InquisitiveScouter

Dad-brag... Son has been with it since Tigers...Eagle BOR last December. Is 15 and has 143 nights with BSA. This does not include all the camping we have done just Dad and son. Dad-shame... I have failed to communicate to him the value in pursuing the NMOA. Just not his thing, it seems.

Great discussion...perhaps for a new thread? I'm with @fred8033 on this one, in the frontcountry. Backcountry (more than one hour from definitive care), no way. I push for four adults, minimum. Primarily to help handle the psychological impacts of worst cases scenarios. "What experts do know is that children and teens tend to be more vulnerable to the effects of trauma than adults whose brains have fully developed. The underdeveloped brain is not mature enough to integrate the traumatic experience and process it in a way that facilitates moving on from it." https://paradi

Ahhh...I see where the confusion lies... Commas matter! The requirement, as written in the 2020 Scouts BSA Requirements book (the source document) says for requirement 2a: "Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling" Grammatically speaking, this should be separated into two options, A. Cycling merit badge OR B. Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling This is exactly the way this is parsed out in Scoutbook, if you can look there and see it under any Scout in their awards section.

I have been listening. And have taken sides with reason and evidence. Developing the vaccine, if you will https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-justice-warriors-wont-listen-but-you-should-11570832255

Not at all. But, your proposed statement doesn't fit the narrative BSA is kowtowing to.

Agreed. And I believe you agree with me that the BSA is misguided (at best) in thinking they can address societal issues in any better and more meaningful way if this commission of "experts" and the US government has difficulty getting to the the meat of the matter. I do find this report, so far, to be a good basis from which to start the scrutiny of our human rights traditions and progress. I withhold final judgment until I have digested the entire report.

Although I am still in the midst of reading it, I recommend this read to all. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Draft-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Unalienable-Rights.pdf Recommendations to BSA 1. Change the name to Human Rights Merit Badge. 2. Rework the content of merit badge to encapsulate perspectives released in the Commission report above. 3. If you want to provide rank requirements, use an "ages and stages" approach to address increasingly complex views and examples of human rights issues, with regard to the prerogatives reserved to family and fa

I wish I knew who said this...until I can find out who, I'll take credit. "When we disguise our feelings as reason, we make all nonsense possible." This is the ultimate problem in all of this... properly identifying the use of emotion as support for a position. It is a logical fallacy. The forces which push the current agendas (aka, the left) tend (I said "tend") to think with their emotions rather than demonstrable facts. You can see the results in the news every day. The greatest accomplishment of our Western civilization and thought is that INDIVIDUALS MATTER. "We

But, pursuing diversity as an end, and including someone simply because they help you reach that end, is evil.

A little tongue-in-cheek, bit maybe something along these lines, instead? Be a Decent and Stand-up Scout Merit Badge (aka BADASS MB) 1. Show that you can currently repeat the Scout Oath from memory. 2. Show that you can currently repeat the Scout Law from memory. 3. Define tolerance and acceptance. Explain the difference. Give an example of a belief or practice held by someone else that you tolerate, but do not accept. Then, tie a square knot. 4. List five different categories people often classify others or themselves into. Explain how excluding people based o

The real question is, what is the minimum number of adults to charter a unit? Four, in five positions. 1 x COR (dual hatted as a MC) 1 x CC 1 x Additional MC 1 x Unit Leader (SM, CM, etc.) Everyone else is icing on the cake

@Chadamus, an SM/ASM cannot be dual registered in the same unit in a committee position. You can be an ASM in one unit, and a committee member of another unit. So, for your original post, the answer is NO. The Registrar will not register one person in both those positions in the same unit. Now, theory and practice are two separate things. Are there SM/ASMs out there who fulfill functions of the committee (like advancement chair) simultaneously? You betcha. As @yknot points out, "We made decisions that kept our units alive and going. "

No, it shouldn't.

Now you know why the Merit Badge Mills around here are SSOOOOO popular

Our council sent out their newsletter a few minutes ago. Zero mention of D,E, & I.

I will remain council-anonymous. Over the past few years, I have filed about 30 forms for parents in the Troop to serve as MBCs. The process here is 1. You must file a new Adult Application, as this is a District (not Council) vs Unit position. The position is no-fee. (I think this is standard across the country.?) 2. With the Application, you must also file your MBC Info Form 34405. (Also standard...) 3. The Registrar looks over the form and, when all is in order, then gives it to SE, who has to sign it. Once SE approves, it goes back to Registrar. It is unknown ho

In a video previously cited, I think the folks at National said the requirements would not be in Scoutbook until May? Anyone else glean that from the Office Hours session?

The MBC approval and listing process takes about 10 to 16 weeks in our council. Once I have an Adult Application and MBC form submitted to council, I have the counselor go ahead and counsel badges "in good faith", and I sign them off in Scoutbook if the MBC approves one. I do not do this for any badges requiring a special qualification, like Climbing, some aquatics or shooting sports badges...those listed in G2A.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... @DuctTapefor National Commissioner!

I live in PA. The fallout from the Jerry Sandusky (Penn State) trial was a state law requiring certain volunteers to obtain three clearances: 1. A PA State Police Criminal Background Check 2. A PA Child Abuse History Check 3. Either an FBI Background Check (at volunteer expense) based on fingerprints OR an affidavit stating you have committed no offenses if you have been a PA resident >= 10 years. Each must be renewed every 5 years. The law also states that organizations (COs) sponsoring youth groups must retain copies of these clearances. This is where CO's h

Also, no insurance policy or indemnification clause provides coverage due to negligence. Plaintiff's lawyer could argue the CO was negligent in selecting abusing leader, since the CO's representative was required to approve the application. The court will have to decide 1. Did the CO have a duty of care in selecting appropriate leaders? (I think we would agree, Yes.) 2. Did the CO breach that duty in selecting the offending leader? (this one will be hard to prove, unless the plaintiff can present evidence the CO somehow knew.) 3. Did the CO's breach cause an injury? (on

@markT262, The Scout earned Cycling, so completed 150 miles. I think you are saying that, in addition to Cycling MB, this Scout also completed another 100 miles above and beyond Cycling MB, so has compiled a total of 250 miles. 1. This Scout has met the 200 mile riding requirement in requirement three. (Basic award is 200 miles.) 2. If the Scout wishes to earn a first gold device, the Scout must ride an additional 50 miles over what is already done. So, the total mileage personally completed at that point would be 300 miles. 200 miles (for basic award), plus 100 additional

Snowplow parenting mode...good on the Dad for realizing it and putting the responsibility on his son's shoulders. Our community is rife with this parenting style. (snowplow, helicopter, lawnmower...choose whatever machine you wish )

The more I think about this, the more I think I will advise our COR to recommend this to our CO. The BSA already does (or is supposed to do) background checks on leaders. Most CO's don't do this, that I know of. Some states also require additional background checks and information. The CO's may not be informed of the background provided in these checks. This may remove an element of info they could/should use in selecting leaders. I believe the original paradigm intent was for CO's to select leaders from their own membership to serve as adult leaders in a Scouting program they us

No flaming or down votes. Most of us feel a level of frustration with this. I hope it isn't as ominous as it seems to be from this stop-start rollout.