eisely

My information is very fragmentary and limited to what little I have seen on line. So please bear with me if I have some of my facts wrong.

Apparently the Los Padres Council here in California (think Santa Barbara) is in the process of losing a law suit involving a pedophile in the ranks of the adult volunteers. This individual engaged in actual molestation of one or more scouts. The particular scout involved in the litigation was 13 at the time and is now 17. When parents complained, this volunteer was ousted.

Allegedly some senior scouter (I presume the Scout Executive) initially told the mother not to call the police. Apparently the police were at some point called. What happened after that I do not know.

According to the mother, this boy is still suffering the effects of the trauma, which may well be true.

She is blaming the BSA for failing to detect this individual and preventing the crime, and is seeking damages on behalf of her minor son.

The most recent newsworthy event in the litigation is that a local judge has ruled that BSA must turn over files on banned volunteers to the plaintiff. These files will be redacted to eliminate names. BSA has argued unsuccessfully that these files are irrelevant to the case, and contain unproven allegations and information. Information that was sufficient for BSA to ban membership, but not sufficient to support other actions. It is not clear from what I have seen whether these files will show a pattern of avoiding police investigations or not.

If there has been a pattern of steering complaining parents and youth away from law enforcement, then this does resemble how the Roman Catholic church has handled pedophilia over the years. One can understand the motivation to avoid the scandal of a police investigation, but the alleged actions of the executive made things worse rather than better.

Has anybody heard about this case or have better information?(This message has been edited by eisely)

It sounds like the adult leadership finally stepped up. The outcome is reasonable, although I would be harder on the knife throwing.

Several years ago at summer camp one of our new scouts threw a knife and hit a boy from another troop in the eye. Camp leadership immediately sent him home, and he was later terminated from troop membership. This boy was also a boy who needed scouting and would have benefited from it, but the safety of the larger group is the dominant consideration.(This message has been edited by eisely)

Some of this behavior is downright dangerous. I wonder what the local laws have to say about responsible adults being liable for NOT calling the police.

This guy needs to be suspended from all further events for the safety of the other scouts.

I wonder how the SM will handle the lad's eagle application when it is placed in front of him for signature.

Having a troop policy about who signs off on requirements met is not adding to or deleting from requirements. It is simply an administrative policy. In our troop, patrol leaders and other youth leaders do most of the signing off on T-2-1 requirements.

While the general proposition that the troop committee supports the program of the troop is correct, it is not fair or wise to characterize the Advancement person as merely a paper pusher. That person is the first line of defense against outright fraud. Tramthum did the right thing in bringing the matter to the attention of the SM. The AC should not decide these matters on his or her own authority.

There are circumstances where a parent signing off is appropriate and unavoidable. For example, on canoe expeditions I sign off on canoeing merit badge for those who complete the requirements during the trip. I am the only canoeing MB counselor present or reachable within many many miles. I have signed off two of my sons for the merit badge under these circumstances. I did take care ahead of time to inform the SM of my intentions. It has never been a problem.

However, it is a best practice for parents not sign off their own sons under normal circumstances. This serves two purposes. It ensures even handed treatment of the scout and it creates an opportunity for "adult association."

As Charlie Brown would say, "Good grief."

I too have received the solicitation and have not responded. I want some assurance that it is a legitimate organization first.

drmbear,

You must have been writing your post as I was writing mine. It is unfortunate that you feel that you did not learn anything. Our IOLS trainees finish the weekend with an entirely different attitude, and perhaps that reflects something about how your particular training cadre approached the course compared to what we do.

I have to confess that I was partially motivated to volunteer to do training since I went through a very disappointing "scoutmastership fundamentals" training years earlier in a different council. I told myself at the time that I could do better and that someday I would do better.

Maybe you ought to join the team.

Maybe I am missing something here, but I never expected either the Handbook or Fieldbook to contain everything one needs to know. The Handbook in particular is aimed at new scouts. I think there is an expectation that leaders, both adult and youth, will supplement the content as they think appropriate. I have been doing IOLS for over ten years now, and none of the volunteer instructors relies solely on the content of either the Handbook or Fieldbook. In fact we have several tables in the lodge covered with published resources of all kinds through which people can browse.

Nobody ever really learned outdoor skills solely from a book. The emphasis in training has to be on practical demonstrations and exercises in which the trainees can participate. Learning by doing is much more effective. This is the challenge for trainers. Coming up with meaningful demonstrations and practical exercises with limited time and no real guidance on how to teach, other than drawing on one's own experience.

I have been our district eagle project approval authority now for about a year. I think people are obsessing over something that is easily overcome.

During the last year I had one scout come back with a second project (using the old workbook) when the benefiting organization decided it no longer wanted the original project. No work had yet been done. Same beneficiary, different project, easily approved. The scout was not bitter or angry.

Another scout recently called me with about a month to go before his 18th birthday. I don't know what his original project was, but apparently it was a failure, and all were agreed that it was a failure. The benefiting organization would not sign the workbook that the project was completed. I had had no involvement in his first attempt. He came up with a new project that could be quickly executed and I approved it. His new project was processed using the new work book and procedures. No problem.

It is easy to see how some scout or family can game the system if they are determined to do so, but they could do that before and they can do that now. Human nature has not changed, just the process.

At summer camp where our troop goes, there is a patrol competition in various skills at the end of the week. The adults of each troop may compete against the other adults in other troop at the same events/skills competitions. I, who had never picked up a bow and arrow in my life prior to that week, came in second in the archery competition among adults that week. That says more about the archery skills amongst the adults generally than it does about me. I would say that the adult competition added to the overall fun.

I agree about the use of Type III pfds rather than Type II. The only real advantage of the Type II is the flotation the collar provides for the head of an unconscious person. That is also one of the reasons the Type II limits motion in paddling. You will not be paddling in the kinds of conditions where people getting knocked out is a serious risk.

I have to agree that offering long term summer camps, hopefully with a lot of activity options, is an important part of scouting. Whether any particular camp, or group of camps, is run efficiently or effectively is a different but related question.

Councils that own their own camps are fortunate. I know that our council's principal summer camp is on a long term ground lease from the Forest Service in the Sierras. Unfortunately the Forest Service for many years has allowed no new construction, which greatly complicates attempting to offer new and different camp programs.

Our council also owns the remnant of what was once a summer camp in the hills overlooking the San Francisco Bay. It is a very fine remnant and is very heavily used for all kinds of things, including CSDC and major training events. However, the council many decades ago decided to stop using it as a regular summer camp for the same kinds of reasons one hears today.

Boards of review should not be arbitrary barriers to advancement and opportunities for BORS should be frequent.

I don't think it is necessary for all the adults in a troop to drop everything and do a BOR right now just because some scout or parent demands it.

I have seen it done at troop meetings the same night as the request, depending on the availability of adults. I have also seen it done on a monthly basis where BOR dates were established on the troop calendar just like any other event. I don't think it would be adding to requirements to go with a fairly rigorous schedule, as long as scouts are not being held back by arbitrary constraints.

The troop I was with several years ago in southern California did the monthly thing. It was not uncommon to have three or four boards running simultaneously on the designated evening. As far as I know all the scouts were accommodated on a timely basis.

I also have seen a different problem more recently at the district level regarding eagle BORs. One large troop was making a practice of holding back eagle applications, often for months and submitting large batches of candidates for BORs and then not understanding when they can't all be done immediately. I think this is a very bad practice for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the potential problem of something happening to the paperwork while it sits around awaiting submittal.

BORs should be held timely, but I think troops have some flexibility in managing the overall process. Another reason for avoiding troop meeting nights is interfering with other planned activities for the troop meeting.

The idea of holding some BORs at summer camp as described in an earlier post has a great deal of appeal, depending on the availability of adults. That would make summer camp an even more special activity for the scouts involved.(This message has been edited by eisely)

This is a spin off from another thread that raises indirectly a related question.

How does your troop schedule boards of review? Do these occur at troop meetings or at separate designated times? If not at troop meetings, how often are BORs offered to the scouts? Who handles the scheduling? Who sits on the boards? How are BOR members recruited?

While a willingness to offer BORs at every troop meeting without prior notice makes it easy and convenient for the scouts, I can see a variety of negatives to this practice. Most important is keeping control of the process so the advancement coordinator is able to preserve some measure of sanity. Further I think it would send a different message to scouts about the seriousness of the BOR if these are not done on a "pickup" basis.

I could see offering BORs as often as monthly on a scheduled basis. This should be sufficiently frequent to accommodate the scouts and facilitate their taking on positions of responsibility on a timely basis. One could recruit and train the members of the BOR and also get a more consistent quality of the BOR process.

Thoughts anyone?

Buehler? Buehler?

I too do not care very much about same sex marriage. I care about the bigotry exhibited here in California by some same sex marriage proponents after the Prop 8 vote went against them in 2008. I also care about judges imposing same sex marriage, as the now out of the closet retired federal judge did who ruled prop 8 to be unconstitutional.

I don't care too much about the commercial aspect of the wedding industry. The government has already involved itself in such private business decisions regarding "public accommodations" in the civil rights laws overturning racial segregation, so it is not a big leap for the government to come down on service providers in the wedding industry regarding same sex marriage. Personally I hope the government at any level does not go there, but I think it will happen in some states.

Of greater concern is the government at any level trying to force religious acceptance of same sex marriage. Rabbis, ministers, imams and priests, and their affiliated religious establishments should have the right to refuse to perform such marriages.

We shall see.(This message has been edited by eisely)

There was a case in New Mexico a couple of years back. To my knowledge New Mexico does not recognize same sex marriage under that label but has a domestic partnership law. Anyway, a lesbian couple approached a photographer to cover their ceremony and the photographer refused. The lesbian couple successfully sued under anti discrimination laws of the state of New Mexico.

So the threat is real.

One may question the business acumen of a photographer turning down business in the first place, but at least in New Mexico anybody (photographer, baker, etc) catering to the wedding industry had best be careful whom they refuse.

There ought to be separate patch just for completing all the paperwork. However, since some computer did it for you, you would not qualify.

Some districts in our council use committees to review and approve eagle projects. Our district does not do so. I am the sole approval authority, and I have an alternate to whom I can refer people if necessary.

Based on what I have read in this thread, it is clear that the district added to the requirements and did so in a way that prevented discussion and completion of the project in time. Their bad. This young man deserves a chance to complete his project if he still wants to do so.

I personally set aside Monday evenings for meetings with aspiring eagle candidates; every week unless there is an unavoidable conflict. By setting aside Mondays and declining meetings on other days, I have regained some of my life back. These meetings and approvals normally take fifteen minutes, exactly what the current documents say.

When an eagle candidate calls or emails me, one of my first inquiries is "When is your 18th birthday?" I want to know what we are all up against. In at least one case that I can recall, I met with a lad who was about two months away from his 18th birthday on a date other than a Monday to expedite things.

I concede that those districts that have committees review projects probably get better projects more consistently than our district. But who needs the extra bureaucracy? If someone wanted me to deal with a separate committee set up for this purpose, I would respectfully decline and turn the responsibility over to someone else.

I got it, but I don't think it was particularly funny. The best wise crack I have heard regarding the captain of the cruise ship referred to him as the "chicken of the sea."

OGE,

I agree that coach Paterno was in a tough spot, but his position is a complete copout on his responsibilities. Merely pushing for a proper thorough investigation and notifying the authorities of a probable criminal act is not railroading anybody, unless the prosecutor and police are corrupt. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team fiasco? That did not involve minors, but fortunately the players' parents had the financial resources to fight the allegations, and the only person I am aware of who was actually convicted of anything is the now former DA.

John,

Are you including the vice president in that count? Including the VP would make it 537.

I concur with the other posts that there is no such restriction on the use of funds raised for the project. Such a use should be included in the budget and it would be a good idea to specifically call this to the attention of the beneficiary representative who will sign the proposal. Since any leftover funds will be turned over to the beneficiary, it really is their money.

Follow the suggestion and ask for the alleged policy in writing.

You know what Manatees do in water don't you?

Our district advancement chair and I visited a local troop just last night. This troop has 22 life scouts in the pipeline and they have an annual meeting for life scouts and parents to discuss the eagle process. The point I emphasized is the same made elsewhere in this thread. As the scout moves ahead with his project, he is going to write stuff down in his planning process. Use the workbook as intended.

Make it easy for the EBOR and use the workbook. There should not be any hang ups about using the workbook since that is what EBOR expects to see. Any scout who has a work book that is essentially blank except for signatures risks being turned down outright or being deferred until he provides more documentation. Why put oneself through that?

Fred 8033's advice is also well taken. Save everything that backs up what you actually put into the workbook. If the workbook is well presented it is unlikely you will be asked about those details, but you should have supporting receipts, schedules, etc. available if you really need them.

Two points:

When Bush made recess appointments, the media was all over it denouncing him. Now the liberal mainstream media thinks its just great.

The law in question establishing this new regulatory agency, stipulates that before the agency becomes fully independent from the Treasury, the director must be confirmed by the Senate. I believe that is Section 1066. So anything that Cordray does is subject to legal challenge.

It is not just a matter of being sore losers. Any law carrying the names of Dodd and Frank claiming to be financial reform is highly highly suspect. Of all the politicians of either party, Dodd and Frank bear the most blame for the financial collapse of 2008. It was passed before the 2010 election with essentially no support from the republicans. So we shall see what happens. I think consumers will be very upset when they see how much this new regulatory boondoggle will cost them, if it gets that far.