NJCubScouter

This isn't about youth protection. Or do you think National is lying when they say it isn't about youth protection?

As of the early 80's, New Jersey probably had about 15-20 councils, and I would not be surprised if earlier there were 25 or more. Now I believe there are five councils entirely in NJ and two others with some territory in NJ but based in Pennsylvania. (The late great OldGreyEagle's council, Minsi Trails, is one of the latter; the other was the Bucks County Council up until a couple a couple years ago, now called the Washington Crossing Council to reflect the fact that it now includes both sides of Washington's crossing of the Delaware.) Some of the old councils in New Jersey were very small geographically. My father was a Boy Scout in the Bayonne council, which consisted of one small city.

Not only that, Packsaddle, one of the "birthers" is now running for President, and apparently doing pretty well in some of the polls. (Although he never actually said anything about the issue until 2011, the LAST time he was considering running for President.)

I remember that thread, RS. I am sure the real reason is to cut costs while keeping revenues the same. I seem to recall that in that case there was a report showing that by saving the salary of 1 SE and maybe a couple of other people who wouldn't be needed in a combined counsel, the new council could hire X number of people who would be able to focus more on membership and program. (Or at least, that is approximately what it said.) But it was only a few people, and I think the idea that a small number of people are going to make such a big change is highly questionable. To be fair though, it may be that if the councils are SO small that TOGETHER they have only 3,500 youth members, maybe they are not really viable from a program standpoint as separate councils. I'm sure my district has more youth members than that.

I mentioned this (the ability of adult Scouters to advance and make Eagle) earlier in this thread, but I thought this ended sometime in the 50's. My father earned a couple of merit badges as an Assistant Scoutmaster, in the late 40's, but did not advance in rank as an adult. Added note: I like the picture, though. I remember those shirts, and my father had one of those ties but didn't wear it very often. Added added note: Aha! I knew I saw it somewhere: http://www.troop97.net/bsaeagle.htm. That page says the age limit of 18 was set in 1952, not 1965. That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but it doesn't mean the scoutingwire page is correct, either. 1952 seems more likely though.

The article says the COMBINED council would have 3,500 Cub and Boy Scouts. That is really REALLY small, isn't it? I just looked up my own council and it has 19,000 youth members. Of course that part of New York is much more sparsely populated than my council, so I guess at some point a council could cover such a spread-out area that getting to the council hq would take hours. (In fact I suspect in the West this is often the case; I only have the perspective of the most densely populated state in the country.) But still... Are there standards for how big or small (either geographically or population-wise) a council should be?

Calico, thanks, that puts it all in a little more context than the original selective quotations in the National Review. But I do think these lists of characteristics are vastly oversimplified and stereotyped. For example, I think most people, regardless of race or ethnicity, recognize that there needs to be a balance between "independence" and "interdependence." And I don't see "egalitarianism" as being limited to "white" culture. If someone wants to give a course in which these ideas are taught, and someone wants to pay for it and attend, that's fine. People pay to "learn" all kinds of things that other people may disagree with. But if a government agency is financing this and/or requiring public employees to attend, then I do have an issue with it - while at the same time, I don't buy into the hyperbolic rhetoric of the National Review, nor in the heading of this thread.

It is inspiring, but I am saddened to read in that article that the main militia group that defeated ISIS in that Libyan town is an affiliate of al-Quaeda. It's a shame that these Scouts - and their parents and the other civilians who just want to lead a regular life - are caught in the middle of all that.

I was wondering the same thing. Assuming the links from when those first came out still work, someone could actually look and try to match up the years and location and descriptions and see if anything seems to fit. That someone will not, however, be me. I say the following not just to skeptic, but also to Bad Wolf and anybody else who has said that this looks "suspicious" or "convenient" or has questioned the motivations of this person. Maybe there is some truth to what you say. But if the law provides you with an opportunity to get some compensation for something you claim has been done wrong to you, especially when that opportunity once expired and has now been given back, I find it difficult to fault someone for doing what the system allows them to do. This man is going to have to convince someone (whether a jury or an insurance company claims department) that these things really happened, and in the case of his claims against the BSA and the council he is going to have to convince them that National/council knew or should have known that this Scoutmaster was a threat and allowed him to be in a position of leadership anyway. (In fact, skeptic, if this Scoutmaster is NOT in "the files", I wonder how this guy is going to do that.) So it isn't like you sue the BSA and someone cuts you a check. I can also say (not from personal experience, but from close-observation experience) that being a plaintiff in this kind of case is no picnic, because on the other side are several people whose job it is to avoid paying you anything, or failing that, to get you to settle for as little as possible. (Not just this kind of case, but this kind of case presents more opportunities for making the plaintiff's life miserable as a settlement tactic.)

We've had some treasurers who, I suspect, didn't examine the bank statements closely enough to even catch something like that. Though we've never had a troop debit card anyway. (By the way, TC? You mean CC? Or is this another acronym that I'm forgetting?)

If you still want to hold out hope, make it the "lite" variety. And save half for tomorrow. My story doesn't involve a woman led astray by anything except her (and her husband's) overspending ways. It involves a legal secretary who fell behind in her mortgage, car payments, credit cards, etc. (Like I said before, my wild-guessing has some experience behind it.) The senior partner of the firm had been appointed trustee of a very small company that had filed for Chapter 11 and had operated like that for a few years. The trustee had laid off all the full-time employees (including management) except for the actual operating guys and needed to hire a very-part-time bookkeeper for the company. So he offered the "job" (probably less than $100 a week) as a moonlighting gig to one of the secretaries in his office who had done some bookkeeping before. My guess is he didn't even care if she did the bookkeeping while on her regular secretarial time, and as it turns out, he wasn't really checking what she was doing. How did she repay this generosity and trust? I guess I've already given that away. The day of reckoning always arrives, in this case in the form of a mandatory periodic accounting that had to be submitted to the bankruptcy court. The person doing the report couldn't figure out why the numbers weren't adding up, went up the chain to an attorney who called the company foreman and found out what he had REALLY been getting in his paycheck as opposed to what the books showed, then looked at the books and found some more issues, and that was it. Obviously she lost her job (both regular and overtime), was prosecuted, and I think she had to do 30 days or so just to make the point, plus a few months in a halfway house. The really stupid part - there's almost always a really stupid part - is that she had a retirement account with the firm that had MORE THAN SHE HAD STOLEN. She had to agree that the funds would be taken out of the account to repay the company. (Well, she didn't have to, but the 30 days probably would have been more like 120 days if she hadn't.) If she needed the money that badly, she probably could have borrowed it from the retirement account, or if not she could have withdrawn it and paid the taxes and penalties, which isn't great but is better than going to jail and becoming unemployable forever.

I have to chuckle at that a little bit. To a lot of people, money is all the justice they really need. And even if you're not like that, sometimes money is all the justice that's available.

Well, I have to say that sometimes my troop committee has gone for months at a time without a real treasurer's report, which is not good. Of course, none of the treasurers WE have had would EVER steal money! And I truly believe that, but believing it isn't good enough. I am sure the fellow committee members of this person in Toms River NJ were, like me, absolutely certain that their treasurer would never steal any money. Otherwise she would not have been treasurer and apparently be trusted with no oversight whatsoever.

I would agree with that, again depending on how near or far the next rank is. If for example the Scout is at Star and has five months active and five months into a POR, all the MB's and other requirements for Life, it's probably worth sticking it out for another month, and getting the SMC and BOR done, just so it's "cleaner." You show up at the new troop a Life Scout, ready to meet all the remaining Eagle requirements in that troop. (Of course since you are 15, having to re-do a month or two of "active" or POR would not be the end of the world. I know a 17-year-old Star Scout right now who if he had to re-do a month or two, it would not be the end of the world either, but it would be the end of his making Eagle.)

Oh great, right here in New Jersey. Makes a fellow proud... Although embezzlement is obviously a very bad thing regardless of the amount, it amazes me that someone would destroy their own life (as this person has done) for $13,000. I once met with a potential client who had (allegedly) embezzled more than $500,000 from his employer. (Assume that every verb from here on in has the word "allegedly" in front of it.) He had spent some of the money and had managed to get most of the rest into "offshore" accounts. When he was arrested, he had his car packed, was ready to head to the airport and had a plane ticket in his pocket. (This wasn't a complete coincidence, he was under surveillance.) Obviously what he did was very very wrong, but at least he had a plan, even if it didn't work. What was this troop treasurer's plan? Was she planning to start a new life somewhere on $13,000? (My guess is just the opposite; this is just a wild guess, but an experienced wild guess: She was probably trying to provide for her family to stay right where they are. Maybe they were behind on their mortgage and this is how she decided she was going to save the house. But you've GOT to know you're going to get caught doing something like this. Unless she really thought she was going to be able to pay it all back, and nobody would ever catch on. But that's not a very good plan.)

Are people really arguing about whether Bad Wolf can know with absolute certainty whether there are any gay people living in his town? Or is there some subtle sub-text that I am missing? Perhaps one that has something to do with the subject of this thread? (A subject which, in my opinion, has probably run its course until National reacts to what COL council has done, or until another council does something similar, or until some other event occurs that has something to do with Scouting.)

Apparently in 2013 the Minnesota legislature changed the statute of limitations for lawsuits for sexual abuse against children, "re-opening" the window for lawsuits where the statute of limitations had already expired. (I didn't know about this before, I looked it up after seeing this thread.) They gave the alleged victims a three-year period (ends March 2016 as BadWolf's link says) in which to file lawsuits. This article explains the law and the reasoning behind it in a lot more detail: http://www.startribune.com/abuse-law-unleashes-firestorm-on-church/260547781/ So whatever one may think about it, the legislature of Minnesota (and several other states that have done the same thing) specifically intended to permit lawsuits based on events that happened a long time ago, as long as the person sues within the three-year window.

Well, unmarried cohabitants (of opposite genders) is yet another example where there is no National policy, and some CO's would disqualify such a person from leadership positions, and others might not. I have given that example in the past too.

Here we go again. Everybody in the pack knows Cubmaster Jones smokes cigarettes, because he walks down the streets of town smoking a cigarette. (When he is at pack meetings, he follows BSA policy and does not smoke.) Is it "safe" for him to be a CM, when Scouts might imitate his known behavior? It's up to the CO. National imposes no policy on the units on this subject. Everybody in the troop knows Scoutmaster Smith likes to drink, sometimes to excess, because he is seen coming out of Cubmaster Jones's tavern every Friday night. (No problem with BSA policy because the troop meets on Wednesdays.) Is it "safe" for him to be an SM, when Scouts might imitate his known behavior? It's up to the CO. National imposes no policy on the units on this subject. ASM White is really overweight and... Need I go on? Need I trot out the other examples I have used in my past posts? (I tried to find one of them and just link to it, but I couldn't find it.) National leaves these decisions up to the units, except for gay people and atheists. (And convicted felons, but I hope I don't have to explain why that's different.) That's the issue.

Well, the BSA states the issue (or used to) in terms of whether an openly gay person can be a good role model for the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Law. That's pretty close to what you said. But many people believe the answer to the question is, yes, they can be. Many people also believe that excluding gay people from an organization that welcomes everybody else is itself immoral, and in some cases a violation of their religious beliefs. The BSA can and should accommodate these beliefs while allowing those who disagree to practice their beliefs as well. Right now one group is imposing its beliefs on the other... well, unless you are in the Cradle of Liberty Council.

qwasze, the words I have added in red are what you meant, correct? Otherwise I'm not sure what that sentence means. By the way, boyledscouting, welcome to the forums!

I'm sure there are, usually. But when I read the excerpts from Mr. Gates speech (quoted above in this thread), it looks to me like the President of the BSA was expecting more councils to defy the policy. It's almost as if he is inviting them to do so. Now, it is true that he made these statements as an individual. When mentioning that councils would not be de-chartered for defying the policy, he said "I will not take that path". (Which I thought was an interesting statement from someone who is, after all, a volunteer.) But was this really just him speaking on his own? Do you think Mr. Gates decided to "go rogue" and say things that did not have at least tacit approval from the other higher-ups at National? Or at least, their prior knowledge? If he did, talk about embarrassing and surprising National. But there don't seem to be any consequences for Mr. Gates. No calls for his resignation that I am aware of. Not even any "discouraging word" from anyone else at National. The only comment that I have heard from anyone on behalf of National is that Mr. Gates' proposal will be voted on in October. This leads me to believe that he was not acting on his own and that he had "cleared" his statements with whoever he needed to clear them with. I also believe, as I have said before, that there were some behind-the-scenes communications between National and Cradle of Liberty before the council did what it did. I have been accused of speculating in this regard, and so I am, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that the council president (or whoever is quoted in that article) would say (paraphrasing) there are not going to be any consequences from National, unless he actually knew that there are not going to be any consequences from National. National was probably not happy about the council's action, but I do not think they were surprised by it. I agree with that. But, continuing with my theme from above, we don't know what communications went on between National and the council, if any. We can only speculate. (There's that word again.) We don't know that the council didn't offer to make a joint statement with National. I am kind of curious, however, as to what you think National's part of the statement would have sounded like. I personally think National wants no part of this issue at the present time. They are walking a tightrope between alienating the big CO's who want the policy to stay the way it is, and the councils in the Northeast and elsewhere for which the current policy is simply not viable. So, as I have suggested previously, maybe this is actually how this issue is going to be "resolved", though it's not really a resolution. The councils that want to adopt a different policy will do so (probably between now and October), while National does nothing to stop them and ends up saying little or nothing about it. The large CO's (the ones who would like the policy to stay as is) in the COL and the other like-minded councils will exercise their local option (assuming there is one), but I don't think they will fold their units. (I should clarify that I am not talking about the LDS Church here; I cannot "speculate" about what they would do, but I do know that their numbers in the Northeast are far lower than in some other parts of the country.) The other councils and large CO's that like the current policy will be upset, but since there will be no change in their area, I predict they will let it pass. Meanwhile, those within the BSA who want local option nationwide also will not be happy. But with what result? Will the fact that the councils where a majority favors change, can actually make the change for their area, reduce the pressure to make a nationwide change? Maybe to the point where the issue basically goes away? Is the best solution to a really difficult problem the one that makes everybody somewhat unhappy, but not to the point of leaving? Some people would call that a compromise. It's difficult to call "my" scenario a compromise, or a good solution, but maybe it is the best the BSA can do at the moment.

I wasn't talking to you.

Condolences to the family. Dying with one's boots on is one thing, but at age 51, and in front of your 11-year-old son... that's... I don't even know what that is. In time hopefully his sons will be able to replace that memory with those of the many good times they had with him in Scouting.

I don't have time to go into a whole constitutional dissertation right now, but I think the premise stated above is incorrect. In fact, the Supreme Court has applied different standards for scrutinizing laws based on race and gender. ("Strict scrutiny" for race, "intermediate scrutiny" for gender.) The current standard for examining laws based on sexual orientation is somewhat of a mystery to me, partly since I have not really had the opportunity to study "equal protection" issues very much since law school, and let's just say the legal/constitutional status of gay people has changed just a bit in the past almost-30 years. In fact it may be changing again in the next week or so. Of course, none of this is necessarily relevant to BSA policy. The BSA is legally entitled to have its own membership policies. ("Race" is probably an exception to that, but nobody's going to make it an issue at this point.) That, however, does not mean that every possible decision the BSA makes, or could make, is the "right" decision. It just means a court can't step in and prevent it, or award anyone damages because of it. And the same decision does not necessarily have to be made on each category. Many people view the issue of girls, gay people and non-believers in the BSA differently and believe that different results for different categories are acceptable. I personally think it is acceptable for the BSA to deal with one hot-button issue at a time. It does not have to tear itself apart all at once.