mrjohns2

I know that one saw that during the pandemic. Got to a very good spot, all things considered.

The scary thing is, maybe they don’t need to. Are their camps in surrounding councils that can? Then that may be the path forward.

Why did you respond like I didn't give 2 different scenarios? Let me say it again.... 1) If the unit isn't dissolving, the money stays with the unit. 2) If the unit is dissolving, then the money isn't the CO's cut and dry. What part of the rules and regulations of Scouting am I not understanding? If the unit is dissolving, it is NOT THE CO's UNLESS IT WAS FROM THEM OR THE PARENTS. If it was raised for Scouting, it goes to Scouting, not the CO. Rules_Regulations_Sept20 (scouting.org)

It is a bit more complicated than that. If the unit isn't folding, than it still belongs to the unit. If the unit is folding, then it sounds like the funds need to be redeployed for Scouting use in the local area. It hasn't always been worded this way. "In the event of the dissolution of a unit or the revocation or lapse of its charter, unit funds and assets must be used to first satisfy any outstanding unit obligations. Any remaining assets obtained with funds raised in the name of Scouting must be redeployed for Scouting use in the local area. Any assets obtained with funds from the chartered organization or parents of registered members may be redeployed as agreed upon by the chartered organization and local council."

OA weekends - yes. This includes LLD. Conclave? I just read through the standards. National Training weekends, yes. Council sponsored activities, including the National Council? Yes. I think the Conclave's host council/lodge would be the ones to head this up. It is a council event that invites other lodges/councils.

What is the "Traditional Rover uniform". Can you post a link?

Why would a lawyer be as qualified as say, CSA researchers, CSA focused socialists sociologists *edited by moderator for what I assume to be a mis-chosen word*, and I don't know, anyone who is an expert in the area vs. someone who is a lawyer in the field? I am not saying this as anti-lawyer, but as someone who knows that lawyers who specialize are good at what they do, but CSA programs isn't an area that lawyers specialize in. Can lawyers confirm that the prescribed advice is being carried out? Sure. Know the current best practices in the area? Not likely. They are the monitor. They are not the one who comes up with the program.

I keep calling it YPT, but the question at hand isn’t YPT, but the results (output measures) of YP. So, YPT could be poor, but is YP getting the results we want/need? Due to the lack of transparency, we don’t know. The poor implementation of YPT makes one question the quality of the system even though it is just an “in process” type of thing vs. “result” type of thing.

Was this before or after covid? All units on our council have been doing 1/tent for the last 14 months for covid, not YPT.

I agree. You don’t need to be thrown out depending on the violation, but a trend would be useful. It is done in industrial safety systems all of the time. At my work you could have 1 minor safety infraction and it would just go on your record. A trend of minor infractions, is a problem. For a medium infraction, you may get sent home for a day without pay. You can get fired for a major infraction. We are not talking an injury here, just not following the rules. I know there is another thread on how to improve YPT. This would be one. I might have said this before, but no “corrections” or “near misses” would say you are not looking hard enough and your system isn’t healthy.

YPT has changed every couple of years. Examples include not allowing Scouts more than 2 years apart from sharing tents. A couple of years before that, you need 2 21 year old adults, not just 1. Also all registered users need YPT, vs direct contact. Even recently, troops can’t have any adults in Scoutbook that aren’t registered (and YPT). These are just off the top of my head. It is an ongoing thing. It is far from NOTHING. You must not be a current leader, as we have to stay up to date on the rules and constantly correct those who forget about the new rules vs the old.

I agree, but to continue to throw garbage doesn’t help anyone. Who in this forum has said that is ok? I believe some of the frustration that some are seeing with the BSA national leadership are being taken out on those that are committed to the program. I still insist the loss of the program is not minor. I have never compared it to being abused, because it can’t be. To say the loss of the program, or a camp, is minor is not not understand the time and blood that has gone into it over the years.

This is at least the second time someone calls the destruction of someone’s life work a minor discomfort. It is not. To say otherwise is to not understand loss. It is also not kind.

The examples you give are from the news and not directly from the IV files.

I have read 5 of the current letters and maybe 25 of the files released 10 years ago. In none of these cases have I seen any attempts to coverup or cover over. Can you back up these claims with a few examples?

Hell maybe an exaggeration and a bad choice if words. It is not at all comparable, so they shouldn’t be compared. They are not the same type of loss. Many volunteers have made this their life’s work. It is not kind to try to diminish the sacrifices they made in money and time, and opportunity costs. Time not spent with spouses etc trying to support and build up an organization that is now being destroyed. These people spent months of vacation time over the years and years worth of weekends. To claim they are not entitled to their frustrations and anger and emotion of the loss is to lose site of our differences and our different life journeys.

The feet dragging is killing me and the organization. Come on, BSA, we need to get on with it. They seem to think they are in charge here, when clearly they are not.

I read a number of the "you are no longer a volunteer" letters. Granted it was me reading between the lines, but I saw it as "You are no longer a volunteer. Here is your money back; you have no claim to sill be a volunteer since your registration has been canceled and refunded. Case closed."

As someone who does want this to get decided already, I don't know if this is a bad thing. The BSA hasn't presented very clear or good offers. So, they had their chance. It's going to be a very deep cut, but what did we think at the start? If the BSA accounting really was that bad for restricted assets, then this is what you get.

I’m not following. They had him resign, and then investigated? Sorry, help me understand the events. I can’t relate to what you are going through. What I can say is that when the big batch of internal files came out 10 (?) years ago via the law firm in California, I read a few. Just thinking about reading them, gives me about 5 vivid recollections to the incidents. Just READING them has burned them into my memory. When people question certain YPT rules, I literally get put back into the incidents in my mind. It causes a pause each time. I can’t relate if it was me in the incident. Just being a reader has had an effect on me.

This is very similar to the work our company does to improve our manufacturing safety. There is a safety triangle of near misses, then first aids, then recordable injuries, then lost work day injuries, then a fatality. Data shows you will have near misses. You should study them and improve to eliminate these close calls. Luck is often the difference between a near miss and a fatality. No reported near misses means you have a culture of hiding these close calls. Something needs to change or you could have a serious injury even though it looked “perfect” up to that. I bet YPT data would work in a very similar fashion.

I think this type of on-going measurement would be useful. As an engineer and project manager, this data could drive systemic improvements that could be borne out in future data. This is a good idea.

Good point. The CO could easily read the charter with "blah blah blah.... we will have liability coverage to keep you safe. Ok! I'll sign."

This is a good point. The book group at our church operates in a very similar way. The minister knows about it, knows who leads it, but beyond that, it has been "chartered" and it off and does it thing. The "chair" of the book group is known to the minister if there was an issue.

Yeah, as a kid, I barely knew who the committee chair was other than from BoR. That is by design, the committee takes care of the bureaucracy and behind the scenes stuff. Those 2 parts of the key 3 for a unit works well. Basically there is "program and staff". Similar to other organizations, in this case the front line people are the SM and ASMs. The "backend support people" are the committee, lead by the committee chair. Again, not an uncommon structure. The break down is the COR. In a number of units, the COR is the committee chair, as that is an allowed structure. The CO and IH, are totally out of the picture. Our current COR is very good and really does fulfill the duties. It is due to him really knowing Scouts well and the responsibility. That is not common.