Posts posted by InquisitiveScouter
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:
How do we ensure every kid has a buddy within the merit badge program?
One idea we had was to buddy up before summer camp, and let them pick their mutual schedule. May lead to repeating the coursework, but repetition is not a bad thing with some badges.
6 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:
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?
Yes! IMHO, this falls under the "duty of care" umbrella for the registered adults, seeing as how 40-50 percent of abuse is by relatives (hence no tenting with parents after Cubs), and another 40 percent by acquaintances. (Final ten by strangers.)
Too many adults I know want to use the checks as a crutch, though. As if a person having a clean record indicates they are not a potential threat. Background checks are just one piece of the puzzle...a "barrier," But, very often, abusers do not have a record "...and they know it."
Wow, the fact that there are several different opinions about the policies regarding unregistered adults here among us "experts" shows the exact problem I was highlighting to Johnson when he ID'ed me back to my local council as someone who was asking questions.
For the record...unregistered adults absolutely can attend outings or overnight camping trips under the current policy, however, there must ALWAYS be at two registered adults over 21 on the outing. That you or your local council may interpret this differently and impose stricter rules is fine, and that is within your/their purview, but the National policy, as written, allows this. This is what Johnson was pointing out.
1 hour ago, scoutldr said:
What policy is it that "allows unscreened adults to be in charge on overnight trips"??
None. But unscreened adults can attend overnight trips. They are confused on what the policies actually say...
So, there are two things at work here...1) Membership in the Order of the Arrow, and 2) Membership in your lodge.
1) Once you are inducted, you are always a member of the OA (as long as you are in good standing with the BSA) The OA Membership Emblem, or "dangle", is worn from your button to show this when it is not appropriate to wear your OA sash.
2) You must pay yearly dues to be a member of your local lodge. If you are not a current dues-paid member of your lodge, you should not be wearing a lodge flap, as your uniform is supposed to reflect your current standing in the organization.
"With the exception of the Cub Scout badges of rank, members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement." per G2A&I
Hopes this helps!
49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
Hasn't that train left the station??? 😜
I will feel included, and like I belong, when they disband all Workforce Resource Groups and treat people based on character and individual merit rather than categorizing people according to skin color, sexual preference, national origin, heritage, religion, voting preference, gender, mental illness, income level, language, etc. etc. etc.
And, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this...BSA still has this officer, but laid off their Director of Youth Protection 10 months ago?
46 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:
Why not use the classrooms, shops, and equipment at local schools? A Scout is Thrifty.
Because many schools now do not allow access.
14 hours ago, sheryl9407 said:
Looking for sites that sell Cub Scout segments I know of Ideal Emblem and Advantage
Are there any other sites?
Segments for what, please??
All these "apologies" came out in the midst of or after the bankruptcy declaration. They have an air (to me) of coercion in them...as if they were driven by lawyers and PR specialists, rather than a genuine sincerity.
I suppose that is the nail-head...sincerity. Michael Johnson's words and actions expressed some sincerity. I have seen no other demonstrations of sincerity on the part of BSA. And, if MJ is to be believed, the "organization" is still not sincere, as (again, if his claims are accurate) they 1) excluded their National Director of Youth Protection from discussions and decisions about child abuse cases, 2) withheld information from him on child abuses cases/statistics, 3) Laid off their National Director of Youth Protection whilst their bankruptcy (driven by child abuse claims) is ongoing, and 4) continue an organizational inertia to resist making changes to enhance youth protection and prevent child abuse.
Is BSA trying to get the CO's covered in the channeling injunction??
Also, recommend you let your COR know of the arrangement...
8 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:
Agreed. Also, what would a unit do about the bankruptcy? Not much. So, as long as a couple stay a bit informed, for the most part, the units shouldn't spent energy on the bankruptcy. It would be a waste.
We were discussing the possibility of Chapter 7. If that happens, what would we do at the unit level? The desire, at least on our part, is to continue scouting as a church sponsored youth group. Program would be pretty much the same, minus advancement and uniforms. The current question we are looking into is cost of insurance coverage should we forge ahead sans BSA...
1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:
Lucky they didn't ban you. Amazing for an organization with ideals like Scouting, that so many corners of the org are ran so unethically and secretively. Not just the child abuse, but regarding finances and local politics as well.
My SE did take adverse action...removed me from all council and district positions...and never had the courtesy to let me know...had to hear it from other volunteers when they were submitting rosters for training staffs and renewing district/council positions.
12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
No not just you.
Whenever I ask for financials, I always get the "Why do you want to know?" To me, that is the first sign someone is hiding something. I even got this when I asked for IRS 990s.
At least for the IRS 990s, I wrote back, "Because the law says you have to provide them."
Went to Roundtable last night and spoke with some in our district who are usually well-informed and whose opinions I seek when dealing with issues. (There is a group of five, specifically, that I seek counsel with.)
None of them knew who Michael Johnson was, nor knew of the presser. (This surprised me.)
None of them knew the latest plan was out for a vote.
Only one knew how much our council contribution was to the fund.
All were surprised to learn the former Director of YP would say that BSA is unsafe.
All understood my heartache over the issue and my wrestling with the decision on whether to renew my membership.
All do not hold our council or National leadership in any high regard. Four of five agree we need new professional leadership at all levels...lack of true leadership is a "systemic" issue. The fifth said he hadn't really thought about it.
They all wear several hats...primarily working at the unit level, and then spending "spare" time at district or council positions. My sense is, they feel what's going on at National has no impact on them, and if it all goes awry, they'll keep on doing a scouting-like program with their units without a national/council structure. They'll soldier on.
32 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
Is that not really the same thing that would have happened if a police report was made out? Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting. In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.
Yes, they do. Upon any accusation, the leader is supposed to be automatically removed. I have seen this in writing somewhere, but cannot find the source just now...
7 minutes ago, jcousino said:
if zero tolerance is not your goal then please get away from any youth.
Zero child abuse is the goal...
"Zero tolerance" is not, because EVERY case is different. Some are clear cut. Others are not. Those that are not require dialog amongst unit leaders, parents, SE (currently), and then law enforcement and courts to find a way through the quagmire.
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:
What do you mean by, “showers/showering at summer camp”?
I think it just means knowing which building is the shower house...at least that's what it seems to be for our Scouts.
We incentivize the behavior we want...take a shower on Wednesday, get an ice cream! And yes, for some we have to define "shower"... but never "ice cream"
3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
How many actually do? Close to zero. My COR wouldn't know any of my ASMs to look at.
Our COR has a Scout in the Troop, and camps with us regularly...is on the Board of the Church...very involved guy, and really makes the CO-Troop relationship strong - best I have seen in 35+ years of Scouting...
3 hours ago, DeaconLance said:
I guess I am flabbergasted that after all this the BSA and every state isn’t requiring background checks and clearances. 6 years ago Pennsylvania by law requires any one 18 and above involved with youth organizations to have:
1. A State Police background check
2. PA Childline clearance (no accusations of abuse)
3. If you have not lived in PA for 10 years FBI background check.
And the State Police Check and Child Abuse check are free...the FBI fingerprint check is about $25. If you are a PA resident for 10 years, you turn in an affidavit of such and that you have not been convicted of a list of child abuse charges...
5 minutes ago, PACAN said:
Lots of info to try and digest.
Question though: Are the amounts required from the councils locked in concrete? Seems like that could blow up and be reopened.
Thanks to those who continue to track this.
No, not locked in concrete. A council could always give more of their own volition...but they won't. And even if they did, it would probably only be used to reduce the share of the other councils. What's the current total to LC's...$600M?
6 minutes ago, yknot said:
those pockets require a lot of alchemy to create and sustain.
Love this... would give it two hearts if I could...spot on!
Debate over 72 hour rule - spun from bankruptcy thread
in Issues & Politics