Jump to content

Open Discussion - Program

Share Scouting Topics here.


Subforums

  1. Scouts with Disabilities

    Where parents and scouters go to discuss unique aspects to working with kids with special challenges.

    747
    posts
  2. Going to the next Jamboree?

    A place to chat about Scouting's biggest gathering

    2.8k
    posts

9231 topics in this forum

    • 2 replies
    • 474 views
  1. General thoughts 1 2 3 4

    • 51 replies
    • 1.8k views
    • 6 replies
    • 502 views
    • 49 replies
    • 2.6k views
    • 22 replies
    • 1.4k views
    • 15 replies
    • 765 views
    • 9 replies
    • 548 views
    • 0 replies
    • 372 views
    • 18 replies
    • 756 views
    • 17 replies
    • 873 views
  2. GAMEBOYS ? 1 2

    • 29 replies
    • 1.4k views
    • 3 replies
    • 388 views
    • 37 replies
    • 1.5k views
    • 9 replies
    • 597 views
  3. Late recognition

    • 5 replies
    • 559 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Just FYI: We are now at or near 300 letters from abuse victims filed with the court in the last week 10 days. Most, if not all, appear to be based on a request from AVA Law Group/Abused in Scouting/Andrew Van Arsdale to make such submissions. Anyone think that this is going to stop with 300 letters? Nope.  
    • I'm not sure that the structure for Units with respect to COs is all that different from similar programs that rely on volunteers for the program to run. I'm part of a troop and pack chartered by a Catholic parish. The pastor always knew who the unit leaders and/or committee chairs were.   But he only knew them as well as he knew the other volunteer program heads.  He certainly knows who the Athletic Director is, but he doesn't necessarily know and certainly doesn't select all the various and sundry coaches, or at least to the extent he does he knows them, it's as parishioners not because they're coaches.  The same would hold true for the Girl Scouts, Girls On the Move, and various other youth groups. For all these groups there's someone that's the head and then the organizations are essentially self selecting and self sustaining.  The same is going to hold true outside the parish setting in the wider community.  There's a volunteer in charge of all the local rec league sports, who came up through the coaching ranks, who accepts almost whatever parent volunteer wants to coach.  The same is going to hold true for 4H, FFA, etc Without arguing whether these are good or bad models, my point is that the scouting model isn't particularly different nor would it be expected to have any worse outcomes than all these other organizations.  Unless you're actually hiring someone into a paid position where you're going to be interviewing, vetting, performance reviewing, etc., you're probably relying on the self selection of the volunteers and the self policing of most of the behavior.
    • Interesting, I was reading the thread about CO support of units and it reminded me of the struggle we had with our CO. It started out good, but we started seeing a trend toward less support. That was OK so long as we had facilities for meetings, but, then the CO started charging us for meetings outside of regular weekly troop meetings. Then they started asking us to pay for damages caused by  our scouts. Turns out it was the Girls Scouts and the church youth groups causing the damage, but that didn't stop them from putting tighter requirements on us. After several failed attempts to improve our relationship with the CO, we finally told the DE to get ready because we were searching for a new CO to get away from hostility of the present CO hostile. Our troop was the fastest growing troop in the council at the time, so our request lit a fire under council. Long story short, we were told the pastor of the church had a bad experience with his son in Cub Scouts some 20 years earlier and he didn't want the BSA in his church. We also learned he was an activist for gay ministers, but they didn't say how much that may have contributed to the hostility. I don't know the politics or details for changing the relationship with the scouts, but the church committee gave us a new COR and a promise of good relations. I was told that the bigger financial contributors of the church may have had some influence. And, not to long after, the church got a new pastor. Rumor was the church didn't like his activism. But, who knows, church politics are complicated. His attempt to kill the BSA in the church backfired because the COR, true to his word of support, started a new Cub program in the church. The church was also recognized a couple of years later with having the biggest older scout program in the council. That was an example of what someone with influence and a sour taste for the BSA can do to a scouting unit.  Barry
    • "Understanding," as conditions of the policies or by implication? Wouldn't that be a policy by policy and heavily fact-based assessment? I get the general argument, but I still don't buy any blanket defense of coverage denial. They continued to gladly accept premiums-o-plenty far, wide and in the middle of the country. "Cha-Ching! Cha-Ching!"
    • Both. The insurance companies provided their policies with an understanding that BSA would supervise these adults and utterly failed to do so and let in whomever, whenever, wherever. Moreover, it is clear that BSA KNEW IT HAD A PEDOPHILE PROBLEM and did nothing to tighten up this mess. The concern was numbers: they did not and will not check to see if CORs are in fact exercising oversight. Instead, they just crossed their fingers and hoped. That obviously did not work.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...