yknot

Yes, I think the integrated unit ship has sailed. Units should be free to do what works for them much the same BSA allows them to deal with religious issues. Do you want an integrated unit? Fine. Do you want linked units? Fine. Do you want separate girl and boy patrols? Fine. Do you want integrated patrols? Fine. Also, that guy who was on that zoom meeting needs to be retired, as do probably most of the upper echelon leadership. They've been in an echo chamber and it's hurting scouting. When BSA first opted to include girls, I briefly mourned the loss of some boy space for my sons. But the reality is they still have plenty of boy spaces. And most of their world is integrated and that is the world they will need to learn how to thrive in, so for scouting to mirror that is a positive, not a negative in my book.

This will be a sad list, but interesting. For example, this is the first time I have heard of camp property being transferred to the Trust. In retrospect, I'm sure that must be established aspect of the bankruptcy process for real property, but it does make me wonder if it's a potential opportunity. My hypothesis is that if dozens and maybe even hundreds of large camp come up for sale at roughly the same time it will depress prices. It might set up a situation where some entity like the National Park Service could make a combined offer for multiple properties with the goal of preserving some of them.

We deserve everything coming our way. Unbelievable.

I don't know if these things are illegal in scouting but we have played them in pack meetings. Tug of War in the hallway. Parachute nerf ball where you have two adults hold a giant slingshot. One kid shoots it up in the air and the kids holding the parachute try to catch it. Badminton. Marble shooting inside of hula hoops on the floor so you don't have marbles all over. You can play other stuff with hula hoops too. There's one game that's a modified dodge ball that we have always thought was legal. You set the hula hoops up in a pyramid against a wall and then let the kids throw balls at them to knock them down. They are not throwing the balls at other kids, just the pyramids.

This is the first time reading something on scouter forum that I have fallen out of my chair. You have got to be kidding me.

The message I am getting here is that we want girls for their membership numbers and money but not because they add anything to the program or because we really want to serve them. It's jaw dropping that this person has no idea how insulting these comments are. However, I take hope in this. God is surely looking out for scouts in some way if no one in the mainstream media has yet reported on this.

Just to clarify, this is what I was upvoting.

This is the kind of thing I wonder about. We've been under a wind advisory in the Mid Atlantic region since Friday night. Everyone should know how dangerous March is. Brush fires are common this time of year unless it's actually raining. Why would you burn debris? This is why we have all the dumb rules in G2SS.

Except there is a lack of oversight on the part of BSA because it has traditionally been more interested in money and members than consistent application of its policies. Many COs are legacy COs and have a dim understanding of what they are responsible for. We've talked about that a lot on this forum. Many COs think their only commitment is to provide meeting space and a few signatures and units are loathe to draw anything more to their attention. They have been afraid the CO will dump them if it realizes the full extent of its responsibilities and liabilities. It is a weak link in BSA's YPP that it has known about for decades but never addressed.

I was going to say that part of improving YPT compliance would be reporting on how many checks were done and seeing the invoices on same. That's because I was once in a district that said it did checks, but didn't. They figured the mere fact of asking for approval to conduct a background check would suss out anyone with a problem, so why bother spending the money. I've heard rumors that practice continues in another council. However, if BSA is now delegating this to volunteer staff, maybe that council wasn't so out of line with BSA philosophies which, I agree, I don't think are all that focused on continuous quality improvement of YPP initiatives.

That may be true but some kind of local camp presence would need to remain for scouting to be functional. I assume you camp at town/county/state/park service facilities or private property. That kind of accessibility could be part of a formula but it would take some coordination and sophistication on the part of BSA and the affected LCs to propose it. Some councils near me have half a dozen camps. Clearly they could function with less. Others have one or none. Clearly their ability to function could be impacted.

I don't think humiliation has any place in scouting. Having 10 and 11 year old kids stand up in front of their peers let alone older guys and do something embarrassing just makes sensitive kids quit. It's not instructive. Good for you for recognizing that.

I don't totally disagree with you. Frankly, sports were where my sons found real character development and leadership training. Far more so than in scouts ironically and sadly. However, sports does not market itself as a morals based, character building enterprise. Scouts does. It doesn't even really market itself much as an outdoors pursuit anymore. Recruitment and promotional materials for football, baseball, soccer, etc., mention good sportsmanship, leadership, etc., but everyone knows the reason they are on the field is to play the game. Scout recruitment materials cite the value of attaining Eagle. Citizenship. Do a Good Turn Daily. The Scout Oath. Honor. Duty. Trustworthy... Everyone knows the reason you are in scouts is because you believe in those things that the organization supposedly stands for. That's why these abuse cases are so especially egregious.

I keep running across viewpoints on this forum that scare me.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to rationalize that a pedophile was actually a really good guy at heart because you were somehow lucky enough that he did not target you? Pedophiles use kindness and concern as a way to disarm and attract children. Surely you've heard this before? Affection and kindness among normal families and people does not lead to or mask pedophilia. Just because you come from a family that was demonstrative does not mean they were potential pedophiles.

Yes, that too.

I think BSA does bear liability. Certainly over the past 20 years we've learned that the victimization of children is far more insidious than previously understood. But the difference between scouting and youth organizations like sports is that BSA marketed its entire existence as being set on a higher moral plane. Parents might have been more cautious with their children in sports simply because there's no moral code espoused other than good sportsmanship. Coaches and beer are almost synonymous. Parents expected their children to be safer in scouting, because the scouting principals virtually guaranteed that supervising adults would be morally straight. The organization knew this wasn't true, but nowhere along the line did it modify its marketing messages.

Especially so in BSA it seems where the top leadership does not appear to have any corporate experience outside scouting. It's a very insular organization warped by its own mythology.

I would say that it's likely that some pedophiles are able to compartmentalize and have more normal relationships with children that are not suitable targets for one reason or another much the same way serial killers and other psychopaths do. Ted Bundy had a long time girlfriend. The BTK killer had a family, yet he killed a family. I would also say that those other relationships are also part of the pathology because the perpetrator uses them to help hide or cloak his or her true nature and intentions. Pedophiles are frequently cited by incredulous bystanders as someone who seemed to love children. You were groomed by your 7th grade teacher. You just would have no reason to recognize it as such.

Do you have to provide a COI to meet in any of those places?

So true. Few understand how BSA works and few people get involved in anything outside of their kid or unit. I have been reporting to the units I'm involved with about some of these developments and they are humorously dismissive of it. They believe National and what they have been hearing from Council and can't envision anything happening to scouting.

I sit in the middle of three councils and get all their communications. They have all been saying that the National case won't affect local scouting and that funds raised would stay with the councils. A couple of them did informational sessions around the time of the filing and said something similar -- that there were a handful of cases they were concerned about. To be fair, the one council was proactive. They intended to sign on and had mapped out a plan as to how they could make what they thought to be a substantial and generous contribution if it came to that and still survive. They felt it was their duty to do so in order make things right for the children who had been abused in the past in their council. The plan however did not include selling camps. The contribution earmarked also was nowhere near a million dollars. Apparently there were also a number of cases they were unaware of because the TCC exhibit lists almost 200 for them. I think some councils have been very reassured by what little communication has come out of BSA and are going to be blindsided by this. They will probably be in denial.

I understand what you are saying but almost all of us on this forum are looking at things from our scouting perspective when that is not the perspective that counts. We're different from a lot of volunteer programs because, fair or not, virtually no one trusts us and the coming headlines are only going to make that worse. We have to be like Cesar's wife.

What this thread illustrates for me is that it's clear that BSA's YP program is pretty problematic. I don't know if analyzing the program and any known statistics is part of the bankruptcy/reorganization process but any critic could easily prove that it's ineffective, inconsistent, and haphazardly applied. As important, if BSA does survive bankruptcy in some ways and continues to use a similar YP program without fixing it, there are bound to be more cases.

Can I just clarify, are you talking about if the scout is out running by himself without two leaders present or are you talking about if he is running with a scout buddy without two leaders present? Or both? Also, who do you think would be liable if a scout went out for a run without supervision or if two scouts decided to go on a run together without supervision? Would it be the SM and the Committee or the MB Counselor? Finally, in your unit, how does this policy get discussed? If you are the SM, do you tell your unit that scouts cannot independently work on MB or rank requirements without two deep adult leadership, or does that come up during SM conferences? Do you refuse to sign off, or do you sign off and tell them not to do it again?