yknot

53 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@vol_scouter and neither do the councils.

 

IMHO...the only group that benefits from this is the UMC washing their hands of their units some long time ones.

I think you're right, but it's because there is no point to the UMC going bankrupt along with the BSA. 

3 hours ago, ProductOtheProgram said:

This "just" posted - https://methodistscouter.org/a-new-agreement/

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. 

It's June 30th and the UMC agreement that was supposed to be finalized a few weeks ago, and then the week after the June 16th webinar, and then again more than two weeks later, is still not out despite assurances it would be done by today. I wonder if, when the June 30th date was originally set, the participants assumed the lawsuit would be over by now? 

1 hour ago, Tron said:

When I read this my gut tells me that the UMC doesn't want to get called quitters/abandoners/etc ... and they are creating a bureaucratic mess that any sane troop committee would prefer to find a new CO over instead of dealing with it.

That's not so crazy. The Methodist Church has been undergoing its own schisms and upheavals and has also had decades of membership and financial losses that it has to weigh and consider. There is very strong support for scouting in certain sectors of the UMC and the UMC can't afford to alienate them and lose more membership. On the other hand, the financial risks and potential costs of continuing a relationship with scouting is real.  Negotiating something that doesn't have the UMC itself ending the relationship with scouting but instead causes that by default or significantly reduces the level of involvement could be one possible strategy to solve a difficult dilemma. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

But, how much of this will see the broader media, if any?  A story that encompasses what Scouting really teaches and is will likely not bring their attention beyond noting some scouts were on the train.  But, we all should still be proud of the example.

It's a great story and has been picked up by multiple major and minor media outlets and is getting good visibility. It is also all over facebook, twitter, and other online sites and news sources. None of the stories or posts I have seen have mentioned anything about the bankruptcy case. It's all been positive. 

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

So the Elks are not doing charters anymore? I used to be a member of a Lodge that had an active troop.

 

A letter from the national Elks organization went out in December telling state chapters not to recharter scout units. Some states ignored it, some individual lodges ignored it, but many lodges did choose not to recharter. Last I heard, there was possibly an effort along the lines of what UMC is negotiating to allow some kind of limited involvement again with scouting but I have not heard that officially or seen any update. Maybe someone else on here knows more. Around the beginning of the year, elks.org removed any reference to boy scouting from its site, as did my state chapter and several other nearby surrounding states. 

1 hour ago, JBWest said:

When your #1 interview subject is also a producer of the film, it is the cinematic equivalent of an infomercial.  The imprimatur of Hulu and ABC News will obscure this for most.

That was raised in one of the review articles but it's basically not relevant. There are a host of documentaries where sources are also part of the producing team and vice versa. That's not unusual. You can say you don't like how they covered the issue, but that particular point is kind of a bizarre criticism by the reviewer. 

2 hours ago, MattR said:

But isn't the problem of no ownership what caused this mess in the first place? If COs weren't doing their jobs overseeing units then how will making councils responsible for oversight solve that problem. Now, DEs have the added responsibility of unit oversight? This seems to me like a bandaid.

The responsibility belongs with BSA. It will have to figure out a way to provide supervision. Perhaps if it restructures to operate in a more business like, effective way instead of the dysfunctional scout way it has adopted, it will streamline some of its convoluted and archaic structures and processes in a way that will make it more economical and functional to run. 

3 hours ago, BPUMC said:

Here is a copy of the agreement announcement, in all its glory.  My hope is that when this agreement goes live, someone posts it here so we can all see it.  Not all of us received the notice that the agreement was even in process.

Affiliation Agreement Announcement.pdf 294.39 kB · 7 downloads

I know they wanted something in place before June 30 but it's been an unusual process in that they set the unveiling meeting and said the agreement would be sent out prior to the meeting but didn't do so. Then they said it would be available at the meeting, then in the week following the meeting, and now they say it's still being worked on and are promising it for yet another week from now. It seems odd that there is still so much to work out after an unveiling meeting. It also seems odd that a facilities use agreement, which ought to be much more straightforward, is also still being worked out. I wonder if the fact that the judge's ruling, which I think both BSA and UMC thought would have been issued by now, is playing a role in that or if there really are that many issues still under discussion. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

The whole point of sharing is that this is happening with no where near the turmoil as BSA has, even though they have far safer camps at far higher usage.  So, not sure why the down vote, as it does relate as you noted, in comparison.

 

I'm not understanding what you're trying to show.  This article is talking about accidents and deaths, not abuse. There are also relatively few boy scout camps compared to other private or commercial camps so I don't think you can draw any useful comparisons. the state of California alone has almost twice as many camps on its own than boy scouts has in the entire United States.  

2 hours ago, curious_scouter said:

Our SM put this to the PLC, which I thought was a great approach.  They did some research and looked into policies from a variety of troops.  They ended up taking the approach that electronics are part of our life now, but like Knives they are tools within Scouting and there's a time and place for them and a proper way to use them.  So the set up SOPs for use of electronics and required a class to gain a "cyber totin chit" just like a knife.  When Scouts aren't using their tools in line with the PLC's established SOP they are warned.  If it becomes habitual or there's a severe infraction, they lose the right until they take the class again and re-commit to the SOPs.  I liked this approach a lot.  IN PRACTICE - they have not followed through real well But I still like it.  Sets clear ground rules for use and consequences for misuse.  "When I was a kid" electronics on campouts were strictly forbidden.  I think that's impractical today BUT scouts should be encouraged to put them away, enjoy the activity and outings, etc.  Phones in particular are also cameras, GPS units, compasses, note taking devices, research tools, etc.  There is value to their use even on an outing, but it's all about time and place. 

This is the common sense approach. They are the new Swiss army knife, and while parents want their kids to unplug they also want them to have them for emergencies. In the current Youth Protection environment, particularly in scouts, cell phones are basically part of the safety net. Most schools have policies like this, the kids are used to those kinds of policies, and they (mostly) work. 

14 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

 Your average Elks, VFW, small old line protestant congregation, etc. probably has a few months operating cash in the bank plus their building, which in many instances is probably a restricted asset in fact, or effectively so because it is core to their mission and wouldn't be forfeit even in the event of bankruptcy.

Speaking of Elks, late last year/earlier this year they were told not to recharter scout units although some still did. Supposedly there was going to be an update in a month or few. I have not seen anything but has anyone else? 

As far as assets and churches, many are failing so it's not clear how core some assets would be considered.

2 hours ago, GMarshMo said:

Our Troop leadership shares many of the concerns mentioned above, but without seeing the written agreement, our units cannot yet have any substantive discussions or make any decisions regarding how or if we are to move forward.  We have two large units at our Methodist Church.  Does anyone know when the new affiliation agreement will be made available to view or have a link?  I attended the zoom informational meeting, but have yet to see the agreement and I cannot find it online.

It was originally supposed to be sent prior to the webinar I thought but at the webinar I think they said a copy would be sent out in the next couple of weeks along with a video of the meeting and some FAQs. Also based on what was said at the meeting they expect the process to roll out at different times for different councils over the summer, to conclude by October. My assumption is that they had to do something now to appease the UMC before the June deadline but probably are far from having all the details worked out as far as how all Councils will handle it. Some are not staffed to take over the CO role I gather. 

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

As I recall past discussions, requiring volunteers to buy personal liability insurance was proposed. I have not seen that mentioned in the new CO model.

Yes, I and others generally recommend anyone working as a volunteer with youth carry a $1 million umbrella liability policy. There are many other settings where that That is not something that would be recommended as part of a CO model it's more of a personal decision. This discussion is more about the general liability market for scouting. Is that what you meant? 

13 hours ago, ThenNow said:

The insurance market has been hard for at least five years. It's not simply YSOs or high risk enterprises. Before he went to law school, my oldest son was in insurance. He managed a large farm and ranch book of business in TX. It was the same story. Same for healthcare. Those are the two I know pretty well, but my wife's work touches all aspects of coverage and I've heard her talk about the "hard market" for a good five years, for sure. Just a footnote.

I agree. I've mentioned that here before and often been scoffed at. Pretty much every kind of insurance I've worked with has been tightening for decades but it's gotten particularly bad in the last 10 years or so. There has been a particular change in the youth market though and we are starting to feel it. Apart from the UMC, in the past year we've had several private or commercial youth properties who used to allow scout access say scouts can no longer use their properties due to insurance. Scouts specifically, not other youth organizations. I think scouts may be in danger of becoming the equivalent of a dangerous dog breed in the youth insurance market. 

1 hour ago, PACAN said:

  I have no say in the matter but it's unfortunate that the church didn't seem to have the scouts best interest in giving the BSA control over their parishioners sons/daughters scouting experience.

 

 

I watched the webinar too and to me it seemed clear that the UMC had understandable liability concerns about "owning" units for the BSA. They are certainly willing to continue a role as affiliates, which is something less than a CO relationship but more than a facilities use agreement. The UMC, like many community based organizations, is facing some of the same challenges as BSA -- membership in a steady decline and consistently falling revenues. I've seen some big Methodist churches that have healthy congregations and balance sheets, but most of the ones in my region are failing and hanging on by a thread. They are taking sensible steps that allow their congregations to continue to support scouting in some way but minimizes their exposure. One of the most interesting aspects of the discussion last night was a very brief mention by the insurance expert about the "hard" insurance market for organizations that are involved in or support youth activities. He pointed out that high risk activities with high loss exposure, like scouting, are facing rate increases and coverage reductions. That obviously, and logically, factored into the UMC perspective.  

Not sure if this belongs here but I think this will solve many of the "What to do with one or a few girls" issues: 

https://hovc.org/articles/2022/06/family-den-pilot-program/

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Per usual, I don't disagree with you. I was drawing out commentary from the interested moviegoing public without commentary or witty banter. Thus, I found it "interesting," which term resides firmly in the vagary and opacity I dearly love. I am an objective party reporting as a neutral reporter.  

Non-caveat Caveat: I received no front row ticket to Tribecca, merchandise, remuneration, production credit, honorary degree from Columbia or signed autograph from Opie for this non-review of the review.

You are very funny, as always. 

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Interesting review that takes issue with some of the film's method, potentially narrow research and use of Nigel Jaquiss who, reportedly, is an interested party as a producer. The author says his concurrent role as the reporter and interviewer is a conflict. It I enjoyed hearing the perspective. 

 

I thought the point about Jaquiss was bizarre. Plenty of journalists, whistleblowers, producers cross back and forth over that divide. The viral documentary My Octopus Teacher did essentially the same.  It was just a less controversial subject. The point about lawyers having an economic stake in airing the abuse is also bizarre because... the Boy Scout representatives interviewed don't also have an economic stake in downplaying the abuse? 

3 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

I just saw ABC news featured it on their web page. Hopefully more people can watch it and decide how they feel about the BSA.

It's been reviewed on a number of major media sites but more significantly is getting attention on social media, including Twitter which reaches wider and different audiences. A lot of younger parents and youngsters get a lot of their information from these other types of channels. 

26 minutes ago, skeptic said:

As I stated before, I cannot make real comment unless I see the actual video.  Where can we actually see it?  I have seen no link as yet, only the intro?  Way too many questions without actually viewing it.  Glad to see your comment about "various levels", though I truly want to know how many others outside of CO or National chose to be part of the poor response or no response, as seems suggested?  Again, we are dealing with different periods of history and different societal responses to what today is noted as unacceptible, period.  Any lack of responsible actions is now seen as it should have been then, but often was not.  Who besides the CO or Natiopnal or LC also knew but made decisions at the time?  

Back to the balance and perspective thing.  The farther back in time we go, the more vague and skewed perspectives get.  

 

If you don't have Hulu you can sign up for a free trial (be sure to end it) or pay a month's fee. You can also pay to watch it on the Tribeca Film Festival site I believe for the next couple days. It's $15. That's where I saw it. It's playing in some theaters but those are mostly in major cities. 

46 minutes ago, elitts said:

I've even been tempted to build a snack into the troop budget for the end of meetings.  I know getting a treat of some kind does great things for making meetings better in the working world, no reason why it wouldn't work for kids.

They do love food but a lot of places will not allow you to have food. We can't have food items in any of our meeting locations -- we use a couple churches and a couple schools -- except a park campfire ring. Also, trying to do snacks in units with a lot of food issues is getting difficult. 

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMO, this could be a good experiment, with failure allowed, of the Leadership Method. One patrol prepares for a campout, another wings it or a mystery destination where lack of preparation leads to lost fun opportunities...oh there was a beach?

I think this is part of the scouting mindset problem that could use an update. Kids today do not need to spend hours in meetings to organize anything. They can do almost everything via text, email or online. This is how they pretty much organize school projects and most everything else in their lives now. They can collect money via Venmo or whatever. Meetings have become too much talking and ceremony and it's still not enjoyable even if it's outside around a campfire. 

55 minutes ago, Tron said:

Someone got triggered and scared by a simple question.

No. Every time new folks join the forum there is a lot of ground to cover and it's easier to just ask folks to go back and review the discussions. There is a recap section in Issues and Politics that has a good starting list of everything that can be reviewed. It says Read This First. 

I just watched it. I think it's very effective from the standpoint of presenting the case to the public that BSA has covered up the child abuse scandal and that its corporate culture really hasn't changed. At one point towards the end of the documentary the National Director says the bankruptcy is about compensation for victims, and not about the BSA doing anything much different going forward. In his mind, they've already addressed most of the issues although he later says they will always look to improve. But for those of us hoping there would be some kind of meaningful reorganization, that apparently is not the corporate BSA view or goal.  The documentary takes a very quiet, measured, reflective approach to the topic, and it looks at systemic dysfunction within BSA as a whole, not just the abuse scandal. It doesn't come across at all sensationalized to me. The whole film has a very weary, sad feel to it that's very evocative. I have no idea how much attention it will get on Hulu but I think it's going to raise a lot of questions for the average person who views it.