MattR

Not a good look if they can't even get the titles correct.

On the one hand I could see survivors struggling to fill out the form. If a form needed dates for when I was a scout I could not do much better than a year or two. Someone suffering trauma might just freeze up at that point.

On the other hand, the lawyer that signed that form could and should have walked them through it. The fact that any of these forms do not have at least a range of dates or locations is on the lawyers.

As for the records, here's a simple test. Take a random sample of 1000 scouters that were scouts and see what percentage of youth records can be found. If it's only 5% then that explains the discrepancy. If it's 75% then there's a big problem. I'm all for truth and knowledge, for the sake of everyone involved.

There's a 70 year troop in our town that just lost its charter from a methodist church. They're asking if they can meet at our church on another night. I asked if our CO knows what they're getting into.

The good news is they're taking their CO responsibility seriously.

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Judge ruling on various discovery .... believes that it should proceed including information into the $3500  and how the claims were vetted.  Most of the requests do not implicate privilege info, or they may, but discovery could be not privilege .  In general, how the claims were obtained/vetted are likely not protected by privilege.

She is opening up advertising, intake, proof of claim, how it was done ... pretty much everything.

A more accurate understanding helps everyone. I'm not sure why it's taken so long to get to the point where this is being looked at but I'm glad it is.

9 minutes ago, mzzgwenf said:

The one thing that was missed in all of your comments is the presence of adult bullying. 

No, it was addressed. I said you can have her removed from the pack. I had a bully in my troop and I had him removed. I told him he was no longer welcome and if he showed up I would call the police. He left our troop, joined another and the exact same thing happened there. The council eventually set his son up as a lone scouter.

I think your challenge is that you don't know how or don't want to confront a bully. It is not easy and it takes all the fun out of scouting. I can't blame you for not wanting to deal with it. Unfortunately, nobody else is interested in leading that so it typically would be up to the unit leader, i.e., you,  to make it happen. Being the kind and loving cubmaster you are, it's likely not in your DNA to tell someone "leave or I will call the police." That's not very cubscout like. It really is getting in someone's face, drawing a line, and having the conviction to follow through. The fact that you asked for help and didn't get any just illustrates how leadership can be lonely at times.

Take care and enjoy camping.

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Total votes to date (Wednesday before Thanksgiving) - 4,300 votes complete

I would have thought half of them would be in by now. Any idea if this really is all or does it not include the master/spreadsheet/ whatever it's called votes?

Welcome to the forum, @mzzgwenf.

I removed the image you posted as it wasn't an image and wouldn't display. If you would like to upload an image then copy it to your computer first and then upload it.

2 hours ago, mzzgwenf said:

Should there be an identical, enforcable, accountability system in place for adults who participate in scouting at any level? 

I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're trying to say. It seems that you were dealing with a parent that you felt was threatening you. If so, call the police. If it really was just verbal attacks then talk to some other adults and see what they think. If this other person is making it impossible for you to volunteer then bring it up with the pack committee. They do have the authority to remove parents that cause problems. But, it sounds like you already stepped down?

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Governance Standing Committees Clause

7. The governance standing committees shall be: Audit and Enterprise Risk Management Committee; BSA Mission, Reputation, and Strategy Committee; Development Committee; Diversity Committee; Finance Committee; Governance and Nominating Committee; and Human Resources Committee.

These are the silos. Aren't they missing the "program committee" or the "fun with a purpose committee?" Shouldn't that be half of those slots?

I was always under the impression that a board was people from the outside with the ability to make changes and see the big picture of how the organization fit in to the world. And yet this board sounds like it reflects the silos in the BSA. Everyone wants to feel important so it seems these silos are set in stone.

"Clause 5. Membership. The Executive Committee shall be comprised of 12 members including: National Chair, National Chair-
elect, National Commissioner, Immediate Past National Chair, Standing Committee Chairs, Chief Executive Officer, and two  
members-at-large recommended to the Nominating Committee by the National Chair or National Chair-elect. A board member  
serving on the Executive Committee for three consecutive four-year terms may be nominated to an additional four-year term on  
the Board if nominated to serve as the National Chair or National Chair-Elect or if serving as Immediate Past National Chair.  
(This provision still under review)"

I'm not really sure what that means other than the executive committee includes the CEO (Mosby?) and is made up mostly of people with big titles that have likely been around a very long time. So, don't expect any change.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If they don't come through, I have a hard time seeing National emerge.

Why is that? I would think if they don't come through then TCC gets to drive towards another plan/vote.

I look back at all the things I learned in scouts and one of the most important, because it might have saved someone's life when I said "how do you know there's no bullet in the chamber?", was gun safety. Tool safety would be close.

I just don't understand why the same idea behind teaching gun safety isn't used to teach other types of safety that could enhance the program.

Until the BSA develops training for scouters on teaching and supervising scouts using power tools i doubt anything will change.

I got my father in law's radial arm saw and as soon as I found out I could get $150 if I proved I destroyed it, I took them up on the offer. Does fine as a miter saw. Most dangerous thing I've seen for ripping boards. These are a clear no for me. Table saws and lathes in the hands of adults with little training or experience is just asking for trouble. I can see the BSA saying no or really limited use on those tools. Most other power tools I think could be made safe with a well written training program.

The BSA has figured out how to safely put scouts in the water, on rocks and shooting. They can make most tools safe as well.

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Back in the day, the "Buck Buck" we played (in South Jersey) had Team One form a chain of interlocked bent over players (bucks). First bent over with arms around a tree and second player's head locked between legs. Second player had third player's head locked between his legs and so on. 

Team Two  formed a line of standing bucks. The first would run "Buck-Buck #1"  and leap on the backs of the Team TWO and try to hold on.  Buck-Buck #2 followed and so on.  The goal was to break Team One chain by bringing it down.

Have you ever seen the human towers in Catalonia? About 30 feet high and then they walk or something. It's not good if a tower collapses. The top is usually a small teenager (?) that can climb 6 layers or so of adults like a monkey up a tree.

Harry Potter was popular when I was a den leader so I made up a game called Quiditch (or however it's spelled) that involved a couple of different types of balls, basketball hoops in the gym and just enough different things going on that made it really fun. But we stopped it after five minutes when we realized the scouts would focus on just one ball and if two scouts didn't focus on the same ball, well, they could easily crash.

I hope everyone gobbled till they wobbled.

I have to wait until Saturday when my daughter isn't working

@InquisitiveScouter

Councils that don't follow rules is another thread. Case in point,  camp MB counselors that aren't certified counselors. Ever notice that the best MBs are usually the ones that require certified counselors? Shooting, water, climbing - they're all inherently dangerous and therefore exciting. Further, with well trained leaders they are great ways to fulfill scouting. That sounds like a better approach to safety that also accounts for the needs of scouts.

We're nowhere close to you so I have no ideas for you but the roll your own HA trips are great. Not only less money but easier to add side trips and better food.

My troop played laser tag at the Airforce Academy and they had a lot of fun. But, it seems, the reasoning behind that ban has nothing to do with safety.

I also don't think a "slight concussion" is anything to brag about nor sue anyone over.

My guess is that one reason for the draconian rules is the fact that unit leaders have zero consequences for going rogue. Everyone knows of troops that don't participate in any district or council activities, thumb their noses at all the rules and will just do as they please. And probably most do fine but some get into a lot of trouble. Adults driving scouts drunk, taking canoes on rapids way beyond their abilities, or just camping in situations beyond their abilities. Or leaders skimming bank accounts. And that trouble spills over to the rest of us trying to do the right thing. In our council, there was a subset of LDS units that kept the pros quite busy from the in-oove-tthei-heads type of problem. If you're an okay troop that wants to improve then the DE has no time for you because all they do is go around fixing problems.

Given this environment, the draconian rules are not really a surprise. Unit quality is the issue. I like @sierracharliescouter's approach of better training but without better consistency of unit leaders being more humble, or whatever it takes to appreciate their limits, we are where we are.

9 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

This is all part of the belief that the Church:  OWNS, Operates, Manages, Directs, the Troop and every last thing it has or does. 

That is what the charter agreement says. Look at it from their perspective, if your troop makes a mistake the church is legally liable to clean it up.

I understand that you're frustrated with the changes and all. But I've seen this happen before. Another aspect of the charter relationship is, well, keeping that relationship healthy. It's working with the head of the church so you have someone on the inside defending the troop. Its doing service projects so members of the church know who you are, appreciate what you do and see that it complements the church. Every non-profit I've ever worked with has people that want to express power for no other reason than they can. They can make your life miserable. Learning to deal with them does take time and patience.

Anyway, it seems you have a few choices. Push for a facility use agreement, get in the good graces of someone with real power in the church or find another CO.

Sounds about right. Read the app to see who should sign it?

The important part is you pick someone both the unit and CO likes that is a good communicator and understands both viewpoints of the relationship.

Our camps use the local ag school forestry dept to use the camps as a lab to teach students how to thin the forest. Granted, there's no walnut trees but for those trees they could still teach students and scouts how to properly take care of a forest.

It's an opportunity.

Our cub camp doesn't have showers. It is a 10 min drive to the showers at scout camp but all the water is turned off for all but summer so everyone brings their own water when they camp.

Maybe the real rules, the ones in the inspection, are different.

I'd respect the need for CO approval for inter unit campouts but not allowing it at all sounds like a rule that should be dropped with BSA 2.0.

Any chance this was just a way to prevent LDS units from having their own camporees?

10 minutes ago, prof said:

Wow. I don't think I've seen any subject with 100 pages before.

It's closer to 600. We cut it off and start a clean thread once in a while. This is the 6th thread and will most likely be cut off after the vote is completed.

I hid the argument about our VP as it really, honestly, completely has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Everyone, the announcement was just an attempt at light humor.

Let's get back to why Stang stepped down.

As for all the announcements about upcoming announcements, they're nothing but bait to keep everyone glued to each side's message stream.