CynicalScouter

My council and district: no vetting. At all. Just list what you want. Done. And the reference section of new applications (where someone is suppose to call and check references) has now been pushed down to district volunteers. That's caused angst as some of these people do NOT want the council copy which includes SSNs, birthdates, etc. My district has not have a district executive in 8 years nor a district commissioner in as long.

The office hours said scouts could start to earn as early as today but would not be mandatory for Eagles until May. Rank advancement would also go into effect in May.

The idea is that you will no longer be able to add yourself as a MBC directly into Scoutbook. Your council, when it puts your application through Scoutnet, is official Then Scoutnet updates Scoutbook. So yes, it still relies on Council (or District depending, I know some districts process MBCs) getting it into Scoutnet. But it also means that if you are not in Scoutbook, you are not officially registered as a MBC. It also eliminates units being able to put MBCs into Scoutbook (which was a problem as tons of "unofficial" MBC without YPT were working with scouts). https://discussions.scouting.org/t/upcoming-scoutbook-mbc-actions/185362/3

Seriously. Drama aside, how many parents are even going to know this is going to happen? And how many are going to raise a fuss? And how many of THEM are going to get appeased/have their scouts pencil whipped through? It's a box to be checked of that their scout is "woke". Aside from the sexual aspects of the MB (which as I said I have received assurances from my district advancement chair will be waived or parental option no matter what National says) everything else is box checking.

That will end in March 2021. At that point if they aren't in Scoutbook, they are not a registered MBC. Conversely, if they are in Scoutbook you'll know they are valid.

This may be your reality. It isn't mine at least as to points #1 and 4 1) If the MBC is not already in some other position, no, they did not pass the background check and are not in the system. Thus they have to be background checked. 4) The application does in fact "ask for qualifications". https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34405.pdf Then there's this In fact it does; someone has to do reference check, make sure YPT is in compliance, etc. I agree. Do you have someway to do it? All I have heard for YEARS is that MBCs are impossible to come by because a) no one wants to help or b) no one wants to help outside their troop or c) no one is interested in having to take 1-1.5 hours of YPT training AND in many councils now an additional 1 hour of MBC training; my council for example mandated 2 years ago all MBCs must be position trained. As for crosschecking: the real push will come in March 2021 when Scoutbook becomes the national, official repository of MBCs across the nation. No more troop MBCs that never submitted paperwork or council lists that may or may not be updated.

They'll swallow it and work around it. SMs for troops where the parents express concern will pencil whip their scouts through. MBCs who disagree with the premise or individual elements ("sexual orientation" "gender identity") will pencil whip their scouts through. Any parent who says something will be accommodated. But I will bet MOST parents are NOT reading merit badge requirement books and/or rank advancements. And so they won't even be aware of the details. And that will be that.

So, National and Councils should just do, what, exactly? Not put out requirements at all? Let each unit decide how/when to award the Camping merit badge (for example)? These MB rules are overly lawyered because of the small percent of parents and adults who, left to their own devices would screw up out of ignorance or maliciously. I also suspect that the MBs are written in reaction to questions that the PRIOR set of rules generated.

Who has time to do that? Seriously. My district and council basically check the employment background and criminal background checks (to avoid legal liability) and then just trusts that the adult is being honest when they fill out the part. Not only that but the professional staff don't even always get involved and have pushed the criminal and reference checks down to advancement chairs and such. Who has time to start examining resumes and checking professional references for hundreds of MBCs? EDIT: There's a council that I will not reference that puts its entire MBC roster online. Put aside for a moment that this is in direct violation of Guide to Advancement ("The council or district counselor list is reproduced for distribution to troops, crews, and ships. Scouts should not have access.") I just pulled their roster. There are 1035 MBCs.

They don't. Or, to be more specific, they don't trust ALL adults, ALL volunteers, and ALL parents.

Anyone who wonders "why does it sounds like lawyers wrote this?" is because they know that someone, somewhere is going to try something you've never considered. So you have to be VERY specific and VERY broad at the same time. See, for example, Youth Protection Training.

There are overlapping claims that have come up in similar lawsuits against COs, Councils, and National. The best example was the Oregon case. https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1997/147-or-app-425.html Negligent supervision: Negligent training: Negligent retention: In other words, even if the SELECTION was OK (Negligent hiring, even if the person's a volunteer the term is "hired") the CO and Council failed to properly supervise, train, and retain (meaning they didn't fire the offender fast enough). THAT is why so many of the COs want to get out from under the traditional charter agreement which DOES make them liable for selection/hiring, supervision, training, and retention of leaders. For a CO who is completely checked out and thinks their responsibility is to just sign the recharter agreement once a year, this is a major, major wake up call.

We are in uncharted waters here. PRIOR suits were against BSA and Councils. Most that I am aware of did NOT involved the CO. The problem is that a) the insurance companies are refusing to pay out on BSA's insurance (claiming, in part, BSA withheld information and that they caused their own damage which isn't covered by insurance) and b) we are not talking about a case here or there but THOUSANDS and the plaintiffs attorneys want all the pockets of money available and that includes the COs now. This also may be "unique" to LDS in the sense that LDS made BSA such an integral part of their programming and such. For example, I found one of the lawsuits. I am blacking out the victim's name. Grand Canyon Council Inc Boy Scouts Of America Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, The Corporation Of The Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saint Note this is different than if, say, a Catholic parish was sued. There, the first two would remain the same (Council and National get sued) but instead of suing the entire Catholic Church OR even the Diocese, the lawsuit would be against the local parish.

The proposed solution for this by BSA National is to allow for the first time ever the elimination of COs and instead having units chartered by the local Council. The church/former CO agrees only to provide meeting space and nothing more. It is my understanding one of the Catholic diocese in Texas has move to this model almost entirely.

Yeah, that will be very interesting.

Camping was Eagle required since 1915. Cooking has been on again off again. (1915-1972/ back in 2014) http://usscouts.org/eagle/EagleHistory.asp

If you listen to the BSA Office hours in November, they made a point and took pride that they kept the "politics" out of this merit badge. Surely, that must be true! /sarcasm

But the idea is that this is not a requirement; it is only a requirement if you want to make Eagle. I'll also ask this: does the Eagle-required Camping or Cooking merit badges mean the "basic program" is lacking and needs a boost in those areas?

It will be real interesting how this "vetting" is going to be enforced. It is so hard to get MBCs anyway (YPT and now many councils like mine require they be position trained) I suspect some "vetting" will be lacksidasial at best. At least with SCUBA, shotgun, and the like there was a clear certifying body (or bodies in SCUBA?) with a certication program. I suspect there will be a Scouting U. DE&I video shortly that DE&I MBCS will have to take and pass.

It has been confirmed: you will need to be "vetted" (that was the word used) by a district or council "task force" or the advancement committee specially for this MB. The requirements were agreed in November; the vetting process and how that will be done is what has held things up. Again, the only MBs I am aware of this happening before is things like shotgun shooting, you know, where the kid may wind up DEAD if the MBC screws this up. But DE&I? We all know what it is code for: you must prove you are a social justice warrior before you can be a MBC for this or at least mouth the right words/take the right course.

The leaked/draft absolutely made clear: BSA will impose its view of sexual morals and "inclusion", parents and churches be darned. As I said: the Catholic units are going to have to explain why they belong to a "sexist" organization that does not allow for female ordination and same sex marriage. Or they can do what I suspect a LOT of units will do: check a box and send the scout on their way.

I have made it clear to my district advancement chair: especially given that this is going to address sexual conduct (sexual orientation and gender identity) I want parents written consent prior to each session or a parental opt-out. I've been told that is OK for my district: parents will be given an opt out. Based on that I agreed to be a MBC for this. I can assure you I will not "pencil whip" scouts. I will, however, acknowledge and respect parental rights to educate their children in the area of sexual mores and conduct UNLESS GIVEN WRITTEN CONSENT.

They won't know. How many parents look at what their scouts are doing in the MB sessions? Answer: none.

You know exactly why special vetting is required. They want to be sure they are not handing this off to the "wrong" kind of MBC. I suspect this will require outside or additional certification or clearance by a district or council DE&I "task force".

Latest update from a reliable source 1) Final merit badge requirements will be released tonight or tomorrow TO COUNCILS. 2) Will be announced end of the week TO PUBLIC. 3) What's holding up the process? "finalization of how merit badge counselors could be 'vetted' by local Council advancement committees/task forces." (only social justice warriors need apply?) 4) Expect to see the May 1 Eagle-mandatory pushed back to July 1.