fred8033

Wow. That doc was a fascinating read. Creepy. With business partners like that there is no possibility of justice.

This is one of the few ways that I could see as a fair recompense for the past. I just don't think you can compensate fair / correctly for things that happened in the past. But, perhaps some action like this would be a "fair" and "protective" for the benefit of people using these bases / properties.

For Philmont, this could easily fit into the Antiquities Act as a Philmont trek is a recreation of many historic ways of living. While I love BSA having this property for high adventures, making it available to the nation as an adventure option is a great idea.

Philmont should become Philmont National Park. I'd visit.

"Some" was about money / reputation ... but I just don't accept that as a broad statement. It's definitely not an automatic dishonest / not trustworthy. Ask anyone in HR, the legal profession or taking responsibility.

Perhaps I'm not understanding. What statement was a lie? That sounds more like an aggressive interpretation of the past than a specific lie. Where was scouting less safe than pretty much any other organization? I don't know any scouter than abused kids, but I do know teachers, coaches, private music teachers, etc that did. I just don't accept that scouting was less safe than other community organizations.

Again a personnal choice ... if you wear red loops, find matching red troop numbers. Yes interchangable per BSA, but you do look want to look sharp and consistent. And, not like the proverbial Johnny Cash free Cadillac that he picked up at the factory.

So what should have BSA done? Not try? Doing that is a legal and moral liability itself. It really seems like BSA is dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Yeah, I hugely disagree with you. in the 1980s, if a teacher got kicked out of a school they could find a job in another state or another district. Or apply at a private school. Or start as a substitute with lower level checks and get back in. ... Trouble as a youth minister in a church, then start attending another church and slowly volunteer with kids again. ... Starting to get strange looks at the YMCA, apply at another YMCA. There were no and still are not any large national registries tracking rumored bad people. Only recently (late 1990s) did states and national government create registries tracking sexual predators. Only very recently were they easily searchable.

In public opinion, BSA would be hur trying to defend the past. In court, I don't know. But in my conversations with my friends and co-scout leaders, I must admit I'll never stop trying to put context to this. ... Wrong is wrong. Abuse is wrong. But hindsight is easy. Who could have expected BSA to be forced into bankrupcy and accused of fault for inaction because of having a system that tried to exclude bad leaders and tried to document the reasons. Legally BSA would have been safer to not try to track abusers and definitely not keep documentation ... like the past schools and legal systems back then. The youth would have been worse off, but BSA would have been better off. I'm still surprised that BSA did not create a document retention policy to avoid become a target for fishing. This happened for most companies back in the 1990s. But then again, who "back then" would have thought BSA would be liable for trying to maintain a system to exclude abusers before other companies, schools, and groups had such systems. SOL is important because legal situations like BSA is in are inconceivable back when most of these abuse cases were happening by abusers who were volunteers and vouched for by other local organizations and the crimes not really pursued by others involved, by families or by the law. It really is inconceivable.

To ThenNow, I'd bet there are many similar reasons ... not wanting people to judge their kid when accusing such an upright adult ... so sick that it can't be true ... don't want to be "that" family ... or the family that caused problems for their church, school, community ... or just don't want to be associated with it. ... family dynamics are large and ugly at times. ... And those parents were kids when pregnant women were not really to be seen in public and out-of-wedlock daughters would be shipped away to have their kid. ... Only in 1978 did it become illegal to fire a woman for getting pregnant. Though uncouth before, sexual harassment was outlawed around 1977. Things have drastically changed in the last fifty years. Wrong is wrong, but judging the past is hard.

You are applying today's rightful indignation to things that happened a long time ago. An era where the kids were doubted and blamed for accusing nice upstanding people. An era where people commonly drove drunk. Where men were understood to have certain rights over their wives. Where banks commonly denied based on race or religion. Where many things are viewed today as ghastly that back then were just things you deal with. Today is a different time. Period. Looking back, it's hard to know when police were called and not. In the pseudo case provided, the parent could have called the police. Other troop leaders. The charter org. For all we know, someone did. Other discussions occurred. This is why SOLs exist. Times change. Details are lost. Expectations change. Today's righteous indignation is often about feeling better about ourselves at the cost of those who came before. The past is far from perfect, but it's a fool who judges harshly thinking they are better than the past.

If a PR war happened, it should be about BSA having a structure to try to prevent re-entry of dangerous adults decades before the public, the teachers, the doctors and the politicians were recognizing the issue.

Thank you. That's triggering a lot of reading. Supreme court decision from 1798. I'm still reading on this. It is truly a complex topic. I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer. I confused when I read things such as this: "The cases cited hold that the ex post facto effect of a law cannot be evaded by giving a civil form to that which is essentially criminal." ... I'm still wondering how this is all possible.

Personal choice. Both are valid. I prefer the green as they are iess "flashy". Red reminds me of a 1970s style. It's always been a bit "iffy" as all past uniforms are still valid. BUT, I never ready about mixing and matching. At some point, the most important thing is your troop looks sharp and similar. Look at your troop and youth. If "ALL" leaders are wearing red, maybe you want red. If some are each color and youth are mostly green, maybe wear green. Your choice. I prefer the green as it's less flashy.

QUESTION ... I was reading on retroactively extending SOL. Am I correct to interpret a difference between criminal and civil SOL? Or a specific person SOL versus an institution? I'd like to better understand the topic. I've read Supreme Court rulings about extending to apply criminal charges, but not found the specific about extending for institutional civil cases like the BSA's situation. Pointing to an article I could ready would be fine.

My apologies. I did not mean to indicate you had not communicate. Sometimes our scout's families subvert the very program we are trying to establish. My key points were about this should not be in G2SS.

Many of us have been in your shoes. Years when I enjoyed scouting. Years that sucked because I was not part of the "click". Or, I was treated bad because I was friends with someone the other person did not like. Even more similar, times where I really enjoyed scouting and then took the next step and it did not work out. It was hard to enjoy scouting after that bad experience. My suggestions. Focus on your son. Enjoy his company. Don't worry if he's not perfect or if you're not perfect. No one is. Enjoy your time together. Focus on yourself. If being Cubmaster is not fun, step back. That's okay. Someone else can up then. If scouting is not a positive in you and your families life, it's okay to find somewhere else for your family. Talk to your wife. Talk with friends.

I agree with your disruption point and your example is meaningful. My issue is putting the rule in Guide To Safe Scouting, Abuse, etc. Are we saying the scout is not safe with the mom? Are we saying parents should not be allowed to take their kids out of camp because it endangers the troop? ... "barring medical exceptions" Are we saying a non-emergency medical condition allows ignoring Guide To Safe Scouting rules ? Radically, I'm going to assert ... Scouts are safe with their mom and dad. Troops have zero authority to override parents in such decisions on the basis of "safety" or "abuse". Bar it on troop policy or that it would interrupt the program. Bar it because the parents did not communicate well. Just not on "abuse" or "safety". Your example is of poor communication and subverting the program. Troops need to work with parents to encourage letting scouts have their own experiences and to let scouts interact with scouts. I'd be very very upset with the parents. My issue is it should be somewhere else, not in G2SS.

"Turned in about 5 applications" ... I'm thinking it's less IT Systems; less Record keeping and more process. From what I've seen, if the application gets to the registrars office, it's recorded. Where I've seen things can get lost are these. App gets turned into a unit leader. Unit leader forgets or misplaces. App then gets turned into district exec at round table or somewhere else. DE forgets or misplaces. App reaches registrar's office and sits in unit registration folder without being entered ... Because ... missing signature on app missing signature on permission to do background check missing youth training protection certificate no funds to pay for BSA registration Unit leader is contacted to get signatures / fix. No response and it sits. Can get lost then. Sometimes apps are shuffled into the wrong pile. I did see that happen once when I was in the registrars office. Once. I'm hoping the new direct online registration system solves these issues.

I cringe at this. I remember reading it before and thinking: Yeah right. It's G2SS and in a section on "Youth Protection and Barriers to Abuse FAQs". Scouts can't share a tent with their parent because we are trying to protect them from their parent or sibling ? The trouble is someone inserted a program goal as a YP rule. Plus, YP should not include things that units can't really enforce. The G2SS also says we are mandatory reporters. And if a serious policy violation is made, we need to report it. Who wants to be the scouter calling the SE about a YP violation because a scout went into the tent with his parent? ... It's in a section on abuse. If it's a YP rule, then we need to follow-up with the procedure. I'm 100% for encouraging and even having troop rules for scouts camping independently from their parents. I hugely favor that ... mainly because I don't want to clean up after my kid at camp too. My issue is having this in the YP rules. Someone messed up with documenting it there.

Deleted. Old point. Nothing new.

Sadly, our first-time participants were also our last-time participants. Scouting is a short program. The years go quick. For my family, there was one-chance for high adventure. We could not afford multiple ... dollars, time, fund-raising, etc. I love Sea Base because of where we live. Our troop has done lots of hiking and once a year backpacking. trip So, Philmont was cool, but not a big driver for us. Northern Tier trips are cool, but we do canoeing regularly in our troop. Sea Base is unique because it does not overlap and because of scale and the absolutely different lifestyle in the keys.

Large overlap. With one son, I did Munson Island. Another son did Sea Exploring. I'm glad my son and I got to do the 5 mile (??) canoe to / from the island. That was cool. The big difference I see is with Munson you are anchored to the island for five days with all activities based around the island. The sixth day is the canoe back to the base, sleeping in domitories, A SHOWER, and a luau. Keys Adventure you get to shower each night, sleep in air conditioning and more diverse activities. When we were there in August, it chilled down at night to just below 90 with an 85 degree dew point. It was nasty. Nothing dried for a week. It was not comfortable and I was exhausted at the end of the week. BUT, it was a great time and an easy high adventure. If I had to choose again "for scouts", I'd do Monson island. Shark fishing. Probably more scuba on beautiful reefs. Lots of one-time activities. I can do many of the the Keys Adventures another time as a vacation. Then again, a shower every night is extremely welcome after spending the whole day in high humidity and a good night sleep is valued. IMHO ... it's a choice between being uncomfortable for the week and a vacation. I still have my shirt from that trip. I've put it on a few times. It still feels like it has things embedded in it that grew on that trip.

Love your ideas. I really like the idea of having the scouts cook. I'm betting ... when we did ours as a picnic / pot-luck, we could have recruited scouts three / four scouts from every troop to help cook / contribute. That would have been great.

I'm betting someone submitted it to an events calendar and it got entered. ... And, it just has not been removed yet.