strider

Recent headlines reminded me I had a debt left unpaid. I received a lot of GREAT advice with this thread but never closed it out with an update. I did address this with the SM in person in private. I was told that I did not understand the guidelines. YPT did not apply traveling to or from events / meetings. Plus being listed on the health form enabled an SM, or anyone, to travel alone with a scout. I respectfully disagreed and offered to seek clarification from the SE. The SM said I had to go through the DE, but my training is that these questions go to the SE. I sought clarification from the SE and it was a short conversation. A parent can not waive YPT, and Scouting activities include travel. No 1 on 1 allowed. The SE had the DE send a letter of clarification to Troop Leadership. I have yet to see the letter (received months ago) but any questionable practices with our Troop have stopped as far as I can see. Thanks one and all for your input. I think it worked out well. I've fulfilled my obligation, the barriers designed to protect the youth/adults have been restored and no one's name was tarnished.

basement, Yikes, I was notified about both responses, and both referenced your account. So your account may be compromised unless you are possibly using a computer that other forum members use as well? I'd suggest changing password before the other guy does it for you.

acco40, I think we have all been in a touchy situation like you describe. I am not trying to get excited about a single such occurrence, rather practices that are being put in place. Oak Tree, Good advice. Talk with the CC. The driving kids alone happens a lot, and the families actually appreciate the SM doing this so it will not be popular with them. Someone mentioned better YPT training for families - that is a great idea too. Thank you all for the revised understanding of two deep not needed at PLC's. I had been attending these to provide 2 Deep and as a resource if the guys had questions (as the current SM did when he was my ASM). Sounds like I am crowding the SM a bit and I will pass for now on unless invited. Not keen on leaving my kid with him without another adult, but will work it out so that adult is not a former SM. Next step? Probably a call to SE. Not to report but to confirm that the ban on 1:1 is not just for within actual meetings. Applies to transport and other activities as well. If the SM is unclear on this (the way I was unclear about 2 Deep prior to this thread - despite all that good training) he can confer with the SE. We'd both be getting the same info from the same source. I think respecting no 1:1 takes care of all of the examples I listed. Then clear cut violations get reported to SE after conferring with CC and COR. Not a lone voice. If the SE thinks it is no big deal, then, well, he's right. He does this for a living. I've fulfilled my reporting requirements and can sleep at night.

Again, great feedback. calico, I especially appreciate your candor. My role currently is ASM, and I enjoy it. Was not being evasive on that. Formerly SM. The SM previous to me is not in the Troop anymore, he stayed a few years after his son aged out and then left after I came on board. He usually is not at meetings but in the Spring we are lucky enough to have guys in college come back to visit so sometimes he drops in or attends an event. He asks plenty of questions - progress on individual boys, who new leaders are and such. When the SM hops in a car and drives away with a youth it sort of surprised him. The neighbor SM is in OA, and was asking about our SM showing up at an OA event with one boy in the car. Current SM was my ASM, and we switched. As SM I valued his advice, so feel sort of free to provide him with advice now. YP is everyone's responsibility. I stopped in here to clarify some points. When some general examples made it sound like we had a monster on our hands I got a little more specific to clarify but have said a few times now I just want to set myself straight, and then if needed set him straight. For instance, the info about PLC is very helpful. Is it my job to "set him straight"? No way! But I'd prefer someone discussed something like this with me before taking it farther. CC has talked to SM about some of these issues. No idea what was said. But if I do see a true violation I can start there. COR is at Summer house enjoying retirement, but he may be in town soon. Yes, bitter or disagreeable. If you are doing something against YP, I disagree. The finance issue was real, I brought it to the COR as SM and he corrected it but it took a while. During that time we had to be disagreeable to some folks. So now my 2 cents are worth 1 cent. I'm okay with that - having more fun as ASM than I have had in years. I am very adept at sending people with feedback to the SM. Any feedback received via eMail is either forwarded to him or he is included in the reply if it is an informational question. I have Scouted with some of these families for 7 years so yes, they do come to me. I also sub for SM on trips, events, COH's etc. as needed/asked. Have been trying to figure out how to get out of current SM's space, but not if there are weird YP things going on. As for assuming in the example. The first time I heard of a single boy working on gear one on one at his house I pointed out the issue and asked that it not happen again. I was SM at the time and certainly had the right to do this. Now though I get "around" when I ask about things like that. Is it my place to continue to ask? Looking like teh answer is "no - that is the SE's job" Someone mentioned just handing it over to the SE, who is paid to do this type of stuff. Sounds great, but it would be good to know what is and what is not a violation. I still think the first stop is with him.

My concern with the PLC was if SPL was dropped off 15-20 minutes ahead of time, or if he picked up SPL on the way. It is helpful if the SPL can have some time before the PLC to review. My previous understanding, reinforced by this thread, is one on one is a no go. Period. So as long as two Scouts show up at the same time he is ok with PLC, or an adult is one the premises (respectful of privacy, but within view).

Great feedback, much appreciated. Some of the examples are pretty true to fact, some are me just clarifying. For example I asked if we were ok with 2Deep for a recent PLC that I could not make and he never really answered. He has suggested that since the PLC starts with the SM & SPL, then the SPL with his leadership team and then a recap with the SM that the ASM is not really needed there. Not 100% sure if he is thinking of flying solo or will ask a parent to stick around. And when asked if a parent was with a Scout working on gear with SM at his house the answer was that he was "Around." I know the parent lives a mile down the road so took it that way for my example. Other occurrences that were not gray I left out too. These past two years he has given a lot of time to Scouts at the District and Troop level, as well as the OA. Also just started Woodbadge. Done some great stuff, and has received a lot of admiration from parents and District folk. On the other hand when I point something out I am deemed the bitter XSM. There have been other oddities with Troop finance, Boy Led Troop, advancement, etc. People hear the 'talk' but may not see the 'walk.' It is helpful that the past-past SM spotted something and I have had questions from parents. I really, really just want to take him aside so I can share this feedback and start from there. If he shapes up it is win-win, if not I do not want to remain in violation for not following through (ex: Joe Paterno). I brief call to the Exec to discuss might be in line as well.

I find the scenarios in Youth Protection Training very helpful. Our SM is operating in what he calls a gray area and I would like to discuss with him with the added benefit of your wisdom. I've approached him once, after a previous SM observed something odd, and was basically told I did not really get Youth Protection Training (7 years of scout leadership, trained twice in person, 3x online and one Train the Trainer). So here's my extension of Youth Protection Quiz True / False 1) Youth Protection Coverage starts and ends with the event's open and close. SM taking an unrelated youth home with him to unload the car is ok. 2) Driving unrelated youth to / from events is ok since roads are public, plus youth protection coverage has not started. Insurance is in place because we are in Class A's, but Youth Protection is not. 3) Arriving at camp alone with unrelated youth 30 minutes ahead of the Troop is not okay, but just an unfortunate result of poor planning. 4) Inviting an unrelated youth over to a leader's house alone to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event. 5) Inviting two unrelated youths over to a leader's house to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event. 6) A written note from parents will allow SM to waive one on one youth protection coverage. This is the old "friends of the family" thing. I do not drive my friends' kids who are Scouts that I've known for 7 years around one on one. I get that it is odd that "Uncle Joe" can pick up a kid but the SM or other leader can't drive him home alone. I dislike this note thing because now we have the Scouts that can drive with the SM alone and those that can't. 7) As part of mentoring the SPL/ASPL or other Youth Leaders the SM can go one on one. For example, 15-30 minutes alone with the Scout before or after a PLC. 8) OA follows different Youth Protection than Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts. It is a brotherhood, and the distinction between Arrowmen is not as clear as regular adult leaders and Scouts. Plus it is the honor society, and as such more trustworthy. 9) If any of the above are false, the District Executive can adjust Youth Protection so that things are ok. This is not the guy you'd usually bring Youth Protection issue to. 10) A parent being "around" (ex: readily available on cell phone just a mile up the road) makes it not one on one. I am not gunning for the SM. I actually stepped aside as SM to let this guy take over because it was very important for him. He is doing a pretty good job. I am trying not to be the bitter former Scoutmaster with this - to me these are issues that are a) clear and b) easily avoidable (although he is a single guy without kids, it is easier for me since my son usually makes it 2 Scouts). The former-former SM, and neighboring SM have noticed these oddities and are looking to me to address the issue since I am still active in the Troop. And here is my personal answer key: Five is true, but two deep is always a good idea. Rest seem false.

DF, Nothing really to add except encouragement to do the right thing. I've come close to walking away and what keeps me here is like you I enjoy the program, but I also feel somewhat protective of the youth in the Troop that are still learning right from wrong. Just by sticking with it you are a positive example.