KublaiKen

While AOL and Scout appear identical, there is actually a universe between them. They may be doing the exact same things, but the first time it was signed off by a grown-up and the second time by another Scout. I don't think that step should be diminished or lost, because it probably really helps the new Scout understand the seismic shift. And while I know the SMC is by no means contingent upon advancement, I do like that one is required right out of the gate. Not necessary, but then maybe it is for some.

I'm confused by your comment, @jcousino: the article never claims that all 1000 nights were spent that way, only the one thousandth itself (though others may have been spent that way as well). Did I overlook something (a common occurrence).

By 2030 we should be seeing in utero trips to the fire station.

That is pretty darned cool. Literally, at times.

1 hour ago, GrubKnot said:

Have to agree with Eagledad.  Wolf, Bear & Webelos is enough. Make AOL rank for motivated, high achieving scouts.

In other words, exactly how it was when I was in, 1975-1978.

4 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

All else equal, suburban moms would probably prefer that suburban dads are the ones to take their children camping.

I'd wager that's very true, and that most would agree with you. I'd also contend that it's a radically different statement than what you opened with, which was more akin to that they won't allow their children to camp with anyone but suburban dads, and didn't deal much with preferences. I'd likewise contend that the "all else equal" doesn't ever (often?) exist.

But I don't disbelieve your point that your wife is not unique in her concerns, not by a long shot. I'm not a Millennial, my wife and I are Gen X, and "late to childhood" in some cultures and areas of the country, but my wife certainly had concerns with the BSA when my son was Tiger age in 2014. Our friends recruiting us for the Pack led with safety measures, so I know we weren't unique, either.

I guess the next thing is, what do we do about it? I see three certain avenues of approach:

1. BSA bans adults (male? female? who cares?) who don't have children active in the program/unit/whatever, or bans them from overnight camping. We understand from posts here that this will mean the certain failure of some units, quite likely a bunch since so many are dependent on this type of volunteer. Certainly District and Council operations could be hindered (sit on your fingers, Lads!) if this demographic can't attend overnight at camporees, summer camps, etc.

2. Educate people (your wife's peer group, at least in this concern) about how this works now, the safety processes in place, the necessity for experienced and trained volunteers, and how one's own active participation is the primary barrier to ANY problems, not just sexual abuse.

3. Tell her it's her hangup, and she can either get over it or get lost.

There are certainly more, at least by degree, right?

I wonder if there will be a challenge since BSA requires a belief in a god.

While YPT is required of all adult leaders, we also require it of any parent who camps with us. But I have heard that the 72-hour loophole might be disappearing as a result of the settlement, and I am hearing that some camps are already requiring any adult who stays the night to be a registered leader.

We and our "affiliated" Pack have found a new CO, the Episcopalian church a few doors down. For now at least we are under a facilities use agreement with our old UMC, but the plan is to move over to the Episcopalian church over time.

4 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

So, as I read this, all scouts who have met the OA qualifications are put on the ballot, and stand for election.

The SM does not exercise the SM's discretion to exclude from the ballot a scout that the SM believes should not be elected.

The doomed scout's name appears on the ballot and the doomed scout knows he was on the ballot. The doomed scout does not know he is doomed.

The scout electorate believes the doomed scout to be a viable candidate because he is on the ballot, and perhaps deems him worthy and elects him to the OA, not knowing that their vote won't count.

And what is the color of the Truth in presenting a ballot to an electorate when the "fix is in?"

After the doomed scout is elected, he is told that he was not elected.  (But he was.)

And what is the color of the Truth in telling a scout he was not elected when he really was elected?

Or maybe the SM has the backbone to tell the doomed scout that he was elected, but that the SM is denying him membership in the OA.  And how is that message delivered?  Such that the Scout has a path forward to qualify next year?. 

And how does the scout reconcile that his fellow scouts thought he was worthy, but the SM is the roadblock?

I agree. I can't imagine why I would have submitted a name on the ballot if I didn't intend to allow that candidate to be elected. I was pretty stunned when I was asked, especially because in my distant youth I was a Lodge Unit Elections Committee Chair at one point.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

True, but if those who took an Obligation are not willing to follow it,  and fix the things that are broken, but instead are making the problems worse,  is the organization worth saving?

There comes a time when one is completely exhausted and overwhelmed by the problems that fixing them is not  worth it. 

Yes, that is a decision each of us must make.

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Maybe this is another reason for the OA to die? Why bother having rules if they are ignored.

True. But that could apply to any number of things in Scouting or elsewhere. Getting rid of roads because people keep speeding would seem extreme, right? 😁 It's in our nature to try to fix things, not throw them out.

Correct. But it isn't done globally. And given that the OP's Chapter told him he needed 20 for membership and seems to have neglected to mention Scoutmaster approval at all, I would be skeptical of their adherence to standard. Forewarned and all...

16 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

According to the Guide to Unit Elections, once the SM approves the eligibility of the, and the vote is take, the SM CANNOT (emphasis) change the election results. Page 17 specificily states

So f it is not global, then those chapters or lodges are in violation of OA policies.

Correct.

16 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

That should be true globally.  Once the SM has approved someone to be on the ballot and they are elected he/she CANNOT change the result.

From the latest version of the OA Guide to Elections:

"After the youths have voted, the unit leader cannot adjust the results of the election. The Guide for Officers and Advisers says that lodge rules must include this standard rule: Rule III.A. The requirements for membership in this lodge are as stated in the current printing of the Order of the Arrow Handbook and the Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisers. The “Induction: Election to Ordeal” section of the Guide for Officers and Advisers, details the procedure to be used for elections. Voting by unit leaders or adjusting the results of the youth votes is not part of the procedure and therefore is not allowed."

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually there is only one way, before. Once the SM approves the slate of candidates, it is a done deal. I had a SM try to intimidate an election team into changing the results after he approved the candidate. He then tried to intimidate me, cursing and yelling at me as the team and I left his meeting.

That isn't true globally; in our Chapter all candidates are on the ballot and the SM only uses a strike if the candidate is actually elected.

It is actually 15, not 20. I wonder why they sent 20? Additionally the long-term counts for five, but only five,  of the 15.

Cub Scouts is about doing your best. I'm with @fred8033.

If you click on the link above, you will see that the unit's funds are owned by the Chartered Organization or by Council, depending on how the unit is chartered.

Adding to the confusion is that not all tribal lands were uncontested. Rather than weighing in on who WE think owned the land, I believe it is just another reason we need to get out of the AIA business.

42 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@johnsch322 paints with a discriminating broad brush. African Americans were advancing in European American troops from the early years of BSA …

https://aaregistry.org/story/first-black-eagle-scout-awarded/

They we’re also advancing in segregated troops, Martin Luther King, Jr’s troop being one of them.

I would suggest that it is harmful to one’s soul to conflate evils. There is a big difference in troops being founded by black leaders in segregated communities and the nation’s black scouts being “very segregated” from the nation’s white scouts.

Weren't they talking about Scouting in Africa, not the BSA? Specifically with regard to Baden-Powell's influence there?

ETA: I just checked and they were. @johnsch322was replying to specifically to a comment by @skepticabout Scouting being open to blacks in Africa.

3 hours ago, scoutldr said:

Doesn't that work both ways?  And should I no longer agree to wear the big sombrero as they sing "Feliz Cumpleanos" to me at my local Mexican restaurant?  

Well, I think that by definition cultural appropriation doesn't work both ways.

We're like the dinosaurs, but we have the advantage of seeing the comet coming. Please keep me apprised of how hiding your head in the sand works out.

@Mrjeff, if you Google "order of the arrow national committee," here is the very first thing that pops up:

https://oa-bsa.org/about/leadership/national-committee

It is, as you might imagine, a link to the names and positions of the members of the Order of the Arrow's National Committee. If you go the Order of the Arrow's web page, this is also linked through the home page. It isn't mystical, and "whoever they are" is easily and readily available information to anyone who even has the slightest jot of curiosity and iota of resourcefulness.

I point this out because who they are is very hard working volunteers like us, doing their best to guide a very traditional organization in times of social change. Their comet has to drag a very big tail, and that's old people like us. And I think it is disrespectful to frame them and their activities, and their decisions, as you have. Treating them as some sort of cabal with unknown identities is factually incorrect. That governing boards don't instantly announce decisions isn't some sign of secrecy;  major changes are frequently vetted and nuanced before being rolled out to membership. Sometimes replacements need to be put in place for the policies and procedures they are replacing. While you might have completely valid reasons for disagreeing with the policy they determine, I think it is in the best spirit of Brotherhood to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing their best at young ages to navigate some tough terrain. They wouldn't have to do any of this if our generations had. I think assigning them any other motive than the best interests of the Order of the Arrow and its chances for success, as they can best them see them, is unkind and misplaced.

Lastly, I am NOT an attorney, but I think a private organization's governing board might be allowed to make policy decisions about its own organization's procedures and activities without fear of First Amendment violation, especially since the Order of the Arrow National Committee is not the government.

Congratulations!