PeterHopkins

The most important element in the youth protection proposals in the plan is that survivors believe it adequately addresses the needs of today's Scouts. I've served in multiple roles within the BSA in the past including a lengthy stint as a Scoutmaster and a member of a Venturing crew committee. Presently, I'm a Cubmaster. I don't think anything in this plan present a challenge too great for units to meet. Troops, crews and ships will need to get any parents who might participate in overnight activities registered in advance. The rule that will prevent registration end dates from bein

If one has survived something so tragic and dastardly and nevertheless achieved something that made his or her mark on the world, such a person might appreciate being recognized for the accomplishment. That's my understanding of the proposed Phoenix Award. (I like the name of it.) While appreciating the recognition, even if the award recipient preferred to receive the award privately, that same person may wish not to be defined by the award and may prefer never to wear it. That's a different decision from the decision to accept the award. It isn't at all uncommon for Scouters to rece

Wearing the Phoenix pin is a different decision from agreeing to be publicly (or perhaps privately) acknowledged for achievement despite going through an experience no child should have to endure. Many Scouters have received awards they choose not to wear.

@Eagle1993 I agree with your assessment that Scouting is not a priority for families nowadays. That's what I see in my pack. The reason we didn't have a female adult for our October camping trip is that we have three active registered female adults. Two of them are moms of one boy, and the third is the mom of another boy. The boy with two moms had a soccer match on Saturday and preferred to play in the match rather than camp. His mothers were both aware that we cannot camp without a female adult. The third mom has never camped before other than on the grounds of our chartered organization, so

We're in upper Delaware, and recruiting has been a complete failure. In February 2020, we had 20 Scouts with better than 95% weekly attendance. That was up from 6 in June 2019. We felt so good about ourselves at that time. We had 13 Scouts vanish when the pandemic arrive. One Scout graduated to a troop in December 2020. We started 2021 with 6 Scouts. One of the Scouts who vanished during the pandemic returned in February 2021. Shortly thereafter, two friends of his joined. Both of those have become inactive, having signed up for martial arts on our meeting nights. Two Scouts who

Having not given this package much thought since Tuesday, and allowing half an hour to pass since my post, I now wonder whether this was delivered to the church office, and someone there left it where we would find it, assuming we, and not they, needed to address the contents. The outside door is usually locked. There are three adults associated with the pack and troop who have the key. Other groups have the key as well. The door was locked when we arrived on Monday. So, whoever left the package there seems to have used a key. Currently, we are required to leave the outside door open

There was a package left for my chartered organization when our pack met on Monday evening. I didn't see it or learn of its existence until Tuesday. Someone saw it and dropped it off at the office. It was left on the floor outside the door of the room in which the church meets. Mail is not ordinarily delivered there. No one seems to know how the person who delivered it got into the building.

I'm speechless after watching this video.

If it costs $50 for each background check, and many need to get done to allow adults to participate (under some possible future set of rules), would it be worthwhile to have spent those tens of thousands of dollars if exactly one predator is identified and prevented from registering? How about if no predator is identified, but the hurdle the background check represents prevents one predator from attempting to register? My answer is yes, it's worth the time, trouble and cost.

Outside Pennsylvania and, perhaps soon, California, unregistered generally does mean without child abuse clearance. Given what we know has happened within the BSA, we should be moving toward registered meaning cleared. The screening process needs to be far more robust than it is now.

Being in Del-Mar-Va Council, we're in the same section as National Capitol Area Council, and they, Baltimore Area Council and we form a section with just three lodges. More than half of section conclave participants typically come from NCAC. It is a marvel to watch their lodge leadership tackle organizing their charges. Yes, an ungainly beast.

Greater New York Councils (No. 640, properly written in plural) is a confederation of five borough councils. They are organized as follows: Bronx Council (No. 641) Bronx River District Brooklyn Council (No. 642) Breukelen District Lenape Bay District Manhattan Council (No.643) Big Apple District Queen Council (No. 644) Founders District Pathfinder District Tomahawk District Staten Island Council (No. 645) Aquehonga District The entirety of Greater New York Councils' territory is within the City of New York; it has no subu

If we assume it's true that the presence of unregistered parents increases the accountability of the registered Scouters, wouldn't we get even more comfort as to the safety of the youths at an event, of those parents were background checked?

There aren't really loopholes taken advantage of by local councils. Local councils can enact policies more restrictive than the Guide to Safe Scouting, but not ones that are less restrictive. A neighboring council near me requires Youth protection Training will not expire during the upcoming registration period. So, if someone took YPT in November 2020, it will expire in November 2022, and they need to take it again before registering for calendar year 2022. My council does not allow Cub Scouts to camp on council property without a parent. Several council, including my council,

For the moment, let's assume that advising clients in closed state to vote yes is sound legal advice. How could he make that video and give the same advice to every client? If it's true that survivors in closed states cannot do better than what the plan offers, it must also be true that survivors in open states are virtually assured of doing better by suing the local councils in state courts. They wouldn't be sharing anything with those in closed states. I don't know how he could only say that those in closed states risk (and, the way he put it, should expect) getting nothing without