2018 GUIDE TO SAFE SCOUTING

[David CO]

2 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

"Zero tolerance" avoids making judgments -applying reason - taking responsibility.  💀

Not true. Judgement and reason are still used to determine guilt or innocence. Zero tolerance policies require people to take responsibility for their actions. That is the whole point of having a zero tolerance policy.

[RichardB]

8 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

To me, prohibitions without room for exception/lienency are zero tolerance rules.

A couple of questions: 

• Is your indictment of the these rules (please be specific so we can what "rules" are in play) that they are unclear without exception or that you just disagree them and they should have exceptions for (you, your unit, your situation, etc.).
• What does the hive mind think about rules with exceptions from the hypothetical point of view that perhaps they could develop into a culture that folks think they are acceptable to bend or break those exceptions at will.  
• Does your council not respond to your questions or do you post the contact for the NSC because you didn't like the answers you got, something in the FAQ's wasn't clear?  Asking for a friend.      

[Sentinel947]

11 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 

Would it be OK if they say "never" and do not enforce the rule on some secret basis, such as not letting the two-registered-adult rule get in the way of merit badge millery at summer camp (or the rule that all merit badge counselors - all- must be registered as such [so 18 years of age or older])?

 

 

My understanding of YPT is no one on one contact and two adults gets conflated. 

There's nothing wrong with a merit badge class at camp having 1 adult or no adults, so long as the adults are not alone with youth and if there are no adults there are at least two close enough to be summoned if a need arises. 

They are two separate but related rules. 

1. No one on one contact between adults and youth where a second adult or youth aren't present. 

2. 2 Adults on every outing. 

Otherwise every vehicle transporting Scouts to camp would require two adults. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Sentinel947

[Eagledad]

10 hours ago, David CO said:

Not true. Judgement and reason are still used to determine guilt or innocence. Zero tolerance policies require people to take responsibility for their actions. That is the whole point of having a zero tolerance policy.

Hmm, I disagree. Zero tolerance removes the burden of using judgement or reason to determine guilt. Even ticketed speeders can get their time in court before a judge. Zero tolerance takes out the humility of judgement and the risk of accountability. 

Barry

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

Hmm, I disagree. Zero tolerance removes the burden of using judgement or reason to determine guilt. Even ticketed speeders can get their time in court before a judge. Zero tolerance takes out the humility of judgement and the risk of accountability. 

Barry

I don't think I understand what you are saying. 

[TAHAWK]

13 hours ago, RichardB said:

A couple of questions: 

• Is your indictment of the these rules (please be specific so we can what "rules" are in play) that they are unclear without exception or that you just disagree them and they should have exceptions for (you, your unit, your situation, etc.).
• What does the hive mind think about rules with exceptions from the hypothetical point of view that perhaps they could develop into a culture that folks think they are acceptable to bend or break those exceptions at will.  
• Does your council not respond to your questions or do you post the contact for the NSC because you didn't like the answers you got, something in the FAQ's wasn't clear?  Asking for a friend.      

1. The new rule. quoted in posts 4 and 5 of this thread is as follows:  ""Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings."

As before, the use of the opaque "at" is typical of BSA communication, and I emphatically disagree with the possible interpretation that two registered adults adults, or even two adults, must always be within view, or even in the neighborhood, for any BSA Scouting activity, such as a Merit Badge Counselor meeting one or more Merit Badge candidates at summer camp or at the candidate's home.  (One actual Merit Badge Counselor would be nice.  Currently, the practice at most BSA summer camps is to have merit badges handed out, not earned,  without the involvement of any registered Merit Badge Counselors - or proper testing by anyone.) The current requirement precluding one-on-one contact is completely adequate.

I do not suggest exceptions.  I suggest the new rule be revoked or drastically amended to preclude the interpretation  that two registered adults must be present, in any sense of "presence," "at" all BSA Scouting activities.   And the redrafted rule should eliminate this question: "If two registered adults happen, by chance, to be driving by on a highway  (bordering the property at which the activity is taking place), are they "at" the activity?"

2. There is no "hive mind" here - obviously.  If one exists, it is to be found elsewhere.   However, I read your second sentence in light of the council merit badge mills that violate national camping standards and the Guide to Advancement, and ask you why BSA has a culture where folks act as if it is acceptable to bend or break rules at will.  

3. Through the regimes of four council Scout Executives over thirty-five years, my experience is that my local council does not answer most of the questions that arise about National's pronouncements, whether my questions or other's. 

For example, when the rule prohibiting use of alcohol on counsel property was eliminated [One believes use as a beverage was the unspoken intended target of that rule.  BSA subsequently, and incorrectly, advocated treatment of wounds with alcohol.] , leaving a rule saying no such use is allowed where prohibited, but without any actual prohibition, my council was totally unable to respond to my question as to whether this was an oversight - or even understand that question.   That was March of this year.  I have not checked since.  Council had no contact information to share.

When I asked about the original YPT rule that child abuse cases in BSA Scouting be reported only to the Scout Executive, pointing out that Ohio criminal law required reporting to local government, I got only blank looks and, after repetitions of this incident, advice to "contact National" but with no contact information available.

I have asked why the current on-line YPT training and testing  is reached as "position-specific training," which it is not, I was also told to "Contact  National," which  I have with no response to date.  If I get a response, I may take the test.

Drafting coherent, high-quality rules and practices is not easy.  That was part of my work for what is now "AT&T."  I suggest circulating proposed rules to those who have to abide by them.  Never let lawyers draft rules and practices without input from those who actually lead the business and deliver service to the customers.  Those practices  will result in changes - and better rules.   Beyond risk management, there is the work of the enterprise to perform. 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by NJCubScouter
Fixed typo that needed to be fixed

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I don't think I understand what you are saying. 

An Eagle Scout who drove long distances to school in northern climes, admitted to having a small pen knife in a survival kit locked in his glove compartment, locked in his truck, in the school parking lot.  Under a "zero tolerance: policy against "weapons," he was expelled.  The school bureaucrats said they had no way to excuse his violation. So much for "judgment."  Gee, how could discretion have been applied to prevent this absurd result?  Not a "weapon."   But that would require someone to take responsibility for the outcome.

Instead, we get, in effect,  " I was only following orders." 

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I don't think I understand what you are saying. 

No.  Really?

And this is the locus of a "hive mind."?

[NJCubScouter]

7 hours ago, RichardB said:

What does the hive mind think...

Aside from a reference to the Borg on Star Trek, who and/or what are you referring to as the "hive mind," @RichardB?

[TAHAWK]

 "Each individual should “take charge” of the documentation of their training, "  Because BSA and Council records can be a little off.

 

When I checked my record a couple years ago, it said I completed Scoutmaster training in 1910.

I submitted the official form that I was given to point out that the correct date was 1961.

My official record now says I completed Scoutmaster training in 1912.

🎃

[Eagle94-A1]

13 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

 "Each individual should “take charge” of the documentation of their training, "  Because BSA and Council records can be a little off.

DON'T. GO. THERE!

I had to tell my district commissioner that according to council, he was untrained. This is the guy who not only taught commissioner service courses at the UoS, but taught commiser service at Philmont several years.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Eagle94-A1

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

Aside from a reference to the Borg on Star Trek, who and/or what are you referring to as the "hive mind," @RichardB?

It must be frustrating to deal with people who constantly question received wisdom. and won't kiss your ring.

But I experienced the last great "We know better" moment in 1972. The kids at National did not.

I have my 50 in.  I don't have to watch this fiasco again.

 

 

[TAHAWK]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

DON'T. GO. THERE!

I had to tell my district commissioner that according to council, he was untrained. This is the guy who not only taught commissioner service courses at the UoS, but taught commiser service at Philmont several years.

Yes, and I staffed WB x 3 when officially, I had never taken WB and staffed numerous other council and district courses I had never taken - apart from "Scoutmaster training" in 1910 or 1912.

Yours in Scouting,

The oldest man in America.

 

PS My records were fine until National forced all councils to switch to common software - that will not work.

It also shows me as the District Chairman, three times, of a district that did not exist, twenty and more years before I was hatched.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by TAHAWK

[David CO]

2 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

An Eagle Scout who drove long distances to school in northern climes, admitted to having a small pen knife in a survival kit locked in his glove compartment, locked in his truck, in the school parking lot.  Under a "zero tolerance: policy against "weapons," he was expelled.  The school bureaucrats said they had no way to excuse his violation. So much for "judgment."  Gee, how could discretion have been applied to prevent this absurd result?  Not a "weapon."   But that would require someone to take responsibility for the outcome.

Could you explain exactly which part of this event is absurd? 

Are you suggesting that an eagle scout is above the rules? Should the rules apply to everyone except eagle scouts? Do you feel that small knives should be allowed on school grounds? Do you think that we should have rules against knives on school grounds, but not enforce them? 

Somebody did take responsibility for the outcome. The school board took responsibility and expelled the student. You may not like their decision, but the school board did take responsibility. They did make a decision.

 

[bearess]

Also, after nearly fifteen years working in public schools, all of which have “zero tolerance” policies, I have seen administrators bend those policies a handful of times, and I was always in agreement with their choices.  In those cases, they also took responsibility for their choice to bend the policy, knowing that doing so could have professional consequences.  

I suspect that, for every “Eagle Scout with a small survival knife” story, there are dozens of times when administrators deal with incidents with wisdom and careful judgment.  But, the rules are the rules.  Once, when I was teaching, I bought a bottle,of wine and left it in my car overnight.  Mid-morning, the next day, it occurred to me that I had alcohol on school grounds— in the trunk of my car.  I went and moved my car out of the school parking lot at the first opportunity.  Had an administrator found the alcohol in my car, I would have been fired in the spot.  It would have been awful, over an oversight, but it would have been just and fair, as well.