MikeS72

38 minutes ago, satl8 said:

Same patrol, another gentleman asked for his beads/cert/necker to be sent to his house

As did I 48 years ago.

51 minutes ago, FireStone said:

Is there an official BSA policy on Cub Scouts being dropped off for den or pack meetings with no parent present? My understanding is that from 2nd grade and above, drop-offs are ok, but I can't seem to find any documentation on this.

Anyone aware of any official BSA stance on this?

Since Cub Scouts is family scouting, I doubt that there is anywhere that would easy to find that explicitly gives the ok for parents to drop off and leave, although the fact that only Lion and Tiger require an adult with them at all activities and meeting seems to imply to parents that once they hit Wolf it is ok.

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Agreed.  Overall, I think BSA is missing the boat on instilling a mindset of stewardship.

Culture question...do you and your Scouts raise your Scout sign when repeating the Outdoor Code?  If not, what is the subliminal message?  (I know many who do not, and think it inappropriate to do so because it is not prescribed so in the Scout Handbook.)

We do the Scout Oath, then the Scout Law, and then the Outdoor Code.  The sign is up for all three, as they are done consecutively.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think the 72 hour rule is restricted to parents or guardians. 

The 72 hour rule applies to any and all persons over the age of 18 who want to camp with a unit.  

I can see the application with Cubs, as other than the occasional Webelos Resident Camp, they are typically on one or two nights, so no need for that rule to hinder anyone there.  Also, Cubs usually are required to have a parent/guardian when the camp.

Where the 72 hour rule needs to be reinforced, and IMO made stricter, is at the troop level.  I am all for any parent who wishes to accompany a troop camping to be welcome.  However, I would really like to see the be required to register, take YPT, and be background checked.  Any parent who just wants to observe what their child does on some of these campouts who does not want to register is welcome to come out and observe to their hearts content during the day. 

2 hours ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I don’t see a lot of packs/troops contributing to that.  They’ll hide any visible assets in an instant.

What visible assets do you think the average pack/troop has, that they would 'hide in an instant'?

Our pack assets really only consist of a pack flag and an American flag.  The troop has the same by way of flags, along with 8 or 9 tents and several patrol boxes filled with yard sale cooking gear.  Most of what we camp with is provided by the individual scouts.  While I know that there are troops with a lot of high end gear, I feel safe in the thought that the average pack or troop could not raise more than a few hundred dollars, if that, even if they liquidated everything they own.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

What will be interesting is that the Methodist Units will not recharter until March/April ... so we will see a late coming surge of recharter payments in 2022

Unless I misunderstood something, we (UMC units) must still file the re-charter paperwork as we normally do, and must pay the registration fees for each Scout and adult leader.  What we do not do is pay the $75 Charter Org fee until at least March 31, provided UMC continues as a Charter Org, in which case we would have to do so through what ever CO we may be able to find.  In that case we would not see a surge of payments in April 2022.

I did the adult training module as soon as it was released, and saw nothing (at least to me) objectionable.

As for the MB, I would support taking the various parts of it and integrating them into the existing Citizenship MBs rather than creating a stand alone Eagle required badge.  Other than the MB counselors, most people would probably not even notice the changes.

I could easily image it becoming something like the annual Cyber Chip renewals, where the scouts would watch and discuss a video once a year or once every other year.

5 hours ago, MacBrave said:

The Boy Scouts of America and United Methodist leadership continue to work together to resolve matters related to BSA’s financial restructuring and have agreed, in the best interest of the young people who participate in Scouting, to strongly recommend to United Methodist Church chartering organizations and Boy Scout Councils to extend existing Charter Agreements and Facility Use Agreements in force at this time through March 31, 2022. There will be no additional fee required from those chartering organizations through March 31, 2022. This will pause new chartering, re-chartering and the use of facility use agreements with United Methodist churches. This automatic extension will allow Boy Scouts of America, United Methodist leadership, and other parties in the bankruptcy case time to resolve important issues affecting Chartered Organizations, including a favorable release for Chartered Organizations for any Scout abuse claims.

We are extremely pleased with this announcement as it allows Scouting to continue uninterrupted for the Scouts, leaders, and Scouting families in units chartered by Methodist churches.

This part seems to have gone out verbatim to every Methodist Conference.  We got the same information in a letter last week, however, there are churches in our district and council who have looked at the wording "strongly recommend" and have said 'nope, this does not change anything for us'.

Hoping that something gets worked out to allow the relationship between the church and BSA to continue.

31 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Kosnoff's letter to AIS claimants:

Kosnoff Letter to 15,0000 Abused in Scouting Clients Advising them To Vote NO to the BSA Plan (yumpu.com)

Interesting how many times he faults the 'mass tort' lawyers, as he calls them (can't say what I would like to call them) "because the will take a piece of your payment which under the current $1.854 billion settlement fund will total more than $425 million."  He only once mentions his cut: "Under your engagement letter with AIS, your payment will be reduced by 40% to pay for the attorneys' share of the payment".  Not any different than what he is faulting the 'mass tort' lawyers for, other than to whom those $$ are going.

51 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I think I understand what you are saying but can we agree to having zero tolerance for CSA. Please. 

I would be both amazed and appalled at the same time if there was any regular poster here that did not agree that there should be zero tolerance for any and all CSA.

2 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Meaning some scout will not take a shower any more often that every 72 hours. I think that is a generous count, some will try to make through the entire week. 

As I have heard often, swimming is not showering/bathing. 

Some will try, few will succeed.  No shower Friday night, momma better be driving to camp to pick you up - not getting back in my car!

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

This must be an edict implemented after I hit the road. In my day, it was either the 5 seconds or 10 second rule, depending how choice the morsel was that slipped from one’s grasp or spork or picnic table or mess kit. I once saw a kid scrape off a piece of steak after it hit the dirt and lay there for a good 8 seconds. He was almost at the limit, but under the wire. In 72 hours the coons woulda got it, no doubt. 

I have known many a scout for whom 72 hours would be no barrier to eating something that the racoon would turn it's nose up at.  There are times that I think many scouts think the 72 hour rule is the minimum time between showers when at summer camp.  😏

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

So are you saying that an experts knowledge is not true based on your experienced opinion?  

I think what @Eagledadwas saying is how much of that 50% number is what immediately comes to mind when the term sexual abuse is used, and how much of it is a couple of 11 or 12 year olds who got caught comparing development in the shower house at summer camp.  Without that breakdown, it is hard to know how to react to that part of the announcement.

I would think that if it is the former, that is very concerning, and may well lead to a 3 tiered program that many other countries use, splitting ScoutsBSA into 2 age distinct groups.

On another note, I fully agreed with the comments about the 72 hour rule.  My first reaction to that policy when announced was why?  Why are we not insisting that any adult who wants to spend time in camp with scouts must be registered, trained, and background checked.

28 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The two areas I was surprised was that 50% of the abuse are done by youth and known abusers are in the BSA. 

 

Not surprised at all by the first, extremely skeptical of the second.

I am of the belief that 50% statistic includes a large percentage of curious exploration and 'show me' behaviors, which, when done in an adult to youth setting is definitely coercive and abusive, may be nothing more than that curiosity between youth of the same age.  I would agree however, when it is a much older scout with a young one, that is different, and I would include those interactions in the definite abuse category.  That is why even before it became BSA policy to not allow youth to tent together if they have more than a 2 year age difference we nudged them in that direction any way (not hard to do, as most older scouts prefer to either tent with someone their own age, or in many cases, prefer to tent alone.

As to his assertion that the BSA is aware of people who are known sex abusers being involved and looking the other way, I find that tough not to question.  That does not mean that there has never been a single occurrence, but I find it extremely hard to believe that any person in any position of authority in the BSA would ignore a known sex abuser and allow them to serve.  

It would be fantastic if none if these issues existed, and no one in scouting had ever had to suffer due to being abused, but the reality is that no matter how many safeguards we put into place we will likely never reach a level of zero cases.  Before anyone jumps in with the 'so you think there is an acceptable number of cases', I fully agree that one case annually is one too many, but we do not, nor will be ever live in a perfect world.

4 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Cub Scout through Methodist Church

We have several scouts in our pack who earned the award through the Methodist Church.  Pastor signed a certificate and we presented them with the knot at a pack meeting.

We also had several  earn it in the troop.  In their cases, it was presented at Scout Sunday service.

18 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which indicates BSA tried to hit him with a directive NOT to cooperate with discovery requests.

Ha-ha. That backfired.

I watched as well, and that is not at all how I interpreted that comment.  I took it to be a response to not signing the NDA, and not talking about the problems he feels have not been dealt with adequately, not that someone at BSA tried to tell him not to cooperate with a discovery request.

18 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which indicates BSA tried to hit him with a directive NOT to cooperate with discovery requests.

Ha-ha. That backfired.

I watched as well, and that is not at all how I interpreted that comment.  I took it to be a response to not signing the NDA, and not talking about the problems he feels have not been dealt with adequately, not that someone at BSA tried to tell him not to cooperate with a discovery request.

We are hoping that extending charters until 3/31/22 will give time for something to be worked out between BSA and UMC.  Our local church notified us a week ago that they would not recharter, but would be willing to go with a facilities use agreement.  We would still have a place to meet, but would need to find someone to hold the charter.  If this means that they may be near an agreement to continue sponsoring scouting, it would be great.  My initial thoughts are that if we have to find a new charter, we would likely use their facilities as well.

5 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

If we can identify them, would that count for the requirement? 😜

Not sure what phylum, genus or species to put some into.

10 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I find it somewhat telling that KC Chiefs and Mic-O-Say are from the same area.

If I read the information at one of the Mic-O-Say links correctly, they and the KC Chiefs are not just in the same area, but owe their name and history to the same person.

23 minutes ago, yknot said:

I understand it's a volunteer problem, but if BSA knows it lacks the volunteers to do the job properly, should it be continuing to offer programming?

My comment was in direct response the the idea that Boys & Girls Clubs require and interview with professional staff.  I am sure that my district could establish a committee to do this with volunteers, as could many others.  That was not what @Eagle1993 stated in his Boys & Girls Clubs post.

16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

• First .. they require their professional staff to interview volunteers prior to approval.  BSA outsources this work to COs.
• Second .. they require their volunteers to have monthly meetings with their professional staff.  BSA has volunteers that have never met staff.
• Third ... my understanding is they review social media accounts of volunteers.  BSA doesn't do this at all

Considering that we usually only have one professional staff person (DE) per district, it kind of falls to the CO (or unit) to do this.  I am sure that while some CO's and units take this seriously, many just sign the adult app and depend on it not getting kicked back during the background check.

Again, with that one DE in most instances, it is nearly impossible to meet with all volunteer on a monthly basis.  We do see our DE at most of our Roundtables, but since attendance at Roundtable is not mandatory, there are, as you state, many volunteers who have never met a professional.  I really wish that there was a way to mandate all direct contact volunteer attend a minimum number of Roundtables during the year, at least one of which would be dedicated solely to YPT and how to implement it correctly.

I would support adding a social media disclosure form to the application process.  Just like those people who say 'I changed my mind' about registering after being given the CBC form to sign, anyone who objects to someone seeing what they post on social media has a reason for doing so.  I know that toward the end of my 4 decade career in education, we looked at social media before even interviewing applicants.  In Scouting, I have occasionally come across the social media accounts of some of our parents, and have been more than a little disturbed by some of what I saw.

4 hours ago, yknot said:

I don't know if you have school age children or not but you must not have encountered HIB laws in your state. In the school system at least, bullying is not held to an objective standard. Pretty much anything and everything IS called bullying today, and kids have to navigate that.

Not sure what state you live in, but here our local schools require bullying training for all staff and students.  As a part of that training, there are several things that must be present for behavior to be classified as bullying.  

1.  The behavior must be unwanted or unwelcome.  2.  There must be a real or perceived imbalance of power.  3.  The behavior either is, or has the potential to be, repeated over time.

On that 3rd point, the repeated behaviors do not have to be leveled at the same student every time it occurs.  For example, if we have an older student who makes it a habit to knock the books out of a much younger student's hands, it does not matter whether they do it to the same student 20 times or to 20 different students.  The behavior is still repeated.

I worked in education in multiple states for 45 years, and never worked in a school that did not have objective standards for defining and dealing with bullying behavior.

13 hours ago, tnmule20 said:

Has anyone taken the D, E & I in Scouting volunteer training available at my.scouting.org yet?

Yes, as soon as it was available.

I posted somewhere earlier that before we  condemn the D, E, & I training or the MB (whatever it ends up being called) we should spend a few minutes to do the training.  I saw absolutely nothing in that presentation that I found objectionable.

6 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Man!! Seriously, what council are you in...? I'd love to be in a council like that! 😁

 

Central Florida Council

21 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

All these costs are compounded by the fact that volunteers do 99% of the work at the district events, and a good majority of the council events... yet volunteers have to pay LCs/LDs to attend these events... there is no discount for their volunteerism.

Not in my council.  When the council program fee was instituted a couple of years ago, it meant an end to fees for district events such as Cub Family Camp, District Shooting Sports days, District Camporee, BALOO/IOLS training, etc.  Council also lowered the costs for much of the Council level adult training.