Debate over 72 hour rule - spun from bankruptcy thread

[johnsch322]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Same. So we don’t go to far into swapping names and addresses, maybe a mechanism to keep it on the downlow, too. 

@Eagle94-A1 can send me a private message with details.

[elitts]

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

This might overlap with the other attempted discussion of what we might like to see, or feel is important for improvements.  

Can they develop some type of background check method that can apply to those sort of "in between" adults?  YP, period, and then background to include proper reference contacts?  

I don't know about places other than Michigan but you can get a clearance letter from the State verifying no child abuse or neglect charges or convictions.  And I know the state police maintain a database that some people can check, but they are really restrictive on who can access it and for what.

 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

This is one of the several black holes that exist in my ongoing review of YP and YPT. BSA won’t cough up the data or metrics specific to the history of child sexual abuse in Scouting and the full context of all abuse since the implementation and improvements. For example, I’d like to know the full story on the shower camera predator from all sides of the equation. It would help a ton in understanding his vetting, access, supervision or lack thereof, recorded dicey history, anyone ever suspect or notice odd behavior, and etc. It seems like common sense for these things to be made available to LCs, Units, COs and parents. No?

Ugh.. it would be great if something like a hospital's M&M conference could be done on these things, but our legal system makes that sort of thing being open for public inspection horrifying to contemplate.  Who would be willing to admit to a mistake when it's going to be open to the public and would open you up to a lawsuit by distraught parents?  And I'm not talking about situations where someone failed to do part of a background check or skipped one entirely.  I mean stuff like (hypothetically) a Camp staffer who saw the guy fiddling with a bunch of micro cameras but he was in a rush and the guy said something about using them to track animals so he moved along and thought nothing else of it until the reports came in.  Or the ASM who has noticed another leader's behavior is a little odd, but not so overt as to be a blatant red flag.

 

 

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, elitts said:

Ugh.. it would be great if something like a hospital's M&M conference could be done on these things, but our legal system makes that sort of thing being open for public inspection horrifying to contemplate. 

Right. I get it. There are systems of incident/harm reporting, with elevated levels of urgency, review and scrutiny, that feed into root cause analyses and searchable data segmentation. I’m really just looking for the raw, redacted data to understand means, opportunity, breaks in the protocols and the like. Without data assessment at multiple levels, it’s difficult to make solid decisions about what’s working, what’s not, what needs to be done better/differently and how to accordingly “arm” those in the field trying to prevent repeat scenarios. I’m also extrapolating from other industries, admitted regulated and highly scrutinized. I guess I don’t know that BSA is doing that, even at the highest levels, much less letting it filter down through some dissemination. I could be wrong. Dunno. Just a blindfolded man throwing darts and a board. Everyone behind the bar. Quick like! 

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. So, what about a parent who wants to register so they are able to hang out at camp, but can’t/doesn’t care to invest the additional bucks? 

$50...there is only one registration type.  That $50 is the annual registration type...

Which reminds me...that fee should be pro-rated by the month...so, if there are only six months left in the registration year, then it would be $45/2 = $22.50 plus the $5 insurance fee (not pro-rated) = $27.50 for a six month registration.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

It would help a ton in understanding his vetting, access, supervision or lack thereof, recorded dicey history, anyone ever suspect or notice odd behavior, and etc. It seems like common sense for these things to be made available to LCs, Units, COs and parents. No?

If BSA ever releases that kind of info, the devil's abode will become a lake of ice

[skeptic]

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

If BSA ever releases that kind of info, the devil's abode will become a lake of ice

Seems to me that once again we really are stymied by our ridiculous legal system.  The constant fear of law suits does not contribute to reporting things that are not absolute.  

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Seems to me that once again we really are stymied by our ridiculous legal system.  The constant fear of law suits does not contribute to reporting things that are not absolute.  

 

Every time there was an aviation (or other major) accident in the Air Force, there were two investigations...a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) and an Accident Investigation Board (AIB).  The SIB is first, and looks at every detail to determine causal factors and get the word out to operators and maintainers as fast as possible to prevent the mishap from occurring again.  SIB reports are not releasable to the public.  (Some of them are quite grisly...photos, autopsies, cockpit recordings, etc...)

Then an AIB convenes, and covers the same ground.  They only get a piece of the report from the SIB.  The AIB looks at legal issues, claims, etc.  The AIB report is released to the public.

https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199117/air-force-safety-and-accident-board-investigations/

As far as I know, BSA only does an AIB-type look at mishaps, but does not release information.  Safety information is slow to come out to the "troops in the field", and is minimal, often just re-iterating existing policies...

Have a look...  https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/safety-moments/

Edited December 8, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[T2Eagle]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Right. I get it. There are systems of incident/harm reporting, with elevated levels of urgency, review and scrutiny, that feed into root cause analyses and searchable data segmentation. I’m really just looking for the raw, redacted data to understand means, opportunity, breaks in the protocols and the like. Without data assessment at multiple levels, it’s difficult to make solid decisions about what’s working, what’s not, what needs to be done better/differently and how to accordingly “arm” those in the field trying to prevent repeat scenarios. I’m also extrapolating from other industries, admitted regulated and highly scrutinized. I guess I don’t know that BSA is doing that, even at the highest levels, much less letting it filter down through some dissemination. I could be wrong. Dunno. Just a blindfolded man throwing darts and a board. Everyone behind the bar. Quick like! 

I don't know, but I suspect there is no such data qua data, no connection of one incident to another.  If such data or a data base existed it would have come out in one of the state court cases over the years the same way the ineligible files did.

It's certainly an overall organizational failing, but the lack of such data is one of the reasons I'm unimpressed with Officer Mike's tenure as head of YPT over the past decade.  

Edited December 9, 2021 by T2Eagle

[ThenNow]

12 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

It's certainly an overall organizational failing, but the lack of such data is one of the reasons I'm unimpressed with Officer Mike's tenure as head of YPT over the past decade.  

It’s my understanding (from reviewing org charts and talking with random people who have various measures of knowledge and information) that he reported to Steve McGowan. Having any and all research and recommendations fed directly to legal, especially a Scouter of great note and political influence, leads me to question who is to “blame” for any failings. He was also fired/RIFd in the midst of a whirlwind into which he probably has more insight than most who remain. That seems to speak to how his boss(es) perceived what he was doing, reporting and recommending. Still curious how and why that went down. It could also speak to incompetence, but I prefer the conspiracy theory myself. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by ThenNow

[GrammaScout]

"Same. So we don’t go to far into swapping names and addresses, maybe a mechanism to keep it on the downlow, too. "    Our Troop's fundraiser each year is getting use of a chipper donated and then advertising for Christmas tree recycling....done in the Church's back property.  It raises more than enough for the activities and Scout scholarships where they are needed.   The Background check fee is covered by the Troop.

[yknot]

50 minutes ago, GrammaScout said:

"Same. So we don’t go to far into swapping names and addresses, maybe a mechanism to keep it on the downlow, too. "    Our Troop's fundraiser each year is getting use of a chipper donated and then advertising for Christmas tree recycling....done in the Church's back property.  It raises more than enough for the activities and Scout scholarships where they are needed.   The Background check fee is covered by the Troop.

How does that work? Do the scouts lug the trees from cars and the adults chip them?

Also, while adults are able to handle power tools around scouts, COs around here would never let anyone other than a contracted tree service do wood chipping on their property due to liability issues. Adults do it on work days at camps and such but the COs don't necessarily know... One of the COs I'm affiliated with has a retreat camp property of its own that we have access to and they won't let anyone chip -- they get wood chips donated by tree services.  Interesting how different things are depending on where you are. 

[MikeS72]

On 12/8/2021 at 5:28 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

$50...there is only one registration type.  That $50 is the annual registration type...

Which reminds me...that fee should be pro-rated by the month...so, if there are only six months left in the registration year, then it would be $45/2 = $22.50 plus the $5 insurance fee (not pro-rated) = $27.50 for a six month registration.

Fees are prorated, although National's new $25 joining fee is not.

[mrjohns2]

19 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

Fees are prorated, although National's new $25 joining fee is not.

The joint fee is only for youth. 

[GrammaScout]

On 12/11/2021 at 2:49 PM, yknot said:

How does that work? Do the scouts lug the trees from cars and the adults chip them?

Also, while adults are able to handle power tools around scouts, COs around here would never let anyone other than a contracted tree service do wood chipping on their property due to liability issues. Adults do it on work days at camps and such but the COs don't necessarily know... One of the COs I'm affiliated with has a retreat camp property of its own that we have access to and they won't let anyone chip -- they get wood chips donated by tree services.  Interesting how different things are depending on where you are. 

Our Troop of 70 began 'chipping trees and wreaths' at least ten years ago and make more than enough for the years' budget needs...providing many scholorships as well.   A neighbor whose business uses 'chippers' loans the chippers to us and then receives a donor receipt of agreed upon value which he then uses with his taxes. The trees are dropped off at the back of the Church.   Everyone even close to the back of the church MUST wear safety googles, covered arms and gloves.  Only Adults actually run the chipper unless there is a pile of smaller branches that accumulates and senior scouts with adult supervision are allowed to do it if they demonstrate they know what they are doing.  The CO has never voiced any liability concerns

[mrjohns2]

15 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

Only Adults actually run the chipper unless there is a pile of smaller branches that accumulates and senior scouts with adult supervision are allowed to do it if they demonstrate they know what they are doing. 

I'd recommend stopping this. Any incidents would not be covered by any BSA insurance.