NJCubScouter

SSScout: Are you now able to get into the Unit Fundraising forum? From what I can see the problem has been resolved.

Um. Please stand by. Added note: I don't get that message, but I can't see any threads. But when I click on the most recent thread on the right (which happens to be Stolen Popcorn Money) I do get that thread. But I can't get to any of the earlier ones. Let me see what I can do.

I think that sums it up pretty well. One of the other things we considered was charging a fee to post in Issues and Politics. Well, no, we didn't consider that at all. I just made it up. But, now that I've made it up... Maybe we'll put it on the agenda for the next Moderators' Annual Meeting.

In effect, there are hundreds if not thousands of different sets of membership rules already. They extend to almost every parameter except avowed sexual orientation and belief in God. Local option exists. It is the rule, not the exception. This would just reduce the number of exceptions. You mean, as opposed to the slippery slope the BSA is already on right now, with a no-win and indefensible policy that has already caused the loss of some corporate sponsors and some donors? By the way, I am not (as you seem to suggest) advocating the local option for Scouts, only for leaders. I was advocating it for both, until the BSA changed the policy to prohibit exclusion of Scouts from any unit. (But I'll bet you that the number of openly gay Scouts in units that would have exercised a local option to keep them can be counted on the fingers of no hands.) I don't think it would be a good idea to go back on that. I also don't think that forcing units that think that openly gay people are poor role models to accept gay adult leaders is any better of an idea than requiring units who want to be inclusive to exclude them. (Not the best sentence I've ever written, but I'm too tired to fix it.)

All Members of the forum should be able to edit their posts for a limited time period after posting. Based on the discussion in this forum, SCOUTER-Terry has increased the time period from about 15 minutes to 1 hour. It is my understanding that this was the time limit on edits in the past, or at least part of the past.

BDPT00 and AZMike: The new policy on openly gay youth (or clarification, since the BSA had made contradictory statements on the subject) was not a "compromise" on the issue of openly gay adults. It did not resolve the issue. I don't think anyone who supported local option for adults ever said it resolved the issue. While it is good to see that the BSA will not kick teenagers simply because they say they are gay, the change (or clarification) was a diversion from the main issue. And BDPT00, when you say that what is being compromised is "values", the problem here - and why this continues to be an issue - is that there are "values" involved on both sides. Those who seek a change to the policy on adult leaders believe it is wrong to exclude someone simply because they are openly gay.

It seems to me that unless you made a typo, your first and second sentences contradict your fourth sentence, in which you seem to say that the local option is a viable option. As for "poor business practice" and the idea that the "membership policy" has to be uniform, that sounds logical but it is inconsistent with the unique way in which the BSA operates, in having units owned by CO's rather than through a central organization. In fact, "local option" is in effect right now, for almost all adult membership criteria. A CO can decide it is not going to have female Scoutmasters, and it is my understanding that the LDS church does exactly that. A CO can decide it is not going to have a leader who is "living in sin" (heterosexually), or is grossly overweight, or is often seen exiting the corner bar (on non-meeting nights of course) and on and on with my usual list of examples. Local option is the norm. The BSA makes an exception to this norm when it requires units to exclude openly gay leaders.

The answer is, they deal with it. I am not sure exactly how because I have never attended an international Scouting event. But I am sure they deal with it. Just like they would deal with it at district and council events. Well, just as they already deal with it at district and council events, at least in theory, because there have been (at least in theory, and probably a few in reality) openly gay Scouts for almost a year and a half. And just as troops have been dealing with issues of tenting arrangements and other things that were predicted to be big problems, for almost a year and a half. I have not heard of any units being unable to deal with these issues within their units, and I have not heard of any districts or councils having problems at their events. And believe me, if there had been problems, we would have been reading about them in this forum, in great detail and at great length. In my opinion, it is not a real issue. It is just an excuse by those who do not want local option.

That is a ridiculous statement. Nobody in this forum is advocating that child molesters be allowed to be members or leaders of the Boy Scouts.

I think Rick has summed it up pretty well.

Patience? Well... I'll try.

There seem to be at least two possibilities. One is that Gates has knowledge that the policy is going to be changed in the very near future, and used the speech to signal that the change is coming. If that is true, I think he did the right thing by bringing it up. Another possibility is that the change is no closer than it ever was, and he used the speech to advocate for the change even though the actual decision-making powers have no intention of making it. If that is the case then he probably made a mistake, because he just made the anti-change people angry while raising false expectations with the pro-change people, without bringing the issue any closer to resolution. I guess there is a third possibility, which is that he believed the issue is at a "tipping point" with those who will decide it, and he thought his speech would persuade them to make the change. I'm not sure what to think about that one; but I would say that if it is going to take another year to get a vote on making the change, he probably should have waited until it was closer to that time before making this statement.

I know this is not strictly on topic but I did not want to start a new thread just to ask a question and this was the closest thread I could find. I had thought the big news out of this Annual Meeting was going to be the "unveiling" of changes to the Boy Scout rank requirements - including the specific requirement for discussion of "duty to God" for every rank. It also was my recollection, maybe from reading Bryan's blog, that there were going to be other changes including addition of service requirements at ranks that don't have them now, and some rearrangement of requirements between the ranks. There is a document saying the requirements were going to be released at the Annual Meeting, here: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/program_update/pdf/Transitioning_New_Requirements_2016.pdf Not only has Mr. Gates' speech overshadowed everything else, but I have not heard a single word about the advancement changes. I can't find anything about it on the Internet. Was I wrong about the timing, or did they change the schedule, or what? Does anyone know?

In my usual moderate way, I think the district (and council) do have some value. Our troop attends about two-thirds of the district events (camporees, Klondikes, first aid competitions) and someone from our troop is usually at Roundtable (I can rarely attend myself because of other activities) and they seem to come back with some valuable information. We do not have a UC but there are commissioners interacting with the unit at recharter time to at least make that process go a little more smoothly. On the other hand, other than what I mentioned above, our troop seems to have as little contact with the district as possible. Why? I think it is because every other kind of interaction with the district/council seems to involve money. Money money money. Either they are asking for money directly (FOS) or they want us to do things that make money for them, but that we can do in other ways with greater benefit (or less cost) to the Scouts and their families. I am referring mainly to selling popcorn and going to summer camp at our council's camp. We don't sell popcorn because we can raise more money with other kinds of fundraising, and part of the reason is the council does not get a cut. We attend out-of-council summer camps because that is where our Scouts decide they want to go, and we do not try to dissuade them because, at least as we perceive it, they are getting a better program for less money than they would at the council camp. I myself have considered getting involved at the district level, but I don't because I perceive it as being too "political." It sometimes seems like a little private club, and while they'll let you in if they believe you can do something to help, there's too much ego and too much focus on hierarchy and power. They also don't seem to treat the volunteers very well at the district level; the phrase "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind. Now granted, this is the perception of one person in one district based in part on observations of what other people are doing and saying at events, and based in part on what I hear from other people. But without jumping in and testing the waters myself, that is what I have to go on. I would rather just spend my time directly supporting Scouts in one troop.

Last night at a troop meeting I was discussing this with another leader who thought that local option had been adopted and would soon be implemented. I told him, no, at this point it is still just a proposal, though obviously the chances of it being adopted seem a little better than they did the day before yesterday. I also showed him portions of Gates' speech that make this clear. He said that media reports that he had heard made it sound like it was a done deal. I think we ought to realize that even if Gates' suggestion is adopted by National, it is not going to happen overnight. These kinds of changes seem to get voted on at Annual Meetings, so if it even gets to a vote, it is probably not going to happen for another year at least. Editor's Note: That last sentence turned out to be incorrect, a decision may be made in October 2015. - NJCS

Prove it. Any of it.

Somewhere in the distant past I made a suggestion that would be fair. Never going to happen, but fair. You take a vote, but it would be of the CO's, one unit, one vote. Then you divide the BSA up into two organizations, each with their own policy. The kicker is that the assets of the BSA and the councils go with the units, on a percentage basis according to the vote. Philmont, Northern Tier, Summit, the bank accounts, the trust funds, National and council offices, Mt. Allamuchy Scout Reservation (and all the others), everything. If Exclusive Scouts gets 60 percent of the vote, they get 60 percent of the assets, and Local Option Scouts gets 40 percent. How exactly to divide up Philmont? Don't worry, it would all be worked out, minus the legal fees. A joint use agreement with rent to be paid based on percentage of ownership vs. usage, or something else. Deals like this are made every day. I was, and am, only half joking about this. (Though when I read some of the posts in this thread, and in past threads, sometimes I think this actually might be the right solution.) As I said, it is never going to happen, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't the right answer. What I would LIKE to see, and think is feasible, is for the BSA to remain united and for local option to be implemented with everybody (or almost everybody) deciding that regardless of how upset they may be, it would be best to live with the decision. I just don't see why the unit down the road needs to worry about who might be a leader in my troop, or vice versa - that is, any more than they already do now. How do I know that a leader in the next troop over isn't really some guy who killed his entire family and then started a new life under a new name in a new state and is living as "the quiet, friendly neighbor"? Anybody here ever hear of John List? (I don't think he was a Scouter, but he could have been, living incognito in Ohio for 20 years with his "first family" safely buried in New Jersey, until someone called in a clue to America's Most Wanted. I sure Wikipedia has an article about him.) The point is, if you think you are protecting your boys at a Camporee because the Scoutmaster at the troop camping across the field isn't openly gay, you're just fooling yourself.

Yes. There is a tremendous amount of doubt. The "LGBT lobby" can advocate whatever it wants, but the actual change that has occurred, and is likely to occur, is being driven by people INSIDE the BSA who believe that local option is the answer. Like the Scout Executive of my council, who wrote to a letter to the entire council expressing his disappointment that the policy regarding adult leadership was not being changed (at that time.) Like me, not individually, but in conjunction with all the Scouters' voices that the BSA has finally heard (and partially listened to) on this issue. (I'm not talking about posts in this forum necessarily, but I did take the survey two years ago.) Like Mr. Gates. He is not part of the LGBT lobby, but there was a passage in his speech where he indicated that local option is not merely inevitable, but is the right thing to do as well.

Well, wait a second. YOU started this thread and ALL of the comments in your original post were about the "gay issue." Now you come along and comment that other issues in the speech are being ignored? You introduced the subject are now surprised that that's what people are talking about? I don't get it. Plus, if you want people to discuss the CSE's compensation or the relationship between professionals and volunteers, that's great, but it should probably be done in another thread(s) so the subjects don't get tangled up. (And maybe outside of Issues and Politics.)

I can't comment on everything here, so I will just pick out a few: Well, "promoting" a particular sexual orientation (whether gay or straight) probably would be grounds for removal regardless of any change in policy. I guess it depends on what you mean by "promoting". But I think it is clear that Scout leaders are not supposed to be promoting sex. "Openly declaring" one's orientation is another story. There is sort of a presumption in our society that someone is straight unless they say otherwise, and therefore many gay people feel that they are hiding their true identity (or however you wish to phrase it) by staying "in the closet." I also think that we straight people "declare" our sexual orientation simply by the way we live our lives. I don't walk around saying "I'm heterosexual," but I talk about my wife, she attends events such as fundraisers and Courts of Honor when possible. I am "openly straight." I see nothing wrong with a person being "openly gay." It says nothing negative about their "maturity, discretion and judgment." I have known people with questionable "maturity, discretion and judgment", of all orientations. The program doesn't have to handle it. The program can ignore it. That's the whole point. If that is the case, it seems likely that your unit - maybe all the units in your area - will continue to exclude openly gay adults when local option is implemented. I, however, know a number of people who would support a local option. They include all of the Scouters in my unit with the likely exception of one. They include my wife, who though not a Scouter, has supported her son and husband in their (our) Scouting activities. They include many others both inside and outside Scouting, including my brother, an Eagle Scout, who has avoided any recent involvement with Scouting because of the membership policies. (He has no children himself, but he would be a great merit badge counselor at least, and I bet he would do it if he didn't so strongly object to the membership policy.) There's another interesting fact about my brother in this context. He is not married and lives with a woman. Some units would say he is unfit to be a leader because of this, some would say it isn't a problem. National takes no position. Local option! Or as Mr. Gates put it (paraphrasing), each unit gets to choose his own leaders. But if his cohabitant was a man, suddenly National has to step in and say he's banned? It's just all so unnecessary. Again, as Mr. Gates says, leave it up to the churches (and I would add, the synagogues, the Hindu temples, the mosques, the community centers, the veterans' groups, the parent-teacher groups and all other CO's) to decide what is right for their units.

Yes, that is what he is saying, except he is using the word "could" and you are using the word "will", which is not exactly the same thing.

It appears that the answer would be "an infinite number of times." And I know there's an "infinite number of monkeys" joke lurking in there somewhere.

Evidently Green Bar Bill was a victim of "office politics," which is sad for someone who gave so much of his life to help Scouting. But unfortunately not too much of a surprise.

I think the problem is twofold. Some of the writing is vague, but additionally, when there is "supplemental information" that might be necessary to fully understand and implement something in one of the "main books", I don't think the BSA does enough to get that information into the hands of those who need it. For example, in the training syllabus Tahawk mentioned, I don't even know what training course you are talking about. Is it a training course on advancement? If so, I doubt our Scoutmaster knows about it, and I am fairly certain that the older Scouts who are signing off the younger Scouts on their requirements don't know about it. So a Life Scout is signing off a Tenderfoot Scout on his 10 wild animal identifications, but if all of US are unsure of whether frogs or salamanders or starfish fulfill the requirement until we are presented with clarifying language from a publication completely separate from the Handbook, just imagine the position the Life Scout is being put in. And much to my chagrin, I also don't know about that training syllabus - and I was a troop advancement coordinator for three years. There's got to be a better way to do this. As for "troop leader", maybe this from the Guide to Advancement will help, or not: I would say that if "unit leader" in the context of a troop means "only" the Scoutmaster, and not ASM's (or SPL's or anybody else), "troop leader" probably means only the Scoutmaster. But why should we have to guess? And if my reasoning is correct, then why even use "troop leader", they should just say "Scoutmaster".

I'm not sure how this follows from the previous discussion, or maybe what you are responding to just got lost in the flurry of non-BSA-related posts. What do you mean by the "'secret word' that can only be whispered". What is the secret word? Or is it a secret?