Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i hope we are all clear here the 72 hour rule is in total contract time 

an adult going on his second weekend camp with the troop is very likely to have used up that 72 hour window (2 x 36 hours) + any troop  meeting time . It does not reset or only apply to long term camp summer camp. So there should be really little time or reason that  all adults on a trip should not be a registered leader of some type

All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive.

One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/

Fr. John

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their advocates will have us believe that not all victims of childhood sexual assault are litigants. So, no, by their own argument, we are not blaming survivors, or even a majority of them. If the cur

The words don't support your interpretation. The first sentence is talking about an activity ... singular ... a camp out, a trip, a high adventure ....   Any activity that is 72 hours or more.  T

This has been debated and clarified. It is not a multi activity odometer. It really means something like summer camp. You can leave at hour 71 and come back and have it reset. Yes, you could go on mul

6 hours ago, elitts said:

Nah.  He gets basically zero credibility in my book.  A fired/laid off person making lots of accusations and claims without any support or verifiable explanation isn't a reputable source..

Agreed. The statements are way to over the top to be believable, especially for adults with several years scouting experience. 
 

Barry 

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

i hope we are all clear here the 72 hour rule is in total contract time 

an adult going on his second weekend camp with the troop is very likely to have used up that 72 hour window (2 x 36 hours) + any troop  meeting time . It does not reset or only apply to long term camp summer camp. So there should be really little time or reason that  all adults on a trip should not be a registered leader of some type

All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive.

One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/

Fr. John

The words don't support your interpretation.

The first sentence is talking about an activity ... singular ... a camp out, a trip, a high adventure ....   Any activity that is 72 hours or more.  The second sentence ... "not consecutive" ... exists so that adults don't game the system and leave the camp for two days and then return.  If the adult comes and goes from the activity, it's the cumulative time. 

I've seen zero people apply this across separate different camp outs.  I've seen zero people that include each troop meeting to this.   This only applies activities that are at least 72 hours ... example leave 6pm Thursday and return after 6pm Sunday.  

If we were to add up multiple activities, it would not say "at the activity for 72 total hours".  It would say refer to multiple activities or over the course of a year or ... something.  Instead the sentence refers fully to "at the activity". 

Edited by fred8033
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jcousino said:

i hope we are all clear here the 72 hour rule is in total contract time 

This has been debated and clarified. It is not a multi activity odometer. It really means something like summer camp. You can leave at hour 71 and come back and have it reset. Yes, you could go on multiple 48 hour campouts. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

... Yes, you could go on multiple 48 hour campouts. 

A parent may attend multiple weekend camp outs without being registered, but there comes a point where they do more than keep an eye on their scout. They effectively volunteer with the program. In PA, that would justify background clearances.

Our IH and COR make sure we’re on our toes with that.

I like parents to go through YPT. It’s far easier for me if they know the rules than if I have to explain the buddy system repeatedly.

Registration would be gravy. But it’s incidental to what I need to secure a youth’s well-being.

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

A parent may attend multiple weekend camp outs without being registered, but there comes a point where they do more than keep an eye on their scout. They effectively volunteer with the program. In PA, that would justify background clearances.

I completely agree. There are the rules and the. Above that there is the right thing to do. In our troop, after one or 2 campouts we have them register as a member of the committee or an ASM. It depends on how much they like camping. 

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

A parent may attend multiple weekend camp outs without being registered, but there comes a point where they do more than keep an eye on their scout. They effectively volunteer with the program. In PA, that would justify background clearances.

That's the thing.  Where do you draw the line between parent observation and parent interaction?  If a parent can observe any event, to me that means they would have to not engage with the Scouts, unless there was a problem.  I don't know of any parents who would go on a camping trip, stay off by themselves, and not get involved, whether it's helping set up camp, eating dinner with the troop, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I googled costs to do a search on known sex offenders and it's anywhere from free to $5. Assuming that's close to correct, and just maybe the BSA could get a group discount or unlimited access for a reasonable price, I don't see the problem. At what price per adult per year for a tailored background check does the background issue go away?

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

That's the thing.  Where do you draw the line between parent observation and parent interaction?  If a parent can observe any event, to me that means they would have to not engage with the Scouts, unless there was a problem.  I don't know of any parents who would go on a camping trip, stay off by themselves, and not get involved, whether it's helping set up camp, eating dinner with the troop, etc.

@Armymutt, unfortunately, we lack data on the probability that abuse would ensue given x nights of camping.

In my troop very few parents join us, so it’s a non-issue. The parent who camps more than once is given an application if they aren’t registered already.

@MattR, Assuming that any of elder or deacon might serve youth, my church had all of us on the board get the PA clearances. I like the notion of a good old Interpol check. But that is just a part of the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2021 at 8:38 AM, elitts said:

Nah.  He gets basically zero credibility in my book.  A fired/laid off person making lots of accusations and claims without any support or verifiable explanation isn't a reputable source.  In particular, the claim that someone in the BSA or COs is deliberately letting known abusers continue to have access to kids seems wildly unlikely.  Has it ever happened?  I mean, clearly we already know the Catholic Church did this and they sponsored some troops, so of course it did.  But if he was truly the beleaguered champion of youth that he's trying to portray, I'd have expected him to have either dealt with this already or have resigned in protest right before he forwarded all the data concerning it to the FBI.

Plus, several of his statements make me wonder if he ever actually understood the point of Scouting.  The only two things he mentioned that could be the basis of actual rule or policy changes to reduce risk to scouts were:

  • Older supervision of younger scouts is a problem;
  • Overnight trips may represent an unreasonable risk to scouts.

That would be like the Safety Director for the NCAA opining that "sports involving direct contact between players is unreasonably risky".

It's interesting you think someone who walked away from signing an NDA and as a result left a significant amount of money on the table has credibility issues. I can't come up with any other senior BSA executive who has done anything like that in recent memory. Further, he was an expert in youth protection before he was hired, for ten years he was the first and looks like only BSA senior executive focusing soley on youth protection, and he's still a nationally recognized expert in the field. For those reasons, his assessments about BSA youth protection policies will have credibility to the wider world in whatever venue he is asked to appear. His comments on COs and the lack of oversight and gaps in youth protection are not wild claims -- those problems have been an open secret. What is wild are the extreme differences in how the BSA program is carried out, from optimal to abysmal, depending on region, council, CO, and unit. He is the first senior executive to publicly acknowledge that problem and its effect on child safety. Scouting is in this mess because of longstanding dysfunction in the CO/BSA relationship structure and he's right when he says nothing has materially changed present day. 

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

I googled costs to do a search on known sex offenders and it's anywhere from free to $5. Assuming that's close to correct, and just maybe the BSA could get a group discount or unlimited access for a reasonable price, I don't see the problem. At what price per adult per year for a tailored background check does the background issue go away?

Interesting ...  Your comment made me search and read.  The $5 sounds right for the search of the national sex offender database.  Probably does not include identity verification, county(plural??) criminal checks, state criminal checks, national criminal checks, etc.  

Our school district charges volunteers $11 approx for their background checks.  Add cost on top of that to maintain the background check system, paperwork, making sure you have signatures with permission to do the background check, etc.  

I'd imagine BSA can't administer the background check system for less than $20 per person per year.  ... I'm just guessing.  I'm just saying that there is real cost.  Interesting topic.

 

 


 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2021 at 7:38 AM, elitts said:

Nah.  He gets basically zero credibility in my book.  A fired/laid off person making lots of accusations and claims without any support or verifiable explanation isn't a reputable source.  In particular, the claim that someone in the BSA or COs is deliberately letting known abusers continue to have access to kids seems wildly unlikely.  Has it ever happened?  I mean, clearly we already know the Catholic Church did this and they sponsored some troops, so of course it did.  But if he was truly the beleaguered champion of youth that he's trying to portray, I'd have expected him to have either dealt with this already or have resigned in protest right before he forwarded all the data concerning it to the FBI.

Plus, several of his statements make me wonder if he ever actually understood the point of Scouting.  The only two things he mentioned that could be the basis of actual rule or policy changes to reduce risk to scouts were:

  • Older supervision of younger scouts is a problem;
  • Overnight trips may represent an unreasonable risk to scouts.

That would be like the Safety Director for the NCAA opining that "sports involving direct contact between players is unreasonably risky".

I find Mr. Johnson's appearance on the stage of this situation to be a bit problematic.  I posted early on asking if anyone had any idea what was his motivation.  I don't recall any replies.

I can see the arguments on both sides.

That he was laid off or fired, is not very persuasive to me.  Organizations tend to lay off or fire senior, knowledgeable managers who come to conclusions contrary to the company's preferred line. "Hire an expert for expert advice, and when the expert contradicts the company's, the amateurs look for another expert."  "We can't let AAA continue as head of BBB, as AAA's conclusions will embarrass the company." And heads roll.

I also have mixed emotions about whether the typical laid off/fired employee is likely to take to the national stage to vent.

Frankly, most people are cowards.  And not unjustifiably so.  Most live closely tied to their paycheck and benefits and pension and are highly reluctant to take any action that would jeopardize their employment and income.  They have families to support and careers to nourish.  And, most folks are not inclined to make a sacraficial example of themselves for a cause that will not feed them or their family.

Surely, it has crossed Mr. Johnson's mind that if he comes forward about the BSA scandal, his prospects for employment with other employers is dramatically diminished as employers are not looking for trouble makers or whistleblowers, but compliant, silent employees who do as they are told.

And yet Mr. Johnson came forward and spoke.  Why?

He might be financially stable for retirement, not looking for another job, and can afford to speak his mind.  Very few people are in that position.  Many posters here, as one suggested are "old" and probably retired, and with the anonymity afforded by this forum have two levels of insulation from the brutal social media retaliation seen so often in the news.

Mr. Johnson, however, stood up, put his name and face on the stage.  

I just can't summon the path for Mr. Johnson to convert his forthrightness into profit.

Will anyone escape from National's bankruptcy with financial gain?  Well, the claimants' attorneys at 40%, the TCC attorneys who I think are compensated on an hourly basis, with a voluntary contribution to the settlement, Claimants-something, but how much is unclear.

But Mr. Johnson?  Surely no big movie deal about this mess.  Can't think that a few minutes of interview in a documentary about the collapse of BSA National pays well.  A book?  Who would read it?

That Mr. Johnson reportedly declined to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is significant in my book.  Essential an NDA is an agreement offered to a laid off/fired employee wherein the employee is agreeing to accept a sum of money, continuation of benefits, whatever, for their agreement not to disclose information about the employer, the employer's business, or the employee's work for the employer.  It is a bribe. "You shut up, we pay."  And a threat: "You don't sign and take the bribe, we may sue you-oh, and you won't have the bribe money to pay your lawyer to defend you."

Strangely, employers rarely seem to obtain Non Disclosure Agreements when an employee is hired.  And when a new employee would likely sign without an after thought.  NDA's are generally offered after the employer wants to dispose of the employee-but then the employer finds itself at a significant bargaining disadvantage.

I know an individual whom I greatly respect who declined to sign a council non disclosure agreement.  A person of calibre.

Two more points:

FIRST.  Many employment agreements, just guessing but highly suspecting, that Mr. Johnson signed before employment, provides that upon termination of employment all documents, records, memoranda, books. pamphlets, computer data, (you get the drift) are to be returned to BSA National, the employer.

The point is that Mr. Johnson was contractually obligated to return EVERYTHING he received, saw, produced, or touched to BSA and if not he would be in breach of his employment agreement with BSA, and perhaps liable to a charge of criminal theft.

So, were Mr. Johnson to do a "data dump" after his employment was terminated, BSA could not only brand him as a "disgruntled, non-performing, inadequate" employee, but also as a thief.

There is a book in this:  "The Art of the Smear."

SECOND.  My second point is that Mr. Johnson walked away from some amount of money by refusing to sign the Non Disclosure Agreement offered to him.  Almost no one does that, my good friend excepted.  And it was probably a significant amount of money.  Probably more than $100,000 just judging from his position at National and could have been much more than that.

So, most of my comment is pro Johnson, but I still wonder about the bona fides of the roll out of his appearance. If he is at the top of the food chain in his life, he can afford to speak out, but if not, then there are other considerations involved. And I do not know that they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Armymutt said:

That's the thing.  Where do you draw the line between parent observation and parent interaction?  If a parent can observe any event, to me that means they would have to not engage with the Scouts, unless there was a problem.  I don't know of any parents who would go on a camping trip, stay off by themselves, and not get involved, whether it's helping set up camp, eating dinner with the troop, etc.

I agree that observing would mean not engaging in the scouts' program. The adult does not need to be by themselves though. They should be with the other adults, separate from the scouts anyway. This time is best spent in educating the observing adults in the hows and whys of scouting. Explaining to the witnesses what they are observing and how the perceived chaos is actually the patrol method in action and how it helps fulfill the aims of scouting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Interesting ...  Your comment made me search and read.  The $5 sounds right for the search of the national sex offender database.  Probably does not include identity verification, county(plural??) criminal checks, state criminal checks, national criminal checks, etc.  

Our school district charges volunteers $11 approx for their background checks.  Add cost on top of that to maintain the background check system, paperwork, making sure you have signatures with permission to do the background check, etc.  

I'd imagine BSA can't administer the background check system for less than $20 per person per year.  ... I'm just guessing.  I'm just saying that there is real cost.  Interesting topic.

 

 


 

Do you remember the early days of credit cards when a transaction consisted of putting the card and carbon paper into the slide gizmo that would imprint the card information onto the paper and then the clerk would write the totals in and you'd sign it? The cost of that was probably a few dollars per transaction. Now I tap my card against the reader.

Rather than forms and signatures how about a driver's license and a phone app? Drive the price down so every school and church wants to use it as well. As people have said, CSA is likely widespread. So why not work on a global solution?

I know, the BSA can't solve technical problems. But maybe if they tried they'd describe the problem they and all youth activities have to some companies that do these searches and just one of them would see an opportunity.

This issue of background checks is not a fundamental problem. It's just a technical one. A bigger issue is changing adult perceptions consistently across the organization. Most scouters understand CSA but I've seen too many that think they know better about everything. That's okay when it comes to rank advancement but when they screw up and suddenly my troop no longer has a camp to use, it's a problem for all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok while i like my version better after rereading my quote it looks like it only applies to summer camp . i was wrong sorry

.

I would begin to question any adult that would not do a background check or complete youth protection after any form of 72 hours of contact

I personaly like the idea that it should be cumulative if an adult is attending scouting events in an active role with youth content  for that long they have had enough time to decide that they want to be a some type of leader or not. 

If after that period they say then still say no then they stay home if the adult plays the parental card  then you may have the parent and the youth leave the group. 

I  side of the protection of the many.

 

Edited by jcousino
change in thought
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
×
×
  • Create New...