InquisitiveScouter

On 3/13/2021 at 4:25 PM, GiraffeCamp said:

A person's heinous acts does not mean they didn't also perform kindnesses. And a person performing kindnesses does not mean we can trust that person with opportunities to hurt and abuse, especially the vulnerable, especially if the person has a history of such behavior. Kindnesses do not negate hideous abuse. 

We were discussing just yesterday the adults in our lives who took us under their wings as children and of how their innocent behaviors would never fly today. A neighbor of mine basically functioned like an aunt and I went on random shopping trips and such all the time.

The difficulty is in having the broadest healthy social circle while keeping it safe for all. Grooming absolutely happens. How do we on the outside tell the difference between that and healthy neighbors BEFORE abuse occurs so we can include one and protect from the other? I understand this thread to be navigating that tightrope, which is a healthy discussion. 

And that is exactly why abusers use this strategy to gain the confidence of their victims and the public.  They do great acts of kindness and seem to be genuinely concerned for the well-being of youth.  Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Unfortunately, the ones who are truly kind and genuinely care can get lumped in with the abusers as  "groomers."  I have seen this, and have had to defend several people's reputations.

The behavior of mis-identification is also greatly discouraging some adults from getting involved. 

55 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Let me be blunt:

There's a reason I post anonymously. I have sons in the Scouts, BSA program. They'd like to make Eagle and I'd like to see that happen.

I am not about to give National, or my Council a SINGLE reason to threaten their advancement because their dad stuck his head up and spoke out about something.

I believe BSA's likely dead. But in the off chance it isn't, I am NOT going to see them come after me or my kids for speaking up. The risk is too great.

Dear daughter and dear son both just earned Eagle...there is a bit of a weight lifted off the shoulders

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

There is always the risk of personal backlash, I guess, but is it worth it to lead and possibly see change enacted?

Yes, they have shot this messenger on several occasions.  I have too much scar tissue to engage again...happy to play in our little sandbox at the unit level...

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This was something that I saw came up in the Office Hours video and in FB.

The only people who have been allowed access to even a DRAFT of these are

1) Scout Executives

2) Handpicked volunteers/yes men and women who are simply going to nod their heads up and down and do what National tells them

When people asked during the video (via Zoom chat I would guess) if they could be part of the review team or even see a copy, they were told no.

He said "high level volunteers"...guess I am a "low level volunteer"???  LOL

Just so you know your value to the people running things

Start at 19:55

https://vimeo.com/521149532

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Check again.

https://www.scouting.org/program-updates/scouts-bsa-office-hours-session-february-25-2021/

That pages leads to the video (mod policy is no direct link to videos, but the link is on that page).

You'll want to watch 19:00 to 22:00

 

File this under PR examples of ""How to Walk Back"

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Whew. Gained a foot. The ones we always built were sky-scraping dinosaurs, I suppose.

We build them higher than six feet, just don't have them climb higher than six without helmet, harness, and top rope belay IAW climbing rules.

There was a Scouter accused of murder.  Removed from Scouting.  Exonerated.  Not allowed back.  Much more to the story, but BSA will not allow him back.  He is Vigil Honor.

3 minutes ago, MattR said:

Why not buy all the patches and pins now and keep chugging? Irrespective of what happens have the B&G and make it fun. The scouts don't care about all of this.

No one ever checked BSA's ScoutNet record to see if someone had his Arrow of Light, except for registrars validating Eagle Scout Applications to verify program eligibility.

Concur, buy the stuff, do the program, have a blast, celebrate the achievement, and give 'em the bling!

On 3/12/2021 at 3:54 PM, walk in the woods said:

Just curious if those same parents refused to let their scouts participate in summer camp because ranges were open?

Yes, they did...and some of their Scouts took rifle and shotgun shooting and archery.  Again...

On 3/11/2021 at 10:07 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

You cannot counter emotional responses with logic and facts, so I didn't bother. 

52 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I have a standard WSJ script, but don't pay for Pro. Is there a posting of the piece elsewhere?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9njI0wvesicJ:https://info.creditriskmonitor.com/NewsStory.aspx%3FNewsId%3D27327662%26rc%3DW02FM26EFW02S7261U+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

It costs us about $4,000 per year between the Pack and Troop.

Yikes...one reason we left our last CO because room rental was costing our Troop around $700 a year.

Just now, ThenNow said:

Were your respective Councils keeping you, in the field, updated about these numbers? I seen news reports of Councils blowing off talk of "legitimate abuse claims" against them, even while claims were being filed, logged and publicly noted on sites like AIS.

The last time I asked about this...about 6 months ago, our SE said we had one claim they were "concerned about".

They have well over a hundred in the list...

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The only message ... this bankruptcy only effects national.  It has no impact on the councils, units or COs.  A bit of info trickled out that we may pay into a fund but no real serious discussion of impacts.  Given that nearly every council said the same thing (you can see this in media feeds) I expect that was directed by National.

They may have been gaming this out, but they have not prepared us for any impact.

They are counting on the judge ruling the LCs as independent, but allowing them to "purchase" claims immunity coverage if they contribute to the bankruptcy-driven compensation fund?

I still don't see how they can make that argument/request seriously.  Doesn't pass the common sense, sanity, nor the "headlines" tests...

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Through the last two years, have you guys received any trickle down news or tactical planning from above? This whole operation, as illustrated by the non-plan Plan - little detail, no commitment from LC's, completely misreading or ignoring the other side's likely reaction -appears to lack any sophisticated risk management/tiered A, B, C contingency planning. Am I wrong? They have high powered big law with them so I don't get it. From a purely survival and business planning standpoint, it amazes me if they weren't "gaming this out" for a year or more.

Maybe they believe they are "too big to fail"?

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think one thing worth noting is the use of the phrase "alternative".

When the draft requirements leaked last November/December there weren't any "alternatives" to any of the requirements.

Also, and this came from my Council advancement chair, that as much as the focus of attention had been the DEI merit badge might raise concerns over critical race theory, Black Lives Matter, etc. that it was the issues related to sexual orientation that really threw some Councils, and especially COs, into a tailspin.

 

Wonder if any of them were reading our forum for the ideas we generated??  

45 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I don't think it amounted to a single additional super-activity from that lot.

Lol, but they  got some cool bling for their uniform!!  Doesn't that count??

7 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I am am eagle scout and feel ashamed to be a part of this organization.

Remember, there really is no such thing as an "organization."  It was, and is, people.  There were people who made poor decisions (hindsight is 20/20) regarding the abuse that was happening.  Now, different people, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the matter, will pay for those poor decisions.  

I am not ashamed at having been a Scout, nor at being an Eagle Scout and Scouter now.

And, unless your conduct was questionable in the matter, why are you ashamed?

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

That is the extremism. I've talked to a lot of folks who are, were, and were never involves in scouting. None of them believe this is the BSA's fault as an organization. They believe we are getting a bad deal from ambulance chasing lawyers. So, whether some folks have lost faith the BSA, it certainly isn't "virtually no one". 

Barry

For the most part, people in our community love Scouts.  They love to see us in uniform.  They love to see us out and about, whether keeping youth active outdoors, or on a community service project.  Nearly every time...I mean EVERY time we are out, people come and talk to me either about their positive experience as Scouts, inquiring about what we are doing and why (the SPL's hate me because I always make him talk with these people  ), or thanking us for being a "force for good" in the world.

People get it...they know the value of good citizenship and character building.

19 hours ago, FaithfulScouter said:

Unfortunately The Boy Scouts of America has Scoutmasters who now tell their Scouts that they're 'not allowed' to go to shooting ranges.  One of our local Troops has an annual visit to a shooting range.  Another Troop does an annual  2nd Amendment trip for their 14 and older Scouts.  When my Scout suggested it to his PLC and one of the liberal ASMs, he was told that he didn't think they were allowed to go to gun ranges.  Uninformed or imposing his views on the Scouts?  What about the rifle and shotgun shooting merit badges that we offer?

Another Scout was a member of his school's riflery team.  When he talked about going to a range with a family member, one of the adult leaders took it upon himself to write to our COR about it, saying he was disturbed by it and that there's 'no place for gun discussions in Scouts'.   I wish I could say I was joking here but sadly I am not...

Sad...

We were, in the past few years, "shopping" for a new CO (another story).  Our local fish and game allowed us to meet there for a time.  They loved having our Scouts participate in their rifle and archery events.  But, a minority of parents would not let their Scouts participate, nor would let their Scouts attend any events (including meetings) on the property while the ranges were open.  I was not a leader at the time.  The Committee, at the time, had a discussion with those parents.  It came to the point where our unit had to find another meeting location or lose them.  We moved.

Later, when I became a leader, I asked some of the parents what was the issue?  At least five different families voiced a fear of guns and gun owners.  They were afraid their kid was going to get shot while attending there.  You cannot counter emotional responses with logic and facts, so I didn't bother.  The move had already been done.

The Scouts absolutely loved it while we were at that venue.

SMH

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Besides the confirmed case of asset transfers in Tennessee, has this been happening elsewhere? From an attorney's perspective, I would've been advising it for years, not unlike a basic tax and estate planning review directs some clients to transfer identified assets to trust, whether revocable or irrevocable. With the assault on the ramparts since the $19M OR case, I would think asset protection measures would've exploded.

If I may, I also want to bring back one of my posts now moved to the spinoff thread on YPT and Other Stuff. This is regarding the continuation of Scouting and goes to financial and programatic viability of LC's if the full force of Scouting National is greatly diminished or gone:

I also wonder if it depends on the resources and current strength of those LC's (few?) that can fairly easily give some millions [to the Settlement Trust, be released] and still pivot on the strength of community support, leadership and donor base depth and breadth.

 i do not know how recent, but I know one restriction put on many BSA properties (including our council's) is a Conservation Easement.  A property right (restriction?) transferred with ownership that prevents development.  This would drive down the resale value, particularly for potential developers.

Of course, these easements are done with money changing hands.

7 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I've never heard of anyone suggesting that you cannot work on advancements outside of a Scouting activity.  This is a very conservative reading of the text in the G2SS.  Yes, the G2SS could be clearer, but it is not as stringent as is being suggested.

If two Scouts who are friends get together and work on a requirement together, no-one is going to tell them to stop or that the activity doesn't count.  The problem is that if two scouts who are friends get together and something happens, a lawyer is going to try to pull the BSA into the lawsuit.

Feels to me that we need some sort of better tort guidelines on what constitutes negligence in volunteer youth activities.  Perhaps something that says that the BSA has some responsibility for safety, but so too do the parents.  A parent who blindly trusts the BSA and it's volunteers without doing parental oversight is themselves negligent.   

Bingo

3 hours ago, yknot said:

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? 

We don't get in to such details.  A Scout may work on the requirements for things at any time.

Again, I am only pointing out the policy, as written, is ridiculously worded.

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

Neither my Council nor any of the three Councils near me follows your definition of a scout activity. Individual scouts routinely pursue achievements and MB components on their own. They are also free to buddy up with a friend from the same patrol, a different one, another troop, etc., to work on advancement. If boy A jogs down the street to meet boy B to go for a run for Personal Fitness, they do not schedule it with the SM and two leaders do not trail them down the road during the run. 
 

 

I agree with you completely.  I did not write the G2SS.  Yet, if anything were to happen on say, the Personal Fitness run, for example, I'd be willing to say BSA would not recognize it as a Scouting activity, nor cover any claims.

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

OK, well in my Council we can't do that. It's two deep at all times. We send four adults to summer camp. 

 

Under that definition, anything a scout is doing is then a scouting activity. A scout attends a town council meeting for Citizenship in the Community would then require two adult leaders to attend with him. Do your units send two leaders to town council meetings with scouts that are working on that merit badge? 

Now you know the silliness we are trying to point out

Just now, fred8033 said:

Yeah ... but you can take them to a 3000 acre summer camp and let them disappear for large blocks of time, hiking as far and long as they want, etc ... all without an adult within site of them. 

The rules are not always 100% clear.  Three scouts live down the street from each other.  One drives.  They normally drive everywhere together.  It's hard to prevent them from going food shopping for the campout until they have an adult with them.  

Totally agree...when in the woods, for example, I let some buddies (usually older Scouts) go on excursions as long as they tell me where they are going, when they will be back, and show me they have Scout essentials.