InquisitiveScouter

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

You are, after all, "Optimist."  

Lol..

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=optomist

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

You think a SM is going to give two rips if a regional person or DE or Council enforcer tells them they are doing it wrong? Of course not.

The only way this works is heads on pikes. SMs removed. Charters not renewed.

It will only take a few to get the message across.

Yeah...it's a dog's breakfast having regional take it on. 

But if SM's are removed, all it will do is kill units...

Putting down my crayons for now on this one

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Two problems.

1) My district hasn't had a DC in years, much less a unit commissioner. Not everywhere has commissioners coming out of the ears.

2) The entire idea of the commissioner corp is they are there to assist where they are welcome. Granting them (a volunteer) authority over a unit is fundamentally altering the deal. They already have a bad reputation as Council's spies and enforcers. This would codify it.

That said, district executive or other paid professional might take this on but it creates a conflict there as well. But it may be better than trying to overhaul commissioners into enforcers.

What about those people employed at the regional level... what do they fill their days with???  And could they be tasked to do Unit Compliance visits (inspections) every two to three years? 

2 minutes ago, MattR said:

Suppose a change was made to the commissioner program that created a better learning environment for units. Rather than be advisors at best and a waste of time at worse a commissioner had real responsibility and authority. I'm not looking for heads on pikes so much as servant leadership. Make a real connection between units and the council that is more than "send us money and fill out advancement reports." That would require a big shift in mindset at the council and national.

How about Commissioner also has to sign off on unit charter?? Just exploring an idea...

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

Maybe it's just our council,

No, I'm sure that is National policy, but it is up to councils to enforce.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And when I've had this come up I simply point to the BSA bankruptcy and how much councils and national have to pay for insurance nowadays.

The rules are there because of mistakes in the past. Failure to follow them is a 100% surefire way to ensure there's no future program.

Preaching to the choir there, brother.  My point is, somewhere along the line everyone does a cost-benefit analysis.

"For the benefit of what Scouting has to offer, am I willing to undertake the cost of the 'regulatory' burden?"

More and more people I know are answering "No" to that question.   And, if they keep doing Scouting, those are the ones that consistently endanger youth and program.

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I already hear enough yelling and screaming about how YPT is making scouting impossible, additional enforcement will go over like a lead balloon.

That said, I will say that YPT enforcement is a complete and utter joke. I've never, ever seen anyone bounced or reprimanded for failing to adhere to YPT protocols. Perhaps it will take some heads rolling/SMs removed from position to get the message through.

And not just YPT...all the other G2SS provisions that add straws to the camel's back.  When I am mentoring younger adult leaders to take on SM-type roles, this is the biggest pushback I get...too many rules and prohibitions...

Are we near the breaking point with the burden of all those straws?  If you want to get certain behavior out of people, you need to incentivize it.  What incentive is there for someone to become an SM these days??

Although I agree enforcement is a joke, I doubt that rolling heads will help.  It would only further discourage people from taking on the roles.

Again I get to the radical idea of paying people to be Scoutmasters...then you can more easily subject them to some sort of inspection regime to ensure compliance.

23 minutes ago, swilliams said:

The mom of Scout One told us (me, SM and CC) after the school notified her that her son had been named in a HIB.  She thought we ought to know since Scout Two had said this occurred during a Troop meeting.  Are you thinking she may not be telling the truth about it?  Of course, the school cannot, and should not, confirm or deny, nor would I ask them.

I suppose I could just resign my position, then I wouldn't have anybody bothering me about it.  😄

Hearsay??  I wouldn't touch the whole "it happened at the Scout meeting thing"  Unsubstantiated accusations are just that...no need to bother. 

Sounds like the SM has it in hand.  SPL and PLs are responsible for "discipline" within the Troop, under his watchful eye.  SM should keep other Key 3 informed, but not drag you nor the rest of the Committee into it.

If it were me, I'd hear both sides of the story and anyone who witnessed / actually heard anything going on and take it from there.  Find out what the core of the matter is and ask Scout One and Two what their solution is.  Sometimes, that is neutral corners for a while.

If Scout Two does not come back, that is the Scout's and family's decision.

As SM, I only inform the Committee if some negative consequences come into play.

3 hours ago, swilliams said:

Now a third scout has quit the Troop over this ongoing issue. 

??

1 hour ago, swilliams said:

In February, Scout Two then filed a HIB report against Scout One, but said that the offense occurred during a scout meeting. 

Curious...how do you know this?

2 minutes ago, MattR said:

In a way this illustrates my point. I don't doubt that your troop is well run. Yet your ability to go your own way implies units that don't have your stringency, that have sloppy YP, can fly under the radar because they also believe they should go their own way. Kids get hurt. On a lessor level units just have a poor program and that creates negative PR that we all have to deal with.

Changing the culture to be more focused on quality rather than membership numbers, whether for YP or program, is going to be a hard push. Units want their autonomy, councils want their salaries and national is just hanging on for dear life. I'd really like to see that change but I don't expect it.

My apologies for being a downer. 

Not a downer, at all.  I'm sure we all wish the program would be better implemented at the unit level.  Can you imagine how many youth would want to be Scouts if it were so?

The sticking point is, how do you do this?  What is the forcing function?  As I had posited before, I believe this was supposed to be the vision for the function of the Commissioners Corps, but we ain't there...locally or nationally...

5 minutes ago, MattR said:

In a way this illustrates my point. I don't doubt that your troop is well run. Yet your ability to go your own way implies units that don't have your stringency, that have sloppy YP, can fly under the radar because they also believe they should go their own way. Kids get hurt. On a lessor level units just have a poor program and that creates negative PR that we all have to deal with.

Changing the culture to be more focused on quality rather than membership numbers, whether for YP or program, is going to be a hard push. Units want their autonomy, councils want their salaries and national is just hanging on for dear life. I'd really like to see that change but I don't expect it.

My apologies for being a downer. 

Here's a radical thought...pay the Scoutmasters!!

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

Every district has at least one unit that would rather go on their own because they feel they know better. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. Think about that with respect to YP and it's chilling. There is no control over these units.

We go our own way because we are so stringent with YPT, among other things.  

We are known as the exemplar.  If you want to find the gold standard for the way to conduct a program, come visit us.  Always room for improvement, though...

We see too many other adults cut too many corners, particularly in safety matters, that we are comfortable interacting with three other nearby Troops with leaders of similar mindset.

9 minutes ago, MattR said:

Most are probably fine but how many need to fail before it impacts all the other units? How many units consist of 10 scouts and two parents that go camping.

We do at least four patrol-only camping trips per year.  With six patrols, that's twelve adults minimum.  Two adults is fine... please don't paint it as if it is not.

10 minutes ago, MattR said:

How many of these units have one parent that shows up late or goes home early because they're stretched thin, busy at work, etc?

Never.  When there are only two, if you can't make the whole trip, have a swap out worked into the plan, or do not go. 

11 minutes ago, MattR said:

It requires something more than throwing a video, pamphlet, or form over the fence.

Hear, hear!!

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

@mrjohns2 is pointing out where authority lies with approving the service hours.  Per GTA, that's clearly with the scoutmaster.  Whether he should or should not approve that type of hours is a separate qusetion.  Whether a BOR can reverse him is an extremely very ugly situation and usually only results in explicit damage.  

With that said ... once we get to the point of discussing who has the authority and how, we're way off the tracks.  As with many things in life, the best way to handle differences is by direct conversation.  Get to know each others views.  Repeat his words to to him to see if you are really hearing him correctly and if he said it right.  See if there is a compromise.  See if there is a way to accomplish each other's goals in a different route that creates common understanding.  

Even bringing before the committee often makes things too stressful and creates annimosity.  

And accept, you will not always get what you want.  You may need to look at the preponderance of the situation.  Is the SM generally doing right by the scouts?  If so, get out of his way and support him.  

Completely agree.  I was pursuing this as a question of first principles...  if it ever gets to that point, we have already all failed

23 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Fair.  But it's relegated to a requirement for a rank and it's a handout pamphlet in the Scout book.

For leaders, we've got an extensive online training with talks by professionals in the field.  It's very sobering and thought provoking.  For parents, it's a pamphlet that a youth does with his/her rank advancement.  I think for most parents it's a check-box item.

I think this is typical:

• Scout to parent: I need you to sign off on this requirement for my badge.  
• Parent to scout: What is it?
• Scout to parent:  It says we need to talk about abuse of kids.
• Parent to scout: Ok.  You know abuse is bad - correct?   
• Scout to parent: Yes
• Parent to scout: You'll tell us if anyone does anything bad to you - correct?
• Scout to parent: Yes, I will
• Parent to scout: Ok, I'll sign off on it.

It's in the category of - no one thinks it will happen to their child.

YPT for leaders really makes you think if you are paying attention.  I would believe a very sobering version that parents take every year or two would be a good idea.  Make parents aware of the signs that they go over in YPT.  Give parents steps that they can follow to increase the likelihood of catching a problem.

Agreed, I encourage parents to read the entire pamphlet.  But, ask them to focus on the five "exercises" in the back of the pamphlet (per the requirement).  I suspect this is often "pencil-whipped"

And none of the exercises really discuss our YPT measures.  To this day, some parents are surprised when I ask them to stay a bit until the second leader arrives for an activity, for two-deep.

I like @yknot's approach...every parent completes the BSA adult training as a pre-requisite for registering their youth.

@mrjohns2

OK, so do you think the SM is correct in approving "service" in this manner...whether he has "authority" to do it or not?

9 minutes ago, yknot said:

 I can see where that would have some basis in fact, at least as far as how that data could be a reality. In the BSA YPT system, there is no oversight. COs are supposed to be the overseers on paper, but in reality that often does not happen and there are multiple reasons why Districts, Councils, and the BSA turn a blind eye to that and don't enforce it. There is a lack of clarity in many BSA YPT policies. There is great variation in how different scouters and units interpret YPT.  In those ways I think it is less effective than the YPT programs administered by some of the churches, sports leagues and other youth activities I have encountered. There is a lot more clarity and direct oversight in other youth organizations. That might also be a function of the fact that many of those activities are less fraught with problematic situations than scouting is.   

I'd bet that, in most current cases of abuse, there are provisions of YPT that were not followed.

That is, BSA relies on the goodwill of us volunteers to enforce YPT.  And, when one of those volunteers does not have good will, and intends to prey on youth, they find the opportunity to ignore YPT policies and wreak their misdeeds.

So the question is, is there any way, realistically, to enforce YPT provisions other than through volunteers?

8 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Uh, that isn’t how it works. This is solely they SM decision under the G2A. You can console him, but not override him. This isn’t an advancement coordinator role or a committee topic. 

Sure it is...

In the extreme, yes, you can override the SM...by relieving them of the job.  Now, this case shouldn't get there, and can probably be resolved by talking it out with the SM and Committee.

The worst parts of this situation are 1.  that Scouts are caught in the middle, 2. SM has misguided idea of what constitutes service, 3. it sets a really bad precedent (the slippery slope), and 4. what about the Scouts who participated in the last COH or other unit function?  Where are their "service" hours?

Really hope this works out easily and well for you.  Please let us know how it goes...curious.

If any need some extra time, I tell my Scouts, "Go for a long walk with your parents and pick up litter along the way."  Physical fitness, family togetherness, clean community, a good turn done, and service hour beans counted.  Win/win/win/win/sarcastic win....😝

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Most charitable solicitation registration laws (and other state consumer protection laws) require a charity to use funds for the purpose for which they are solicited.  That is one reason why solicitations ought to include broad charitable use language as well as specific intent.  If you get more than you can use, or if the project changes, you can still use the funds for general charitable purposes.

Just curious...when you make a donation and wish to earmark it specifically, with what document is this done?  A simple letter??

And this is why councils love FOS and the "$1000+ Knot" (James E. West Fellowship).  Income which is purely discretionary for them.  A council employee (involved with the money) once told me they frown on restricted donations, and that councils earnestly seek ways to work around them to get that "fiduciary monkey" off their back. 

3 minutes ago, Kamala said:

Yes your suggestion is more manageable.  However this type of service has never been given to scouts in our troop.  We just had an Eagle COH in the fall, scouts serving in specific rolls could ask why didn't they get service hours.    Its just opening a can of worms. 

One of many reasons it should not be done now...

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill

You are officially an old fart

11 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It's funny - I don't know where that tradition started.  Our troop is that same too.  I suggested changing it when I was committee chair only to get a very stern "why do you want to mess up our Eagle Court of Honor process."  So I left it alone...

Sounds like you've got a role similar to another troop I am familiar with - a very experienced Scouter served as Eagle Court of Honor advisor.  That made a lot of sense to me.

Yes, I scratch my head at this one, too...  It's like everyone wants their own ceremony, as if it was a wedding or something.

We have a "very experienced Scouter" provide the script, the emcee and players (all Scouts, thru the SPL), and invite dignitaries.  If the parents want to pick (and rent) the venue and provide refreshments, that's up to them. 

We always encourage families to combine ceremonies (multiple Eagles) or tack them on to Troop COH's, but the message doesn't always get through

Thing is, when a family strongly wishes to have their own "day", and then the event is not well-attended (because the Scout and/or family was not well-regarded), it does tend to make it sour for them.  You can lead the horse to water...

9 minutes ago, Kamala said:

I am the advancement chair.  

Then I recommend you bring up the matter at the next committee meeting.  Express your concern that granting service hours to conduct or support unit-centric events may not meet the intent of service hours.  Explain you talked with District Advancement Chair (?) and they are in concurrence.  Discuss and vote.  Inform the SM.  SM is not a voting member of committee, but should give the committee his/her perspective.

41 minutes ago, yknot said:

A lot of our families have vacation homes or do extended and multiple vacations and clear out for the summer.

We have the same, and yet, our summer events are still the most attended...

18 minutes ago, Kamala said:

He has done Outdoor leader training and scoutmaster training.  Recently  he also attended Wood Badge.  He has just become the scoutmaster last April, '20.  Before that maybe two years as an asst. scoutmaster.

It's gone to his head

And curious, but what is your role in this??

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

1) WELCOME TO DA FORUMS! (and yes I am shouting in joy at ya;) )

2.. You new SM is incorrect.  BSA's definition of community service is found in Eagle Scout requirement 5 which states, "

"While a Life Scout, plan, develop, and give leadership to others in a service project helpful to any religious institution, any school, or your community. (The project must benefit an organization other than the Boy Scouts of America.) (emphasis added) A project proposal must be approved by the organization benefiting from the effort, your Scoutmaster and unit committee, and the council or district before you start. You must use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook, BSA publication No. 512-927, in meeting this requirement. (To learn more about the Eagle Scout service project, see the Guide to Advancement, topics 9.0.2.0 through 9.0.2.15.)"

So no, participating in an Eagle COH is NOT community service. Nor would I say it is troop service. I is a troop expectation, obligation  activity, whatever you want to call it.  In every troop i have ever been in, it was expected that we would be there. Also in regards to community service at the lower ranks, this definition has been used in every unit I have ever been in. So working CS day camp, serving as a volunteer at summer camp, doing an OA Ordeal also do not count as community service.

@Eagle94-A1, you have complete agreement from me, but I think what the OP was getting at is that 4.2.3.3 does not specifically say what you have cited from the ESSP verbiage, so the SM thinks anything goes...