Jump to content

Debate over 72 hour rule - spun from bankruptcy thread


Recommended Posts

One man’s loophole = another man’s knot.

“No one-on-one contact” is not a loophole so much as it’s the means by which scouts can corroborate evidence of sexual abuse should it occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd recommend stopping this. Any incidents would not be covered by any BSA insurance. 

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand the rules and some places that have decided to implement stricter versions of the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've desc

one ≠ five, therefore one on one ≠ one on five. If I can spend five hours with five scouts --- and no other adult -- in my vehicle on the way to a campout, there can be no logical expl

The article is great.  Is clearly stated the minimum and the highly recommended.    It seems very clear to me, I don’t understand this back and forth. 
 

Our Troop is looking at the recommendations to try and meet those when possible.  
 

The one area where our troop doesn’t agree with the recommendations is allowing one adult to take a single scout to the med center.  We discussed this and do not allow this even if in view of others as we believe it is too much risk.  The the risk we see is either potential grooming or a scout claiming grooming.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The one area where our troop doesn’t agree with the recommendations is allowing one adult to take a single scout to the med center.  We discussed this and do not allow this even if in view of others as we believe it is too much risk.  The the risk we see is either potential grooming or a scout claiming grooming.  

This one is extremely tricky. I have in deed taken a Scout to the hospital by myself, with the express approval of the professional running the camp. (emphasis). One of our camp staffers got injured and I had to rush him to the ER. That situation was OK, but a week later an 18 year old staffer had an accident and again I had to take him to the ER. This time there was complications. Scouter went into shock in my car. Having a second person would have been extremely helpful.

But I know it can be a challenge. Last time I had to transport a Scout to the ER, I took another Scout with me. I know that can be troublesome, but thankfully it was my son.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yknot said:

You do see that you are doing the exact same thing? 


You are unilaterally making up language on your own here that is not in this article. I quoted the article exactly, aside from punctuation, in my comment. You are claiming because the statement disagrees with what your interpretation of what one on one means that it must be... wrong? ...  So this article is somehow wrong on that but right on other things that agree with what you think? 

The portion of the article I amended I did so because the author is evidently making a misstatement.  He says ["no one on one" specifically states that adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult"]  The term "specifically states" is used to indicate a direct quote.  However, there is no portion of the G2SS that says what he claims to be quoting; therefore I looked for the closest possible piece of text and found a very near match, one that is in keeping with the rest of the author's points.  The only other explanation that makes sense is that the author was referring to rules regarding social media/phone/internet interactions where the G2SS now explicitly states that another adult must be included on EVERYTHING.

Quote

The below statement, also from the same article, contradicts your interpretation of alone:

Question: One adult with two or more scouts. 

BOS response: That depends on the situation. For example, traveling to and from program activity, scouting meetings, and especially outside of scouting it is not a good practice to have one adult with two scouts, as the sexual abuser can and will use this as an opportunity to have singular access to scouts. 

Clearly, BOS considers travel, scout meetings, and outside of scouting situations in which an adult can be considered "alone" with a scout even if another scout is present. Clearly, BSA seems to contradict itself.  But if you don't go with the most definitive language on the topic, that's an awful lot like a loophole.  

Most everyone over the age of 9 or 10 knows the difference between being told "This is not allowed" and "This is not a good practice".  I'm not sure if you just can't tell the difference between the wording or if you are just trying to go with the gist of these statements and getting it wrong.  So just to make it super duper clear.  When an authority figure is asked "Is X allowed?"  if the person responds by saying "NO.".  Then that action is against the rules.  If they respond by saying "We Recommend", "We Suggest", "We Prefer" or "It's not a good practice", then they are saying "It's technically allowed".

And just to confirm that this person BOS is quoting was indeed offering "best practice" advice rather than a "rule", here is what the BSA says first hand about travelling in a car:

A. An adult may not drive or be alone in the car with a Scout unless that Scout is their own child. An adult may drive two or more Scouts.  https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/yp-faqs/

So.  2 or more scouts = Not Alone.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 10/23/2021 at 10:38 AM, qwazse said:

To be very clear … BSA allows parents to observe the activities of scouts and their registered adult leaders during routine overnights. This imposes increased accountability on the minimum 2 registered adult leaders. It’s a welcome thing. Do these TCC lawyers have proof that this is the source of most abuse in the past few years? Or, would they rather put our youth at increased risk for the sake of rhetoric?

Would you please explain this further? I think you’re saying the parents, under the current 72 hour rule, can join the camp out and are there as/can be a second layer of accountability, observing the registered leaders. Is that correct?

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

Would you please explain this further? I think you’re saying the parents, under the current 72 hour rule, can join the camp out and are there as/can be a second layer of accountability, observing the registered leaders. Is that correct?

Yes with the exception that we don't want side-effects of visiting parents to be a structured youth protection mechanism.  It's too haphazard with too much variance unit-to-unit and event-to-event.

Related ... G2SS explicitly says ... "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders. The BSA does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program" ... 

This might have a slight conflict with the 72 hour rule.  If the parent is to be at the camp longer than 72 hours, BSA wants them registered with a background check.  ... My view is ... The 72 hours is a threshold to say "Come on, the person is really a registered leader and not just a casual parent observing.  They need a background check".  There is no reason units can't register people who only attend for 24 hours.  BUT, if longer than 72 hours (a summer camp or extended adventure issue), they must be registered.  

FYI ...  Parents can still drop in for visits ... cumulatively up to 24 / 48 / 71 hours for that event.  BUT, if longer, they need to be registered. 

I view the 72 hour rule as a YP protection mechanism to call units that might game the system on "who is a leader".  Parents attending for less than 72 hours might reduce incidents.  It's just not a structured / dependable YP mechanism. 

Edited by fred8033
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

FYI ...  Parents can still drop in for visits ... cumulatively up to 24 / 48 / 71 hours for that event.  BUT, if longer, they need to be registered. 

I appreciate the explanation. Related, but not to imply this needs to be applied to parents, what is the annual cost and commitment to be registered? That is both as to the individual and the Unit. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThenNow said:

I appreciate the explanation. Related, but not to imply this needs to be applied to parents, what is the annual cost and commitment to be registered? That is both as to the individual and the Unit. Thanks.

It’s around $50/year. The time commitment the unit might require changes depending on the unit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, malraux said:

It’s around $50/year. The time commitment the unit might require changes depending on the unit. 

Isn’t there the YPT requirement or is that separate from registration? I thought the background checking and YPT certification were “all of a piece,” as they used to say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThenNow said:

Isn’t there the YPT requirement or is that separate from registration? I thought the background checking and YPT certification were “all of a piece,” as they used to say. 

Yes, you have to be current on ypt, which mostly involves watching videos. The background check happens at the council level.

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

I appreciate the explanation. Related, but not to imply this needs to be applied to parents, what is the annual cost and commitment to be registered? That is both as to the individual and the Unit. Thanks.

Of course, that depends you how much time you spend doing it 😜

Just to register here is $45 national membership fee plus $5 insurance.  So, $50.  (This includes the BSA's background check...you don't have to pay for that.)  Then add uniforms, gear, fuel, food costs, training, time, heartache, etc., and the price tag can be about $1000 per year easily...

Now, your unit committee should be willing to help defray some of those costs.  Here, I pay for my own uniforms and food.  Required training is reimbursed by the unit.  Time and heartache are compensated for through the joy of watching boys grow into good men.

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

This might overlap with the other attempted discussion of what we might like to see, or feel is important for improvements.  

Can they develop some type of background check method that can apply to those sort of "in between" adults?  YP, period, and then background to include proper reference contacts?  But, they do not pay for full membership, but rather a lesser fee to cover the legal clutter?  Reality still applys.  We need to not ignore warning signs or fall back on the good guy, well known disconnect.  The two deep and no one on one with a youth are critical, and that applys to parents also.  Our unit has struggled for years, due to our makeup with lesser opportunity families, to assure a youth is not left stranded, and if is, that we have a mechanism to safely get them to their guardians.  And I have a few times been concerned that once we got the youth to their place of residence, that they would be okay, based on our knowledge of the home situation.  Thin lines, and hard decisions once in a while, over time.  

It is sad that I am not overly confident that the child protection departments in many of our government entities are that "safe".  We read of many night mares, many that seem repetitive and getting kicked down the road.  Meanwhile, we, as an organization are being ravished by the unbalanced and impossible expectations of "absolute" safety or else.  

 

Edited by skeptic
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I appreciate the explanation. Related, but not to imply this needs to be applied to parents, what is the annual cost and commitment to be registered? That is both as to the individual and the Unit. Thanks.

And you can easily spend more than 50 hours during the week Scouting... plus full commitment on weekends.  But really, just give the time you have, and all will be well.

I know some who eat, breathe, and sleep Scouting.  It is all they do, kind of an obsession...

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

Just to register here is $45 national membership fee plus $5 insurance.  So, $50.  (This includes the BSA's background check...you don't have to pay for that.)  Then add uniforms, gear, fuel, food costs, training, time, heartache, etc., and the price tag can be about $1000 per year easily...

Ok. So, what about a parent who wants to register so they are able to hang out at camp, but can’t/doesn’t care to invest the additional bucks? 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...