skeptic

Reading some of this, I was reminded of local experience. Over my tenure with our unit, the past 40+, we have had likely a dozen non parental or unknown adults try to join. We have always made sure they were not interacting directly with kids while "visiting", and as soon as possible they were interviewed by other established leaders. IF they balked in any way at the references, or now the required background checks and so on, they were politely told they were not welcome. None of them reappeared, though one did make it into another unit but was almost immediately "dropped" and added to the local "not acceptable" list. No absolute proof, just concerns. We also had to deal with older youth issues once and told the parents the teen was not welcome anymore, and suggested they get him help. These are real interactions, but not what we normally would discuss broadly. Caution, and proper vetting. And, we had one very respected, at the time, Scouter that was dropped after he was arrested for abuse of his own step child, a girl. He never had bothered any of the males, and it appeared it was focused on that familial link. He is either still in jail, or has since passed. The question with him, of course, is would the male youth have eventually been targets, or was he focused on girls? I do know that once or twice he made questionable comments about young girls in my own presence, and I mentioned it to another leader who shrugged. We likely would react differently in today's climate, but it was hidden by the family, and his wife even supported him for a long time. So, errors in judgment, and family fear or blindness, or simply not connecting the signs?

For the most part, this subject was hushed and Not discussed, and authorities also chose to not believe or make excuses because so and so was a good guy, as most knew. Parents often chose to not press the issue due to the embarrassment and community tendency to call it he said, he said or it is a kid making things up. It was not right, but that was the world most of us live in. Now, when it did actually get beyond the disbelief and was taken seriously, the laws were not yet particularly strong, and reinforced to some extent the idea of not believing. Again, unless their was absolute proof, it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, just like rape of women and even spousal abuse. So, today, we are trying to fix something that cannot be fixed, and doing it at the expense, for the most part. the current youth in the program, and even the mental state of the victims. I think that it what most of us that are so awful are referring to as different standards. None of us thinks it should have been brushed aside, but few thought about it the way it is looked at today. Bye, no more attempt to explain.

We need to clarify that there are now two groups of Methodists, and they are not in agreement. However, the traditional support of Scouting, the Methodist Mens' group, still supports the program. Please be aware of this. See this FB group. https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/photos/a.128216575250845/582219489850549

And there lies the rub. Any suggestion that there might be some lack of accuity over time is somehow blaming the victim. We saw that in the deplorable side show in the Kavanaugh hearings. I am not yet senile enough to not continue to see the probability of some enhancements over time of traumatic and also amusing incidents in life. So, let me go back to being a skeptical realist, trying to see through the glass clearly when the prism is clouded. Nuf said.

No, we should not be going back there, we should be trying to determine the truth. As noted, the way the article is written, it is almost impossible to see it as not exaggerated at least. HOW could someone be repeatedly abused and subjected to being put in a shallow grave and urinated upon by the group without any of it coming out? Something happened to traumatize him, but the level of depravity, while possible, seems almost beyond the pale. Maybe I am simply too much of a skeptic, and have seen too many stories that have been "stretched" for whatever reason, to not see some doubt in this article. But, I also suspect there is a level of authenticity, and real trauma incurred. But, he does suggest that the issue needs to be addressed on a broader, societal level, which is good. As another poster noted, there is a huge misconception of how much BSA can pay, as well as a segment that cares not that the overall program still carries far more benefit than negativity, especially with the more updated systems. NONE of it will or can ever be perfect and a guarantee against the worst in society, but it can be close to it if the programs added for protection are followed and constantly improved as new info and tech becomes available.

Sorry, but the level of depravity partially shared here approached the same tenor that took over the McMartin episode. And, what is not determined is IF the victim ever did report anything. He claims it was at the hands of the leader and his son, yet are there others from the period that reported anything? And, if the terrible series of attacks and the trauma that resulted was not actually brought to the attention of anyone, what exactly should have resulted? We are surely not seeing the whole picture, and again, the media is taking the "story" as gospel and not even attempting to view it in the wider context of the time and the society that allowed it to happen. There is no excuse for this to have occurred, but if it was NOT brought out then, how was BSA to know? And, if it was brought out to parents, what did they do to mitigate it?

I am confused as to how Mr. Kosnoff can be posting as a legal individual if he is no longer a lawyer, as was, I believe was posted on this forum. He can I guess call himself whatever he chooses, but is he more technically posing as an officer of the court in some capacity, without a legal right? Just asking.

Maybe it has a lot to do with the actual scouting that is the norm, not the deviant outliers. Scouts do public patriotic ceremonies in many places; Scouts contribute thousands of hours of community service outside of the Eagle projects; Scouts are often called upon by the wider community for assistance in special events; Scouts and Scouting in 99+% of community visibility is a positive and worthwhile example. Maybe there are more people that understand the the anomalous hyper scandal is NOT the norm for the larger group, and understand that it is far more beneficial to their communities than detrimental. Many people can look at the wider view and see that the deviations are not the norm. Just suggesting.

All I am asking is that they go beyond the witch hunt with BSA and take other bites of the elephant. Expand the focus to include other agencies and publicly drag them into view. I realize this discussion is on the BSA, but the point is that it should not simply be on BSA, but should be clearly reaching far beyond them, as it is not JUST a BSA issue, but a real societal issue that dwarfs the localized drama. And, with that, I bow out again, for a bit, at least.

Cute; but it really dodges the question. The issue with BSA is far larger than just the BSA. It is a massive problem in most youth serving groups, and even more so in the governmental oversight agencies. That is to what I refer.

" I do also like the idea of widespread AG investigations. They are overdue and appropriate." Would that apply beyond the BSA? If not, then it is simply ignoring the elephant in the room, IMHO.

Simply ANY acknowledgement that this whole witch hunt pales in comparison to the issues in our Government agencies and connected support groups who "supposedly" are paid to protect children. I am simply looking to see actual balance in responses to these tragedies. But, it seems to me, a novice, that few will make the effort to "fix" these shortcomings in Government agencies. Why? Lawyers do not feel they can win? It is cheaper to attack non-governmental groups? The Government and related groups have the aura of being official, so they cannot be held to the grindstone? I do not know. But the imbalance is distressing, and it often appears that our legal system is weighted against actual fairness when it comes to public awareness of their improprieties (to be kind). I am NOT defending the errors in BSA responses, though do feel we continue to ignore that it often was not just the BSA that looked the other way. Families, policing agencies, political powers all played a part. Yet, only the BSA is being held up as the ogre. Am old enough to understand that there is no answer and that the BSA too is a victim in a way. Life is not perfect, and people are surely not, at least not mere mortals. In the end, NOONE will win, except perhaps some lawyers, though maybe the actions of the worst of them may draw sanction (we can hope). But, many will lose, including the actual victims, as has already seemed obvious by a few posters who suggest their hell has been re exposed. Meanwhile, back in the real world I have to get boots repaired so I can try to do a hike Saturday, and our "local" programs try to simply work the program and still offer the actual benefits of Scouting that is still there amidst the turmoil.

While surely most reading this thread would agree that any abuse is too much abuse, we still cannot completely stop it, as it is and always has been a negative side of some human personalities. As noted above, and many times in this tragedy, perfection in defending is not possible. Let's perhaps have some of the better stat finders do some serious comparisons to the National Child Protective Services in this regard. Even a cursory Google search will turn up some truly scary stats. But, because it is part of the Government, it is not held to the same rabid public shame and calls for recompense. The reports from some of the Foster systems are horror stories. So, I have to ask if those reports are even remotely true, where IS that public outcry and the lawyers at the bars? Are the failures of Child Welfare agencies less repugnant than those of youth serving agencies such as the Scouts or the Boys and Girls Clubs, or the Y and so on? As has been repeated over and over again, the failures within the BSA are fewer by percentage than in most similar groups, and certainly far less than those within the Government agencies sworn to protect the children. And they actually have and continue to try to put real and workable barriers in place. But, some do not take them seriously, or simply are too "busy" or "trusting" to take notice. So, I am curious as to what the loudest on here may have to say in this regard. Again, no abuse is acceptable, but should not the responses be similar? Can anyone give a rational and balanced response?

Here again, from Troop 111 in Ventura, California is an apex of Scouting. Thanks to Craig Carey, ASM and his dedicated parents, and thoroughly enthusiastic Scouts. Locally, Scouting is showing its best face, and other units are sharing at times. This is what dedicated leaders can make happen with patience and imagination. And it is not just the trail work, exceptional at any level for novices, but also many other areas of service in our area. Take a look. Many of you reading this might find it a possible option for your own area with a little searching. https://issuu.com/ojaivisitorsguide/docs/ojai_magazine_summer_2021/s/12852782?fbclid=IwAR2ezx1925qPBtzaGeywXcE7N6Wabra4QsWDvraCoP4arf9i-XNE2_sCWec

I came back last Saturday from our camp. All staff had to be vaccinated. All adult leaders had to be vaccinated. Eligible youth were asked to be vaccinated. We had to have proof of the vaccination as part of the paperwork. Precamp troop checks were done with a BSA designed check list. On the day we left, we again went through the checklist and had temps taken. On arrival, we were interviewed and had temps taken. At every meal we had to sanitize in front of a staff person and have temp taken. All group activity required masks, and they enforced it firmly, but nicely, even with this grouchy old man who kept forgetting to put the mask up after water drinking and so on. Areas were regularly wiped down, and dining was outside in tents or open air with little dining hall access except staff and leaders on occasion. Drinks were on a porch, and pitchers had to be filled for meals by staff and given to servers. California state protocols were all were followed strictly, and we had no COVID issues, though a couple of other problems standard to camp attendance. Still, not sure that common sense and simple normal cleanliness and awareness would not suffice for much of it. But of course, Common Sense is dead.

Just the old guy response. I have a number of Mentor pins on the pocket flap of my primary uniform under the knots. Why? Because young person honored me with them, and I seems right to wear them. I know one local that for whatever reason has a dozen or more. He has a pocket device he made to hang from the right pocket nd keeps them on there. Most are only worn at formal troop events, though my pins simply stay there except when the shirt goes to be cleaned.. Uniform police can be ignored. It is your decision, and if they have purpose, or mean something, that is the only thing that matters. So, there. And harrumph!🤗

It happened decades ago now in the old Great Western Council. A COR got miffed and spent a great amount of time gathering other COR's to attend in force. They summarily booted the Executive and his assistant. But it took him a long time to gather the troops, so to speak, and the mess had been brewing for a while. I would need to check the state laws regarding banning voting members from the inner sanctum, so to speak. Not sure that is legal, though it may be as long as a decision requiring a vote is not made without all voting members notified. It is also mostly true that the CO seldom seems to care beyond his own group.

Here is the applicable wording from the BSA directly. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/511-421(16)_WEB.pdf Note this specific statement: "In territory supervised by local councils, each chartered organization shall appoint a volunteer, other than the unit leader or assistant unit leader, as its chartered organization representative to represent it as a member of the district committee and as a voting member of the local council.” The following official description of a chartered organization representative is found in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America. Article VI., Local Councils, Section 3, Chartered Organization Representative, Clause 7. It reads: “In territory supervised by local councils, each chartered organization shall appoint a volunteer, other than the unit leader or assistant unit leader, as its chartered organization representative to represent it as a member of the district committee and as a voting member of the local council.” Following are additional requirements for service as a chartered organization representative: 1. The chartered organization representative’s primary responsibilities are to help units to be successful and to provide coordination between the chartered organization and Scouting. 2. The chartered organization representative is automatically a voting member of the council and the district upon selection or appointment by the chartered organization. The individual must be an adult, a U.S. citizen, and a registered member of the BSA during the period of time that the chartered organization designates this person as chartered organization representative. 3. The chartered organization representative is encouraged to become an active, participating member of one of the district’s committees.

I would hope not, but much depends on the next few months. There was a schism in the church recently, and there likely is also a difference in those views more locally. Our own congregation and pastors are strongly behind us, but they are still tied to the Conference decisions. Hopefully that will be easier by year end. Almost all the troops over 40 years old in our council are Methodists, and ours is 100 in December. The big thing is to NOT be chicken little every time someone says something that may suggest a change in view. At least in my experience, more rational voices rise to the top, and review and adjustments move it all forward. Scouting is still local.

For some direct and less paranoiac info from the main Methodist group. https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/576502677088897?notif_id=1626798180694932&notif_t=page_followed_contents_awareness&ref=notif I spoke with our local minister yesterday, and we are in So Cal, the heart of the liberal church, and she assured me that Methodists in most of the country are not pushing to throw us out. But, she also said that there is a smaller segment, mostly in what we might call Red states, that make that noise. Anyway, read the link above.

This is old news, though glad to see it is progressing. Please try to keep the time frames clear, as I thought while I was at camp I missed something tragic again. Thanks.

You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not? Just because few do, it has been in place a long time and on rare occasion has resulted in dismissal of a Council executive and major changes. But, since few ever pay any attention, too many boards run amuck with power people who want recognition or to do things "their way" and to "their" benefit. Going clear back to the original Dale quagmire, IF this had been done, it would have been left in the lap of the CO to make the decision. But, somehow, those erudite "forward thinkers" decided it should become a public drama and political football. The CO and the actual unit never had an issue with Mr. Dale, even after his trip into college politics and personal reflection. He did not make the initial choice to become public with his personal life, it was forced by some idiot (yes, I know a strong or maybe insulting word) who saw his name in regard to the political football of the time and felt obligated to make it a big deal. Even then, if National had simply put it back to the unit and CO, it might have played out far differently.

There is nothing obvious on the net regarding this, and with the media attitude towards BSA, that is surprising to say the least. Perhaps this can be actually verified?

Yesterday, trying to clean up "stuff" I found a group of printed out opinion pieces from around the BSA's centennial year. Hard copies of various writers and public figures, as well as just old timers and silent, distanced supporters. One of them is the shared explanation of Terry as to why he has chosen his particular course in relation to BSA. It reminded me as to why I originally chose to join the group, and also that we all have our own views and ways of support and ways to change our compasses in relation to Scouting. Perhaps this might be reshared? I can scan it, but it would be easier and maybe even allow a current comment from Terry?

Ventura County Council. It was the first official camp after our founding in June, 2021, opening in 1923. We lost it during the Depression to a project to put U.S. 399 over the mountains from Ventura to the Bakersfield area. Most of what was then 399 stopped at the base of the mountains on the Bakerfield side. Anyway, an agreement was reached for the camp property, including guaranteed lease for property in the Lockwood Valley area near Mount Pinos and Frazier Park. The Lees who had a turkey ranch in Lockwood gave a small plot of land to the scouts, and leases were developed up canyon from there for what is today's camp, Three Falls, with some other additions over the years.