Oak Tree

Getting back to the original question...

I don't know whether I'm going to do anything yet. I'd be curious to hear what others are doing. For a long time my attitude has been not to initiate any discussion on the topic, because it has no bearing on our day-to-day operations and I presume that most everyone recognizes this.

However, given the prominence of the current stories, I do get some sense that getting out in front of it at the unit level might be useful. Communication with the unit could be easy enough. Communication with the CO would require a little more thought and finesse.

I don't see much point to a Scoutmaster minute. I don't know how many of the Scouts are aware of the whole issue and I don't need to make a big deal with them. Something to reassure the parents might be good, and some communication with the CO could be important. But it's hard to judge.

you need to be prepared to split up in an emergency. So you need 4 adults.

This does not follow. In fact, one of the reasons to have two adults on all trips is so that you can split up in case of emergency. Philmont only requires two adults per crew.

Eagle92 - I agree the concept is still useful, if the concept is "all the able-bodied people should help anyone who needs help before taking care of themselves." And the "children" part seems ok. The thing that seems really outdated is the idea that women are automatically part of the group that needs help, and isn't part of the group that is doing the helping. When women are serving on a ship's crew, I don't think we should assume that the passengers should be helping the crew members off. At any rate, I know that some of the women in our ship are happy to see the change.

I think my answer really depends on what you call "events". Is summer camp an event? NYLT? OA events?

For Boy Scouts, we have a district camporee and a council camporee.

Our latest roundtable included at least five pieces of authoritatively stated misinformation, mixed in with several lectures and a little bit of useful info.

I understand that not everyone spends time staying current on Scouting details, but please don't stand up in front and act like you know what you are saying when you are actually wrong.

Things we were toldMerit badge counselors must be trained in merit badge counseling in order to be official. This is not what's in the national advancement handbook.Merit badge counselors must be registerd or else "the boy is wasting his time and council will reject the merit badge." This is blatantly, laughably untrue. We don't even tell the council who the counselor is. There is no way this has ever happened to anyone in our council. Why would you tell this to a group of troop leaders?The new "one Oath and Law" rule does not affect Sea Scouts. Wrong. It does affect Sea Scouts. It says so in the text of the national resolution and in the Scouting magazine blog entry.Tug-of-war is a banned activity. Several people immediately pulled up the G2SS and verified this is not the case. Nevertheless, the guy who stated this said he was on the council health and safety committee (not clear if he meant currently or in the past) and tug-of-war was banned.A fifth thing that I can't remember right now, even though I remember catching the eye of another volunteer and shaking our heads at the item.Things we were lectured aboutIf more of us don't donate to the district uniform closet, there won't be any uniforms in it.If someone doesn't step up to run the district pinewood derby, there won't be one.If someone doesn't step up to run the district camporee, there won't be one.Each unit absolutely, positively must have someone attend next month so that he or she can learn how to do internet recharter. Holy mackeral, it's just filling out forms on the internet. I think we can handle it. **Especially since we've done it before**No offense, but this isn't the best way to recruit people to step up to help out. Maybe sometimes it's necessary, but there are a lot of one-on-one recruiting calls I'd want to see made first.

All-in-all, it just makes me wonder. And sigh. And wonder some more.

Sure, I'm in.

I took a look at the one documented case around here. There are over 80 pages of documents, including statements from the kids, from parents, from the school, from supporters of the accused, etc. There are notes about subsequent phone calls, meetings, and encounters with the accused. In some type of bizarre irony, the accused had a job of "hose inspector".

The allegations were of kissing and fondling. From what I could see, everyone handled it professionally. Everyone except for the accused, that is. "Mr. X stated that he wished everyone on the [investigating] committee would drop dead of a heart attack." "Mr. X said that he thought what we were doing was stupid and a bunch of s**t."

The parents apparently wanted the man kicked out of Scouting, and he was. I don't see any mention of law enforcement, but I don't see any discussion of avoiding involving law enforcement either.

It's a lot of hard reading with a bunch of hand-written and photocopied documents, but some are typewritten. Every now and then you come across a real gem of a statement.

[discussing whether the ASM could take over while the SM was investigated] "When asked the whereabouts of the ASM, XXX replied that the ASM had not come to the meeting because he was sometimes violent in nature and felt it best not to attend."

[discussing the time of the alleged incident] "[A CO member] asked where were all the adults. XXX said there were no other adults along. A discussion followed concerning the lack of parental care and involvement in their sons' activities" - I can almost imagine the whole thing.

The overall publicity from all of these things could possibly cause our CO to rethink things as well. Too many straws. The reason might be for liability reasons, or for public relations reasons, or for concern about the direction of the overall organization. I don't think we have any immediate issue, but you can never tell when some members of the CO's executive board might all of a sudden start to take notice.

I'm not concerned with where we store our gear. I'm pretty sure our CO would let us take the property with us. The most likely scenario, if they did decide they wanted to reduce their relationship with BSA, would be to ask us to switch our CO to a "Friends of" organization, and they may even allow us to continue to meet on their property. We have a fair number of church families who are involved, so I don't think the church would boot us entirely.

So are all these going to result in a whole bunch more "Friends of Troop XXX" chartered organizations? If there isn't a more immediate agreement reached, that would seem like the most likely result.

Portland attorney Kelly Clark, who blasted the Boy Scouts Thursday for their continuing legal battles to try to keep the full trove of files secret, has released the documents on his website: kellyclarkattorney.com. Be prepared for a wait; the site is responding slowly because of heavy traffic.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/18/3873440/search-the-boy-scout-perversion.html#storylink=cpy

The site is responding not at all as far as I can tell. You might want to have beefed up your infrastructure before putting out huge national news data.

Anyone seen it yet? Initial impressions?

I see the Sea Scouts having the hardest time with this.

I don't think it will be a problem for our Sea Scouts, at least not the Promise part. We've had several discussions about how to deal with the fact that the current promise is so hopelessly outdated. Seriously, it just seems totally out-of-place having a female boatswain reciting the promise to "to preserve the motto of the sea, Women and children first."

I'm with click23 - I've never seen the ratio documented in any printed material. The G2SS lists the ratio of 10:1 for aquatics activities, but not for anything else.

I think it depends a lot on the Scouts and the activity. For trips with 16 and 17 year-olds that I know, I'd be comfortable with a small number of adults. If we're managing a bunch of 11-13 year-olds in a situation with several stations, might need more.

There is definitely no 5:1 ratio in Boy Scouts unless your CO or troop decide you want one.

As a general rule, we do try to keep them away from their own son's patrol.

Some of the jobs we give new parents are what I listed above. Others have included working with the quartermaster on equipment, taking care of the adult equipment, handling all the membership forms, updating the troop website, managing the troop email list, being treasurer, helping with courts of honor, helping coordinate popcorn or other fund-raiser, coordinating den chiefs.

It helps if you (or someone you trust) knows some of the parents from Cub Scouts and can tell you what their strengths are and what positions they might be suited for.

After we get to know people for awhile, then we'll move them up to ASM roles - helping plan trips, serving as patrol advisors, working with the boys at troop meetings, etc.

We do generally have a formal meeting with the parents sometime right before crossover, too, to continue the introduction.

In reading Twocub's post, I realized that everything depends. I do recognize adults at troop courts of honor. I think it's good to do that, and it works well where everyone knows each other and the audience appreciates what the person has done. You can also try to make it fun.

But I was at a council camporee where they just went on and on, huge audience, nobody knew the people who did the work. Big long description of thanks for the guy who designed the camporee patch, etc, etc. No one item was really terrible, but when they just went on one after another, with a different person coming up to say thanks to some other person we didn't know, well, it got old.

I think you change the message by saying it just the way you said it. "We continue to need your help, but in different ways than you may be accustomed to providing."

We talk about it on the Webelos camping trip, at an orientation session, just as you do. We usually have an adult leader cross the bridge at crossover time, to symbolize that they are crossing over and we continue to need adult help.

We have some conversations with them, and we evaluate what positions might be good transitionary options. We can start them out as committee members, helping out with boards of review, or put them in charge of medical forms, or have them help out with advancement record-keeping, or sign them up as merit badge counselors - it depends on what positions are needed and open, too. And we definitely invite them along to camp with us.

I have never been a real fan of the beading ceremony, almost regardless of where it was held. No group really wants to watch this involuntarily - not Cub Scouts, not Boy Scouts, not roundtable participants.

My ceremony was done at lunch at the University of Scouting, with a number of others from our class. The only people who came to watch were those who were specifically interested. There were still quite a few people in the audience, because we had so many people getting beaded.

I've seen lots of other examples of too much talking at camporees - letters from politicians, thanks to endless lists of people who helped put on the camporee, etc. Gotta agree with the advice of know your audience. And even more basic than that is that you plan the show for the benefit of the audience, not for the benefit of those putting on the show.

So I'm a SM. Where does the BSA tell me that someone can't be a youth member if they are gay? Is it mentioned in YPT? In Scoutmaster specific training? In the Scoutmaster handbook?

I think I would counsel the Scout on what the ramifications are of deciding to go public with such a declaration. Beyond that, things would depend a lot on the context. Why is he telling me this? Is he looking for advice, or is he just wanting to test the policy or test me? Is he still trying to figure things out, or is he confident of his conclusion? Is he telling me that he is sexually active, or is he just worried that he's feeling an attraction for other boys?

what do you do?

This is pretty hypothetical. It's never happened to me. So I don't actually do anything right now.

I like the new Quality Unit idea.

Personally, I like gold over silver, because 99% of the population (or more) would say that gold ranks above silver, because of the Olympics, if nothing else. In fact, most of my Scouts believe that a gold palm is higher than a silver palm.

The old form, where you set your own goals, was laughable. If you want a good score, set a low goal.

Here it's true that the goals are the BSA's. But they are goals that most units are working towards anyway. A strong unit doesn't have much trouble making gold, from what I can see.

As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty clear that BSA meeting rules take effect once we are at the meeting. They do not control getting to the meeting.

The G2SS doesn't allow Boy Scouts to drive "for Scouting activities". So does this mean I have to tell my 16 and 17-year-old Scouts that they are not allowed to drive to a meeting? Yeah, right.

If a parent comes to me and specifically asks me if I can get her son to a meeting, I'll probably do it. I'll see what I can do to avoid any appearance of impropriety, but in the end, I will go with the overall best approach. I think I can only remember one time where I drove a kid to a meeting one-on-one.

The G2SS just can't be absolute. We were camping recently at a place with a public restroom/shower. Can I take a shower there? We didn't have separately posted shower times for adults and youth. They were individual stalls with curtains. I took a shower.

There is value in emphasizing the no one-on-one rule just so it becomes routine and people plan for it. But in the end, the rule is a tool in the program, just like our other tools.

I still vote for judgment over absolutism in rule-following.

What we usually do is invite the parents to come on camping trips with us. While they are there, we have a chance to talk to them about how we work as adults and what the philosophy is, and we have a chance to demonstrate how that works.

We had one dad who was really burned out as a den leader, really wanted a break. We didn't ask him to sign up for anything. But after coming on a couple of camping trips and seeing how things worked, he went ahead and took the ASM training classes and registered as an ASM.

I find the best way to get the adults to step up into new roles is to spend some time with them around a campfire.

My point is that on the basis of YOUR standard, Buddhists would be excluded. But BSA accepts them. Therefore YOUR standard is in conflict with BSA's. How do YOU reconcile that?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. It's not my standard. I'm not making up any standards. I'm not crazy enough to try to set my own standards in this minefield. All I did was list the actual BSA standard that they print on every membership application. If someone comes forward and says, "I don't meet those printed standards", then I will take them at their word that they don't meet the standard.

If Buddhists claim that they meet the standard, that's fine with me. We could always try to encourage a test case for the BSA. Have a Buddhist go into his Eagle BOR and say he's a practicing Buddhist and that he has no duty to God. Then maybe we can get an official BSA ruling on how to reconcile the two facts. You could probably find an even easier case if you got a Buddhist adult leader to go to his SE and state that he doesn't believe people have a duty to God and wants to know if he can still be a member. My belief, based on what I've seen from the BSA, is that they will not publicly accept a member who outright states that he does not meet the requirements as stated on the membership application (and technically, it says "obligation to God", so I guess that's how you'd want to use the language.)

In practice the BSA accepts lots of people who don't really believe that they have a duty to God. The BSA just won't accept anyone who states outright that they don't meet the membership requirements.

I'm not letting the National Buddhist Council on Scouting off as easily as you are. They have authorized a religious award that is specifically given to people who state that they have a duty to God. So do they accept that having a duty to God is consistent with Buddhism? (I honestly don't know what they'd say - it's hard to find a clear answer to this question.) If they do, then there is no issue.

how does BSA accept Buddhists and members of other religions who do not believe in a 'deity'?

I don't know. I do, in fact, find it very odd. I guess one could go with the theory that some Buddhists might also claim that they have a duty to God, and any Buddhist willing to sign up as a member of the BSA is signing a document that says that he or she does have a duty to God. That's the only way that I can see it being consistent.

At the same time, I think it's possible that the policy is just plain inconsistent. I think the BSA may just have a don't-ask-don't-tell policy with the Buddhists...we won't ask if you really think that you have a duty to God and you won't actively state that you do not have a duty to God.

I could also ask, how does the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting reconcile Buddhist beliefs with the BSA membership requirement?

Trying to be totally tangential...

goes through the five lower ranks, (I guess Scout doesn't count?)

NBC is correct on this one. Scout is not officially a rank, according to the BSA.

Trying to be totally tangential...

goes through the five lower ranks, (I guess Scout doesn't count?)

NBC is correct on this one. Scout is not officially a rank, according to the BSA.

There are all kinds of gray areas on things.

If the Scout directly stated that he disagreed with the Duty to God, then he is pretty much stating that he is not eligible for membership. You can disagree with the BSA on many topics without violating anything that is explicitly listed as a membership criteria, but every application says that you need to recognize an obligation to God in order to be a member.The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership.

Our pack does not do this, and quite frankly it seems ridiculous. Parents are bringing their own kids and are responsible for them. This would be a big hassle for someone for absolutely no apparent benefit.