CynicalScouter

The rule is that "once official, always official". Although the red loops are no longer the color worn for what is now Scouts, BSA (then Boy Scouts) you can wear them if you'd like. Mix and match is also OK as well. So wear your 1910 pants with your 2021 shirt. Whatever.

EDIT: Misunderstood question. There's no difference between civil and criminal SOL extensions. And extensions to Civil SOLs apply to ALL persons or institutions. New York Child Victim’s Act doesn't just target BSA or the Catholic Church. It covers individuals as well ("any party") https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/214-G

I see. So simply noting your awards is bragging...if you are a girl/woman. Got it.

In my world, girls and women who are able to achieve great things as firsts after men told them "no" are to be applauded. Rosa Parks (was told she couldn't sit in the front of that bus) O'Connor (was told when she came out of law school she should just be a legal secretary) Anthony and the Suffragists (told they could not vote) Female Eagle Scouts (told they could not earn it) Not condemned as "grandstanding" or engaged in "fanfare".

The point is that we have honored women firsts for generations. Women who fought to be equals. Rosa Parks. O'Connor. The suffragists, including but not limited to Susan B. Anthony. These scouts should be commended for what they accomplished. Not condemned, mocked, ridiculed, or accused of "grandstanding" or "bragging" (I'll be sure to tell my SM that we end Eagle Courts of Honor since that is now "bragging"). What cheapens Eagle is men who still cling to the idea girls/women are lesser, inferiors who shouldn't be allowed to even try and obtain the Eagle rank. What cheapens Eagle is men who want to go back to the "old days" where women knew their place (and that place was NOT in BSA). I'll stand behind and in support of Parks, O'Connor, Anthony, and others who achieved firsts DESPITE THOSE SEXIST HEADWINDS. Decide for yourself what side you'd rather be on.

I sure hope you've castigated any/all boys who have celebrated their Eagle scout status as "bragging". I'm betting, however, you have not.

Until 18-20 months ago, no. Not "anyone" could do it. Only boys/men could.

1) We honor Rosa Parks for refusing to give up her seat on that bus. Too much "fanfare" about her. Too much "Grandstanding". White people had been sitting on buses for years! 2) We honor Susan B. Anthony and the other suffragettes for getting (and exercising) the right to vote. Too much "fanfare" about her. Too much "Grandstanding". Men had been voting for 200+ years! 3) We honor Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman on the Supreme Court. Too much "fanfare" about her. Too much "Grandstanding". Men had been doing it for over 200+ years! I'm with you man. We have no business honoring women firsts whatsoever. Too much "fanfare" about her. Too much "Grandstanding".

I'm not saying BSA will discard, I am saying what can they do? If the insurance companies won't pay, then the BSA is on the hook for it all. And they just don't have the assets to cover it all by themselves unless you start talking about relatively paltry sums (at $10,000 a piece, those 54,000 SOL claims = $540,000,000).

As I noted, this for me is the question. BSA seems to be sending out the right noises that it wants to help and do something, regardless of SOL. But BSA has only but so many assets. The insurance companies seem to be sending out the opposite signal that they won't pay anything SOL barred. Wondering aloud here, but is it possible BSA come up with a restructuring plan in March that is opposed by ALL sides for various reasons? In other words 1) The insurers will hate the plan because it puts them on the hook for more than they want. 2) Those who want compensation but not BSA's death will oppose it because it isn't enough. 3) Those who want BSA's death will oppose it because it isn't BSA's death. Then we are at the point of a universally opposed cramdown: the judge accepts a plan that literally EVERY major creditor hates.

I think the question will be a lifting on the prohibition on co-ed units. Right now a unit CANNOT be co-ed and there are specific rules against it. I would be inclined to think in 2-4 years that the restriction will be lifted, resulting in B, G, and B/G units.

First, who "on a national level" indicated you were not worth a crap? Exec committee? National Staff? I know this came up last fall, but if even half of what you said happened at that WB weekend occurred you really, really owe it to yourself and others to ask for a review of what went on. Second, and this is something that I have learned oh so often. No one "on a national level" could care less about anyone at the unit level. I know I see lots of people with knots on their chest indicating that once upon a time they held a unit level position (den leader, cubmaster/scoutmaster, etc.) but that was possibly decades ago. They are so far removed that, no offense, they don't care enough about you to care enough about you. Sidenote: If it were legal (I think there are laws against forced volunteerism as a a condition of employment) I'd make a stipulation for that anyone at the regional/area/territory/national level not at least REGISTERED as a unit volunteer in the last 5 years must become one within 12 months of hiring. Third, think about what you'd tell a scout if the scout came to you and said "Johnnie Scout or Jane Scout said I wasn't worth a crap." Hopefully you'd explain that wasn't true and identify how and why that wasn't true. Take that speech you'd give to the fictional scout and repeat to yourself in a mirror. Finally, again based on everything you've posted, it sounds like you are in a very bad place mentally. I want to in the STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS encourage you to reach out for mental health services today. Wallowing in scouting, which is obviously causing you misery, is not the answer.

You sound like you need to focus on your own well-being and get right with yourself and in your own head. Trying to add the burden of Cubmaster atop of what you've described seems the recipe for disaster for yourself and those Cubs. I am not being mean when I say this: seek mental health help. Leave scouts if that becomes too much (as it apparently has). But take of yourself. Then, maybe, come back when you are in a better place.

That is BSA's rule. No adults may tent with their scouts (outside of Cub Scouts). And there is no COVID exception.

Because these should be the EXCEPTION. Not the rule. And referencing fictional movies or advocating child-soldiers (again, war crime in the modern era) cannot be the answer.

Yes, we as a society have made a decision that child-soldiers should be prohibited. Not only in the United States (where the minimum age to enlist is 17) as well as globally, where the use of child soldiers under the age of of 15 is considered a war crime. So yes: we do prohibit it. And I say: thank goodness. That does not detract from the bravery of Gillies. But it recognizes that we are not the nation (or the world) of 1781 in terms of how we treat young people.

Ok, thanks. I've just never thought or heard of this. I know that in normal times, the Scouts, BSA would interact with the Cub Scouts at events and such in person and then the Committee Chair or Scoutmaster would call or email the parents as a follow up. Just threw me a touch. Ok.

So I was at roundtable this week and we were talking AoL crossovers. One SM indicated to the Pack folks "Your scouts should be expecting calls from my scouts." Apparently that troop held a Webelos/AoL event last fall, got contact information from the parents, and the SM is now directing his Scouts, BSA scouts to start calling the Cub Scouts. Not scouts they personally know, just cold calling. This just does not sound right to me at all. I am all for scout-led, but this seems...odd? Has anyone had a similar experience?

That was an honest mistake.

Never seen such an ordinance. Point of fact, the model ordinance exempts Charitable organizations.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but in every state I've lived in/worked with scouting or not-for-profits/charities they were ALL exempted at EVERY level. I'd be really, really curious to see the state law or local ordinance that does NOT include a Boy Scout exemption a) by name b) by virtue of its not-for-profit/charity/501(c)(3) status. Some groups may have this as a POLICY (PTAs), but that's not a state law or local ordinance. EDIT: For example, California exempts Boy Scouts as "persons acting on behalf of a bona fide trustee of charitable assets or on behalf of a charitable organization" EDIT 2: Washington State: Boy Scouts exempt as "Unpaid volunteer for charitable and non-profit agencies." EDIT 3: Indiana: Boy Scouts exempt as "charity" or "charitable organization". EDIT 4: North Carolina Boy Scouts exempt as "children engaged in fraternal, religious, charitable or educational performances, where they are under the control, directly or indirectly, of their parents and/or teachers" Delaware: Boy Scouts exempt for "Work performed by nonpaid volunteers in a charitable or non-profit organization with the written consent of a parent or one legally standing in the place of a parent;"

Every one of those statutes provides a charity and/or 501(c)(3) exemption. Some specify the Boy Scouts by name. It isn't that BSA is oblivious, it is that it is exempt. This is Virginia's language https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title40.1/chapter5/section40.1-112/

Which right now BSA has a very, very short supply of in terms of legal liability and insurance. Think about it; there are two (or three) major insurance companies right now who are on the hook for potentially BILLIONS. BSA National's insurance premiums have doubled or tripled since 2010. That is where things like tower rules and no parents in tents come from; ONE case or ONE instance of a successful lawsuit of a scout being injured from a tower or a parent/step-parent abusing their kid at a Scout event (and it has happened) and BSA is going to put in a rule to try and stop it. Because the NEXT time a scout gets abused or the NEXT time a scout falls from a 6 foot tower, you better believe that the lawyers will point to the PRIOR incident as proof BSA knew it was a danger and disregarded it.

Right, which is why the tower rule is regarding SCOUT or UNIT build items. If a Scout camp has the time and money to hire a professional to install it on a permanent structure, fine. But this is really about those giant, temporary pioneering towers that scouts put together and get on top or send their SM up to the top of. T

All of this from BSA is purely reactionary a) lawsuits and b) insurance demands. I would bet money that the OSHA/tower rule came from either a) a successful lawsuit against a unit, council, or camp in which a scout fell more than 6 feet and that standard got thrown in their face ("This camp is so unsafe, it wouldn't even pass the OSHA regulations for an adult workplace!") or b) an insurance policy condition that camps or other events meet at least OSHA standards. Frankly, can you blame them? They are going bankrupt based on claims they failed to adequately protect children. Their lawyers are no doubt telling them to crank of youth protection to 11 or else.