Jump to content
JosephMD

Two adults 21 or over

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, DuctTape said:

My proposed wording would be to simplify, and get rid of the "registered" and 21+, all the exceptions, and weird iterations, age, gender, blah blah.

Just make it "no one on one contact", that is it.

My proposal, DT,  is to entirely eliminate the new rule, root and branch.  

The  Merit Badge Counselor and any other Scout, much less a parent, is adequate, as is meeting in a public place, such as a library or police station.  The objective is supposedly to make the contact with the merit badge candidates "transparent" so both the Scout and the counselor is protected, and registration of an adult does nothing to assure greater transparency.  Your new rule, Richard, means I cannot meet a candidate at FBI headquarters with the Special Agent in Charge present - unless he is registered, of course or another "registered" Scouter is present.  Would Christ do, if not registered? Buddha? 

 Parents, rejected as inadequate unless "registered," have, after all, actual, as opposed to imaginary, legal status vis-a-vis their child in BSA Scouting,  BSA Scouters do not.   I can find no authority for believing a BSA Scouter not a parent to a Scout stands in loco parentis to a Scout.  To the contrary, see, e.g.,  State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St. 3d 31(1993). "The phrase "person in loco parentis" in R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) applies to a person who has assumed the dominant parental role and is relied upon by the child for support. This statutory provision was not designed for teachers, coaches, scout leaders, or any other persons who might temporarily have some disciplinary control over a child. Simply put, the statute applies to the people the child goes home to." Id. at 33 and Dale v. Boy Scouts of America160 N.J. 562 ,734 A.2d 1196 (1999)  "Our prior decisions indicate that the status of in loco parentis is reserved for individuals who function as a parent. See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 97 N.J. 154, 162, 478 A.2d 351 (1984) (recognizing stepparent may have in loco parentis relationship); In re M.S., 73 N.J. 238, 243-44, 374 A.2d 445 (1977) (finding juvenile shelter for delinquents stands in loco parentis). Characteristics of that relationship include 'the responsibility to maintain, rear and educate the child,' Miller, supra, 97 N.J. at 162, 478 A.2d 351, as well as the duties of 'supervision, care and rehabilitation,' In re M.S., supra, 73 N.J. at 242, 374 A.2d 445see also A.S., supra, 139 N.J.Super. at 369, 354 A.2d 100 (defining role as 'one who means to put himself in the situation of the lawful father with reference to the father's office and duty of making provision for the child'). Boy Scouts does not assume those responsibilities or those duties. It does not maintain or rear children. A Boy Scout leader may function as a supervisor of children for limited periods of time; he does not have 'the responsibility to maintain, rear and educate' children such that he stands in the place of a parent. 734 A. 2d at 1218.

 Moreover the entire notion of adults present and "supervising" a patrol meeting or patrol hike to the neighborhood park for lunch is inconsistent with of Scouting, if not BSA, for defined for 111 years.   The Patrol Leader supervises the meeting - not any adult.  The adult jobs is to teach the PL how to do his job and be his coach, counsellor, mentor and resource - not an adult patrol leader.  Think EDGE as BSA defines it.  

Destroying the "business" to "save" it is not rational.  You can't just say "no."  Where does BSA Scouting, short of adults as it is, get all these extra Scouter hours?   

The Book of No gets bigger and bigger as BSA and, sadly, with it Scouting in the U.S.A., dies.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

@elitts  lets assume you are not a registered leader in the BSA.  Just Timmy or Tammy Scouts parent.     

Does Timmy need to work on a MB with a MB counselor tonight?    You could be the second adult.  Same for Tammy working a shift in front of the local mart for that camp card or popcorn sale.    Anything else, meet the two-deep leadership requirement.   

So, how would you make the FAQ clear, or do you think it better that the FAQ be removed.   

What is your solution?   

If you make something a rule, all of the other aspects of your program need to take into account maintaining that rule.  If your program needs require making exceptions to a rule (unless it's an emergency) than you have very good evidence that the rule is a problem in the first place.  In this case, the FAQ is telling us that regardless of the actual rule, 2 registered leaders aren't a requirement for merit badge meetings or fund raisers.  But how can "whatever reason they had" that necessitated mandating  2 registered leaders not apply in just those circumstances?

What they should have done was make the rule "2 deep adult leadership is required at all troop activities and functions. A minimum of 1 registered leader over the age of 21 is required, 2 registered adults is strongly preferred.  In all cases, no 1 on 1 adult contact is permitted."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inquiry I made @TAHAWK and @elitts offered to consider your thoughtful FAQ suggestions.   Changing the Barriers to Abuse is not part of that inquiry.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And gives a false sense of security. The GTSS has become a monstrosity which satisfies insurers but does little to actually increase safety and mitigate risk. Why? Just like a computer system which requires too complex a password that nobody can remember, people need to write it down somewhere usually near their computer which is easily found thus rendering the "increased security password" meaningless. The GTSS  has jumped the shark in this regards. I am sure the risk management experts will disagree as their system works on paper. The problem is theory vs practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

And gives a false sense of security. The GTSS has become a monstrosity which satisfies insurers but does little to actually increase safety and mitigate risk. Why? Just like a computer system which requires too complex a password that nobody can remember, people need to write it down somewhere usually near their computer which is easily found thus rendering the "increased security password" meaningless. The GTSS  has jumped the shark in this regards. I am sure the risk management experts will disagree as their system works on paper. The problem is theory vs practice.

As our iOLS training team was preparing for our course we held recently, when it came to discussion of the GTSS we all just sighed.  In past courses, we always gave a brief talk to the participants about getting familiar with the GTSS as they worked with their youth to conduct their annual planning conference and selecting activities.  This year, we seemed to just not collectively have the strength of will to even mention it for some reason...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

As our iOLS training team was preparing for our course we held recently, when it came to discussion of the GTSS we all just sighed.  In past courses, we always gave a brief talk to the participants about getting familiar with the GTSS as they worked with their youth to conduct their annual planning conference and selecting activities.  This year, we seemed to just not collectively have the strength of will to even mention it for some reason...

Could it be that the G2SS changes so much so fast, folks have a hard time keeping up? Or is it that the rules keep changing and their is no explanation of why, i.e. Tigers no longer being able to do shooting sports ( since rescinded due to protest),18-20 year olds no longer count for YP purposes, and it's OK for two females to work with males, but but males cannot work with females?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 10:21 PM, DuctTape said:

And gives a false sense of security. The GTSS has become a monstrosity which satisfies insurers but does little to actually increase safety and mitigate risk. Why? Just like a computer system which requires too complex a password that nobody can remember, people need to write it down somewhere usually near their computer which is easily found thus rendering the "increased security password" meaningless. The GTSS  has jumped the shark in this regards. I am sure the risk management experts will disagree as their system works on paper. The problem is theory vs practice.

Interesting you mentioned computers. 

When I first got into application development I received some sage advice. Others, as well as my own experience, have added to that advice over the years, for my own version of KISS.

  1. You can design and develop the most beautiful piece of software in the world, but if no one uses it, it is worthless. 
  2. No one will use your software if it does not help them achieve their task easier, faster or or with less hassle than the way they do it now. 
  3. If you don't talk with, listen too, or simply ignore your stakeholders, you are going to design things that make their job harder, slower and more of a hassle. 
  4. Build only what you need to solve the problem at hand. Don't over engineer. 
  5. Not every problem is a nail. SO put down the hammer and figure out the real problem. 
  6. At some point, the list of problems will outgrow the solution. When that happens don't just keep adding on (iterating) the original solution, but stop and look for a better solution. 

That sentiment served me well, and it holds true for things other than software. In the last 4 decades I have watched many well meaning initiatives collapse under their own weight from failing to heed simple realities like the ones above.. 

Substitute GSS or even Scouting Program for the words software above. How much of the above list can be applied to our Scouting program? How far has it pushed us off course in our game with a purpose of developing character, citizenship and fitness. Maybe it is time we looked for better solutions before our program collapses under its own weight. 

 

Edited by HelpfulTracks
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

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

×