fred8033

The quote is the rule, but the application is confusing. Backcountry is about extricating a person in an emergency. Sea Base is not called out in the rule when Philmont is explicitly named. Sea Base activities are often where a rescue boat can pull right up to the scout ship or Munson island. So, does "backcountry" apply? ... Many resident scout camps could be considered far more back country than Sea Base. IMHO, use the Sea Base participant guide for clarity.

I know Philmont does that. Does Sea Base? I just looked in the Sailing participant guide. It says 295; not by height. FAQ --> https://www.bsaseabase.org/scouts/resources/faq/ Sailing guide (page 5) --> https://www.bsaseabase.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2022-Sailing-Participant-Guide-.-Editable.pdf

Lion and Tiger dens of less than eight are problematic as the den usually doesn't survive to Webelos / AOL. Lose one or two a year. By Webelos, you are at two or three scouts. The den folds. IMHO, get your daughter into a healthy den / pack. At some point, it's about your own kid's experience. The years go very, very quick. Really. It's not worth fighting a bad situation. Sometimes it's better to let a den or pack die fast; than to drag it out.

LOL. Like we haven't. Stop trying to chastise. Be part of a conversation. Like many hot topic Wikipedia pages, the page is littered with inflammatory, inaccurate statements. Quotes taken from news feeds over years without checking if the news feed was right. The first statement talking about abuse says 92,000 cases (CNN). PBS put the number at 80,000. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-upholds-boy-scouts-2-4-billion-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan#:~:text=More than 80%2C000 men have,the bankruptcy process was manipulated.) Missing is the late night infomercial marketing; the lawyers not vetting claims; etc. The number is definitely higher than expected, but the 92,000 is wrong. Even the 80,000 seems extremely improbable.

Sounds just like every Disney video from the 1950s talking about adults in town. The trusty grocery. The helpful police officer. The guiding teacher. And the ones we'd watch in elementary school with Mr. Science. Everyone taught kids to revere adults. The difference is BSA published a book with the words written down. Now, people hold it up as "evidence". IMHO, that's sad. It's just how people talked back then when marketing.

That's really not true. Teachers. Football coaches and coaches from pretty much every sport. Police. etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

This is where we differ. With so many cases reported to police and a consistent effort to stop the perpetrators, I just don't believe BSA had any more responsibility than the rest of society. Police (paid professionals that handle crime) and teachers (paid professionals that work with kids) also failed to advocate for change. Heck, we still see teachers arrested weekly for abuse and that's decades of CSA and mandatory reporting. It's not about blaming victims. It's about an accurate narrative.

The evolution of child protection laws is fascinating. AND, not easy to quickly learn. It's important to remember that the 1960s mandatory reporting targeted Battered Child Syndrome. Thus, physicians were required to report. Then, the fear became the 1970s / 1980s Stranger Danger. Then, pornography. Mandatory reporting slowly extended to teachers. Then, other child care professions. It's only the 1990s or even early 2000s when CSA was the main concern and that mandatory reporting was extended to everyone involved: coaches, scout leaders, etc. ... The point is CSA was really not on mandatory reporting radar until relatively recently. Decades after many of these cases.

It's not about dishonesty. It's about applying the standards, knowledge, laws, etc from the time when events occurred. It's about holding all involved parties involved equally liable. Instead, this is a deep pocket grab using legal interpretations that did not exist often until decades later where a large amount of the cash will be going to the legal system itself.

IMHO ... it's what scout camps do and many specially offered MB programs. Heck, that's how scout camps have 17 year old scouts teaching MBs. The only big danger is it could put much more control of the scout's advancement in the unit's hands. Not a good thing as the MB concept is not part of unit advancement program. It's supposed to be scout owned.

Create a new "General MBC" registration? Perhaps we need to rethink MBC registration. A "General MBC" acknowledges they will not be the subject expert, but rather commit to supporting the scout by finding knowledgeable people who can pass on knowledge; attend meetings to fulfill YPT and then be the signer that acknowledges the scout fulfilled the MBC requirement. IMHO, it's not a big change. We already have most troops with warm bodies teaching badges without any special connection to the topic. Many troops I knew could cover 30+ merit badges internally and always 100% of the Eagle required.

The most important real role of the CO was scouting advocacy. CO gets to boast they support scouting. Community sees scouting in that CO. CO feels like they should do something (space, money, consideration) for their scouting unit. IMHO, BSA created the chartering model as tool to get support for scouting more than to oversee the unit. It's more marketing than oversight. But it can also be a real youth program in the CO too.

It seems wrong only because so few units actually do it, but it's fully within the CO's right. Scouts really have two membership connections. One to BSA. One to the CO. BSA has membership criteria. The CO can also have their own separate membership criteria. No unit is forced to accept any specific leader or any specific scout. IMHO, this should not be surprising. The CO is chartering a unit and is accepting both responsibility to do well by the unit but also expecting to setup the unit to be compatible with their CO.

Nice thoughtful response. Thank you. Perhaps some thoughtful open discussion over coffee and a scone would be nice. Treat a few people to Caribou coffee. Or just stay late after a meeting and chat. It sounds like vision is different. You helped start the unit with one long-term view. Now, the CO wants to make the units more part of the CO religious purpose. Be open. If it's not your view, then ask (and ask nicely) will there be a place for you and your scouts in the future unit. Practice saying it nicely, but open conversation helps. Let them know that their actions could cause a rift as existing members might have a different view. The CO runs the unit, but the CO can't hijack the members to convert to the CO theology. ... I remember camping with one unit that was not the same faith as my family. Every Sunday morning was the CO church service at camp. All scouts were expected to attend. It was okay once or twice. Beyond that, it was not a good fit for my son. One key point ... Bypassing the CC is bad. It adds a lot of work for the SM. SM is to work with the scouts. SM is not the end all be all of a unit. A good unit committee is key and that committee is led by the CC. As for banking, is the CO realizing they can have tens of thousands of dollars flowing thru their treasurer. Lots of small transactions? A solid troop can easily have $30k to $50k to way more going thru the bank account. Keeping the funds structurally separate in a different account can really help. Same with a pack. Our pack in 2010 easily had $25k flowing thru checking. $20k in fundraising gross. Camp fees for 30 cubs. Event costs. Dues for 50+ cubs. It adds up quick.

I agree with previous leader who's name I can't copy because of special characters. #1 Email - My thought is it enables the term limits. Scouts and families get used to emailing scoutmaster@mycharter.net. When scoutmaster changes, the communication change is invisible to them. It's a good idea. #2 Banking - Lots of extra work for CO treasurer. "Account" can be interpreted many ways, but the CO agreement does strongly strongly infer a separate bank account. IMHO, if the funds can be cleanly tracked separately, then perhaps it's okay. I'd still strongly prefer a separate troop account and a separate pack account. That separates the volunteers and the funds. It lets the everyone have a strong trust that the money is going the right direction. #3 Fixed terms & #4 Working with CO instead of COR - That's their right. They could just name the CO Exec as the COR. Or the CO senior elder as the COR. At some point, it's a name game and preferred structure. Key point is unit is under the CO. Be friendly and work together. What I see is the CO is actually trying to make scouting part of the CO. That should be good. The perceived problems are because BSA and the unit leaders never really treat the COs as the unit owners. BSA and the unit leaders prefer to give a wink and a nod to the agreement. ... The problem is words matter. Contracts matter. The org is "chartering" the unit. It's their unit. They have real responsibility. There will be growing pains, but work together.

You wrote "with". Did you mean "will" as the council WILL appoint the same individual? I'd get that fixed. This feels like a way for the existing COR to stay involved; essentially self-interest by the COR. Also, I am confused. It feels strange for the COR to provide negative feedback to the council when the COR is the person selecting the leaders and then staying at arms length. The COR should not be complaining about the unit to the council as the COR can replace the unit leadership and the COR should not be seeing day to day execution as the COR does not attend camp outs or weekly meetings.

The council leaders did right. COR is the head of the unit and should be who the council interacts thru. IMHO, this is an example of the danger leaving unhealthy situations unresolved. The only unit person above the COR is the chartered org leader (pastor, president, etc). You can ask the CO executive to talk to the council and help, but should you. Does it matter? Will the youth know a difference? The unit needs a place to meet. It is annoying to have others second guess decisions, but at least your unit can move forward. Also, this will shed the old COR and give your unit a chance to build a clean reputation. Plus, you might get special opportunities / benefits thru more communication and more connections with the council. Look on the positive. Scouting is local. Your scouts won't know the difference. It's paperwork. Roll your eyes. Smile. Laugh. Move on.

How about limitations of now. I was just talking with a friend at a staffing agency about a candidate they had to pass on. No names were used. The candidate had a felony conviction. They searched newspaper clippings (last ten years??). Charged and convicted after multiple youth soccer clubs had him on paid staff and then banned him internally within their club without passing the information outward to protect other youth in other clubs. This allowed him for many years to go just from one club to the next looking for the next victim. Perhaps, one of the national youth soccer organizations should have collected these incidents and allowed local soccer clubs to look for previous problems. Perhaps, more youth could have been protected. ... Oh wait. That's what BSA did.

"representing a claimant" and excluding TCC are key words and perhaps a bit tricky. BSA has paid $300+ million in bankruptcy lawyer fees. We all watched the massive invoices that were court approved. It's disingenuous to pretend it's not been a cash cow for many firms.

This bankruptcy is one of the few reasons I still read this board. I'm extremely interested in the result though I think it's years before we can look in hindsight. @Eagle1993 ... I have the same thoughts. I want the plan intact to allow scouting to move on. I don't pretend there is any justice for the victims. The settlement offers a token, but not justice. BUT ... non-consensual non-debtor releases is wrong and produces bad justice. IMHO, this case really should be thousands of individual cases against councils, charters and insurance companies. BSA should proceed as best possible via Chapter 11 or 7. Beyond that, it's about individual court cases ... OR the next organization also having to file bankruptcy. I really fear BSA paid lawyers from both sides massive amounts to reach a settlement that won't survive.

Poppycock. The legal system found BSA with it's huge insurance and property assets liable. In the same context, the parents, police, schools and the rest of society covered up too. The issue is legally tying liability to all the other conspirators. This was looting for legal profit.

I agree on avoiding an external organization propping up scouting. The charters were far more about marketing and very, very little about oversight. The issue was the paperwork did not match the intentions or the execution. Thus, massive liability. I'm not sure the leaders of a troop are ever fully protected; no matter who charters. They should be insured and trained. Also, it seems right to me. Responsibility closer to the immediate people.

The sentence is misleading. Inferring a general rule. It is the far, far exception and the outlier that proves the rule. BSA had millions of registered adults. I've read many, many of the IVF files and did not see what is inferred here. The quote was "I have reviewed information that now makes clear to me that decades ago BSA did, in at least some instances, allow individuals to return to Scouting even after credible accusations of sexual abuse." ... It was not the policy or rule. Any organization of millions of people will have "some instances". It is interesting in the same 2019 letter / testimony that he advocated for creating a government run national registry that youth organizations can use to screen volunteers. 50+ years since the 1970s laws started and in 2019 there was still no effective way for youth organizations to screen volunteers.

Undermining american institutions ... Agree BSA files were a good thing. ... Intelligible Volunteer Files were always a good idea and BSA took those files very seriously. Lots of effort was made to keep them complete and accurate. I wish BSA could keep such files still. BUT, it might be in BSA's legal interest to NOT be the gatekeeper of that information as it just creates future legal risk. Someone in the future could use those files as evidence of mistakes and liability. ... Business in the 1980s and 1990s started standardized record purging (emails, files, etc). The idea was to purge before massive litigation was conceived. Companies recognized legal shifts to liability fish. BSA should have seen this case coming. "Prior to about 1970" ... 1970s started the evolution of the laws, not the tracking. BUT, there was not and probably still is not enough of a national wide tracking database. So, I'd argue the BSA needed to track those volunteers probably until 2010 and probably still need to do that now. Government tracking pedophiles? ... I don't think there is such a list except after conviction. Maybe open cases. YPT policies faster ... Yes, BSA should have improved policies faster. BUT, I'd best BSA viewed this more as a society issue and a sick person issue. But yes, BSA should have done better on it's policies and expectations. Self-charter ... Councils should not charter troops. IMHO, troops should be chartered by immediate small groups. Perhaps a collection of parents and volunteers. BSA can be a standards body; a certification body; a resources organization. The issue is chartering infers more oversight than BSA can do. Key point is BSA needs to structurally protect itself from future liability. I truly believe leaders back then viewed it as a society issue and they were doing their honest best. Could they have done more? Absolutely. I am disappointed they did not. Then again, society was drastically different back in the 1970s and even in the 1980s. IMHO, true "awareness" started in the late 1980s and early the 1990s. Effective organizational understanding in the late 1990s.

Dang. I'm having trouble staying out. I'm trying to wean scouting out of my system. Scouting is supposed to be FUN; a bunch of friends getting together with a purpose. Yes, mtgs should prep for activities and camp outs. Making sure scouts have the needed skills. ... BUT ... It's like my wife's book club. They get together. Talk. Laugh. Eat. Choose the next book. Some talk about the book. Laugh. Talk about other things. ... A few of the ladies might read the book, but it's not really the purpose of the group. The group is fellowship and building relationships. Same for scouting. Too many adults think the big, big purpose of scouting is to earn MBs and advancement. It's pushing scouts away from scouting. Advancement is just one part of scouting. The bigger part is helping these young people build friendships, connections and get new experiences. This is what I've seen too. In addition, I've seen an annual plan ... developed by the scouts ... where there is a theme, campout, activity and MB scheduled every month. Then, the scouts "HAVE THE CHOICE" whether to participate on the campout, activity and MB. IMHO, troop meetings are absolutely NOT the venue to have scouts sit for 60 to 90 minutes listening to a MB lecture. ... Instead, a mtg is a gathering, flags/opening, scout-made announcements, activities (skills, games, MB, etc ... that the scouts and/or their patrol chooses). My ideal is a MB councilor is present as a resource to individual scouts who want MB requirement signoffs. Maybe a 5 or 10 minutes (at most) presentation by the MB councilor now and then.