Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by InquisitiveScouter

  1. 13 minutes ago, yknot said:

    Their rationale was that people who had something to hide would refuse to agree to a background check and self screen anyway so why spend the money.

    Before about five years ago (last instance I asked), registrars in several different councils confided that this was the case...

    Now, (and I do not know when this changed), Key 3 and a few others can see in my. scouting, Unit Roster, whether background checks have been completed for registered adults...

  2. 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."



    • Thanks 1
  3. 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.

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 1
  4. Hi @wearrepair!

    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!

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  5. 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?


    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
  6. 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. 


    • Upvote 3
  7. 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...

  8. 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.

    • Sad 1
  9. 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.


    • Sad 1
  10. 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...


  11. 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.

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...