InquisitiveScouter

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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. ??

Curious...how do you know this?

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

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. 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. 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. Hear, hear!!

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

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?

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?

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....😝

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.

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

You are officially an old fart

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...

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.

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

It's gone to his head And curious, but what is your role in this??

@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...