Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by SiouxRanger

  1. 7 minutes ago, Cecille25 said:

    The scout masters wanted to prohibit my child from participating at the camporee events and were going to force him to sit at the camp site all day. They told him”why can’t you be normal” and their behavior caused other scouts to behave poorly towards him.  For 45 min this man humiliated him in front of the other boys. He’s a 12 year old kid.   The prior incident this person got into the face of the SPL and was forcing the issue as to not wear a pink shirt. Tonight they want to essentially put me on trial as if I did something wrong.  

    That’s how it should be. just a fun thing. Pink socks rock!

    Find another troop.  Your son's friends can follow along. The Scoutmaster's (maybe plural?) behavior is abhorrent and inexcusable.

    Praise in public; criticize in private (though 2 deep leadership).

    There is NO REASON your son or you should have to put up with this.

    "Punishment" has NO place in Scouting.


  2. On 5/14/2022 at 8:50 AM, fred8033 said:

    Is it a money handling law that the money would never reach Philmont?   First has to go thru bankruptcy court?  

    Or is it a truth in advertising law to prevent fraud by misleading donors giving money to a bankrupt non-profit?  ... i.e. if you are in bankruptcy proceedings, you should not pretend that business will continue.  That's fraud or not fully truthful.


    Well, I just don't know.  It is a puzzle.

    National has a Federal Charter, and only a couple of organizations are chartered Federally.  I think that means that it need not incorporate in some state and then qualify to do business in the other 49 states annually.

    I don't know if it is a Federally chartered not-for-profit, but I suspect so..

    And I also don't know if there is a Federal Not-For-Profit statute which regulates its operations.  States have not-for-profit corporation statutes.

    Normally, when the Federal Government enacts a law within its Constitutional authority, it pre-empts state laws on the same matter. That is, state laws that are pre-empted are no longer valid.

    Bankruptcy law, for example, has pre-empted state law, so there is only Federal bankruptcy law. National, being in bankruptcy, one would think that bankruptcy law would control on all matters and pre-empt state law on all matters touching on finances.

    That all being rather uncertain, it gets us to the conundrum:  National clearly believes that it is prohibited from accepting donations from residents of specific states.

    My best guess, being only that, is that some states have laws restricting not-for-profits from accepting donations if in bankruptcy. Such a law would probably avoid the pre-emption doctrine, unless the Bankruptcy law permitted not-for-profits to accept donations and then I think National could accept donations from residents of every state.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    Although I support female youth in Scouting, the answer to your question is that we are wired differently, and there is some benefit in single gender programming.

    And cannot that be done with separate male-female patrols?

  4. 6 hours ago, skeptic said:

    The Lone Scout issue is interesting to me.  I know that I have read on this forum, as well as a couple of other threads on Scouting about girls joining as Lone Scouts due to not having enough girls for a troop.  So I know that it is allowed, or so it appears.  We have struggled to start a girl unit; but we got the minimum briefly, but soon lost one, then another.  I had suggested the Lone Scout direction anyway, but the local Executive says we do not meet criteria.  Of course, what he really means is that he want another number for a unit, evenif he then approves three when we started it, now down to one.  And since we no longer have the number we have one girl in limbo, and he still says no Lone Scout.  

    To me, this is foolish, as if we get a few Lone Scouts to start, we might find enough others with time; and in the meantime, the young women get to do the program.  The one we still have has a brother in the troop who is our SPL and bugler.

    Of course, I personally am still of the opinion that there should not need to be two untis separately.  Simply have a girl patrol, just as we have girl dens.  It is nuts to lose the small numbers due to that idiocy, in my view.  

    I agree.

    Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it.“ —  Mark Twain

    Well...no.  Truth should be spread far and wide.  All who care to listen, understand, and learn should be welcome to the classroom.

    Scouting is the classroom. Fun is the teacher. Wisdom is the lesson.

    I come from a family of very smart women. Much brighter than me.

    I was at Philmont when the first women Rangers were hired. Top class individuals.

    I make no apologies that I take lessons and knowledge from whatever source I can.  I learn by listening, not talking.  Talking is rather selfish.

    Many folks with far fewer hours in the classroom than me have taught me many valuable things. And I respect them for their unknowing assistance in my education and development (and development of "life perspective.")

    That there is even a discussion on whether girls should be ALLOWED to participate in Boy Scouting puzzles me. Why should girls be denied the chance to learn from the BSA Program? It has great things to offer.

    And no one should be denied the opportunity to participate.

    “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”   ― Margaret Mead

    Seems that it is usually only one.

    Why would an institution deny opportunity to half the population?

  5. So...we have an organization in dire financial straits...that is prohibited from accepting donations?

    'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." --Anatole France

    "My cup runneth over with love-of-the-law." --Me

    Common sense may not yet be dead, but it is in a coma and on life support. I met with the family yesterday, Truth, Decency, and Reason, and expressed my concern. They are hopeful, but also resigned. (Part of this paragraph sort of a paraphrase from an article I found on the web.)

  6. We have a prospect that a Kiwanis group will charter our units, pack and troop.

    Catholic Diocese is done chartering all units.

    8 months of worry. No help from National, nor from Council, though a new DE found the prospect. Never a second's worth of acknowledgment by Council staff that prospective chartering organizations' reluctance is due to concern over future liability for abuse claims.  Totally tone deaf.  Hello-heard about the 3 billion bankruptcy that has put the existence of the organization at risk? And alienated virtually every element of your business model?

    We think we can continue to meet at our parish who was our sponsor for 70± years. Discussions happening daily.

    Another thread waxes on about summer camp scouting fun.

    Chartering has been nothing but angst.


  7. 9 hours ago, gpurlee said:

    You make several interesting points:

    Traditionally, we know from observation that the majority of chartered organizations have acted more in the role of a benevolent landlord rather than treating their Scouting organization  as a true ministry or part of their organization.  A meeting place, equipment storage and perhaps a Scout Sunday program or chili supper fundraiser have been the extent of their involvement. This has been common practice for decades.  

    You are correct that court interpretations of the charter agreements have shocked some chartered organizations into realizing the long term implications of the documents that they signed perhaps decades ago. 

    You are also right on point when you state that chartered organizations have the legal and moral responsibility to fulfill that agreement of oversight, support  and accountability.

    However, the reality for many chartered organizations is that they lack the ability and/or willingness to provide the level of on-going oversight that is needed. This includes the selection (interviewing, reference checks?), approval, ensuring completion of training as well as on-going oversight of program and financial operations. And ideally all of this process should be documented and preserved. 

    How many chartered organizations that have been named in the bankruptcy for alleged incidents occurring thirty or forty years ago wish today that they had maintained and retained some sort of documentation that might provide protection for them? 

    If a chartered organization is going to maintain oversight and accountability, they must have the leadership capable, willing and who have the time to do so. My experience is that many of the chartered organizations today have difficulty in coming up with a capable and willing slate of leaders to even operate their own organization as their membership shrinks. 

    I am not sure what the long term solution is.  The professionals within our local council have stated that they do not have the manpower, resources or desire to oversee the local units under a meeting space only agreement model. And the reality is that this model would shift the liability almost totally to the council level. 

    Lots of questions remain to be answered even if a bankruptcy settlement is reached.



    Just Yes. Precisely!

    Has anyone got a copy of the Churchill Report?

    • Upvote 1
  8. 4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    Esse quam videre

    (Just trashed my prior work as I got it all wrong. Got to proof-read and check sources-this is important work.)

    Depending on the source ESSE QUAM VIDERE  translates: "to be rather than to seem." Or "to be, rather than to seem." (Not sure what the comma adds.)

    I have not seen this quote before, and I just love quotes. They espouse important principles. And in my opinion the world would be better off if folks knew some principles and adhered to them.

    So, "to be rather than to seem" is attributed to an essay by Cicero, widely acclaimed as Rome's greatest orator.

    Wikipedia:  Esse quam videri is found in Cicero's essay On Friendship (Laelius de Amicitia, chapter 98). Virtute enim ipsa non tam multi praediti esse quam videri volunt ("Few are those who wish to be endowed with virtue rather than to seem so").

    Which seems to say, "Many want to be considered to be virtuous, but few really want to be virtuous."

    Or in more modern language, "Do as I say, not as I do."

    Or, in my interpretation, "I am what I say."

    All of which evoke the idea that the speaker can't or cares not to live up to the standards which they espouse others strive to attain.

    Another version, looking at it from the other side is the more recent Yoda, "There is no 'try," either do, or do not."




  9. 1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

    there is a documented partisanship to many media outlets. Sure, in a perfect world there wouldn’t be, but that’s why I thought it was important to note the source… we’re living in a world where provided information is not benign and it’s better to know than not.

    As a long student of the art and science of journalism (and its ethics), starting with Edward R. Murrow's life pre-journalism, my library of books by journalists is second in number only to my library of books by Winston S. Churchill (British-not the American Winston S. Churchill), there was a time that all broadcasts from Europe by "Murrow Boys" broadcasting on the "European Evening Roundup" (which included at least one female), HAD TO MADE LIVE so as not to permit the introduction of edited material which would be possible were the broadcast recorded, edited, and re-broadcast.

    Some decades ago, as I recall, the National Geographic Society digitally "moved" a pyramid or two, of the Great Pyramids' fame, to make the cover on its magazine more attractive.  The first example of digital offensive hanky-panky I remember and NGS caught a harsh word or two over it.

    The tradition of journalists presenting facts, as news, long the touchstone of journalists, has long eroded.  Journalistic commentators such as John Chancellor, David Brinkley, and the incomparable Eric Severeid (check out his farewell address on YouTube-no one thinks like him anymore), clearly identified themselves as presenting opinion based on facts.

    There was clear distinction between news (fact reporting) and editorial comment (opinion).

    Alas, no longer, and no one seems to care that it has all devolved into slop.

    And so, we are all left to form our own opinions on what passes for "news."

    Churchill referred to a "Bodyguard Of Lies," in referring to the intentional barrage of misinformation broadcast to Allied forces, but also intercepted by Nazi Germany, to conceal the truth of accurate information also broadcast.  Churchill's "Bodyguard Of Lies" was intended to protect the Truth of accurate wartime information.

    Sadly, now the "Bodyguard Of Lies" is not the smoke-screen but presented as Truth, though it remains lies through and through.

    No longer can anyone trust any news source as the self-imposed rules of ages past are long gone.

    Free Speech has devolved into a free-for-all.


  10. 2 hours ago, skeptic said:

    Why must everything always have "sides"?  People are people, and in most cases they should be able to just live and do their own thing. 

    Having met with many thousands of folks, many situations being stressful, I have come to the conclusion that most folks "just want to get through the day unscathed and a bit better off for their effort."  Most folks care not a whit for "sides." It seems to be the dynamic of human interactions that everyone gets pressured to take a side.  "Tom and Mary are getting divorced...which side are you on?"  And those that don't are considered traitors by BOTH sides.

    In truth, just about every situation is incredibly complicated, and no answer is clear or likely ever to be clear.  All when the most reasoned answer is likely, "maybe," or "perhaps."

    The majority cannot handle the complexity of these things and insist on forcing all into one of two molds, those "for," and those "against."

    Reason is irrelevant.

    "Can't win, can't break even, can't get out of the game."

    • Upvote 1
  11. On 4/30/2022 at 8:05 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

    Having been a member of the OA for a long, long time, and having seen how sausage is made, I understand where @SiouxRanger and @yknot are coming from...

    I have, in the past, not approved some Scouts to stand for selection. (This is a SM prerogative.)   They took it pretty hard, but they were the ones with a trend of questionable behavior and sporadic (at best) participation.  They did not change behavior, but the message was clear.

    I also think we should change the verbiage from "election" to "selection."  It is not an election.  An "election" implies multiple candidates and only one wins.

    The OA selection ballot should list candidate names with YES or NOT YET boxes next to each one.  Check one. 

    To be selected, you have to get 50% of the votes cast.

    I have ruthlessly strict standards for licensed professionals (adults) in the performance of their professional duties.

    But for children, finding their way in life? Finding their personality, their sense of who they are?  No.  I have seen many young scouts mature over their years in Scouting. They changed dramatically.

    And that is what the movement is all about.

    There is a concept in politics that a buffoon, once elected to office will "step up" and realize the significance and responsibilities of their elected position and serve as an enlightened individual.

    Considering a particular scout-will that happen?

    Who knows.

    And who has sufficient foreknowledge to predict?

    Scouts stick with Scouting when their friends are Scouts.

    I lean toward any process which elects more Scouts to OA, and give them the opportunity to "step up" or fade away.

  12. 16 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    What say you experts out there??

    I think your SPL has done an excellent job.

    12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Well ... I learn something every day.  Our pack violated this rule every year. 

    Just what rule has your pack violated?

    12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Also, BSA writing drives me crazy at times.

    Only "at times?" I find it easier to tally the times the rules gave clear guidance.  They never do. I have not been able to find a definitive answer to my questions.

    "When the police break the law, there is no law." -Billy Jack.  Translated to BSA-speak: "When the rule writers can't (won't) write comprehensible rules, there are no rules." 

    So, as is apparent from the comments, units are "just finding their way."

    I have just now come to the opinion that the BSA rules are intentionally written to be so vague that unit leaders, struggling to understand them and decide how to comply with them, fearing some "violation of BSA rules," back off any action or activity that MIGHT impinge on Local Council prerogatives (valuable things the local council wants to keep to itself to mine/capture/exploit).

    What we have is MUD.

    This is not a harsh judgment.  I sell words for a living.  Not just any words, the RIGHT words.  They have to have the right meaning, right sense, and clearly delineate the rules. What is to be done, by whom, and when.

    "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” --Mark Twain.

    It is a brutal standard.  (I missed a step a way back here, and apologized and expanded my comment.)  

    But for folks in the business of selling words, "Be Prepared."

    So we can assume (and I do not make argument based on assumptions lightly but feel very confident here), that BSA hires smart folks-folks with the ability to write VERY CLEAR RULES-Masters of the "King's English."

    And yet we do not have VERY CLEAR RULES.

    "And why would that be?"  --Carson, Downtown Abbey.

    It is intentional, to instill fear in unit leaders. To cause them to pause, and back off.

    Fantasitical ideation you say?

    Well, posters are discussing just this issue.

    6 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    This one will be a bit of a sticky wicket..

    And why are there not clear rules authoritatively addressing this "sticky wicket?"

    Has this situation not presented itself hundreds of times-and for such a common occurrence-there is no rule?

    As a distant aside, time and again, statues in my state start off with rules applying to the most unlikely situations only adding rules that apply to the most common problems later. Hello-shouldn't the FIRST rule apply to the most common/likely situation, and the minor situations be relegated to exception status somewhere buried in the statue?

    • Like 1
  13. I have not been following this thread.

    But as a Troop Leader for over 20 years, I have heretical opinions,  so I am told, on the election of scouts to the OA.

    Time and again, the elections have been held at our Troop when senior scouts were then engaged in athletic activities, newbie scouts were the only electors, and the senior scouts were not elected.  Without exception those senior scouts earned Eagle Rank. But never elected to the OA.

    So, to you OA oriented folks, I humbly suggest that Scoutmasters be allowed to ADD names of worthy scouts to the list of "elected" scouts.


    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  14. 16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    Where does the question say or imply that? Scouters here have taught me the two are not the same. 

    Thank you. 

    My law school application:  "Are you an idiot?"

    I checked "Yes!"

    Got accepted.

    (My professors probably gave the same answer-just kidding-most were pretty smart.  Some even human.)

    Well, nonetheless, I draw a huge distinction between the Movement and those who deign themselves the high priests of the Movement.

    They have long ago brought it to its knees and it now lingers at the threshold of oblivion.

    Somewhere, I have an audible of a Churchill speech, spoken by Churchill, where he manages to get about 11 syllables out of the word "lamentable."

    Long and drawn out pronunciation beyond its nature...

    Seems that this bankruptcy is a 3 syllable word in 20 syllables.

    And "lamentable" is not nearly strong enough.

  15. 4 hours ago, Better4itall said:

    we cooked over wood fires made from deadfall and dead branches still on trees

    I was at Philmont in 1971 also.  We'd get cooking fire firewood from within a hundred yards or so of our campsite.  Maybe some folks would go 150 yards, but that would likely be the maximum distance deadfall would be scavenged.  The wood would be up to about 2 inches or 2.5 inches in diameter, max, as that would reduce to coals fairly quickly.  Someone can do the math, but it may be that the total area scavenged within such radii of all the campsites on the Ranch of relatively small diameter wood would not likely impact a wildfire very much.  Scavenging deadfall would not seem to have any effect on lessening crowning fires, racing through the tree tops, nor standing dead trees, nor downed trees (logs).  Back in those days I recall that each crew was definitely issued an ax, and I think a bow saw, so crews had the ability to process wood of larger diameter than 2.5" into kindling by splitting it ("batoning" we now call it), but I do not recall if that procedure was taught to crews.  It is an important point, for if crews were taught how to baton larger wood into kindling size wood, crews would be scavenging larger wood and somewhat reducing the fuel load.

    I do have to admit that even in my day there, Cito was rumored to have run out of suitable deadfall for cooking fires and imported firewood from Colorado.  I think that is very likely true.  I was at Cito in 1968 and there was hardly a twig anywhere on the ground.  On the other hand, Cito, was the largest, most heavily visited and camped camp at Philmont, situated as it is at the waist of Philmont, and the crossroads to just about everywhere. Cito was scavenged clean.  But other camps I visited were not.

    I have an amateur's understanding of forestry wildfire prevention methods, but learning more every day.  My professional forestry friends tell me that understory fuel reduction on a methodical basis is the path to moderating runaway wildfire.  I am also told that administrative types see such efforts as an expense for which there is no budget-until there is a runaway wildfire-THEN cost is no object.  

    • Upvote 1
  16. 5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    2. Is the culpability so great and the institution so unredeemable that it requires dismemberment, regardless the past, current or future good?

    Not a fair question as the word "institution" includes both the National BSA corporation, AND the Scouting Movement.

    The National BSA corporation appears to be unredeemable.  Management is so inbred, addicted to high pay and benefits, and apparently incapable of making meaningful change.  Eight or more decades of poor performance can be laid at their collective feet. Not to mention a billion dollar bankruptcy.  (Hard to get a job as a Fortune 500 CEO when the last corporation you helmed filed a billion dollar bankruptcy-that is no indication of success no matter how much lipstick on the pig.)  Local SE said to me that "would the Fortune 50 folks on the National Board lead us astray?"  (Uh, well other than a billion dollar bankruptcy, catastrophic declines in membership, and unit inability to recharter because former and potential chartering organizations are terrified of potential liability NOT addressed by National...well, other than that....Yeah, the National Board is a Judas Goat.)

    The Scouting Movement. It will endure. Somehow, some way.  It should endure-we need it as a community. Kennedy, when he set the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning safely to earth had no idea how that could be done.  It was a mission statement.  Same with the Scouting Movement.  It will survive-we just don't know now how that survival method will evolve.

    I stand with you @ThenNow.

    • Like 1
  17. 28 minutes ago, skeptic said:

    Not an accurate comparison.  BSA actually did more than many, though they failed in too many cases, for whatever reasons.  The proverbial fire was not simply ignored, though in too many instances the efforts to not only combat, but make it less likely for another fire, were not made as they might have been, and surely still should be.  That does not take away the fact they often did do the right thing and went beyond the community standards of the time in many cases.  

    And so, at the end of the day, the fire was LARGER.

  • Create New...