David CO

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Regardless, when a unit leader denies scouts the opportunity to join the OA, they are short changing the scouts twice. Once by not allowing them to take advantage of what the OA has to offer the scout and second by not allowing those same scouts to bring back what the OA teaches to the unit. 

That is exactly the same argument parents used when we disapproved our baseball players' participation on an all-star team whose coaches, schedules, transportation, housing, and other activities were outside of our supervision.

41 minutes ago, yknot said:

You and others keep characterizing it as an abdication of responsibility. 

Some of the people who are criticizing the CO's for abdication their responsibilities in unit leader selection, will advocate for CO's to abdicate their responsibilities in other areas, like OA.  No consistency.  People sometimes just argue for what they want, and ignore the CO's need to have broader, more consistent policies that cover multiple programs and a variety of activities.

21 minutes ago, yknot said:

A lot of these people are elderly. Perhaps could even be proven to be mentally compromised.

Ouch.  

29 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

This is a red herring. Having looked at the files, which have been public for a while now, the vast majority, dare I say 99+% of cases of abuse involved unit leaders that we selected and approved by the CO. 

It is funny that you used the expression "red herring" in a post that completely distracts from the topic of unit non-participation in OA to an unrelated topic of CO approval of unit leaders.  

2 hours ago, Armymutt said:

We have it in our by-laws, with some exceptions - spouse deployed, single parent family with no supporting adults.  It's just really insulting when a stay-at-home parent tells 4 people who work full time that they don't have time, but expect a quality program, and then they sit and play on their phone during the meetings.  

I could easily imagine that many parents might feel annoyed and insulted if they are being pressed to donate their time because the unit is rejecting other willing and qualified volunteers.  

6 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

It's a CO thing.  Some don't allow for OA.  Ours doesn't allow for unrelated adults.

Got it.  

21 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

What standards?  We aren't bringing in people who don't have kids in the unit.  

I am trying to not lose my temper at this remark.  

Parents can be predators.  Predators are not limited to single men without kids.  In fact, it is just as likely for a married person with kids to be a predator.  Scout units should not let down their guard because someone has a kid in the unit.  I cannot stress this enough.

6 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Which is worse, a parent filling a small role or not having a unit for the kids that need Scouting the most?  

The worse situation is having unqualified adults participating in the unit.  No matter how acute a unit's volunteer shortage may seem, or how likely it is that a unit may fold as a result, do not lower your standards.

20 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Not really.  

Yes really.  A parent who volunteers for a non-contact job in the unit will inevitably be asked to become a registered leader.  This puts them in the same awkward position I described earlier, only now without the face-saving excuse that they don't have the time.

Many parents do not qualify to be registered scout leaders.  We should not cause any unnecessary embarrassment to either these parents or their scouts.  

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

I'm not asking for much.  

You really are.  You are asking someone to become a registered scout leader and go through an intrusive application process.  Some people simply don't want to do that.  Others know they wouldn't be acceptable to BSA as scout leaders, and don't want to embarrass themselves, or their children, by admitting it to strangers.  Not everybody is qualified to be a scout leader.

We shouldn't pry into the personal lives of the parents.  If someone politely declines our invitation to be a scout leader, we should just let it be.  Those scouts whose parents do not meet the qualifications to be a registered scout leader might actually be the ones who need scouting the most.  We shouldn't drive them out of the program.

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Perhaps we should get back to just congratulating the original poster on a really cool achievement.

Nope.

The first thought I had when I saw that cake had nothing to do with achievement.  I thought about liability.  Imagine if a scout gets hurt during a bad weather campout.  Now imagine if that scout's lawyer sees this cake on the unit's website.  It would be fairly easy for a lawyer to connect the dots and make a case for negligence.  

So no, I am not going to congratulate the scouters who created that policy, decorated that cake, and posted a picture of it on the internet.  

22 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

A mentality of you don't cancel is important.

I totally disagree.  This sort of mentality borders on fanaticism.  I have seen my fair share of fanatics in scouting and sports.  My job was to keep them in check.  

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I kind of disagree. Having the mentality that you don't cancel for bad weather is the opposite of what I think scouts is supposed to teach. We teach be prepared, which includes being prepared to change plans. Even D-Day was weather dependent. This is scouts, not the military. 

Yes.  Imagine how people would react if a coach said he would never cancel a game due to weather.  He would be fired.  

34 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

It may also become moot if the OA ceases to exist in a few years. Which seems more and more likely.

I don't think so.  OA has a better chance at survival than national.

24 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

As far as I know the OA is the only organization that has its members chosen by nonmembers.

That is their choice.  It does not obligate non-members to cooperate with OA.

I realize this discussion may soon be moot.  If the CO's are out, and the councils end up owning the units, it is entirely possible that the execs will simply require the units to conduct OA elections.

I totally disagree with all of this record-making stuff.  The boys in the troop should feel perfectly free to cancel their activity, if the situation calls for it, without feeling like they are letting people down by spoiling a perfect record.  

I feel the same way about youth sports.  They are way over-doing it with the stats.  Too many boys are worrying about their stats when they should be focused on the game, getting exercise and having fun.

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

Maybe it stems from a misunderstanding of "OA elections" and "OA elections". 

No misunderstanding.

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

Election to select candidates for the Ordeal are a unit function.  

Since it is a unit function, the unit can choose to do it, or not to do it.  It is our choice.  Not OA's choice.  If OA wants to make it OA's choice, then they need to make the selections an OA function.  

41 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I don’t understand why LC’s assets are off limits to BSA.

I think the bylaw provisions are more like a will than a contract.  They can be changed at any time.

2 hours ago, Tatung42 said:

I just heard this bizarre story

Yes, it is a bizarre story.  I wouldn't believe it.

2 hours ago, Tatung42 said:

In fact, Dave doesn’t even know who the old COR was.

There is a lot about this story that I find very difficult to believe.  This one leads the list.  The COR's name and signature are on a lot of unit documents.  It's on the roster.  It is inconceivable to me that a scoutmaster doesn't know the COR's name.  

1 hour ago, Tatung42 said:

Dave, the committee chair, and most of the committee seem in favor of just dropping the CO, and then hopefully finding another CO that will just be invisible like their current CO used to be (or even better, actually support them). 

The scoutmaster is totally out of line.  I don't know if this is intentional defiance or just simple ignorance.  Because he has been a scoutmaster for 5 years now, neither reason is acceptable.  He should know better by now.  

1 hour ago, Tatung42 said:

They had to meet again the next week in secret so that Bob wouldn’t come. 

This is unacceptable behavior.  This alone would justify changing the committee assignments.  A scout unit should have no secret meetings or backroom politicking.  The committee process should be open, honest, above-board, and transparent.

1 hour ago, Tatung42 said:

I am not really sure what to tell him.

Tell him to follow the rules.  That is usually the best advice.

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

Off the top of my head, potential policy solutions would be things like requiring all Medicaid providers to allocate sufficient funds to significantly offset the cost of participation in your organizations and providing tax incentives to people who volunteer to be leaders in these organizations.  

Too socialist for me.    

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

I'm writing a paper for a class.  Originally, I was going to do opioids, but thought that I'd have more passion, if not information, for Scouting.  The goal of this is to eventually develop a policy brief that proposes some solution to a public health issue with an equity or social justice aspect.  To me, youth programs in general, and Scouting in particular have great potential as public health programs. 

My college major was Health Education, so I have written a fair number of papers on public health.  I don't see a paper here.  

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And there are no lions in The Jungle Book.

Maybe we should modernize a bit and use The Lion King instead.  I have a group of boys I would nominate for the hyenas. 

51 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

As I said above.  Our DE went to each classroom and talked about 5 minutes.  This is what he does in all the schools in our District.  

As I said above, this shouldn't be allowed.  It's not just the 5 minutes the DE wasted.  It is also the 10 minutes it takes to get the students back on track.