Hello! MBC searches require as a minimum the full name + ID OR email address. Unfortunately, scouts still submit physical blue cards which only provide the MBC’s name, address, and phone number – if we’re lucky.
Us advancement folks need to look the MBC up in SB+ to ensure they are currently registered before marking the MB as completed. Can SB+ make this process easier for everyone by allowing a search using Full Name + ID OR email address OR phone number?
Sadly, our troop has encountered a program and occasional individual, who sign off regardless of their MBC registration status.
Bonus points if SB+ will allow searches by preferred first name.
Thank you for considering.
@JulieTreichler1 National has it set how they want it for security reasons.
@JulieTreichler1 - if the mbc are in your council/district the key 3 can get a report from my.scouting listing current MBC.
I was afraid you’d say that. Is there a way to formally petition National? I’ve been told that volunteers may have a bit of sway. The goal is to get these checks done more easily, which may in turn encourage more troops to do the checks. In my view, National should update the blue cards or force everyone to use SB+. I don’t recall seeing a firm directive for MBCs in the 2025 GTA.
In fact, I would argue that the blue cards no longer support the merit badge process as it is intended to function because it is not possible to verify SYT, Livescan, completed background check, Mandated Reporter Training in California (AB506), and paid registration status using the blue card alone. The blue cards have no provision to record the merit badge requirements revision. And MBCs are also still providing blue cards to the scouts instead of requiring that the scout provide one with the unit leader signature present. Reference p.40 2025 GTA.
On the Search - SUAC had a number of discussions on the search criteria - and other options. This is what Legal wanted.
@JulieTreichler1
You do NOT need to look up an MBC to see if they are currently registered. The Guide to Advancement says a Scout cannot be penalized if they believe the person they are working with is an MBC.
So, if your process is to not approve a MB if you can’t validate an MBC is registered you are violating the Guide to Advancement.
The purpose of the MBC search is to find the Scout an MBC to work with, not to validate someone is an MBC.
The scout did not have an initial unit leader discussion, which is required by the 2025 GTA. We would’ve done the check then as well.
If the MBC has fallen out of registration, we work with them to get them re-registered.
But there has been at least one fee-based program, where they are not following the 2025 GTA at all, and using the Scouting America trademark to promote. I will report them when I have more spare time. Ha! In that case we have the scout go over their work with one of our known good MBCs.
The initial unit leader signature just says the Scout had a discussion. You also can’t refuse to approve a MB for lack of signature. All you can do is counsel the Scout to follow the process in the future.
That’s true. We had a discussion about other merit badges, but not this one. I did a dumpster dive to look up the counselor by name within the US and worldwide. Nada. There are only 1600+ registered Horsemanship MBCs in the US. Our scouts deserve better.
They can be penalized if we learn that they could not have completed the work that the current version of the merit badge requires. So now, sadly, either the MBC helps us find them in SB+, or they register, and we go through the process of confirming that the work was actually done by the scout as expediently as humanly possible.
There are VERY few reasons why a MB that has been signed off by an MBC or someone who the Scout legitimately believed was the MBC can be denied. For example, if the Scout has only been registered for 2 months but claims to have finished a MB that requires 3 months. Simply using the wrong version is NOT a listed reason to deny a Scout the MB.
To clarify, I’ve checked MBCs to make sure they were registered (due diligence) and notified council in the past when the offering “counselor” isn’t turning up as registered. Mostly it’s been expired YPT that dropped them, but there have been a few “never registered” who were offering paid programs, similar to what Julie noted. I concur that the Guide says the scout can’t be penalized if they believed the person to be a counselor. That’s a separate issue in my mind from verifying current registration to minimize the number of unregistered/non-current MBCs.
At the same time, the discussion here is kinda mooted by the way national legal wants it set up.
There’s more context here than can be shared publicly. I have no issues with your statements in general.
Alternatively, you could use zip code without their name. I understand that’s not as convenient as you are looking for, but it is how the privacy folks want it.
Thanks Jacob. That makes sense and it works somewhat.
I’m happy to consider this feature request discussion closed. It’s primarily an inconvenience. Thank you all for sharing your insight.
