InquisitiveScouter

It was only a matter of time before the pot was stirred again 😛 BTW, slide 34: 15. How will you make sure that the merit badge is achieving its objectives? Like all BSA programs, we will continuously evaluate and improve the Citizenship in Society merit badge based on feedback shared by those within the Scouting program. Anybody been asked for any feedback? Anyone see an avenue mentioned in the slide show to provide feedback? https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/diversity_equity_and_inclusion/Citizenship-in-Society-Merit-Badge-Counselor-Guide-2021.pdf P.S. They don't care about your feedback...

Please pass some messages to the G2SS writing team: 1. Hire a good communicator. 2. Don't write so that you can be understood; write so that you can't be misunderstood. (Taft) see @scoutldr post above, for example. 3. Send your draft policies to someone outside the National organization, preferably to someone that your policies will affect (and who has to comply with them). Let them read them and then (in a verbal conversation) have them tell you what they read in their own words with some concrete examples of impact to their unit operations. If they cannot explain it back to you logically and apply your policy correctly, as you intend it, then you have missed the mark. Try again. 4. Never have two different versions of your policies on the official BSA page. Currently, the download version is still the Feb 2022 version, versus the online version, which is the (now) 2023 version. Although the caveat about this is on the website, this is unprofessional, and the practice should end. These two official sources should (must??) always be synchronized. It is not difficult to update the pdf and post the new version for download.

Ludicrous

I am working through this with a small group of Scouts now (9th graders). When we are done, I am going to ask them what their opinion is on the badge, and whether this was value-added for them. I'll let you know... I will say, in our first session, they were very guarded in their views, but when they began to share their ideas and research on the definitions, and each relayed what they had heard from friends, parents, teachers, and media, and how they thought much of this was unneeded in a merit badge. They came to some great consensus on what things "should mean" (their words, and I loved 'em). The most discussions centered around different ideas and examples of "identities," "equity," and "discrimination" and how they relate to Oath and Law. When they were relating the definitions to the Scout Oath and Law, one Scout even said something like (I'm paraphrasing), "it seems like a knee jerk reaction to have this badge to tell us about who we already are." For their second and third sessions, I had challenged them to come up with different examples for requirement 2. Here are the examples they came up with on their own and researched: - Truman and his decision to drop the bomb (wow) - Washington and his decision to commit treason against the King of England (wow) - Hoover and his orders against the Bonus Army (a negative example... wow) - Lincoln and the moral dilemma/decisions he faced on slavery (wow) - Warrant Officer Hugh Clowers Thompson, Jr. and his intervention in, and reporting of, the My Lai massacre (wow) I had asked them not only to tell about the person and the decision, but to really dig into "...options that leader had, why you believe they chose their final course of action, and the outcome of that action" After each Scout spoke, the others would ask questions about the person/decision , and many would look up the event and read a little about it (about 5-10 minutes) and share their thoughts (I did not require this... they asked to do it.) They generally agreed on a few things so far: 1) It is easier to judge someone through the lens of history. But it is important to place yourself in their shoes to genuinely get an understanding of the times, circumstances, and troubles they faced. (Then we had a discussion about empathy for people living right now as they try to make ethical decisions, and understanding what set of values guide them...) 2) This stuff ought to be in the other Citizenship badges. (Their words, not mine...) 3) Everyone in our community is not on the same sheet of music when talking about the definitions. They mean different things to different people, and that causes confusion for them. (Their observations, not mine...) 4) They feel are being told "what to think" on some of these things, and they appreciate exploring them together without judgement or "correction". They appreciate being given the opportunity to research, discuss, talk, think, and find out "how to think" about these things, but that isn't directly addressed in the merit badge. 5) It is OK to hold a different view on the decision someone made, based on your values (Scout Oath and Law). For example, they were about evenly divided in their views on Truman and his decision to drop the bomb... Overall, I think what their initial dive into this badge shows is that our education system and our communities are not fostering critical thinking skills, rhetoric, debate, and ethics. And that they are genuinely afraid of expressing or exploring different ideas because they get chastised for thoughtcrime (my word (well, Orwell's), not theirs) at school and, yes, at home. I told them that is the value of free speech, to thoroughly test ideas, and to seek guidance and counseling from their parents if anything we discuss brings up further questions. More to follow...

https://youtu.be/i2uu6NF2inY

And payments into the victim compensation fund.

I recommend you hold on to your money, and give it in increments. Give an increment (say $25) to the council every time you have a positive interaction with a paid professional. Every time you have a positive interaction with a volunteer from another unit, give it to that unit. I'd love to see you post here about these incremental gifts. Let's see where Scouting is really happening.

How long do you think it takes a council to get a background check done? Parent wants to camp and unit turns in their application on Friday... goes camping that night. Background check won't be done for a loooonnnngggg time. Not buying that that is the drive behind this.

No, but they should be!

So, are you implying that MBCs are not background checked?

You hit the nail right on the head, partner 😜 Gotta pay those salaries. In 2019, Surbaugh made $1.1M (2019 is last public form I could find) https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/221576300_201912_990_2021030217778557.pdf $134M in assets sales in 2019 also... https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221576300 compare that to the 2018 numbers...

No. Mr. Dad just has to sever the "connection" for the overnight... You could take that ad absurdum. All adults staying overnight in connection with a Scouting activity must be currently registered in an adult fee required position as listed or as an adult program participant. So, at bed time, he just says "Goodnight folks! I'm going to sleep on my own in a campsite I rented for myself. See you at breakfast!"

LOL, they should DRIVE over a bridge

Thanks! I have read through the G2SS many times, and never really registered that. Appreciate you citing it. We have not been using that checklist, but now we will. Wonder when that became part of G2SS?

No. But they can clearly articulate coherent policies. Not come up with more incoherent ones... For example, there should be nothing wrong with having MBCs be the second adult. They have to be registered, have YPT, and background checks. Simply put in the additional instruction: "MBCs may fulfill only one position of supervision at a unit event, with the permission of the CO." Unless, councils aren't really doing the background checks? ($$$)

@PACAN, the loophole @mrjohns2 is referring to is this (I think, because this is what we did...): Not too long ago, the G2SS required only one registered adult over 21, and a second "registered adult" form the supervision team for an overnight outing (it wasn't "all events" like it is now.) The rules did not stipulate this had to be a "unit registered adult" (it still does not stipulate that, but that is the intent). So, to save money, units would register the minimum number of adults required to have a unit on the charter, and then have everyone else register as MBCs (for free) so that they were "registered" and thus meet the G2SS requirements. Councils and National figured out this "loophole", and have moved to close it.

We used this scheme before it became "illegal." Also, in our state (PA), state law requires all adult volunteers to have three background checks: 1) A State Police Criminal Record check, 2) A "PA Child Abuse History Certification" from the Dept of Human Services, and 3) EITHER a signed Affidavit attesting no other charges OR an FBI Fingerprint background check if you have not been a state resident of 10 years. When I posed the question about having adults just register as MBCs (because MBCs also have to these checks), versus as paid adult registrations, I got a rather nasty response from National. Which really begs the cynical question: Is this move more about collecting fees than it is about protecting children? (I think I know the answer.)

Yeah, we are able to train them and put them into combat, but the 18-year-old (legal adult) cannot have a personal conversation at Starbucks with their Crew Adviser without another registered adult present? No logic or sanity in that thinking at all... That is one of those "rules" where conscience, principle, and ethics dictate ignoring the rule and doing the right thing. I support you 100% @qwazse And even if reclassified, I'll still ignore it 😜

Please let us know how this turns out.

Now that is just plain stupid... Supposing those were assistant Scoutmasters for a Troop. They are not over 21, nor are they "adult program participants." So, it's ok to meet with them. But, the second one of them let's you know they have registered with a Venturing crew, you are a YPT criminal!! LOL Oh, the humanity 😛

@scoutldrI revived this one because the other thread is about the SAFE checklist versus insurance. Have you ever, in your BSA life, seen a copy of the policy?? I haven't. Haven't asked for one either

I honestly don't know. I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers. I believe this is a great fear they have. So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults. But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

I follow it religiously, to protect Scouts and Scouters, and to protect my family assets and security (in that order).

You still can, but it will only cover your co-pays. And that is Accident and Sickness coverage... that's a different policy than General Liability. Also, did you know?? If you kick the bucket (heart failure) within 90 days of participating in a BSA event, your survivors can claim a $10K benefit? *Includes loss of life resulting from Heart Failure within 90 days from the date participating in an approved Boy Scouts or Learning for Life (if purchased) activity: ———————————– ■ Life* $10,000 Your council plan might vary... HSR Brochure.pdf

Did they pay just to make this go away, and not tarnish the image of BSA?? And maybe the offending driver had nothing really for anyone to go after, so the lawyers went for the deepest pockets and hoped for this settlement regime... again, just to make it go away... Guessing and smh...