Change to GSS - Registration Required for Overnight

[KublaiKen]

So the awaited change to the GSS has happened. With some few exceptions, I think, adults camping overnight outside of Cub Scouts must be registered adults in fee-paid positions or program participants. MBCs are specifically excluded.

https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/?fbclid=IwAR3Va17cZl5U4Aj-HqKFXP4Havk9mtp530Mrw6GJ7ZFdBlRQX9I25GsfXNA

[Eagle1993]

Deleted my thread. 😄

[KublaiKen]

Both Chapter and Lodge Adviser seem to be missing from the list of adult positions approved for overnight camping. Are they just considered committee members, or are they prohibited from attending overnight OA events? 🤔

[HashTagScouts]

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

Both Chapter and Lodge Adviser seem to be missing from the list of adult positions approved for overnight camping. Are they just considered committee members, or are they prohibited from attending overnight OA events? 🤔

We currently have only one (Chapter) Adviser that is not associated to a unit. They are registered as a District Member-at-large.

[AltadenaCraig]

11 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

Both Chapter and Lodge Adviser seem to be missing from the list of adult positions approved for overnight camping. Are they just considered committee members, or are they prohibited from attending overnight OA events? 🤔

 

The GSS wording states "All adults staying overnight in connection with a Scouting activity must be currently registered in an adult fee required position as listed or as an adult program participant".  I'd expect both Chapter & Lodge Adviser would be covered as "an adult program participant."

[KublaiKen]

9 minutes ago, AltadenaCraig said:

 

The GSS wording states "All adults staying overnight in connection with a Scouting activity must be currently registered in an adult fee required position as listed or as an adult program participant".  I'd expect both Chapter & Lodge Adviser would be covered as "an adult program participant."

No, adult program participants are clearly defined as members who are 18 but not yet 21 and are registered in programs like Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Exploring. So those two positions are not adult program participants, nor are they "an adult fee required position as listed," since they aren't on the list. Obviously they can hold additional registered positions, like at the unit level as mentioned above, but that shouldn't be a requirement, should it? I think those positions should be listed, for clarity if nothing else.

Edited February 16, 2023 by KublaiKen

[HashTagScouts]

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

No, adult program participants are clearly defined as members who are 18 but not yet 21 and are registered in programs like Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Exploring. So those two positions are not adult program participants, nor are they "an adult fee required position as listed," since they aren't on the list. Obviously they can hold additional registered positions, like at the unit level as mentioned above, but that shouldn't be a requirement, should it? I think those positions should be listed, for clarity if nothing else.

Lodges are Council programs, not units. There are no BSA position codes for Lodge Adviser/Lodge Associate Adviser etc. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

No, adult program participants are clearly defined as members who are 18 but not yet 21 and are registered in programs like Sea Scouts, Venturing, and Exploring. So those two positions are not adult program participants, nor are they "an adult fee required position as listed," since they aren't on the list. Obviously they can hold additional registered positions, like at the unit level as mentioned above, but that shouldn't be a requirement, should it? I think those positions should be listed, for clarity if nothing else.

 

13 hours ago, KublaiKen said:

Both Chapter and Lodge Adviser seem to be missing from the list of adult positions approved for overnight camping. Are they just considered committee members, or are they prohibited from attending overnight OA events? 🤔

It's not that they are not approved... It's that those positions are not part of the "adult fee required position(s)"   That is, you must be registered in some other position before you can be a Chapter or Lodge Adviser, insofar as I understand this...

As @HashTagScouts alludes, they must first be in a District (or unit or council) fee paid position, before they can wear the additional hat of Adviser.

Edited February 16, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[mrjohns2]

Our troop, following in the footsteps of my youth troop, have a family campout each year. This is useful in many ways. It allows parents in new families to spend quality time with the troop adults. It also is a great answer for people who want to bring a sibling on other campouts - “sorry, but they can come on the annual family campout”. I guess we can’t do that any longer?

[KublaiKen]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Our troop, following in the footsteps of my youth troop, have a family campout each year. This is useful in many ways. It allows parents in new families to spend quality time with the troop adults. It also is a great answer for people who want to bring a sibling on other campouts - “sorry, but they can come on the annual family campout”. I guess we can’t do that any longer?

That would be my understanding of the rule.

[curious_scouter]

I also wonder how this works in conjunction with the requirement that all aspects of the program be open to observation by parents or leaders.  If Mr. Dad demands to attend a campout to observe, does that FORCE us to take Mr. Dad onto our committee (whether we want to or not) just to permit him that right?  Or do we just say "If you insist, then your Scout cannot attend because you are unable to attend without being regsitered"

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

No.  Mr. Dad just has to sever the "connection" for the overnight...

You could take that ad absurdum.

All adults staying overnight in connection with a Scouting activity must be currently registered in an adult fee required position as listed or as an adult program participant.

So, at bed time, he just says "Goodnight folks! I'm going to sleep on my own in a campsite I rented for myself.  See you at breakfast!"

 

[curious_scouter]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, at bed time, he just says "Goodnight folks! I'm going to sleep on my own in a campsite I rented for myself.  See you at breakfast!"

...because the kinds of parents that insist on observing are just this reasonable and level headed Unfortunately I don't view this situation as ad absurdum.  It's an eventuality.  I guess I'll cross that bridge as it comes, but Scouts BSA certainly do seem to spend plenty of time devising new and interesting ways to complicate our unit structures and YPT compliance.  This fee-required addition is one I can't get behind at all.  Accomplishes nothing net-new in terms of YPT, the only net difference I see is money in Scouts BSA's pocket.  Only hurts the units and the Scouts in my book.

[InquisitiveScouter]

28 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

the only net difference I see is money in Scouts BSA's pocket.

You hit the nail right on the head, partner 😜

Gotta pay those salaries.  In 2019, Surbaugh made $1.1M  (2019 is last public form I could find)

https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/221576300_201912_990_2021030217778557.pdf

$134M in assets sales in 2019 also...

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221576300

compare that to the 2018 numbers...

Edited February 18, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[Sentinel947]

6 hours ago, curious_scouter said:

This fee-required addition is one I can't get behind at all.  Accomplishes nothing net-new in terms of YPT, the only net difference I see is money in Scouts BSA's pocket.  Only hurts the units and the Scouts in my book.

Not entirely true. It ensures every adult that is camping overnight in a Scouting program is background checked. I'm curious if that came out of documented incidents, if that's one of the changes the bankruptcy process made happen, or it's a creative way to get more in fees, as you said. The BSA is rarely transparent about such things, so if there is actual data supporting the rule change, we'll never see it.