Unregistered merit badge counselors will be removed from Scoutbook on Feb 1. Merit badge counselor positions will no longer appear on unit rosters in Scoutbook.

[CynicalScouter]

I am so glad this is happening. I cannot tell you the number of MBCs in other units I've learned of where the Key-3 just made some random person a MBC in the Scoutbook system and allowed these unregistered (and therefore no criminal background check) people access to scouts.

https://discussions.scouting.org/t/removing-unregistered-merit-badge-counselors-from-scoutbook/218461
 

Quote

 

On Feb 1, 2021, we will remove any remaining unregistered Merit Badge Counselors (MBC) from Scoutbook, delete MBC connections with any Scouts they are counseling, and remove the ability of units to change which Merit Badges are approved for MBCs. At that point the only remaining MBC positions will have come in via ScoutNET (council registration,) and their approved merit badge listing will also come in via ScoutNET or a council upload. Merit Badges and requirements previously approved by removed MBCs will remain.

Anyone with a MBC position on a troop roster, will have their MBC ended on the Scoutbook troop roster, if they are registered, they will appear in the MBC search and the individual MBC can see their position in their My Positions page.

Information for units on how to find merit badge counselors in Scoutbook is at this link.

This will not affect merit badge counselors whose registration expired on 12/31/2020 and are waiting for council rechartering.

Follow this link for more information.

 

 

[qwazse]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I am so glad this is happening. I cannot tell you the number of MBCs in other units I've learned of where the Key-3 just made some random person a MBC in the Scoutbook system and allowed these unregistered (and therefore no criminal background check) people access to scouts.

Not sure what’s going to be worse: the long dead remaining on MBC lists or the most competent in their field being removed for lack of officiousness.

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Not sure what’s going to be worse: the long dead remaining on MBC lists or the most competent in their field being removed for lack of officiousness.

My #1 concern is that the people holding themselves out as MBCs (and their troops holding themselves out as MBCs) are registered, criminally background checked, and YPT cleared.

I don't give a darn how "competent" they are, if they cannot (or will not) get a criminal background check I don't want then around Scouting youth.

Protecting scouts from abuse is a little more then "officiousness".

You agree, yes?

Edited January 22, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle94-A1]

Mixed emotions on this move.

One the YPT side, I think it is VITALLY needed. Grant you I know of a few MBCs who have been "dropped" for various reasons, i.e. accidentally,  YPT while current, expires in the new charter year and council drops,  council loses paperwork ( in one case over a 7 year period) etc,. But Everyone needs the YPT training and background check.

On the other hand, you got some experts who volunteer when they can, and if the dysfunctional council/district don't follow up and remind them they need to redo YPT for the next 2 years, we lose some very knowledgeable people. Best example of that is the retired judge who has served as an ASM, district finance chair,  district chair, and on the council committee in the past. Since his kids aged out long ago, and he travels to visit them now, he is only registered as a MBC for several MBs. When I went looking to contact him for one of the MBs,  he was missing from the list. Followed up with him, and no one ever contacted him to see if he was still willing to be an MBC and his YPT needed renewal.

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

On the other hand, you got some experts who volunteer when they can, and if the dysfunctional council/district don't follow up and remind them they need to redo YPT for the next 2 years, we lose some very knowledgeable people.

This is NOT going to stop the practice units have of off-the-books MBCs without YPT, but I hope it mnimzies.

And if someone gets dropped, then the answer is that they get YPT updated ASAP.

Fingers crossed there would be a system where Scoutnet determines someone's YPT is, say, 3 months from expiring they get an auto-generated email alert.

[Eagledad]

41 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My #1 concern is that the people holding themselves out as MBCs (and their troops holding themselves out as MBCs) are registered, criminally background checked, and YPT cleared.

I don't give a darn how "competent" they are, if they cannot (or will not) get a criminal background check I don't want then around Scouting youth.

Protecting scouts from abuse is a little more then "officiousness".

You agree, yes?

There is a famous statement, I forget who said it, but it goes something like "debates and discussion are intended for the purpose of learning, not winning". 

I remember back when the BSA started requiring MB counselors to register; the explanation was the new policy was to protect the counselor as much as the scouts. So, I personally don't believe only protecting scouts from abuse ends the discussion.

This is a complicated situation that forces the a look at the intention of the MB process as well of its benefits in the present day. The subject has to be discussed with some depth, and with some degree of reason.

Barry

[mashmaster]

I think this is a good thing.  Taking and re-taking YPT is important for BSA as BSA is already is deep with a history of poor decisions surrounding youth protection.  This is an easy step to take care of and an adult should be able to take the YPT class online, it really isn't hard to take IMHO.  Agreed people need to reach out to them for keeping current with YPT and registration, it isn't a hard task but someone needs to do it.  

If you have an expert that you really want to talk and present to the youth about a particular topic, you can bring them into a meeting with other trained leaders present so they can present to them as a consultant.  They can even document the activities so that a registered MBC can use that info for sign off.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

There is a famous statement, I forget who said it, but it goes something like "debates and discussion are intended for the purpose of learning, not winning". 

I remember back when the BSA started requiring MB counselors to register; the explanation was the new policy was to protect the counselor as much as the scouts. So, I personally don't believe only protecting scouts from abuse ends the discussion.

This is a complicated situation that forces the a look at the intention of the MB process as well of its benefits in the present day. The subject has to be discussed with some depth, and with some degree of reason.

Barry

Great! Here's the depth and reason:

If they are held out as working with scouts on behalf of or as part of a Scouting program, they need to be registered, criminal background checked, and YPT trained. If NOT for the sake of the scouts and to prevent them from being abused (you do care about that right?) then to ensure we don't get a new generation of lawsuits and liability for units, councils, and national.

Have we learned NOTHING from the sexual abuse scandal? At all?

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

If you have an expert that you really want to talk and present to the youth about a particular topic, you can bring them into a meeting with other trained leaders present so they can present to them as a consultant.

Yep. Guide to Advancement specifically contemplates this.

What has been happening, however, is that units are too lazy or couldn't be bothered to get these people registered and YPT trained. Instead,, they are just putting people into Scoutbook and pushing ahead.

That will stop, at least the Scoutbook part. Sadly, I suspect this will simply push the unregistered MBCs further underground.

Edited January 22, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

QUESTION ... From what I understand, units could not assign the role of MBC.  The change is that units won't be able to change the MBs counciled by an existing MBC.  Is this right? 

I'm surprised this functionality was there before.   MBC has always been a district / council setup role.  

Many of the comments above are 100% correct.  

• YP and YPT is always our first concern.
• MB role in scouting needs to be re-thought.  
• MBC role / selection needs to be re-thought.

I'm hoping this does not happen, but if BSA really wanted to lock it down ... then require ScoutBook data entry to have a valid, currently registered MBC recorded as part of the MB tracking / award.  Right now, our troop can award a MB without recording the MBC who approved it.  I'm cringing even saying this as I don't want to deal with that.  Nope.  Don't want this to happen.

[qwazse]

47 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

... What has been happening, however, is that units are too lazy or couldn't be bothered to get these people registered and YPT trained. Instead,, they are just putting people into Scoutbook and pushing ahead. ...

I'm calling BS on this. At a very fundamental and traditional level, recruiting counselors is a district/council responsibility. Blame the units all you want, but this but if the council doesn't have the personnel in place to handle the additional paperwork, what makes them think units would have any more capacity?

And, to be frank, for a while we had a registrar who basically chucked our unit councilors ... all fine people ... all whose YP is current ... all who are registered in other unit positions ... all who have paid to maintain their registration. Why aren't they still also registered as MBC's? Basically because we were victims of someone who didn't give a crap about their volunteers. So, why would they want to complete an application when they suspect that sooner or later someone is going to drop them from that position for no good reason?

So, sure, I'll nag my fellow scouters to fill out one more form, and maybe after a year or so, they will. But if other qualified, trained, and caring unit leaders are like mine, blue cards will be pushed anyway. It's going to take a unit commissioner, with applications in hand and ready to process on-the-spot, talking as sweetly as possible to my scouters who should be MBCs.

[Eagledad]

Stopping discussions with self-righteous declarations isn't going to contribute toward a working resolution. Don't you agree? 

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

46 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

QUESTION ... From what I understand, units could not assign the role of MBC.  The change is that units won't be able to change the MBs counciled by an existing MBC.  Is this right?

No.

Scoutbook allowed units to name ANYONE an MBC. This was a residual aspect of Scoutbook; it was originally a UNIT management tool. BSA just bought it and is attaching it to Scoutnet piece by piece.

As such, the unit management software allowed units to identify certain people as MBCs. The example was this.

1) Troop 123 has a scout that wants to earn Reading Merit badge BUT they have no reading MBC.

2) Troop 123's scout reaches out (after getting a blue card of course and the name from the SM) to Troop 456's Reading Merit Badge counselor based on the list the SM got from district/council.

3) Troop 123's advancement chair, scoutmaster, whomever then "links" the Troop 456 MBC to the scout. That grants limited access (approval of the MBC).

What units found out was that they could designate ANYONE they wanted as an MBC and skip the "based on the list the SM got from district/council" part. That flaw was kept when Scoutbook was bought by BSA and BSA is now fixing it so units will have no ability to do this anymore AND it will integrate with Scoutnet to confirm the MBC a) is registered and b) YPT compliant.

Edited January 22, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, qwazse said:

At a very fundamental and traditional level, recruiting counselors is a district/council responsibility.

Yes. And the point was that units were just going on and finding their own people (no problem with that) and then not having them properly registered/background checked/YPT compliance.

If a unit wants to go out and recruit their own MBCs, whatever. Have at it. But what they should NOT be doing is circumventing the YPT/criminal background checks because they just couldn't be bothered.

Taking away unit's abilities to self-designate MBCs in Scoutbook won't end the practice of unregistered, non-criminal background checked adults having access to scouts. But it is a step in that direction and that's a good thing.

Again, have we learned nothing from the abuse scandals?

[elitts]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is NOT going to stop the practice units have of off-the-books MBCs without YPT, but I hope it mnimzies.

And if someone gets dropped, then the answer is that they get YPT updated ASAP.

Fingers crossed there would be a system where Scoutnet determines someone's YPT is, say, 3 months from expiring they get an auto-generated email alert.

What WOULD stop that, would be a requirement that a MBC include a valid BSA registration number along with their signature on a blue card in order for it to be effective.