fred8033

In my view, this is just not controversial anymore. The world changed a long time ago. BSA also changed; just some pretend it hasn't. We've had female scoutmasters, female summer camp staff and female professional scouters for decades. Now, we pretend to have separate boys and girls troops, but most interact regularly. They definitely interact at district / council functions. ... We are way past BSA is a boys only club. If boys-only troop wants to exist, more power to them. Go for it. If boys only patrols want to exist, fine. ... I fear a hard single-gender patrols a rule will just be circumvented just like the current separate boy troop and girl troops that are really interacting together. Scouting is about adventure, skills, fun with benefits for leadership, independence, responsibility, etc, etc. ... I do not see gender as a deal breaker.

@InquisitiveScouter ... Trademark is only if we are confusing consumers to our sales advantage. We are not selling. It's like buying a Volkswagen for your own use and putting a Jaguar emblem on it. It's my car and my choice. Probably tacky to put a Jaguar emblem on VW bug, but not a trademark infringement. Definitely not aN ethical issue. ... BUT ... If we work as a middle man and then sell the shirts to others, then it is a trademark issue. Also, it does not have to be an exact match. Different font? Slightly different wording? Does it even really need the BSA emblem there? IMHO, if it's clean and neat, I'm happy. BSA has captive customers. The pricing reflects that. Prices are too high because overhead cost for the shops is high and the volume is too low.

A Scout is thrifty. $19 versus $49. I would be hugely tempted. Looks slightly different, but just minor. The biggest issue is it does not have the red stitched BSA on the shirt. Is that bad? IMHO, I bet I could find a mom with a sewing machine that can automatically add the emblem after the fact for cheap; or free within the unit.

Yeah. There is nothing healing in this process. Whether you believe BSA was at fault or you believe BSA was trying to do more than other organizations at the time, the fact is this process is damaging to many. I really doubt lawsuits litigating incidents from 20+ years ago. 30+ years? 40+ years? Society and laws and expectations have changed so so much. The only lives changed are in the law firms and the insurance companies.

Demeaning and bullying is inferring that the many who have not heard of the term are somehow less or old or uneducated or an isolated religious sect. You can discuss the term without being mean. ... That's me being an upstander. The term was rarely used in society before the last few years. I've taken years of classes thru business, college and post-graduate work. My kids just graduated a major school system a few years ago. I am very well educated. ... The fact is the term was rarely used until recently. It's why I strongly assert it's strongly connected with a political agenda.

You asked ... What do you disagree with in Citz in Society MB? Requirement #1 ... Defining terms Terms are loaded for specific political views and objectives. Equity versus Equality is a difference that not everyone agrees with. Upstander is a made up woke term. Let's pull in conservative terms to balance the debate. Focusing on "Identities" leads naturally to "Identity Politics" which is something both the far left and the right reject. Marxist and Socialist groups criticize as it's divisional. Conservative criticize because it's prejudicial. Requirement #2 & #3 & #4 ... Leadership and ethical decision making and ... Isn't this all of scouting? How to be a leader? How to be kind? How to be considerate? Why is this reduced to a specific badge. It should be everywhere in scouting. Requirement #6 ... Wow. In my past, that would have been reaching out to a Lutheran or a Democrat. Is that enough? Perhaps we should require those from non-military families to interview those in the military to understand why they choose to serve? ... Or do we just want shallow skin deep definitions? ... At some point, we are all different than each other in some way. Requirement #7 onward ... just too much to pick apart. Effectively ... these are setup to burn a specific political view into the youth. Perhaps I'd be okay with Citz in Society if we balance the politics in others badges. Perhaps Citizen in the Nation ... New requirement ... Find the current price of a gallon of gas and break that cost apart into various piece parts. Direct state and federal gas taxes. Sales tax for the car receiving the gas. Annual license plate cost for that car. ... Taxes for the piece of land the gas station sits on. Employment taxes for the people working at the gas station. Deed transfer taxes for when the gas station bought the land. Inspection fees for building the building. .... Permit fees to build the building ... Identify all the taxes involved for the local gas station to sell a gallon of gas. Citz in the Society has some good parts that should be included in other badges. Beyond that, Citizen in the Society is teaching a specific political view that just pushes me and mine away.

100% agree. BSA requirement is for the scout to have the skill to advance. There is no requirement for the scout to be instructed. Heck, an ideal scout owns their own skill development by reading or learning thru any method they can. Is your process egregious? No. Will it be a huge red flag? No. ... It escalates as an issue when scout / troop conflict exists. I saw this every year. Scouts would escalate advancement issues to the Council Advancement Committee requesting approval to pursue Eagle beyond age 18 because the troop delayed the scout with extra hoops that added weeks / months of delay. ... I don't know if it would happen to your troop, but it does happen to other troops. ... A good CAC would can find in favor of the scout giving the scout a few months to six months because the troop did not do right by the scout.

From my experience, the right person can fix blockers / obstacles within a very short time.

Your statement is so true in so many ways. The legal process adds damage for everyone. It's hard to watch. Worse, many attorneys and their firms have already been paid tens of millions in this case. Now, it could start over. Bankruptcy cost so far well over $100 million ??? Wishing you the best thru all this.

So, 8,400 voted no and are being forced into a settlement that releases all 3rd party liability. ... It's always a few that protect the rights of many. So, it may be only two lawyers, but it's not that clear cut. ... There is always the question of whether the 60,000 voters are real or part of the massive infomercial victim expansion. It's best for BSA if this moves forward and the bankruptcy is done. On the flip side, 3rd party releases is questionable. I'd personally rather not see it exist. It allows for these massive cases that pervert the courts.

Does that include the previous invoiced and paid expenses thru the bankruptcy court proceedings over the last several years that is probably outside the 2.4 billion settlement? Other administrative costs of the settlement administrators? 1 billion of 2.4 billion is about 42%. I'm betting if everything is factored in, it is really significantly higher.

Just a note ... The SM would be the quality controller for the overall process used by the unit, but the specific facts for an individual scout. For an individual scout, the SM would only see the completed advancement records during the SMC. SMC is not pass / fail. Just acknowledgement the SMC happened. So, all requirements are signed. It would be inappropriate for a SM to block a specific scout or for the SM to say a signature is invalid. Perhaps, the BOR could inject and say a requirement was not really completed; i.e. a PLC signature is invalid. But, it's not the place of a SM during SMC to quality control an individual scout.

I could support the scout's signing off on scout spirit, active in your troop and serve actively. Also, you can minimize BORs. Just because it says three adult committee members doesn't mean it needs to be 30+ minutes. It could be five minutes of three committee members. ... The one I would strongly suggest never to dilute is the scoutmaster conference. The scoutmaster needs to know the scouts and hear what they say. Period.

I tend to agree. Lower rank BORs should be done by the youth leadership in the troop. I do wish BSA would re-design to the old world concept.

Policy? No. It's just very, very different than how almost all other troops work. It will raise dozens of questions that can escalate. #1 Make sure you don't call it a Court of Honor or a Board of Review (BOR). ... Scouts still need to sit in front of a BOR comprised of three to six adults that confirms requirements are met. ... Your troop is just creating a PLC meeting agenda item where they review scout spirit. ... #2 All scouts don't sit in the PLCs; just the SPL, PLs and a few others. So the scouts needing advancement won't be there for the PLCs. So, how do you handle that? Is it just a list of scouts that need scout spirit signed off? An agenda item to be voted on? #3 Troops should not put time-delay-like-hoops in front of the scout. It should be as easy as the scout asking the SM to sign off on scout spirit. Now if SM is not there, I can understand days or a week delay until the scout and SM are in the same place. ... Anything that causes a month plus delay (such as a non-PLC scout attending a PLC) is strongly against the spirit of advancement and the explicit rules ... but you could have impromptu PLCs at each and ever troop meeting / activity / event. ... Scout could walk up to SPL and ask SPL to sign. SPL grabs a few PLs and has the discussion then and there. Ideally, immediately signing off on scout spirit. #4 Scout spirit exists as a catch all for the SM to address issues and as a discussion framework for the SM conference. If the PLC signs off, then the SM can't block / delay / use that requirement as a focus point for discussion and improvement. No testing completed requirements. Essentially, the SM will lose their catch-all flexibility to address concerns. ... Example, scout has a requirement to have a SM conference; not to "pass" the conference. Any discussion can be used. And the discussion having happened is completing the requirement to have a SMC. #5 The 1954 reference is way, way out of date; 70 years out of date. * Court of Honor is a award ceremony; not a test. The correct term now is a Board of Review. * Boards of review is different now. * an administrative review that the requirements are completed (not re-evaluating completed requirements) * a discussion about the scout's experience. Goal is to get feedback for troop and encourage the scout; NOT judge the scout. * a celebration also. Wow. Look how far you got. Nice work. Congratulations. * not a pass/fail. Though BORs can refuse (should be extremely rarely) to advance a scout, don't expect BSA support. * In my 15 plus years, it only happened once or twice with hundreds of scouts. * PLC does NOT sit in BORs.

Agreed and extended. #1 It's also to encourage scouting and discourage claiming family vacations to complete requirements. This is a continual battle in scouting ... often with the parents chasing requirements. ... Also, proper supervision? Proper execution? (scouts leading, not adults, etc). So for your example, yes it's okay to have two or three dads with their sons doing a special campout to complete the requirements as long as the scouts talk to their merit badge counselor and/or scoutmaster to make it a designated scouting activity; with a strong preference to get the approval before the event. IMHO, the merit badge counselor would be primary as the MBC signs off on the requirement / expectations. If I was the MBC, it would be the that the scouts make the plans and are the driving force in the event; that the activity was more scout-like and less vacation / resort like. ... On the flip side, the scoutmaster can approve it as a "scouting activity". It just gets muddied then as the scout confirmed with the scoutmaster, but the MBC might not accept the event as completing the requirement for some other reason. #2 One final note ... BSA requirements are legalistic because everyone is always gaming the system, but our working with scouts is NOT to be legalistic. We help the scouts. We encourage, guide and inspire the scouts. We do have lots of flexibility so that we can encourage, guide and inspire. ... In this case, the scoutmaster / MBC can wave their magic wand and say it's a designated scout activity. ... In this case, it's a kind heart that would be talking with the scout to see if a different path exists to complete the requirements.

Dead on right.

Correct. Resentment might be workable (even though it's very, very real and alive). The real issue is BSA and GSA are only similar in name; not much else. Might as well say BSA should merge with 4H or Civil Air Patrol or Boys and Girl Clubs or etc, etc, etc.

Yep. Almost always lame. Good maybe for 1st year troop scouts. Otherwise only good is getting together and seeing other scouts / adults. The actual event itself is almost always has zero or often less than zero value. Love that answer. IMHO, adventure makes scouting fun and valuable.

Our critiques were done at the annual planning event. Key to that was to keep the other adults out of it ... ideally well away. ... Scouts will shut down giving way to adults. ... IMHO ... it's not just an issue during critiques. It's for how the whole troop runs. The scouts need confidence that they own and run the troop; with friendly safe guidance by their SM. Scouts that don't speak up is often a reflection of other issues. Best thing to do is only have the scoutmaster involved during the planning and reviews. The challenge is getting the other adults to trust the SM and stay out of it.

Don't see this as bad. See if there is an option to provide a great experience for the few remaining scouts for the time they have left. See if there are any options like being a patrol under another troop. A key is don't take this as a big negative statement for you and yours. There is a magical mix in scouts. People. Recruiting. Experiences. When things shift, it can kill troops. The key is you and your troop provide great experiences for the scouts you have. Then, when they are gone, they are gone. It's okay to close down. You have not failed.

Are the scouts in the patrol strong friends? Patrol communication happens naturally when it's friends. They find solutions and make it work. Even if there are just four or five that are good friends, they find ways to communicate and bring the new members in. Scouts that are not friends can't be forced to communicate. In those cases, one or two scouts get frustrated trying to communicate and might give up. Then, the parents drive involvement. ... so ... Are these scouts friends? Do they naturally reach out to each other? OR, are they assigned to their patrol and only chat during scheduled patrol activities. IMHO, solve the communication by growing the patrol connections.

Let your scouts decide. ... Trust your scouts ... and don't think you can control them. They will communicate how they want. Plus, their choosing how to communicate is part of their team forming and storming. It's what we really want out of our scouts: their solving and owning their activities. As unit leaders, the question is how much do we communicate to the parents. A troop schedule with mtgs, events and activities? Costs? Other?

That's the key phrase. I'm a stickler for YP and G2SS. Fundraising? Much less so. In my 15+ years as a unit leader, we never filled out the fundraiser application for our unit sales (not popcorn).

Apologist? Yes for our parents, police, schools, churches, society, and many, many youth organizations that repeatedly failed children for decades. Uniquely calling BSA out on this is wrong.