KublaiKen

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!

A surplus water buffalo? When I was a kid someone had one in our District and brought it to Camporees.

What an incredible person! Requiescet in pace, Mrs. Hesselbein.

4 hours ago, TheGreenWizard said:

     Another thing is, the primary difference between the other three and CIS is the others force you to go searching for outside resources, such as a public meeting, rather than sitting around and talking about your personal opinion. A good citizen understands that unless someone's Constitutional rights are being inhibited, their opinion is just that; theirs. Others may agree with you, and you are allowed to voice that opinion, but unless a Constitutional right is being infringed, nothing needs to be done.

     That's another thing too; the other three merit badges, or at least community and nation, encourage you to talk about the law and governing documents in your country. This is something CIS lacks, and thus it should really be a non eagle-required merit badge called Society, not Citizenship in Society.

You seem to be saying that CIS being different from other required merit badges is disqualifying criteria for it being required.

I'll wait for the irony to hit.

If the Oath can require duty to country and physical strength, and then we can require Citizenship in the Nation and Personal Fitness, the template has been cast for the overarching things to tell us what to do, and the merit badges to serve as demonstrations of how. Given that BSA allowed segregation until 1974, meaning over half of its existence, I'd argue that perhaps the Oath and Law are insufficient tools to govern good behavior in our shared space. Sometimes we might need some prompting on what good citizenship looks like.

Perhaps its a side note to your story, and perhaps not, but in truth, you probably should have been talking to the Webelos parents and letting the Scouts run the lashings. One of our standards of success is if the Scouts don't hear me speak until the Scoutmaster's Minute.

What happened this past week? Where is Part 2?

Ah, then I would say which weekend to go camping might be the secondary issue: that should be planned by the Scouts in the PLC at an annual planning meeting, not by old men on a message board. Youth-led is on the same level as outdoors in the hierarchy of Scouting, both are methods, right? Solve the problems by solving them together: dump the calendar dilemma on the PLC and let them solve it.

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The saddest part of this continuing issue is that if we simply fixed the legal system so as to not have overly zealous and greedy saw suits people could still have protection with reasonable cost and some type of fair and balanced guidelines.  The expectation that there is an absolute ability to keep all bad actors out of Scouting or any other group is not feasible.  And, when those individuals do get past barriers, for whatever reason, the idea that anyone that has ever spoken to or touched them, or furnished a place to meet, and so on is ridiculous and should not be a reason to sue.  Just my view, and if you do not agree, please do not get rude.

I would maintain that the saddest part of this issue is and will remain the victimization of our youth, and the loss of innocence and mental well-being they suffered and continue to suffer. While I love Scouting, our worst case is that we lose entirely a fantastic youth organization, and that is not likely. And if it happens I am certain the void will be filled. The victims are already facing their worst case scenario. I don't mean to diminish your view of the legal system; tort reform is a conversation to be had. But in this situation, for me, all other pain takes a backseat to the victims.

What did the PLC decide?

3 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

That puts me and most of my Scouts out of the picture!😄

Right? Same here. What happened to achievable goals?

I was my Lodge's Unit Elections Committee Chair in my sordid youth, among other offices, and I am more and more agnostic on the whole OA thing, including the selection process. So I won't weigh in on your dilemma, as I fluctuate between a purist who longs for the old days and a realist who thinks this kid belongs in the OA.

I only want to add that while I think you are partially correct on the philosophy of the requirement, it is also to show a regular and recurring commitment to the unit's camping program, with the idea that one (theoretically) must attend several camping trips over that period to meet the requirement. That is supposed to help the unit members answer those "Who among you..." questions. At least that was my understanding.

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

My friends' units, a pack and 2 troops, that are chartered by an UMC church started their own Optimist Club with the sole purpose of chartering units.  They will have a FUA with the UMC church.

We looked at a similar option as well, but found the insurance costs to likely be prohibitive. Since we found a choice of COs, we didn't explore it too deeply.

27 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Thanks KublaiKen but how is a unit rechartering as before?   Not an option as we read it.

I am not a member of the UMC, so am not too familiar with their governance, so take this with a grain of salt, but as I understand it each UMC can ignore the advice of the governing body if they choose. Each congregation is autonomous, or semi-autonomous? In any event, it seems risky to recharter knowing the bodies above you might not have your back if something goes wrong.

21 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Are there other UMC units out there that can share what they are doing?  

Our District Membership Chair sent us this list of what some other units in our District were doing:

Very late to this, but I just wanted to post what our Troop (and the "affiliated" Pack) are doing.

We have been sponsored by our UMC for 72 years, and the Pack a bit less. We're now dotting the i's and crossing the t's on a new CO agreement with the Episcopalian church a block or so away. We'll have a facilities use agreement with the UMC, though I think we'll be moving physically more and more over to the Episcopalian church in due time.

Our Troop is pretty well off for a Troop, I think, and I suspect that if our Council got our bank account we would not see it back if we later found a CO.

If one believes we are trying to fix the past, then I would agree that is impossible. But I don't think that's in the intent or execution of what is happening today; I believe we are taking the lessons of the past and trying to fix the present, which includes quite a bit of downstream impact (intentional and otherwise) of many decades (centuries, societally) of very bad policy and practice. And a valuable tool in identifying and eradicating (or mitigating) those ills is asking the people who suffer from them what they think.

I don't think it's enough to say that following the Scout Oath and Law will resolve these issues.

I joined Scouting in 1975. The last segregated council was integrated in 1974. That means that for the first half of its existence, segregation was permissible in the BSA. That means either the Scout Oath and Law permit segregation and are inherently flawed, in my view, or they were ignored/misunderstood across the board by the entire organization for over 60 years. Having affinity groups that can point out such blind spots is a net gain, in my view.

Integration doesn't mean homogenization, and having other groups bring cultural/thought elements to a white, straight, male organization isn't bad, in my view.