New crew and a Small problem

[dragonn]

The guys are starting a new Venture Crew. It seams really cool. And i want to do it. But, one of the guys leaders happens to be the man I'm engaged to. Anyone know the rules to this one?

 

Thanks

 

~Jenn

[Beavah]

Yah, Jenn. Da BSA rules become hard to figure for over-18 adults in Venturing sometimes.

 

Case 1: Male leader over 21, you are over 21.

No problem. Sign up! Venturing needs female leaders, and this can be a great volunteer effort to engage in as a couple. Only the obvious about "do what's right for the kids" and "be a good example."

 

Case 2: Male leader over 21, you are under 21 but over 18 (or vice versa).

Ah, you're out in da cow pasture here. BSA sort of considers the guy an adult advisor but you a "youth member". Yeh need to have a sit-down with your COR and figure out how your CO wants you to proceed. I expect most CO's will be rational in their interpretation.

 

Case 3: Male leader under 21, you are under 21.

BSA sort of considers you both youth members. So you might treat it the same as goin' out with a bunch of friends. Again, talk to your COR for how they'd like to handle it.

 

Case 4: One or both of you is under 18.

Expect some slightly more formal restrictions until you reach the age of majority or become legally independent (or married). Not a big deal. Sign up and go with the flow.

 

I think in all these cases, you're participatin' as part of a group, not so much as a married (or almost-married) couple. Put the needs of the group first, be good crew members/leaders, and things are fine. A good committee and COR will put you at ease with expectations and appropriate accommodations.

 

[RangerT]

Jenn

 

The answer is quite simple following National guidelines in Venturing you are considered a youth member until you turn 21, which is the minimum age for an advisor. A youth member and advisor who are in a relationship can not be members of the same crew until you turn 21, then you both can be adult advisors. So there is no need to talk to a COR or anyone else, these rules are very specifically spelled out in the Venturing Leaders Manual. You can join another crew if you like but not the same one until you are 21. Remember in Venturing crew you are a youth member through the age of 20.

[epalmer84]

"The roles of volunteer adult leaders in the Venturing program require that clear boundaries be established between adult leaders and youth members. For this reason, fraternization the formation of peer-based, social relationships between adult and youth members is not permitted. This prohibition extends to Venturing crewmembers who register as adults after their twenty-first birthday."

 

http://www.scouting.org/pubs/ypt/pdf/25-026.pdf

 

The Advisors have taken the Youth Protection Training, right?

 

There is some more information specific to married couples at:

http://netcommish.com/AskAndy39.asp

 

Ed

[epalmer84]

BTW: You can stay in as a youth until your 22nd birthday or your crew re-charters, whichever comes first. (source: Youth Application)

 

Therefore; on your 21st birthday, you have the option of remaining in the crew as a youth or re-registering as an adult.

 

Ed

[LongHaul]

dragon,

No matter what crew you join as a person under the age of 21, a person registered with the BSA can not have a one on one relationship with you period. In my council we have had BSA members expelled on these very grounds. Boy friend girls friend joined a crew, he turned 21, they were seen together he was expelled. Boy firend girls friend, he was registered with a Troop as an ASM she joined a crew. In the Troop he was considered and adult, she was considered a youth. THe policy is an adult can not have a one on one relationship with a youth member, he was expelled. The CO had nothing to say in the matter it was a Council decision. MY COUNCIL is not run like other councils, this may not happen where you are, it is however BSA Policy. With the growing concern for youth protection I would advise you not to join the crew. If on the other hand you were to join a troop as an ASM you would be a registerd ADULT member of the BSA and could participate with the Crew as a guest. I'd run that by your District and Council Reps before risking your husband to be's membership.

LongHaul

[John-in-KC]

I think we need to send Miss Jenn and her fiance` back to their local DE and perhaps SE, to get a read. This is one of those times where a competent and local member for the Professional Service needs to weigh in.

 

That said, Beavah's post is a good strawman!(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Beavah]

That said, Beavah's post is a good strawman!

 

Yah, it brings to mind the Scarecrow song from Wizard of Oz. "If I only had a brain...."

 

The BSA printed guidelines for legal adults in Venturing border on the bizarre, so I wouldn't be surprised if a CO did its own thing. Most churches have certain expectations of married couples, eh? And a certain moral value placed on married life. I can't see any of 'em followin' LongHaul's advice and tellin' the husband his wife has to join a crew at some other church. The BSA Venturing folks in Irving would quietly agree with the churches, eh? Just like epalmer's reference suggests (twice... ).

 

Besides, tellin' a 21 year old man that he can't "fraternize" with his 19 year old wife because that would violate "youth protection" is positively hysterical. If they are good crew members, then some accommodation can be made. To do otherwise is just silly, not to mention a potential legal and PR nightmare.

 

The BSA really needs to supplement their printed materials in some rational way. The registration as "youth member" was a convenience in part because it meshed nicely with the computer system, without havin' to make a separate category for "adult member" vs. "leader". Don't think it was really meant to try to redefine the state's definition of "legal adult," eh? But it's very hard to write all the possible permutations into "policy."

 

Yah, better just to use common sense, eh?

 

(Of course LongHaul lives in Chicago, and their council doesn't exactly have a reputation for common sense, eh? )

[emb021]

"But, one of the guys leaders happens to be the man I'm engaged to. Anyone know the rules to this one?"

 

We're talking engaged, not married, BUT

 

I asked the National Venturing guys about this once.

 

They said, basically, that these rules (no fraternization between under and over 21) DO NOT APPLY to a married couple. SO, once you two are married, then everything should be ok.

 

[SR540Beaver]

I agree with taking this to the Council SE. The CO agrees to utilize the BSA's programs and policies except where some latitude is given such as further restrictions on membership. The CO does not get to override BSA YP guidelines when it feels like it. According to YP training, violations are supposed to be communicated to the SE. Since this falls under YP, what the SE says will matter a whole lot more than what a CO thinks is common sense.

[BadenP]

Just because you don't like the rules Beavah doesn't mean you can ignore them. The SE is bound by the same rules in the manuals like the rest of us and believe me none of them will go contrary to them because of a possible lawsuit. An adult advisor can not have an affair with a youth member in Venturing whether they are 15 or 20 years old for obvious reasons and no COR or SE in their right mind will ever condone it. Boundaries between adult members and youth are there for a reason, to protect both parties from being abused or being accused of abusing. THATS JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE BEAVAH!!, it sounds to me that you don't put much stock in protecting the reputations of these teens.

 

Even if both parties are over 18 this type of situation could undermine the operation of the crew and cause a scandal for those involved as well as the CO, it is a lose lose scenario. I think Beavah you should look at the content of your own statements before you accuse anyone of not having any common sense, for the lack of common sense seems to be coming from you this time.

[Hunt]

Well, we don't really have enough facts, but lets just assume for a second that both of these individuals are over 18, and that they are formally engaged, and that everyone, including their families, knows that they are engaged. Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to have a club that they can't both join simply because they are engaged? If you were this girl's parent, would you feel more comfortable sending her on a camping trip with a group that included her fiance, or a group that included other young men? In both cases, there would also be an adult female leader along, and the engaged couple would presumably not be allowed to share a tent.

I guess I agree that the rules seem to require this, but it just seems to be courting disaster to create a coed group in which people just over 21 are not permitted to "fraternize" with those just under 21. We're talking about college-age people here.

[LongHaul]

Beavah is absolutely correct when he says that I live in Chicago and that my council does not have a reputation for using, possessing, understanding, or even acknowledging the existence of anything resembling, common sense. Just because it happens here does not mean that it WILL happen anywhere else. The fact that it did happen here does mean that it COULD happen somewhere else. I also agree with Beavah in that National MUST address the fact that Venturing was created with the full knowledge that Crew members would at times form romantic relationships with other crew members. No where have I seen any material coming from National which addresses married Crew members. Far too often the person at National who actually puts a matter of policy in writing for publication does not understand the entire Scouting program. That person is looking at one piece of wording without applying it to all the different programs. When a member of a Scout troop reaches the age of 18 he must re register as an Adult leader and must observe all the restrictions concerning one on one contact UNLESS he is at an OA function where he magically becomes a youth again despite his registration and is housed with the youth and can not be housed with the adults. With YP the terminology employed is Adult MEMBER or Adult LEADER and Youth MEMBER. As far as the UNIT is concerned he is an ADULT leader as far as OA is concerned he is a YOUTH member. The Venturing Youth Protection guidelines, provided by epalmer84; http://www.scouting.org/pubs/ypt/pdf/25-026.pdf , clearly restate the distinction according to membership in point #10.

 As the YP Trainer for my District I encounter these questions often and have tried to get clarification from National but cant get OFFICAL policy in writing so that I can use it when something goes wrong. Until National publishes a written policy on this I advise following the rules as written. The consequences could be expulsion from BSA which has a lengthy and difficult appeals process. A mistake today could mean that a person could not be a leader when their child reaches scouting age.

 Be Prepared      Be Aware of the RISK.

LongHaul

[John-in-KC]

Actually, when you read what emb021 says, and couple it with what Beavah says, there's a lot of common sense to be had.

 

Yes, I can understand, even with affianced couples, checking the relationship at the door of the unit meeting, and checking the lusties when out on an adventure.

 

Even so ... one of the very best trips I had with my fiancee`, 24 years ago, was when we seriously cross-country skied through the German backwoods outside of Garmisch Armed Forces Recreation Area.

 

They'll find some bonds being strengthened even as they walk a trail together, and if they model how a couple should behave in a relationship, that's a help as well.

 

Miss Jenn didn't give us the specifics of age. That's why I recommended they contact the local SE.

[Beavah]

Yah, LongHaul. I feel your pain.

 

Doesn't seem like much risk, though. Bein' expelled vs. not bein' allowed to join. There's no risk of charges of child abuse or molestation here folks. These are consenting adults, not children. The BSA membership categories don't get to redefine legal age of majority, eh?

 

Take a deep breath and relax, gents. You're goin' to scare poor Jenn and her fiance away with all this noise!

 

And seriously, can any of you imagine a rule prohibiting husband and wife from participating together surviving its first contact with the Religious Relationships Committee? Nah, da CO's win this one, hands down.