sierracharliescouter

I don't think we need to go that far, but I'd really like to reign in SMs, CCs and Advisors that insist an Eagle project be far more than what is required in the GtA.

There may be some State-specific concerns going on here as well. In California, (and I think something similar in a few other states), all adults spending more than a minimal amount of time with youth in volunteer organizations have to go through a separate background check than the one done by BSA. This is 16 hours in a month or 32 in a year. This includes any activity, whether overnight or not. All of our registered adults are required to have this additional background check, but other parents are restricted from some activities in order to stay compliant with this law. As much as we would like to be 100% transparent in all activities for all parents, this law makes that not entirely possible unless they do the other background check.

Today I learned that Narragansett Council owned a significant fraction of the State of Rhode Island.

I used to help with FOS. I won't anymore with the massive increase in our local council dues.

I don't know if it's still on the Part C for Sea Base, but it used to have the same weight/height chart as Philmont uses, but there was a line something along the lines of "for adults, we can have up to 20 lbs over these numbers". I don't even recall if I was put on a scale at Sea Base, and I was close to the upper limit on the chart. I guess if you can pass the swim test, a little extra fat will just help you float better...

The huge problem with requiring all adult leaders on every campout to be registered with the unit is the issue of transparency of the program. It basically forces every parent of every scout to be registered if they want to be able to witness the program in action. From a legal perspective, I am more concerned about eliminating this element of transparency as I am of adhering to this strict new rule. Why would I, as a parent, trust adults that I may not know very well to be in charge of my kids when I can't witness first-hand how they handle campouts? There needs to be a reasonable carve-out of this new rule to allow for limited participation of YPT-trained by non-registered parents to see the program in action before committing to register.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. Thousands needed medical attention, many or most of whom would not have needed medical care if the event had be properly planned. I heard a report of one fatality from the British contingent, though with an event this size a fatality is always a possibility. Most were financially hurt, because they didn't get anything like the experience they reasonably expected.

Pretty amazing statement to have to say about a scouting organization. I'd say there is a lot of blame to go around. As far as BSA is concerned, if I had the responsibility of sending 600 people to go camping in a foreign country, I'd like to think I'd have been asking more pressing questions ahead of sending the contingent. NCAP exists for a reason. It should be policy that when sending a contingent NCAP standards are compared to the event standards, and decisions can be made about what "good enough" would be, since holding World to US NCAP standards can reasonably be judged as too stringent. I have to wonder if there were any real written "standards" for this event.

Something is lost in translation here..."esophagus"?

What changed, I'm pretty sure, is that there was significant push back on this from the Councils. I know I voiced opposition to this policy and I believe our SE also had problems with the one-night restriction. Simple fact is that in many areas you can't reserve a camp site for a single night on a weekend. So, at a basic level, you'd end up doubling the cost for the campout per night. It is also very stressful to do all the work to set up for a single night, then have to break it down less than 24 hours later.

Good news. Loved taking the train to Philmont. So much less stressful (and cost saving) than flying, or driving for 2 days. Did not love the 7 hour delay on the return trip. (Yes, I know, 24 hour delays aren't unheard of...)

Once again, there is nothing in the BSA Mission that even hints that delivering services to those outside of Scouting can't be done by councils. I assume you are aware that councils are independently formed non-profit organizations, and that as long as they don't violate an agreement they have with National, there is nothing that prevents them from delivering broader services to the community. If I thought these additional programs took anything away from how our Council delivers services, I'd be vocal about it, but I've never seen nor heard a complaint about a unit being disadvantaged because of the existence of these programs.

Tell me, what is the difference between providing a STEM program to Scouts and a similar STEM program to non-scout youth, when it comes to the mission of BSA? And yes, the Council makes some money doing these non-Scout activities. It helps support having the staff needed year-round to provide better programs for Scouts. A Scout is Thrifty. A Scout is Helpful. These programs are highly sought-after by schools who could not dream of running similar programs themselves. I'm also not aware that the "mission" was a be-all-and-end-all criteria for defining the allowable scope of activities performed by units or Councils. We've also picked up a few scouts who were first exposed to scouting through activities their school's participated in through these programs. I can't believe someone is complaining about a Council doing something good for their community while at the same time helping to maintain a stable budget. If you think your council's SE isn't worth what their paying, or the council should be doing more with the resources they have, become the squeaky wheel. Venting here isn't going to change anything.

The SE is responsible for all of the facilities run by the council, whether they are being used for scouts or other groups. In the case of our council, they have worked with the schools to develop and run STEM programs for the schools. The school group is still responsible for supervising their group, but the program is provided (at a fee) by council staff.

Our council runs a variety of STEM camps (overnights) and day-programs for local schools (and home school programs). This puts the facilities to good use during the school year at times the facilities would not normally be used by scout groups.

Something to consider, which may or may not be applicable in your case, is what other services your Council manages/runs outside of Scouts. In our council, there are some very significant programs run that involve school programs across the region, including overnights by non-scouts at more than one of the council facilities. Our SE does have to be involved in overseeing a lot of non-scout programs, involving thousands more youth than just the scout numbers.

Do you really think all the First Aid MB's issued at Summer Camps are instructed by CPR-certified instructors? Again, the scout is not getting qualified to perform CPR by getting the First Aid MB. The advisory in the MB pamphlet is informational, not a strict requirement for the MB.

The advancement policy isn't consistent with the advancement requirements for MB. It absolutely is the BSA. Strictly speaking, as an MB counselor I can't force a scout getting the First Aid MB to go to a certified instructor for CPR training, because that is beyond the requirements stated in the handbook. We expressly cannot force a scout to do more than what is required. If BSA were to require only certified CPR instructors to be First Aid MBCs, they would lose most of those MBCs. FWIW, I've been current in First Aid/CPR training continuously for over 35 years, and WFA trained for 4 years. As a practical matter, I have scouts for the First Aid MB watch a "how to" video on CPR produced by ARC on YouTube. Since I would assume the video content was reviewed by someone certified to teach CPR, that should count as "instruction given by a certified instructor" for the purpose of G2A.

I've largely given up on dealing with inconsistencies in BSA policies. If BSA's lawyers don't care enough to force folks to check for stuff like this, I'm not going to be the one to tell them. As an MB instructor, I'd be going with the exact language in the MB handbook, because that is "testing to the standard". If G2A is inconsistent with that, oh well. Neither MB results in the scout having a formal CPR certification. Frankly, I think the Lifesaving MB should have a prerequisite of having formal CPR/First Aid training.

The First Aid MB does not result in a Scout being certified to perform CPR. It is more of a "CPR awareness" training, so it doesn't require a certified instructor. The reality is, the First Aid MB is often taught to 11-12 year olds, who would not have the strength to perform CPR on an adult for any significant length of time. Note, there is a difference in the requirements for the training between the First Aid MB and the Lifesaving MB. The First Aid MB is as I described above, the Livesaving MB requires the CPR instruction to be given by an certified, trained CPR instructor.

Surprised no one mentioned Aviation. Have your kid fall in love with planes, and they'll never have money for drugs.

With few exceptions, insurance claims can't be denied because of deviations from policies, or even laws, that are not demonstrably proximate to the cause of the insurance claim. Your car insurance still covers you even if you ran a red light. It might be used to justify increasing the premiums on renewal, and a Council could choose to not renew a charter, but the claim would almost certainly still be paid.

For kids that are decent but, not necessarily particularly great swimmers, swimming seems to be the MB of choice. It is also the one that is most readily accomplished during a summer camp. Cycling is probably the next-easiest, but it depends on what kind of trails/roads are available in your area the riding preferences of the scout. If you have relatively easy, long, dirt trails the mountain bike option is the shortest. Our dirt trails are pretty challenging, so it takes a more adventurous scout to want to do that option in our area. We do have a few long Class 1 (separated) paved trails that are mostly flat and make the road biking option pretty obtainable. Even though we are a high adventure troop, we have relatively few scouts that do the hiking MB. I genuinely think it is a bit rigid of BSA to have that 20-miler in the mix, when length should take into consideration altitude changes. Even a 15 in the mountains can be really tough. Yes, you can do an "urban" 20-miler, and there are some creatively-drawn paths in our area that accomplish that, but it is frankly just boring for a lot of folks vs. hiking in a national forest or national park.

This is exactly the problem with the new policy. I think attendance by non-registered scouters should be limited, i.e., you get one 2-night or less campout per year, and YPT obviously required, but outright banning non-Scouters really reduces transparency, and I don't like that.

Are they going to other troops? If yes, then look at what they are offering that you are not. Sometimes it's just quirks of personalities of the kids, or if you have an older scout in your troop that was known to bully younger kids when he was in cubs, that could be a possible issue. We have several good troops in our area, and I encourage cubs and their parents to join the one that fits them best. I don't take offense at all if they don't join my unit. We recently had a bit of a shuffle in our area when a medium sized troop lost a few scouts to other units because a group of parents weren't happy with the troop's adult leadership. If you see stuff like that going on, then it is time for a good, honest look inward.