. This coverage responds to allegations of negligent actions by third parties that result in personal injury or property damage claims that are made and protects Scouting units and chartered organizations on a primary basis." It even seems to imply that you will be defended (except in cases of intentional or criminal acts.): "The general liability policy does not provide indemnification or defense coverage to those individuals who commit intentional and criminal acts. The Boy Scouts of America does not have an insurance policy that provides defense for situations involving allegations of intentional and criminal acts." Here's some other good gouge I found. https://montanabsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/BSA-Insurance.pdf Kudos to Montana Council for being a little more forthright: "The Guide to Safe Scouting contains a listing of unauthorized and restricted activities. Unauthorized activities are not considered official Scouting activities. Volunteers (registered and unregistered), units, chartered organizations, and local councils are jeopardizing insurance coverage for themselves and their organization by engaging in unauthorized activities." EDIT: Just found that last blurb in the G2SS as well, so my kudos to Montana Council are downgraded a bit 😛