Oak Tree

if a Scouter goes outside of the GSS and YP, he may not be defended by the BSA in court.

Can you point to any case where BSA has not defended someone who was using any reasonable judgment? I hear this legal bogeyman all the time, and I've never had anyone describe an actual case of this. I don't believe it.

You're not going to get sued for not correctly dealing with a Scout with porn. You're not going to get sued if you accidentally find yourself alone in a public restroom with a Scout. You're not going to get sued because you once gave a Scout a ride home from a meeting. You're not going to get sued because you didn't set up separate male and female accommodations at your pack's overnight stay at the aquarium, even if someone does have a clothing malfunction.

The BSA Youth Protection Guidelines say that you are to "Notify your Scout executive of any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies", which includes any Scout using a verbal insult. That's right - the guidelines say to report to your SE any time a Scout insults another Scout. Well, guess what? You're not going to get sued for failure to report a case of a verbal insult.

Geez. There's actual abuse out there. That's the stuff you're going to get sued over. If you think someone is really abusing kids, then you should do something. If you're Penn State, you're not getting sued over pornography, or guidelines, or anything else besides the fact that children were actually being abused.

There are all kinds of discrimination. The ones that we tend to find acceptable are those that are related directly to the mission of an organization. The ones that we find unacceptable are largely those that are unrelated to the organization.

So, for example, religious organizations do discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. No one has an issue with that. Church members have to indicate that they agree with a basic set of beliefs or else they can't be members. Church leaders are even more subjucted to this sort of thing.

But other organizations can't discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and look at all credible.

Single gender universities or high schools can say that their mission is to educate that particular gender, and they can say that there is some research to back up the idea that it works better.

Basketball teams can discriminate on the basis of one's ability to play basketball. You can get cut from the team if you aren't good enough. You can't get cut from the basketball team because of your religious beliefs. Your church doesn't kick you out due to a lack of physical fitness.

The BSA clearly states that it is a boy-oriented organization (from the very name of the organization) and it lists its religious beliefs quite prominently. Nowhere in the mission or any of the program materials are anything that says anything about sexuality, though. This total lack of rationale for why gays should be excluded is something that causes people to think the discrimination is unfair.

I like the general idea. And I like picking things that you think are important to your troop.

I also find these things to be more effective if they seem to be actually true, rather than some type of idealistic expectation. (e.g., I hate the phrase "You can achieve anything if you just put your mind to it" - clearly, not everyone can actually win a gold medal at the Olympics.)

The phrase in the first post - "Scouters cannot be trained after they are needed" - doesn't sound true to me. Scouters indeed often get involved because they are needed and only after that do they get trained. Likewise, "Scouters must train before needed" doesn't sound true either. It's good if they do, but it's not true that they must.

I'm still not sure I understand who made the decision not to go. The original post says "it was decided."

Did the driver rescind her offer of a ride or not? From what I read, she did not. If she actually backed out on her commitment, I'd be upset. If she didn't, and just said it was going to be crowded, and you or your son made the decision to back out, then I don't see how you could justify being upset. Did she initially promise a spacious ride?

We would have just let her borrow a car-top carrier, and they could take whatever they wanted. We've seen five people crammed into a Honda Fit for a long trip. It's astonishing how much stuff can go in a car if you really want it to work.

are we entitled to ignore them and substitute our own opinions and judgment?

Yes.

In a boy-led troop, where does the adult agitatedly shutting down the Eagle Court fit in?

One can imagine some type of hilarious, over-the-top situation where it would clearly be the adult leader's responsibility to shut down the COH. If the Scout, for example, said he was so incensed at the current BSA policy that he wanted to protest by distributing some gay pornography, I think I'd jump right in there and shut things down.

In some type of ideal world, I might jump up, have a quick whispered conversation with the SPL, after which I feel fairly confident that the SPL would shut it down (this presumes, of course, that the SPL would be opposed to the distribution of gay pornography).

Wildly inappropriate scenarios aside, I can't imagine shutting down an Eagle COH. I've heard Scouts say that the mission of Scouting was essential irrelevant to their Scouting experience. I'm not going to interfere with that. If a Scout happens to voice that he's enjoyed his Scouting time "despite X" - well, what's the harm? That's really his belief. If he wants to be long-winded about it, that's just an opportunity for him to learn that talking about your point too much can be counter-productive.

So if a Scout said "I've really learned a lot from Scouting, and I'd like to thank all the adult leaders. Despite the fact that I disagree with the current BSA policy on gay membership, I still find it to be a very worthwhile organization" - I don't think I'd even hardly notice.

Scouts sometimes say things with a little bit too much black and white worldview...such is life as a Scout leader.

Seconding everything that NJCubScouter said...

as for Where does it say this in the rules?

The atheist part is covered by the application:The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God [...] Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of [membership or leadership]As far as the no gays part, I'm not aware of anywhere that it says that, either, as far as the program material goes.

Yeah, I'm still trying to remember where I heard there was a boycott of Chick-fil-A?

Maybe here?

http://www.wric.com/story/19124875/gay-rights-groups-call-for-chick-fil-a-boycott

Or here?

http://www.examiner.com/article/howard-stern-calls-on-his-listeners-to-boycott-chick-fil-a

Or here?

http://www.causes.com/causes/788416-boycott-chick-fil-a/actions/1668137

bnelon, thanks for posting links to these items of interest.

I think this particular recommendation is already being discussed under the One Oath thread, but the much broader set of initiatives that might come out of this could be quite interesting.

It is an unnatural abomination plain and simple.

Once upon a time, way back when I was a teenager and had barely a concept of gays, this was my initial reaction, too. I do think it's hard-wired into most heterosexuals to kind of get an "ewwwww" feeling when you first see two guys kissing. Over time, though, as I got to know some gays, and as I listened to the arguments and tried to think them through, I eventually decided that just because this is an initial reaction that's built into the operating system, it doesn't mean that I have to let this make my decision for me.

There are all kinds of things that I have an initial aversion to. People come with a fear of heights; a fear of loud noises; a desire to look away from all kinds of medical treatments (shots, surgery, etc). There was once an argument against umbrellas because they were unnatural. Clearly God intended for us to get wet when it rained.

It's unnatural for a person to lose part of a leg. That doesn't mean we should shun the disabled. Check out Leviticus 21:17-23 - it clearly seems to imply that the disabled were not "worthy" - but that just seems foreign to our thinking today.

its gays choice to be gay. No one is born gay, they choose to be that way of thier own free will.

I used to think this too. After all, the act of kissing another guy is clearly a chosen act - you don't have to do it (unlike being disabled, or being in a racial minority, or being a woman - those are things you pretty much do have to do.) The question that really got me to think about was whether it would be possible for me to choose to be gay. Could I actually choose to be attracted to guys? I just didn't see that I could realistically make that choice.

Also, if you look at a picture of Julia Roberts and Lyle Lovett (like this, for example: http://www.people.com/people/archive/issue/0,,7566930712,00.html) - and you find yourself more attracted to the guy than to the girl, that seems like a built-in reaction much more than a choice. Really, how can you choose who you find attractive?

People's opinions do change over time. Maybe yours will never change. But is there something that might make that happen? For some of you, I can just say statistically that yes, there might be something that might get you to rethink your position.

Some things that my sons liked about our troop when it was small:

- you knew everyone

- you could all do stuff together at troop meetings

- it was easy to make decisions

- everyone felt like they had a part in the decisions

- no one got overlooked

We never really had a problem with getting critical mass, because if something got put on the calendar, it was because enough people wanted to do it. We didn't do patrol competitions, but that's not a big thing with our bigger troop, either.

Really, now that I think about it, I'm wistful for those days. I think a smaller troop has a lot of advantages.

However, as Eagledad says, good programs tend to grow. So if a troop has remained small for awhile, you'd want to know why. My experience is that this tends to be because Scouts grow frustrated with some aspect of the program - too disorganized, or one adult is too over-controlling, or they just aren't getting want they want for some reason.

A large, well-run troop can be great if you're a parent who wants to drop off your son. But really, most of our adults and Scouts seem to like the idea of a small troop, even though we are now big.

If the BSA split, the ownership of any trademarks would be part of the standard work that goes on with transfer of intellectual property. If the split was performed willingly by the two parties, then the ownership would be spelled out as part of the split, along with who gets ownership of buildings, pension plans, etc. If the split is a hostile split, then you're really just talking about some people leaving the BSA and starting their own organization, so all ownership of the existing items would stay with the BSA.

The charter may have been important for deciding who can call themselves a "Scouting" group, but at this point, I'd expect that the courts would follow precedent, even if the Congressional Charter was abandoned. If someone called themselves a Scouting group, and was organized to intentionally compete with the BSA, I'd think this would definitely be subject to a cease-and-desist ruling.

There are so many other names they could use, anyway.

I'm not sure I get how much a council policy actually matters.

I would think that if a particular situation is brought to the attention of National, that National would still revoke the membership. And I did not actually see a direct quote in the article from the council that contradicts the national policy.

I did see the statement written by the reporter that gays and lesbians remain welcome in the units, but that is not a direct quote. I'm sure that it's true that gays and lesbians remain welcome in many units, but can you really guarantee that avowed homosexuals are not going to be kicked out by national?

Interestinger and interestinger.

Nothing like that at our camp.

We already have a Venturing crew, so it would be really odd to have our guys sit through the pitch.

It is not a complete sentence, but it appears to me that it is the sub-title for the section.

Under that, it then includes a number of statements that would seem to fall under the umbrella of the sub-title.

- "Northern Star Council continues this tradition in our second century, in our inclusive leadership selection practices."

- "Northern Star Council welcomes all people who can help to further Scoutings mission."

- "Scouting is a private organization for the purpose of maintaining the right of parents and chartered organizations to choose their own Scouting leaders, trusting them to select talented adults and to join in holding all leaders accountable for appropriate behavior."

Everything about that says that they are letting the CO choose their own leaders. I suspect that their lawyers have carefully worded the page so as to avoid any direct contradiction with a National policy, even though it clearly intends to violate that policy.

National has all kinds of levers it can pull to get the council to change this position, if it chooses to do so. But for now, the policy is still up there.

The "official" policy is that the chartered organization chooses the leaders.

See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/18-981.pdf, "Selecting Quality Leaders"

Essentially, the committee develops a list of prospects, ranks them in order, and then asks them one-by-one whether they would take the position.

In practice, things are typically way less formal than this. I would say that a typical pattern would be for the SM to ask adults to register as ASMs, with the concurrence of the CC.

I am indifferent but in favor.

I doubt that hardly any Venturers have a strong feeling on their oath. And I don't think that Cub Scouts really care all that much one way or another. Webelos start to learn the Boy Scout version anyway. It certainly would have made things easier all those years that I had my own kids in both levels of the program.

What I'd really hope to do away with is the Sea Scout Promise, with the hopelessly outdated line: To seek to preserve the motto of the sea, Women and children first.

Both threads are trolling.

Bah. This is trolling? This is trolling? Back in my day, when the Internet was young, trolling actually meant something.

This puffery? Trolling? Nonsense.

What we have here is a straightforward case of reductio ad absurdum.

As is clear to all, these original posts, in the style of "A Modest Proposal", are not actually meant to be taken seriously. They don't even have a whiff of wanting to be taken seriously. They are clearly and transparently an argument that it's absurd for the BSA to ban one type of leader without banning other types. The argument goes like this: "If it's right to ban gay leaders, it should be right to ban fat leaders. Because it's absurd to ban fat leaders, it's therefore absurd to ban gay leaders."

You don't get to be a troll just by calling yourself one. You have to do something better than this to earn that title. Please don't call this a troll. By doing so you are minimizing what a real troll is.

when will BSA mention that?

It doesn't matter. This won't help with any argument with anybody. If people believe it's wrong for the BSA to discriminate against gays, the fact that the BSA has an obscure subsidiary organization that is inclusive is not going to convince them to support the BSA.

I suspect that we may be challenged by some folk about BSA's recent re-statement of their discriminatory membership policy.

What form do you anticipate that this challenge might take? People protesting? Holding up signs? Shouting you down? Or just showing up to ask more heartfelt questions about why they should support such a discriminatory organization?

I'm looking for suggestions for an appropriate response that is professional and informatory, perhaps with references to BSA literature and such.

So, the professional part I get. I like the idea of saying that "Today's event is in support of Mr. Green. We can discuss national policies some other day."

You say you'd like to make a response be "informatory". Why? What type of information would you provide? Is anyone who challenges you really going to be looking for information? Here's the official press release: http://www.scouting.org/Media/PressReleases/2012/20120717.aspx

I think the question in my mind is, which values are core to the BSA?

I think it's reasonable to state that members should accept that they will follow the Scout Oath and Law, and that they can see it when they sign up.

Duty to God, Duty to Country - those are right up front. I'm not worried that we'll be going down some slippery slope.

Believing that homosexuality is wrong? That's not obvious anywhere in any BSA material. I don't see how that's a core part of the mission, and I believe that inclusiveness and tolerance, which are stated numerous places, are going to trump this.

Likewise, I think you could add girls to the mix. The BSA doesn't say that it strongly believes in single-gender Scouting programs. The name might imply it, but since we already have co-ed Venturing, it's hard to think that adding girls is somehow anathema.

Compromising on the core values of the Oath and Law, though - I'm not so worried that's going to happen. Likewise, I hope we never drop the outdoor method - that seems pretty fundamental. I don't think we should allow anti-camping people to earn Eagle. And I'm not too worried about it.

Well, conceptually, Venturing has nothing to do with OA. So it's not really an inclusiveness item.

I think the "fix" for this would be to admit girls to Scouting in all aspects, and then there would be no particular issue with the OA.

I do think it would be a bit odd if girls could join the OA, but that boys can join the OA at an earlier age. That wouldn't seem quite right either.

I agree, it will happen, and then it will seem like much ado about nothing. I see that military members are now allowed to march in gay pride parades in uniform, and it's no big deal.

I also agree with Eamonn, that the BSA is between a rock and a hard place here.

I find it hard to predict exactly how long...there will be no progress, no progress, no progress, and then all of a sudden it will reach a tipping point. But I'm on the shorter end of the spectrum. Maybe 4-5 years.

You have a serious situation here. Who asked you to be the SM? What did they tell you about the job? What did they expect you to do? Is there someone who has your back?

Do you have a set of parents who appreciate what you are doing? Have you communicated any kind of vision of what you hope to accomplish in the troop?

You can't do this alone. You need to have a set of adults who are with you, or you are doomed. There will almost always be some adults who are unhappy, especially when you are making changes, but you better darned well have some supporters too.

As for some of your specific questions:

Am I wrong in asking the Chair to tell the committee what the function are for the SM?

No, of course you aren't wrong for wanting the committee to understand the role of the SM. But there's something more here. It's not so much that you want them to know the role as it is that you want them to let you do the role. It's very hard to tell people to back off. Much better to provide a vision of where you are trying to go, rather than trying to get the CC to batter people into line.

The other day one of our parent told me that the scout oat and law are just words on a piece of paper, you really expect us to follow that?

Well, again, I feel like there is more to the story here. Was the parent actually saying that we don't expect the boys to be trustworthy? Or was it that the parent was saying that we can't actually expect them to be able to follow the goals to 100%? Was there an issue with how you dealt with someone who wasn't following the Law?

Fund raisers are bad. When I bring up ways to make the fund raiser better, Im told to do it myself.

You can't order volunteers around. Again, you need to talk about what your goals are, get people - either the adults and/or the Scouts excited about helping do a better job so that you can do things with the money.

Can I tell parent that if you do not show up for fund raiser, our troop is going to ask you for $150.00 or so per family per event to help fund the troop?

Some troops do this, but it is not really kosher, according to the IRS. If a boy is in effect earning his own money by showing up and doing a job, then he is supposed to report it as income.

This committee does not want to charge dues and no one shows up for fund raiser.

So, what is the committee's plan to fund the troop? What do they want to do? Lay out the annual plan and see how they suggest funding it. Or give them options.

This troop has not recruited in 3 years. I want to start recruiting, I was told to do it myself.

Is there anyone here who likes you? Or are you just butting heads with one or two people in particular? I will say that parents of existing Scouts aren't always the most enthusiastic about recruiting. Not much incentive. This seems like the least of your problems at the moment.

I have been threatened that if I change things to fast that a couple of families will drop.

That is a possible outcome, for sure. That sounds like accurate advice. You can decide if you think that's ok or not.

I was told that I need to put in my time, like all of the senior parents have to be counted.

Respect is something that does come over time. However, you are the SM, responsible for working with the Scouts to put on the program. As you build up some relationship capital, you'll get more leeway to do things. But you do need to reach an understanding with the CC and with at least some adults about what it is that you are trying to do. Do you have any ASMs that you can count on?

The camping equipment is trash. I asked a parent to look for thing at rummage sales. I could not believe what language she used on me for mentioning rummage sale.

It sounds like you have a rough relationship with a lot of people. Of course it's a fine option to look at rummage sales. It almost sounds like people are reflexively against whatever ideas you offer up.

I was talking to a parent today and was told that a couple of parents in this committee want me removed.

No shock there, given all of the above statements.

What to do

What do you want to do? Why are you there? Are you having any fun? Do you have a Scout in the troop? Unless you have a really strong reason to want to stay, I'd just move on.

If you really want to stay, you absolutely need to get on the same page with the CC. I'd try to have a cup of coffee with him, and then document your understanding in writing, just to make sure there are no misunderstandings. Then I'd have some one-on-one discussions with several other adults that seem to want to work with you. You need to build a team.

After that, focus on putting on a good program. Go camping. Have fun with the Scouts in the woods. I've found that a lot of good things follow on if you put the program first.

Delegate, delegate, delegate.

Build a team of adults. Don't micro-manage them, they need to know that they can take the ball and run with it. Give them an assignment, tell them to make all the decisions relative to that assignment, and report back to you on how it went.

I like the idea of taking some time off. I may try that one.

Make it as fun as you can for the adults. If the adults are having fun, the boys will have fun, and everyone will be less stressed.