YP and G2SS Questions

[NJCubScouter]

OK Bob, I see what you are saying. Obviously the BSA needs to clarify this so that all of the books and all of the training match each other, and everybody can know what is expected. Now, if the issue is whether the rules and YP training for leaders and MB counselors should be the same, let me give you two headlines:

 

"Scoutmaster pleads guilty to molesting boy, age 11"

or

"Merit badge counselor pleads guilty to molesting boy, age 11"

 

Do you think the public is going to regard the BSA any worse based on the first headline than the second? I don't. I think the BSA wants to avoid either of these results, equally. (And not just the headlines, of course, they would like to avoid the incidents themselves.) Now, the legal implications might be different (which means the BSA would be liability-free in both cases even though the training is different.) But why take the chance? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

But let's go back to what this thread was really about, which was who may or may not occupy a motor vehicle on the way to camp.

 

Do you agree that even if a Scout (unrelated to an adult in the car) is in the car, it is NOT necessary to have 2 adults in the car, as long as there are at least 2 Scouts in the car?

 

Do you agree that an 18-year-old, still on the charter as a youth and not yet registered as an adult, would still be treated the same as an adult leader for purposes of the YP guidelines? (Well, based on your last post on that subject, you do not agree, so why not? If he's not an adult and he's not a youth, I don't see what he is even doing there. Having said that, if I recall correctly, I never did fill out an adult application when I was serving as an 18-year-old ASM, but the YP issue did not exist then, because the guidelines did not exist (1976.)

[Bob White]

NJ

I am in no way suggesting that the buddy system should not be followed. I think a major part of self protection is being aware of possible danger and taking preventative acts. As a parent I would never let my son meet privately with an adult.

 

You asked some questions

Do you agree that an 18-year-old, still on the charter as a youth and not yet registered as an adult, would still be treated the same as an adult leader for purposes of the YP guidelines? (Well, based on your last post on that subject, you do not agree, so why not?

Because once he turns 18 he is no longer a member of the BSA until he registers as ASM or Venturer.

If he's not an adult and he's not a youth, I don't see what he is even doing there.

First he must be either an adult or youth that is not in question. The question is is he a member of the BSA or not. He is not at this point. Secondly, I agree, What's he doing there? I would not let him in camp unless it were family night. If he is going to help out then he should register.

 

As far as two adults in the car I agree. If one passenger was a scout their should be a second scout passenger.

 

Bob White

[Twocubdad]

It seems to me the 18-year-old has the same legal standing as any other unregistered parent or adult. He may not be permit to be at summer camp, as one example, but at the Cub level we regularly have 100 or more unregistered adults (mostly parents, of course, but not all) at Pack functions. Their registration status in important only insofar as it impacts BSA's liability in the event of an incident. We should be more concerned with preventing an incident than where the chips fall afterwards. It is not necessary that all adults be registered leaders, only that they follow the same YP rule we do.

 

In the Health and Safety course, we were taught that one adult and two or more Scouts was an approved exemption to the two-deep rule. Otherwise, that effectively means two adnlts and two Scouts in each car, which can get a little silly after awhile. However the trip should be organized so that everyone leave from and arrives at the same location with no interim stops.

 

IMHO, the MBC loophole in the policy is a huge one. Look at it this way: we go to great lengths (some would say ridiculous lengths) to maintain two-deep leadership while boys are with leaders who are known to us, who are trained, who have been approved by the unit committee and COR, are registered with BSA and in some cases have undergone criminal background checks. This whole thread is evidence of the lengths we go and the concern we (rightly) have for maintaining two-deep leadership. But in the case of a MBC, not only do none of the above protections apply, but the Scout is meeting this person in their home, office or other private, unsupervised location. Yet the two-deep rule is only a recommendation for MBCs? That defies even simple logic.

 

[Bob White]

"It seems to me the 18-year-old has the same legal standing as any other unregistered parent or adult."

 

It might seem that way but it is not true. The Guide to Safe Scouting says that two deep leadership on outings is "Two registered adult leaders, or one registered adult and a parent of a participating Scout."

 

An 18 year old non-member, non-parent or guardian of a participating scout, is not an authorized leader in any sense and does not belong on an outing in a leadership capacity of any sort.

[Eamonn]

I just want to check this out.

I thought that MBC, did fill out an application form and needed to submit SSN.

I hope that this is the case.

If not I will have one very unhappy Advancement Committee.

Please tell me that I'm right.

Or provide a recipe for old crow.

[Bob White]

We will DS to verify, However my understanding is that MBCs are registered at the council level. I am not sure that their application goes to national and has a criminal background check .

 

Bob W.

[evmori]

Kinda think eamonn is correct. And it only makes sense.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[mk9750]

To answer a few questions:

 

My oldest son is going to summer camp with his Troop as an older brother, and one who is experienced going to this camp. As it turned out this year, none of the registered adult leaders who can go to summer camp this year have been to Heritiage before. My son will be fulfilling two purposes. He will assist the acting SM with his responsiblitites, and he has been asked to specifically work with the SPL, who has struggled recently maintaining his composure while leading the Troop. I have been the acting SM for summer camp at Heritage in the past. I cannot go this year. I have spent much time with my son going over the details of how the camp operates so that he can assist the acting SM this year. It worked out like this because this year's acting SM works 2nd shift, and we have not been able to get together much to go over these details.

 

As it turns out, none of my older sons close friends are going this year. 3 of them are now 18, and the couple guys he hung around with that are still in the Troop are not going to summer camp. He is not going as a friend to anyone. He actually would prefer not to go.

 

He is not registered as an ASM because he turned 18, had his Eagle CoH, and graduated within a few weeks of each other. Then, a week after graduation, he went to Hilton Head with the family of a friend for two weeks. It just wasn't high on his priority list.The application is filled out, but has just not been turned in.

 

He cannot travel with the group to summer camp on Sunday because of work. He will leave our town Monday morning. He originally was going to travel alone. The mother of a 14 year old Scout, who happens to be my YOUNGEST son's best friend, found out that my oldest was leaving Monday and asked if her son could hitch a ride, as they will be arriving from out of town late Sunday. My oldest has driven this boy, with AND without my youngest son all around town on non Scout events.

 

Although I recognize that the spirit of the rule is not being upheld, based on some of the early answers to my question, we (my oldest son, the mother of the Scout, the SM and me) decided to make the best of the situation. Rather than providing no way for this boy to go to summer camp (his parents cannot drive him the 4 hours to get him there), we decided to have my son not turn in his application, remain an unregistered adult, and drive the boy to camp. Everyone in the mix, with the slight exception of me, is happy with the arrangement.

 

I hope this clears up any of the questions that everyone had about how and why this situation exists.

 

Mark

[Bob White]

Mk, this is more than bending, this is a violation of YP that could cost your son a lot of money and someone else their membership or charter.

He does not qualify as a leader and has no liability protection. If he makes a decision that results in an injury (even if the rules of scouting were followed) he would not have any leagal or financial protection afforded him by the BSA. Have him Fill out an adult application before he goes and spend 40 minutes on line taking youth protection.

 

It is a small investment for what is at stake.

[Bob White]

Mk, this is more than bending, this is a violation of YP that could cost your son a lot of money and someone else their membership or charter.

He does not qualify as a leader and has no liability protection. If he makes a decision that results in an injury (even if the rules of scouting were followed) he would not have any leagal or financial protection afforded him by the BSA. Have him Fill out an adult application before he goes and spend 40 minutes on line taking youth protection.

 

It is a small investment for what is at stake.

[Twocubdad]

Bob, it's interesting that the G2SS passage you quoted seems to be one of the few that says "parent" without adding guardian or "adult partner" to the list. I wonder if that's an intentional omission or not?

 

The rest of the debate is all but moot, in that all that is necessary for compliance is to submit the adult application. I would assume the fee wouldn't even be required since he paid for the year at recharter.

[Bob White]

I agree that "legal guardian" is usually paired with "parent". However I believe you will only find the term "adult partner" in reference to the Tiger Cub program.

 

Bob White

[mk9750]

Bob,

 

Now I'm confused. Your initial response was what convinced me that in this situation, he should NOT turn in the application. If he does, he must then adhere to YP guidelines, and he could not help this boy get to camp. This way, according to your original reply to me, at least he is not in violation of YP guidelines.

 

I do agree that he is finacially responsible if an accident happens. But he has that same responsiblity when my son drives this boy to summer band practice. It is no more or less a risk in either case, and one both he, and the parents of the boy, are willing to accept.

 

My reservation is only that it is obvious we are exploiting a part of the rule that allows this (according to your original reply). The risk involved does not concern me anymore than when he drives anyone in any other circumstance. When balanced against a boy not being able to go to summer camp, I'm willing to accept that.

 

Mark

[molscouter]

Re. the question of youth driving to district events, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told that tour permits are not required for district events. Perhaps that's why there is no restriction?

[dsteele]

I have to confess that I haven't read this thread in its entirety. I did happen to see a question directed at me regarding the registration process for merit badge counselors.

 

Merit Badge counselor registration is different from all other adult registrations only in that they do not pay a fee. The application must be filled out and they are subjected to the same criminal background checks (as of 4/1/2003 as are all other adults.) They are also checked against the BSA's ineligible volunteer file (there is such a thing) and if found unacceptable . . . rejected. They are also supposed to be approved by the district advancement committee. At least they are in the council I currently serve.