Eagle94-A1

6 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Hazing is a poor choice of words. One of the reasons why is that the lodge isn't the one that chose the Scout. The Scout's peers are the ones that deemed the Scout worthy for induction. Who is the lodge to say otherwise?

If a Scout or Scouter cannot properly undergo the tests of the Ordeal, are they truly worthy to join the Order? If the tests really do not mean anything, why bother having them, and let everyone join the OA?

As for "hazing," that is a direct quote from the LA when i asked why we do not send the folks who are not undergoing the tests to leave. 

I remember when you could be told to leave the Ordeal if you were not following directions. Now it is considered "hazing" if you tell them to leave. That blew my mind when I first was told this.

Sadly I have seen folks talking the entire time, and when asked if they think they deserve to be members, said yes. I have seen an adult be placed in a work party of one, because he was extremely negative, would not stop talking or complaining, and it was affecting the rest of the work party. He got in. Worse was I saw an entire work part stop and refuse to do another thing. Again when I asked why we don't send them home, I was told it would be considered "hazing," and they have to make the decision. IMHO, if they do not follow the rules, they made their decision. Sadly national disagrees.

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

How many councils have you served in to make this assessment??

I been in 5 councils, 6 including the national council, and worked in 2, as well as for national supply. I have volunteered on the council level, and have friends who have volunteered on the regional and national levels. I stand by what I said.

7 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Do you honestly believe that volunteers are not handpicked? Do you honestly believe that professionals will not get "Yes men" on those committees? Do you honestly believe that if the volunteers go against the professionals, they will either be removed or ignored?

Anyone remember the Chicago Area Council  incident a few years back?

Anyone remember the 411 Cub Scout Committee June 2015 to December 2016 program?

Anyone remember Philmont being mortgaged without the volunteers learning about it  after the fact?

And these are a few items on the national level.  Yep Chicago became a national issue when they intervened to overrule the council executive board members.

And how many here discuss issues like the above that are done on the council level?

I may need to tell my troop Summit is off the list. That is one camp someone wanted to look into.

Did 2 adults get in for free? Camp we  went to did that, and extra adults are 1/2 price of the Scouts.

WOW. I have not attended a camp that charged full price for adults, although I know about 1 of them.

@fred johnson,

Please note I was commenting on this statement.

14 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Those policies, guidelines, and other required rules are NOT promulgated by professionals but rather by volunteers on committees that are staffed by professionals who have NO vote.  Those committee recommendations are sent to the National Executive Board who makes the final approval to cause  implementation.  Volunteers run the National Council - not the professional staff.  

And I stand by what I say. 

10 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Those policies, guidelines, and other required rules are NOT promulgated by professionals but rather by volunteers on committees that are staffed by professionals who have NO vote.  Those committee recommendations are sent to the National Executive Board who makes the final approval to cause implementation.  Volunteers run the National Council - not the professional staff.  

Do you honestly believe that volunteers are not handpicked? Do you honestly believe that professionals will not get "Yes men" on those committees? Do you honestly believe that if the volunteers go against the professionals, they will either be removed or ignored?

Anyone remember the Chicago Area Council  incident a few years back?

Anyone remember the 411 Cub Scout Committee June 2015 to December 2016 program?

Anyone remember Philmont being mortgaged without the volunteers learning about it  after the fact?

And these are a few items on the national level.  Yep Chicago became a national issue when they intervened to overrule the council executive board members.

4 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It doesn’t “want everyone”, but gives a unit the option to vote all who meet the requirements in. 

Respectfully disagree. Once upon a time, the OA had election quotas, i.e. you could only vote fro X number out of Y eligible. Now there is no limit to the number you can vote for.

SMs had to meet the same criteria as other adults, i.e. have 15 days of camping, be nominated by troop committee, and be selected by lodge committee. Now SMs automatically get in.

Time between Ordeal Member and Brotherhood member use to be 10 months, now it is 6 months.

And

Scouts use to be able to have their name withheld from teh ballot if they were not interested, now they automatically get put on it, even if they stated publicly they have no interest.

4 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I'm not sure how this will work for Scouts in TAC and FEC.

Lot of Natives are in the military. Could work with them. I know I had a one stationed at an local AFB sit in one of my classes to see what was expected so they could teach the MB.

1. Welcome.  2. I still wear my 1990s uniform as they are better built and much more comfortable than today's uniforms.

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I have a question is perhaps best plopped here. In light of the many, many comments from Scouters about how in the dark their LCs have been to the details of the bankruptcy, do many have a plan for the prospect of a plan plotz? I noted on another thread the post about one LC that has thought through it and has such a course of action. If I were in any local leadership role, and assuming I am informed about the machinations of the case, I sure definitely would have been noodling on that since word of the dreaded Toggle Plan. 

I get notices from two Councils and speak with a friend who is a longtime Scouter and now SM of a huge Unit. Mention of such a state of being prepared is absent. Crickets. My friend and I reconnected about two months ago. Until then, he was apprised his LC had their contribution in hand, was effectively released and ready to go on their merry way with the fall of the gavel. We were texting with the last hour, I mentioned the near 100 days silence and my speculation about the impact of the delayed ruling in Purdue. He was shocked that the third-party releases might be in jeopardy. He knew nothing about a BSA only plan or what that would mean to his Council. Nada. Nothing. No notion. Nein nootropics nowhere, nohow. 

Either the councils are being kept in the dark by national with everything going on, the councils are ignorant of what is going on,  the councils have their heads in the sand, or the councils to do not want to pass along the bad news to volunteers thinking it will cause a death spiral. 

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

The idea of making HA bases into NP orgs actually seems to me a viable thought.  As long as the focus is, well, focussed.  Opening them up to more non-scout groups could likely lower the costs to Scouting groups who would get priority.  And that also might include working out opening them to other World groups.  

 

I know the two Scout Association camps I worked at in the UK were open to non-Scout groups. We had school groups from the UK, Belgium, and Germany use the camps. And of course we had Scouts from all over using them.

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

If it was not concealment than why did it take an order from the Oregon State Supreme Court to make the IV files available to those outside of the BSA?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if BSA made those records public, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER (emphasis), they would be held for libel.

9 hours ago, scoutlaw74 said:

And they still were excluded from scouting after being exonerated? I apologize, but this doesn’t make sense. There must be a review/appeal process for such situations. This is horrible if I understand this correctly. 

Correct. They were placed in the IVF and never removed. The sheriff's department doing the investigation found enough evidence to show that the "scout" was being a peeping Tom after hours at the adult showers during the designated time for ladies, which was after lights out. This "scout" had a history of sneaking out after hours and lying to avoid trouble.

20 minutes ago, scoutlaw74 said:

Thank you for noting this, but, would a youth falsely accused and exonerated really still be excluded from scouting? This would devastate my son. He’s an active Eagle scout. He hasn’t done anything wrong. Is it really BSA policy for an accused and exonerated scout to be excluded?

BSA's policy is to protect youth and itself. I do not know how they will decide on a youth. I do know the individual who was exonerated had the District Award of Merit, Silver Beaver, and was scheduled to undergo the Vigil.

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Something that is very, very serious and involves inappropriate behavior and making threatening statements would seem to be something the BSA would want the police or local authority outside of BSA to be looking into. As a parent I would want law enforcement involved weather my child was the accuser or the accused.

You are correct, BSA would have local law enforcement involved. But the accused would be removed from Scouting, until law enforcement concluded their investigation. Even then, the accused may be permanently banned, even if the evidence  exonerated the accused.

1 hour ago, jcousino said:

My understanding under ypt is that scouting does not do the investigating. That's the job of children protective services (CPS) (law enforcement). Once the youth made the complaint the duty of the camp was to notify the scout ex and contract the youths parents and law enforcement. Threating statement are actionable, not sure what level the  inappropriate behavior reached. I do believe that bully is actionable in some state's. If the Youth has not been contracted by CPS by now it has not likely been reported. Scouting not following its own rules.

Law enforcement may have been called in and it is being investigated by them. Those things do take time. HOWEVER, BSA policy is to remove the accused from Scouting, EVEN IF NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME (caps for emphasis), The safety of the members is paramount.

1 hour ago, jcousino said:

 If the lady is totally making this up making a false statement to CPS is a crime on her part

It may be a crime, but how many folks making false reports actually get convicted? There are numerous accounts of false reporting in the news. Incidents at Columbia and Duke Universities immediately come to mind. And do not forget the guy in Georgia, who went to jail for a number of years, because of a false report and perjury during the trial. He was later exonerated when the accuser finally admitted she lied.

And I know a Scout who falsely accused a Scouter. The Scouter was removed immediately from Scouting, and placed in the IVF, DESPITE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SHOWING CONCLUSIVELY THAT HER STORY WAS THE TRUE STORY! (caps for emphasis). She was never reinstated. As for the "Scout," he eventually received Eagle and continued with his life as normal. Nothing happened to him. 

In my experience and research, only 1 person ever got their membership back. I read about a guy who stopped at a bar in uniform who got kicked out. Reason he stopped at the bar in uniform was that the troop's bus broke down in the middle of nowhere, and the SM walked over a mile or two to make phone calls to  a tow company and the parents, It took over a year for him to be reinstated.

Sadly everyone else I know or read about that has been placed in the IVF (because that is where the Scouter is being placed) has not won appeals. This includes the individual who was accused of a YPT violation, and was cleared by local law enforcement after a criminal investigation cleared her.

7 minutes ago, skeptic said:

 I need to check into it, but if we had to find a new CO, but kept the site, would the unit tenure transfer to the new CO?  That is the biggest concern if we needed to find another sponsor.  But, until we see how this works, and it will be a bit, just keep "doing our best".

 

If the current CO agrees to sign over the unit number, YES! (Emphasis, Ok, maybe a little screaming in joy for you  )

Troop I grew up in had 3 COs over it's 25+ year history, and got to keep it's tenure. there is a form that needs to be filled out, and the current CO has to agree to the transfer, and if they ever start a new unit, they get a new number. 

On 6/24/2022 at 2:34 PM, Eagle1993 said:

It goes to the Girl Scout model. 

This concerns me for a variety of reasons.

1. One of the reasons why many girls I have talked to left GSUSA is because of the mandatory cookie sales. They spend what, 2 or 3 months out of the years hawking cookies. And they get pennies on the box.

2. Limits on units. Will councils state that units can only camp on their properties? I have read here and elsewhere that councils do that by only have their camps approved for Cub camping.

3. What if the council neglects the units? I have seen units get ignored by council because they do not go to the council camp,  participate in popcorn sales, etc.

4. What if  the council professionals have issues with a unit's Scouters, will  they have the ability to remove them. I know they can place them in the IVF as I have already seen 1 individual placed in the IVF for political reasons (I think he discovered some accounting discrepancies and questioned it, which led to his being placed in the IVF). 

5. Will they have the ability to  access funds, and requisition or sell equipment. I have seen  OA custodial accounts raided. I know of one council in need of a van for their summer camp program, would they be able to requisition a unit's bus? What about trailers? What about Sea Scout vessals?

6. What about Unit history? In the GSUSA model, units last as long as they have volunteers, usually no more than 10 years, and a GS troop is about equal to a BSA patrol. He have units been around 20, 50, 100+ years. Using the GSUSA model, will units have some type of stability?

One of the NCAP standards, and I believe it is mandatory (sorry It has been a while since I had to deal with NCAP) is that camps' water must be tested ( I think yearly at a minimum) and be deemed potable. I know the NCAP standard was higher than the local standards, and we had to rush a test to open our day camp since it was at our local camp.

I believe  5 years is the 100% vested mark.

Thanks folks for the reassurance, it helps.

Yes I want to do my best for my Scouts. I worry about disappointing them, especially having to back out of something they have been looking forward to.  This whitewater trip is making me anxious because I want my Scouts to have some good memories.  I am the only adult able to go rafting with them, and am thankful that the guides will count towards qualified supervision requirement. One of my Scouts is about to age out, and I wanted this to be a memorable trip for him since he specifically wanted this.

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Around the 2017 plus or minus a year or so.  There are still retirement plans but the defined benefits plan is no longer available to new employees and employees who have not been there for a considerable period of time.

And there was an attempt to to redefine the plan for professionals who had been in the system for decades as well as retirees. I remember the big stink it was causing.