Jump to content
DeanRx

How to comply ? New G2SS, YPT and (gasp) females !!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

When we have the Webelos campout, and if a Female Webelos were to attend (or multiple) would we need to have a registered YPT female leader present to be in compliance? 

Yes, but then the Webelos Den should supply such. It is their requirement to have one, not yours.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Yes, but then the Webelos Den should supply such. It is their requirement to have one, not yours.

 

 

I would have said yes on that, but it is technically not a "Den" event.  We invite Webelos from the two feeder packs at the CO, and from other packs that may be interested in our troop or are looking to complete the requirements for AOL.  Sort of a grey area, as the Webelos have to bring a parent (or adult partner) with them, they tent with that person and they are responsible for transportation.

The visitors do participate in activities with the troop, so likely by rules of G2SS we may in fact need to have a female, or not allow girls to come unless they bring their own registered female leader.  A requirement not needed for the boys, so again we the front line units are sort of left holding the bag so to speak and possibly being the bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

I would have said yes on that, but it is technically not a "Den" event.  We invite Webelos from the two feeder packs at the CO, and from other packs that may be interested in our troop or are looking to complete the requirements for AOL.  Sort of a grey area, as the Webelos have to bring a parent (or adult partner) with them, they tent with that person and they are responsible for transportation.

The visitors do participate in activities with the troop, so likely by rules of G2SS we may in fact need to have a female, or not allow girls to come unless they bring their own registered female leader.  A requirement not needed for the boys, so again we the front line units are sort of left holding the bag so to speak and possibly being the bad guy.

Webelos have a requirement as part of their AOL to visit a troop. A Den leader (or other authorized YPT member of the pack) should go to that even with them. A pack should never send their Webelos off to a troop without trained leaders even if the parents are going. The safety of the Webelos is the responsibility of the Pack and if something happened at your event, and the pack did not ensure that adequate YPT leaders were in attendance, then the pack likely will be held responsible.

The section I bolded would be rule #1 IMO. Doesn't make you the "bad guy" by asking those units to simply follow their own rules.

Lastly, and pardon the slight pun, "man up!" Since when have scouters been afraid of being the "bad guy" by follow rules? It is our duty to follow the rules. We should take pride in such, not hang our heads in shame for asking others to follow the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

Lastly, and pardon the slight pun, "man up!" Since when have scouters been afraid of being the "bad guy" by follow rules? It is our duty to follow the rules. We should take pride in such, not hang our heads in shame for asking others to follow the rules.

We can definitely be the bad guy.

The bad guy reference was more to the position National BSA is placing local units in with their gerrymandered and non-equally applied YPT requirements.  We (and other units) have no issue with adhering to that and communicating such.  The parents and Webelos effected by this will probably think ill of the local unit and not the Corporate BSA that made the rules in a vacuum, far away from their actual customers, in the hallowed grounds of Dallas or the extremely well apportioned and no doubt overpriced rooms of the Summit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Treflienne said:

I should have said "But are far as managing to live with the rules requiring that adults be registered" . . . .

I'd rather stay out of the argument about ages and genders of required BSA adults.

In my area, the GSUSA elementary age troops are typically rather small and single grade.  (I suppose more like a den.)   For a typical year we had 13 girls.   Most of the moms were registered.  3 or 4 of the dads were registered.  GSUSA distinguishes between leaders ("01s" and "02s", the "leader" and "assistant leader") who are encouraged to have training and other registered adults who need not take leader training.   Depending on the type of event only one or perhaps two of the adults present need to be trained; the other adults required for the adult-to-kid ratio need only be registered and background checked.  So, no male "leaders",  but registered, background-checked dads who were available to help out when called on.

My point was that it was not hard (in my experience) to get parents to register (and pay the registration fee, and do the background check) so as to be available to help.  Getting them to turn in permission slips on time was a completely different matter.

Well - BSA is already making an attempt to steal GSUSA membership... it looks like they could do some good by stealing their adult leader designations and training requirements as well :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mashmaster said:

You can always be with your child.  the problem comes when a girl is not related to a leader, then you need a female leader I believe.

 

What the hell ?!?!?  So is the expectation that a female leader for a co-ed unit "escort" or be with the female youth AT ALL TIMES ?!?!  I agree that both units were not meeting the spirit of the rule in this case... but if the female youth raised "red flags" because she was rotating from activity to activity at a council ran event without an adult female "chaperone"....

That is a COMPLETELY different interpretation / implementation of the rule as I understand it.  National REALLY needs a Cranial-Proctologist STAT to help them provide some practical guidance on their new mandates.... SHEESH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, malraux said:

Long term, the sensical thing to do would be for the girls webelos den to visit a girls troop. Obviously it'll be a muddle through for the next year while the girl troops get established.

My thought exactly... why is a female webelos doing an official visit to a non-co-ed troop ?  Thought that was the point of a girls troop.  It'll be interesting when you have male/female siblings and the boy can go from feeder pack into the troop.... but sister has to be driven across town to the one and only functioning girls troop IF she wants to continue in scouting after cubs.

That's why I maintain that separate, but equal and parallel troops are just smoke and mirrors from national... in the next 3 years... all troops will be encouraged (if not forced) to become co-ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DeanRx said:

My thought exactly... why is a female webelos doing an official visit to a non-co-ed troop ?  Thought that was the point of a girls troop.  It'll be interesting when you have male/female siblings and the boy can go from feeder pack into the troop.... but sister has to be driven across town to the one and only functioning girls troop IF she wants to continue in scouting after cubs.

That's why I maintain that separate, but equal and parallel troops are just smoke and mirrors from national... in the next 3 years... all troops will be encouraged (if not forced) to become co-ed.

That was my immediate thought when Family Scouting was explained as a way to simplify and consolidate schedules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DeanRx said:

is the expectation that a female leader for a co-ed unit "escort" or be with the female youth AT ALL TIMES ?!?!  

I believe so. Otherwise, what is the point of requiring a YPT registered female if they can't be counted on to be around at all times? If they are absent when something happens then what was the point to send one along at all?

 

2 hours ago, DeanRx said:

My thought exactly... why is a female webelos doing an official visit to a non-co-ed troop ?  Thought that was the point of a girls troop.

Because no girl troops currently exist. The ONLY way to complete the current requirement is to visit an all-boy troop.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

I believe so. Otherwise, what is the point of requiring a YPT registered female if they can't be counted on to be around at all times? If they are absent when something happens then what was the point to send one along at all?

If this is INDEED the spirit of the rule.... then you should have to have ONE adult female for every ONE girl.  If a co-ed / parallel / independent BSA4G Troop goes to summer camp with 5 girls... then they must ALL do EVERY activity AT THE SAME TIME ?!?!? Because otherwise, if they are broken into a group of 3 buddies and 2 buddies.... you have to have an adult female with group 1 and one with group 2 EVERYWHERE they go?

WOW - how have these boys successfully used the buddy system to go to the bathroom, the showers, their classes, to free swim, to the ranges and to the trading post all these years at camp without being molested by all the ravenous, rapy adult males that must overwhelm the trustworthy male adults in attendance ? (that was sarcasm BTW....)

"If they are absent when something happens then what was the point to send one along at all?" - so is it better if they ARE present when something happens?  How about we have rules that minimize something happening in the first place ?!?!?  Somehow, having lady parts now automatically increases an adult leader's trustworthiness and integrity?  Because if there are two males and one does something inappropriate.... the other male is less likely to uphold the standard than a female? Absurd.

We can see the grain in the bark on the tree... but we have completely lost the forest - if this is indeed the interpretation of the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DeanRx said:

"If they are absent when something happens then what was the point to send one along at all?" - so is it better if they ARE present when something happens? 

*sigh*

Is it your desire to understand this situation/issue or argue a straw man?

Regardless; moving on from this dead equine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DeanRx thinks this is hard. @Hawkwin thinks it's easy. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

One solution -- if mom's are slow joining -- is to have one of your leaders become a trainer, and figure out how to deliver YPT training and accept registrations in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@DeanRx thinks this is hard. @Hawkwin thinks it's easy. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

One solution -- if mom's are slow joining -- is to have one of your leaders become a trainer, and figure out how to deliver YPT training and accept registrations in the field.

@qwazse Minor quibble: Simple, certainly not easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkwin... I’m actually interested in understanding how this is intended to be implemented.  Because whether I agree or not... girls joining are a reality.  Now, there is no mandate that male youth have an adult leader with them at all times at camp, while transitioning from activity to activity.

Yet, that appears to be the expectation (at least from some) for female youth?  Why didn’t the buddy system (that works for boys) work for girls as well?  What female would want to go to summer camp, camporee or any other large scale gathering with multiple units IF they must be handheld in order to participate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DeanRx said:

...Now, there is no mandate that male youth have an adult leader with them at all times at camp, while transitioning from activity to activity.

Yet, that appears to be the expectation (at least from some) for female youth?  Why didn’t the buddy system (that works for boys) work for girls as well?...

I don't think the "mandate" is changing for either gender.  The rule on adult supervision (and I looked at the new one, which I think takes effect in October) says two leaders must be "at" the activity, or "present at" the activity.  We have had discussions before about what those words and phrases really mean in practice.  I have never understood the rules (including the new one) to mean that every Scout must be within eyesight of a unit leader at all times while at an activity.  (Indeed, there are times when that CAN'T happen even if anyone wanted it to, in light of the YP guidelines regarding "privacy.")  And the buddy system, which you mention, also seems to assume that there will be times when an adult is not right there - otherwise, why would you need a buddy system?  (Not counting the waterfront, where you need constant adult supervision AND the buddy system, but that's different.)  The bottom line is that line-of-sight by adults with all Scouts at all times is impossible, and is not what the BSA means by "present."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×