InquisitiveScouter

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

They are not satisfactorily a leader, as they don't actually lead

But National and councils recognize Unit Scouter Reserves, who do pay, as leaders for the two-deep requirement.  Yet, they have no training other than YPT.

Hence my sarcasm with policies as stated and implemented.

1 minute ago, HashTagScouts said:

It was pointedly said during our summer camp pre-meetings that National does not consider a registered MBC to satisfy the two-deep leadership for units attending camp.  Only SM/ASM/Committee members can fill those roles (any one of those dual registered as an MBC, obviously is a different matter).

MBCs may only fill the two-deep requirement during a merit badge session when the Scout's parent or another registered adult leader is present.  This would apply for on-line sessions or visits to a Scout's home, or a meeting in a public place like your local library or a restaurant.

If a council running a camp says the MBC cannot fill any two-deep requirement, then that council will be supported by National in implementing that policy.  An SE, as CEO of a separate legal entity [501c(3)], may implement policies more stringent than National publishes.

Wanna dive deeper into the can of worms?

2 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

While a MBC may not be designed to replace the direct contact leadership needs, a MBC as a second trained adult certainly fulfills the needs of youth protection barriers to abuse. 

Only in certain merit badge situations, not something considered an outing.  And that opens a new discussion about what constitutes a merit badge session, versus an "outing"

Again, policies are often written with ambiguity to protect the BSA...not you, nor youth 

1 hour ago, RichardB said:

Definition of Registered can be found in Scouting's Barriers to Abuse:  

Source:  https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/#a

The chartered organization representative, or in their absence the executive officer of the chartered organization, must approve the registration of the unit’s adult leaders.

Registration includes:

• Completion of application including criminal background check and mandatory Youth Protection training
• Volunteer Screening Database check

As mentioned in the post above, a MBC isn't a unit position, and it's certainly not designed to replace the direct contact leadership needs of a unit (SM, ASM).   It is as described here:  https://www.scouting.org/programs/scouts-bsa/mb-counselor-guide/ 

Wouldn't common sense include that one should be properly registered and classified according to the roles that they plan to fulfill for youth?  

Richard,

An MBC is registered, and according to the same criteria...

• Completion of application including criminal background check and mandatory Youth Protection training
• Volunteer Screening Database check

The only substantial difference between a MBC and a Unit Scouter Reserve, is that the MBC requires MORE training!!

25 minutes ago, SSScout said:

"Snowplow "  parents.   I like that.....

Feel free to use...no citation or attribution required

10 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

@InquisitiveScouter, a stray thought about the helicopter parents you mentioned...one of my favorite discussions at a committee meeting involved a parent insisting that troop slumber parties had the same benefit as camping outdoors.  This parent would not accept any opinion to the contrary.  I agree, the parents often more challenging to deal with, and I'll throw in certain non-outdoor minded scouters as well.  As we know, the scouts are looking for a challenge.  Unfortunately, these challenges are often watered down to the point of meaninglessness by certain parents and scouters.

This is also why we don't go to our local Summer Camp.  Our unit has a history of parents who would come and take kids out of camp for storms, soccer practice, karate, or their fourth cousin's (twice-removed) birthday.

6 hours ago, awanatech said:

I would also like to know where it states that MBCs do not count as registered leaders.  I have not seen that anywhere.  And isn't answering privately exactly the kind of thing we are trying to prevent with YPT and GTSS requiring 2 deep leadership, lol?

The policy as written is poorly worded and unclear, specifically about what positions qualify as "registered adult leaders."

You will not find this clarified anywhere in "official" publications.

I recommend, until BSA amends the wording, you follow what you see as the plain language common sense interpretation.  If that means you see MBC's as "registered adult leaders", then go with it.

This council does not intepret it this way.  In this council, MBC's are not "registered adult leaders."  And I have it directly from National Director of YP that councils may apply stricter standards than National intends when it comes to Youth Protection.

It is a long sordid story, as Eagle94-A1 can attest, so I answered it privately because it is these kinds of questions that have gotten me blacklisted from district and council positions in our council.  (Still proudly serving at the unit level.)

IMO, this has nothing to do with YP, and everything to do with generating revenue for National.

Many units figured out that, since membership costs are unreasonable, they can cut their re-charter costs (by a third or half??) by registering the minimum number of adults to satisfy charter requirements, and having all remaining adults register as MBC's (which is a no fee district position.)  Since this tactic does not change your YP stance or background clearance requirements, you should forge ahead and change only if your council calls you on it. 

I also recommend that you do not ask for an official answer.  What you get back will only restrict you further, cost you more, and gain you nothing in actual YP. 

But, if you wish to go down that road, please email your SE.  If you don't like the answer they give, then stick your neck out and email Youth.Protection@scouting.org

Be advised, National will trace you and email you back with a cc to your SE with any response. 

5 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

the vets brought a certain mindset as well.

26 year Air Force vet here...my Scouting mentors were WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War Vets.  Most have passed on...

They all had tactical patience with us Scouts...

https://fisher.osu.edu/blogs/leadreadtoday/blog/leadership-tip-of-the-week-tactical-patience/

Never jumped in when things went wrong (unless it was an real emergency)...just looked at us and said, "Well, what are you gonna do now?"

I see way too much jumping in nowadays...

Have you heard of snowplow/helicopter/lawnmower parents?  We have them in spades   The parents are more of a challenge than the youth!

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

We have several Scouters in our district who registered as MBCs and they are active. I have looked into this, and have not found and literature stating that MBCs do not count. If you have it, I would appreciate a copy of it.

Answered privately to protect the innocent 😎

Yes, our Plan B's are to do unit treks and unit Summer Camp, with participants from like-minded families.

Just now, Eagle94-A1 said:

Also Merit Badge Counselors are registered PORs as well.

You will need to check this with your council.  Some councils (and national) do not regard Merit Badge Counselors as "registered leaders" for the purposes of any events other than Merit Badge sessions.

This might be another one of those situations where you don't really want to know the answer to the question, though 😬

And FWIW,

If you ever see any invitations from National to contact them directly with questions regarding clarification of policies, don't!  National expects you to go through your local SE, and they will defer to the local SE interpretation, even if more stringent than the National policymakers intended.  And if the SE interpretation is less stringent than the national policy, National gives you and the SE a black eye.   If you choose to ask National staff, they will cc your SE...even if your YPT questions bridge over several councils (going to camp or treks out-of-council, for example) interpreting or implementing a policy differently within their borders.

Any invitation from them to engage without attribution is not sincere.  If you choose to do so, use a new/unidentifiable email address...but if they cannot ID you, you probably won't get an answer.

Caveat emptor.

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

which ones are defensive out of fear of hypothetical litigation.

Most?

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Welcome to the Dark Side. No matter how frustrating it WILL get at times, remember why you are here: FOR THE SCOUTS.

Eagle, so you are on the Dark Side, too??

Can't see you...because it is soooo dark here

Hi Alma,

In the upper right corner of your browser, click Your name.  Then click Profile in the drop down menu, then Edit Profile.

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Those list may not be written down, but they exist. One long time volunteer has been in semi-retirement visiting the grandkids a lot. He's been involved at the district, council, and at point national, level since the early 1960s. But he raised a lot of questions about things over the years, and has been on the unoffical list for years. He finally got the SIlver Beaver this yeart . Funny thing is, everyone thoughty he had it already.

 

Eagle,

DAM form, item 4. says

"The nominee’s attitude toward and cooperation with the district and/or council is to be taken into consideration."

In our council, that equates to FOS and other donations.  Little to do with actual service to Scouting.  Same for SIlver Beaver.  Pay to play...

One day, I'll shed my illusions and realize, donations = service.

Not much more...our council maintains a "blacklist"

You're the professional...why would a council do such a thing? 

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

So, scouters, if your PL got with his buddies and, with parents approval, did this hike, would you sign them off on the 5 mile land navigation requirement?

By the book?  No...

"Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings."

"Patrol Activities—A Scouts BSA patrol may participate in patrol activities. Two-deep adult leadership is required."

I hate being a rule-follower, though...

On 4/20/2020 at 10:47 AM, desertrat77 said:

This is great news.  My longstanding beef with council fundraising is that as a unit and district level scouter, I have very little input in how my dollars are spent.   

I've found from experience that any inquiry to council staff (above DE level) regarding projects or financial matters is not well received.  The boundaries are very clear:  I write checks, the council spends my money, period.

 

I have gotten myself designated as PNG (persona non grata) in our council for asking too many questions, "disrupting" the money trail, and informing folks about how the money is spent from public documents like the IRS Form 990 (which may have put a dent in FOS).  Removed from District Committee, removed from Council committees, removed from council training team, ostracized by many...  And all without so much as a phone call from anyone at the council saying, "We'd like to discuss this with you before we take any adverse action."  Unethical, in my book.

You do find out who your friends are when such things happen...

Merit badge counselors and unit leaders who keep blue cards for Scouts until they complete their badge

moved to new thread...

1 minute ago, dkurtenbach said:

I think if skill mastery was really important to the BSA, the rank requirements would be written to ensure mastery, and re-testing of any and every Scout through First Class skill would be part of advancement through Eagle Scout rank. 

This is where I wish we would go...  not for MB's, but definitely for all skills up to and including First Class.  When a person says "I am a Scout", that conjures up a paragon or archetype in your head about what a Scout knows/does/is.  You have expectations of what their capabilities are.  We need to collectively define (or redefine) that paragon/archetype, describe those standards, and adhere to them.

The current codification of what a Scout knows/does/is does not accurately measure or adhere to the standard of the archetype most of us conjure.

Should it??

32 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Sadly, in my experience that is the exact opposite from what I am seeing. 

Concur.  In my tenure, I can remember only one Scout who ever took a class a second time because it was something he really enjoyed (Small Boat Sailing).  He was surprised that this was actually "allowed."  I think part of this misperception is in our advertising.  Scouts do not understand that repeating a merit badge is just fine.

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a new/existing thread?

I also, am a Merit Badge Counselor who demands the requirements, and nothing more...the requirements, and nothing less.  Scouts tell each other who the "easiest" counselors are.  Most choose the path of least resistance.  Usually, my repeat customers are the Scouts who are "switched on."

Most first timers seem to expect a meeting or Merit Badge session with me where I talk a lot, and then they get the badge.  My first question to them is usually, "Have you read and understand the requirements for the merit badge?"  I would say, over 90% of the time, the answer is "No."  So that is where we start.  We review the requirements together and discuss how the Scout will complete those requirements.  This is where guiding and mentoring pays off most.  We also determine which requirements will require some teaching/learning/practice.

Scouts also seem to get flustered when I don't give them the answer to a requirement, and then let them regurgitate information right back to me.  For example, with Canoeing MB, one requirement says "Name and point out the major parts of a canoe."  I usually start this one with "Show me what you know."  Which is usually followed by, please review your Scout Handbook on page 174, and let's go over this again so you can "Name and point out the major parts of a canoe."  I have had Scouts (and parents) ask me to tell them what the parts are then and there, and then they want to repeat that info then and there, only to RAM dump it and move on to the next requirement.  I do not see that as an acceptable way for a Scout to complete a requirement.

I do not do the heavy lifting for the Scout...  (btw, on this specific requirement, I'll even let the Scout refer to his Scout Handbook, or the MB book, or other source while pointing out the parts.  I do not require them to memorize, nor repeat from memory, unless the requirement specifies that.

Qwazse,

That would be brilliant.  I'm in, but don't think most leaders would have the time available when the economy opens back up.  And leaders swapping out during the session would go against the purpose of the extended camp.