SiouxRanger

2 hours ago, jcousino said:

do you understand the risks involved with having an unregistered youth on trips?

It would be helpful if you could list those risks.

Give the child credit and adjust (fudge all other numbers). 

16 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The official answer is : MBCs are not vetted by your CO/COR.  Only unit registered adults (CO approved) are supposed to be camping with your unit.

You may well be right, but then the issue becomes: "Not vetted by CO/COR to camp with unit, but 'vetted just enough' by Council to be an MBC."

So, seems to me that MBC's come in several varieties, in approximate descending order of "vettedness" to my way of thinking:

1.  An MBC who is also currently a unit adult leader counseling only scouts from that unit.  Currently, both CO/COR vetted by the scout's unit and Council vetted as an MBC.

2.  An MBC who is also currently a unit adult leader counseling scouts from other units.  Currently, both CO/COR vetted by the other unit and Council vetted as an MBC.

3.  An MBC affiliated with a specific unit in some fashion, perhaps a former unit leader, now serving only as a MBC for that prior unit.  Previously vetted by the Unit CO/COR, but now only vetted by the Council.  This MBC is a known quantity to the scout's unit's adult leadership.

4.  Same as #3, but this MBC is counseling scouts from units that the MBC has never been affiliated with.  This MBC has been vetted by some other CO/COR once upon a time, but not the CO/COR for the unit of the scout being counseled.  

5.  An MBC that is not affiliated with any unit in any way.  This MBC may have been previously affiliated with a unit so long ago that the connection has been lost (they are now "unknown" to any current unit leadership), or never affiliated with any unit ever.  The "vettedness" of this class of MBC relies solely on the Council's judgment. And to what depth does the Council actually conduct any inquiry?

Our unit, in my experience, has never formally "vetted" anyone.  If an issue with respect to some adult is noticed, the leadership generally discusses it and formulates a plan to address it.  No abuse related issues have ever arisen, but issues of physical or mental capacity have arisen, such as diminished driving capacity, increased likelihood of a medical event when camping remotely, and lack of situational awareness to respond to an emergency when camping.

11 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

You a member of DVOA??

Please understand that my brain has been for sale on eBay for some years, without sale, but is harder than most road bricks.

And DVOA?  Who would they be?  The "Department of Volunteer Orangutang Advocates?"

I am just a slow-minded nobody. And just so content to be slow-minded, and a nobody.

BUT, when somebody seeks to communicate to another, it is somebody's responsibility to actually COMMUNICATE to the others.  And to communicate such that the intended recipient of the communication can understand it.

So, "DVOA," Je, ne comprend pas.

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

This is what we received from NCAC:

 

And thereby the Council was killed.

I quit giving to Friends of Scouting when my council executive was paid more than 4 times my income. Just a simple lawyer, I am, huge liability if I get it wrong.  BSA Council executives are grossly overpaid.  My local council executive gets paid nearly what my child gets paid as an attending radiologist.  (MD).  My child gets it wrong, patient dies. Council Executive gets it wrong-well staff gets it wrong-an extra three minute wait for a porta-potty.

My current Council Executive manages a staff of 9± (down from 27 staff) and is paid about $300,000. About what the prior Council Executive was paid managing a staff of 27±. Hmmm.?

I find it difficult to subsidize the income of someone whose income exceeds mine and whose performance is less than mine.  Someone I'd never hire.

(And if anything goes bad, the lawyer gets hammered first for the failure, no matter whose fault it is.  Lawyer = educated = most educated = surely the most wrong.)

For us fossils, Discord is a what?  What are the perceived strengths and dangers?  Thanks!

I have wondered why ALL the councils (and maybe there were a few which did not, and anyone who knows, please post) got on board to contribute in the amounts determined by National to the Settlement Fund though being, in the words of National, "independent not for profits" from National and not under National's control.

My council has virtually no exposure to abuse claims, as near as I can tell (lawyer), yet it sold off 1/4 of its only camp to a buyer which logged it immediately. A sad and tragic event. Some of that land was donated for the use of Scouts.

In the words of "Carson the Butler" of Downton Abbey, "Why would that be?"

And now I have a suggestion of insight:  Long rumored that post bankruptcy National will consolidate councils reducing from 210, more or less, to 80 more or less. About 130 Council Executives will lose their jobs.  In my council, that is about a $310,000 annual salary and benefit package. (And each of those Council Executives has every financial reason to vie for their Council's survival

And, considering that ALL Council Executives have to be approved by National (Yeah, Gates video on 'Council Guidance' notwithstanding), ALL Council Executives owe their JOBS to the largess and whims of National.

And therein "lies the rub." (not sure of the attribution of the concept-perhaps my friend ThenNow can help).

Perhaps all of the "independent" council executives are acting to protect their lucrative council executive jobs by supporting National's demand for contribution to the settlement fund.

"I want to be one of the 80 Council Executives to survive the consolidation of councils."

And so, perhaps, "The Fix Is In."

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Or start with a precourse test to check your knowledge. 70% rewards you by skipping the course.

A great practical idea, but I suspect that BSA's insurers will want documentation that every covered scouter sat through and passed the BSA (and insurer) approved YPT training.

Sadly, what was once so simple, is now so complicated.

29 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

recharter should almost be a non-event. 

Actually, it is like trying to balance a real estate closing statement.

I think they are known as the "Thirteenth Torment of Haydes," down there.

On 1/26/2023 at 8:22 AM, fred8033 said:

Too often committee members work like ASMs.  That's not "preferred".   Sometimes it's necessary due to number of registered adults.    So on camp outs ... just like troop meetings, etc ... scouts work with scouts first; then with SM and the ASMs.  Ideally, scouts don't work with committee members.

Why "not preferred?"

And what is the issue if a Committee Member "works like an ASM?"

A scout needs a mentor, a scout learns, a scout passes his requirement, AND THEN some "rule" is offended?" (Yet, the Scout learned the requirement? Mission accomplished.)

An adult is needed to mentor scouts. In 25 years I've never heard a scout complain that he achieved a goal because he was mentored by a "mere" member of the committee.

46 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Not all units have the luxury of being selective of their Scouters.

Yeah-me:  25 years in a small boat with the snarly dragon of the "Void of Skilled and Willing Volunteers." (The Void tries its best to suck the enthusiasm from the willing who show up to make a difference.  The Void looks a lot like indifference, but it is more pernicious.)

Our Troop has about 8 adults who are involved from time to time, and 4 our 5 who are there ALWAYS.

In my work life, I live in a world of rigid rules where a judge can sentence a defendant to life in prison or order an insurance company to pay an injured person $8 million.

I cannot get too "wound up" over the formalistic rules of unit operations, dichotomy between Troop Committee and the Scoutmaster corps, etc…

I take the YPT requirements VERY SERIOUSLY.  Rigid adherence is MANDATORY.

To my law clients, I say, "In my experience, everyone is just trying to get through the day."  Meaning, that their sibling, child, parent, etc… are not intentionally out to to "get them," just that their sibling…are totally incompetent and lost. And that has almost always been the case.  

All that being said, in my unit, having a shortage of capable and willing adults, many have served in many positions, and though now registered as a C, they held A and B positions for years.

So, whether preferred on not (Fred), we have many adults who are registered in one position but serve in two or more positions within the troop.

Fred, can you explain what "preferred" means?

When clients call about some work which has been delayed, I say, "I am dancing as fast as I can."

On 1/26/2023 at 8:22 AM, fred8033 said:

IMHO, rules are to cover guide to safe scouting.  The "should" and "role" is always my main concern. 

Could you please explain what you mean? I just don't understand your post and I want to understand your meaning. 

Thanks.

14 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Prior to having children in the program, I was one of those "Grown men" without children in the unit participating in overnite activities. In some cases during those time, I had more knowledge, skills, and abilities in Scouting than most of the parents. And in some cases I was the one training those parents.

Amen. (Me not one "prior to" but certainly after they aged out.)

On 1/25/2023 at 10:15 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

The CO approves and has authority over ALL adult leaders in their chartered Scouting program.  If the CO doesn't want someone involved in their Scouting program, they (through the COR) can direct them to leave.

Is the corollary that "If the CO approves the adult leader, they can participate in all unit activities?"  Or can/should the CO approve an adult leader for only certain activities?  "You can serve on Boards of Review, but not go on campouts."  (How finely can one mince the onion?)

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

One mentor of mine  never had children of his own. He came back from WWII, and the troop he grew up in needed a SM, and he filled the role. He served as SM of the troop until Uncle Sam called him to Korea. Came back from Korea, and resumed SM job because everyone wanted 'Sarge" back.  Stayed on for over 20 years. Even then he worked summer camp until health started failing him.

Man who made the biggest impact on me, more than may father, was my SM. He was  the role model for me growing up, and my role model now as SM. He also never had children of his own. HIs nephew's troop needed an SM, and he volunteered. He stuck with it for over 25, until a new job required him to move.

Prior to having children in the program, I was one of those "Grown men" without children in the unit participating in overnite activities. In some cases during those time, I had more knowledge, skills, and abilities in Scouting than most of the parents. And in some cases I was the one training those parents. Further, I had better rapport with the youth than the other adults because I was closer to their age and I had no children in the unit, so when issues arose, they came to me.

I can go on and on about the great Scouters who didn;t have children, but I will leave you with the following:

Not all units have the luxury of being selective of their Scouters. We are a small unit of 6 Scouts. Of all the registered Scouters, I am the only parent. One has no children at all as he recently aged out, but for current YP purposes, doesn't count. My predecessor as SM stuck on as an MC after his son aged out, and plans to stick around. His predecessor is a COR/MC whose kids aged out as well. The 3rd MC served on a variety of district and council roles after his son aged out 16 years ago. Always partial to the troop, but got tired of the BS I posted abotu on my council in another thread, and came back to the unit.

If you have concerns, maybe talk to the folks who know the person you have concerns about instead of letting your biases control you. That Scouter may be the best thing the troop has going for it.

 

 

 

I regret that I have one Upvote to give for this post.

On 1/25/2023 at 6:21 PM, nolesrule said:

The point of being registered is that they have had the background check and they have done their YPT certification. 

That is precisely the point.  If you are registered, then you have had/done both. Not registered, may YPT but unlikely background check. Registration is a a quick and easy way top determine compliance.

7 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

in our Chapter all candidates are on the ballot and the SM only uses a strike if the candidate is actually elected.

So, as I read this, all scouts who have met the OA qualifications are put on the ballot, and stand for election.

The SM does not exercise the SM's discretion to exclude from the ballot a scout that the SM believes should not be elected.

The doomed scout's name appears on the ballot and the doomed scout knows he was on the ballot. The doomed scout does not know he is doomed.

The scout electorate believes the doomed scout to be a viable candidate because he is on the ballot, and perhaps deems him worthy and elects him to the OA, not knowing that their vote won't count.

And what is the color of the Truth in presenting a ballot to an electorate when the "fix is in?"

After the doomed scout is elected, he is told that he was not elected.  (But he was.)

And what is the color of the Truth in telling a scout he was not elected when he really was elected?

Or maybe the SM has the backbone to tell the doomed scout that he was elected, but that the SM is denying him membership in the OA.  And how is that message delivered?  Such that the Scout has a path forward to qualify next year?. 

And how does the scout reconcile that his fellow scouts thought he was worthy, but the SM is the roadblock?

4 hours ago, Armymutt said:

By "came to us in December" I mean the dad sent us an email. 

Does the Cub Scout have any service time in a Webelos den with the prior Pack before it folded? Maybe he could add that to Webelos den activity with your Pack.

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

The dress, dances, etc ... should honor local tribes

I live East of the Mississippi.

In my state, I know of no "local tribes" which have a presence here any longer. I've lived here for more than 60 years. The only tribes claiming their origin in my state are far away. They have no presence here. Occasionally, a representative of a tribe will appear to speak to some issue.  Maybe once a decade.

And even at that, I have little sense or knowledge of their removal from my state, the depth of their connection to my state.

How does one even determine which tribes occupied their area, and their current representatives?

And, "honor."

So, if an OA lodge's ceremony script is respectful of not only Native Americans, but people generally, is that OK?

The Lenni Lenape script of my local OA Lodge is inspiring to me, a non-Native American.

4 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

⁹0The national committee should mind their own business.   If a lodge can come to an agreement with their local Native Americans then leave them alone.  If not give advice concerning alternatives.   But don't issue cease and decist directives where there is no problem.

 

 

I am struggling to understand the concept of "cultural appropriation" and continue my studies…

But in the meantime, does an OA Lodge have some obligation to either obtain approval or conform to the Native American Personna of a tribe LOCAL to the Lodge's location?

That is, can an OA Lodge in Minnesota adopt a Seminole personna?

In my 50+ years of attending OA tap-out ceremonies in my Council, the ceremony always referenced the Lenni Lenape, which are from the upper Northeast.

So, are all OA Lodges to conform to the regalia of the Lenni Lenape?

Thanks.

On 1/15/2023 at 12:06 AM, SiouxRanger said:

I find this photo to be unsettling. Are these Order of the Arrow members of the KKK folks? I just can't tell.

I do dislike auto correct.

What I typed was "Are these Order of the Arrow members or KKK Folks?"  (Not "of.") Maybe that makes no difference to InquisitiveScouter.

But, I was NOT intending to equate the OA with the KKK.  I just can't make sense of the picture. I must be missing something.

On 1/12/2023 at 8:02 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

The first ones were in black robes.

Here's a pic from the birth of my home lodge:

 

You could easily ditch the headdresses.  And you do not need a fictional story of Native Americans to promulgate ideas about Brotherhood, Cheerfulness, and Service.

You could easily find stories to demonstrate these during the Colonial period, or during the American Revolution, or the westward expansion, etc.  It should not be offensive to find and tell a story from some native tribes to demonstrate these principles, either.  They need not be from your area particularly, since you are ditching the wearing of clothing to mimic.

Or, if a lodge wanted to incorporate stories from their local first peoples, there's plenty... 574 recognized tribes in the US.

https://www.usa.gov/tribes

P.S.  Gotta love the ties!!

P.P.S.  Also see https://oa-bsa.org/history/first-ceremony

I find this photo to be unsettling. Are these Order of the Arrow members of the KKK folks? I just can't tell.