Jump to content

CynicalScouter

Members
  • Content Count

    695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

CynicalScouter last won the day on January 22

CynicalScouter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

318 Excellent

About CynicalScouter

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

860 profile views
  1. In our Council I think the final tally is going to be 25% of Cub units not rechartering with a total of 35% of Cubs not coming back. A lot of "for now". As for crossovers; in my district I am seeing NO crossovers out-of-CO. So, all of Pack 123 is going to Troop 123 whereas in the past maybe 1-2 scouts from Pack 123 would have gone to Troop 456. If you don't have a feeder pack it was always tough, This is going to make it doubly so.
  2. Yes. And the point was that units were just going on and finding their own people (no problem with that) and then not having them properly registered/background checked/YPT compliance. If a unit wants to go out and recruit their own MBCs, whatever. Have at it. But what they should NOT be doing is circumventing the YPT/criminal background checks because they just couldn't be bothered. Taking away unit's abilities to self-designate MBCs in Scoutbook won't end the practice of unregistered, non-criminal background checked adults having access to scouts. But it is a step in that direction
  3. No. Scoutbook allowed units to name ANYONE an MBC. This was a residual aspect of Scoutbook; it was originally a UNIT management tool. BSA just bought it and is attaching it to Scoutnet piece by piece. As such, the unit management software allowed units to identify certain people as MBCs. The example was this. 1) Troop 123 has a scout that wants to earn Reading Merit badge BUT they have no reading MBC. 2) Troop 123's scout reaches out (after getting a blue card of course and the name from the SM) to Troop 456's Reading Merit Badge counselor based on the list the SM got from
  4. Yep. Guide to Advancement specifically contemplates this. What has been happening, however, is that units are too lazy or couldn't be bothered to get these people registered and YPT trained. Instead,, they are just putting people into Scoutbook and pushing ahead. That will stop, at least the Scoutbook part. Sadly, I suspect this will simply push the unregistered MBCs further underground.
  5. Great! Here's the depth and reason: If they are held out as working with scouts on behalf of or as part of a Scouting program, they need to be registered, criminal background checked, and YPT trained. If NOT for the sake of the scouts and to prevent them from being abused (you do care about that right?) then to ensure we don't get a new generation of lawsuits and liability for units, councils, and national. Have we learned NOTHING from the sexual abuse scandal? At all?
  6. This is NOT going to stop the practice units have of off-the-books MBCs without YPT, but I hope it mnimzies. And if someone gets dropped, then the answer is that they get YPT updated ASAP. Fingers crossed there would be a system where Scoutnet determines someone's YPT is, say, 3 months from expiring they get an auto-generated email alert.
  7. My #1 concern is that the people holding themselves out as MBCs (and their troops holding themselves out as MBCs) are registered, criminally background checked, and YPT cleared. I don't give a darn how "competent" they are, if they cannot (or will not) get a criminal background check I don't want then around Scouting youth. Protecting scouts from abuse is a little more then "officiousness". You agree, yes?
  8. I am so glad this is happening. I cannot tell you the number of MBCs in other units I've learned of where the Key-3 just made some random person a MBC in the Scoutbook system and allowed these unregistered (and therefore no criminal background check) people access to scouts. https://discussions.scouting.org/t/removing-unregistered-merit-badge-counselors-from-scoutbook/218461
  9. NJ's entire unemployment system basically collapsed during COVID because no one knows COBOL anymore. When did they discover this was going to be a problem? July 2003. https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/05/nj-failed-to-fix-unemployment-system-for-19-years-records-show-now-murphy-pleads-patience.html
  10. Yep. And oversee a $500,000-$1,000,000 budget and 8-12 employees (assume a mid-size Council). For $43,000 a year.
  11. Told my (new) Troop Committee Chair we our council was hiring a new DE. He was just curious what the salary was. So I forwarded the job posting. "Part time?" he said. Nope. And this person had to cover 2-3 counties and dozens of units. That day he gained a much bigger appreciation for what DEs do.
  12. E-6 after 10 years - $45,237.60. Doubles to $90,475.20. Again, not that dissimilar to what S.E.s make now, especially if you adjust for council size and number of employees in the council. And I would also note that the size of the council in terms of number of scouts served should play a factor. The budget/expenditures is used because while not all not for profits have "members" (like BSA does in the sense of Scouts) they all have expenses and budgets. But clearly no matter what data I bring, the answer will always be "all scout executives should be making less than they do now
  13. But it is. Just had someone in this thread indicate they believe that S.E.s should not be making more than the median salary of the people in their council.
  14. Well, at least you admit it Ok, let's play this game. O-4, 2 years of service or less = $59,824.80. Double what they made on active duty would be...$119,649 or exactly what most S.E.s make. For example, the two smallest Councils in the U.S. (that I know of). Alameda Council: the S.E. makes $113,717. Piedmont Council: the S.E. makes $112,832. So, exactly what you think they should be making. But wait, you don't want someone with a bare 2 years. How about something reasonable. 10 years in. O-4 = $89,524.80. Double is $179,049.60. Which is what my S
  15. I am going to guess here that given the nature of the ongoing litigation with both the bankruptcy and GSUSA he has been advise by his attorneys to not say a single word about either. That said, there was a pretty full and complete briefing on the status of the bankruptcy (as of that point) at the NAM last year. Link is here https://vimeo.com/421340141 Conversation starts at 1:05:00 of so.
×
×
  • Create New...