David CO

25 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

When I have taught it, there has been Q&A, discussions, etc. We want people informed. We want people asking questions. We want people to get more out of it than just watching the videos.

I don't think anyone really gets anything out of it.  YPT is just a matter of jumping through hoops and checking off boxes.  

50 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Well whose fault is that?   

It is definitely BSA's fault.   

I don't see any point in having in-person YPT sessions.  It is a one-sided conversation.  There is no discussion.  

6 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Mr. Scrooge touches Tiny Tim inappropriately while on a scout trip.  Oh no, who can we blame so that the BSA is free from liability. Well we know that Scoutmaster Cratchett has been trained in youth protection and can PROVE  IT because he has passed a test on the subject.  Soooo sue Mr. CRATCHETT because he has been trained in youth protection.  

I really liked how you added a seasonal touch to your argument.  But we all know that Jacob Marley has been dead these past 7 years, and he can't defend himself from accusations of child abuse.  He is the one who will be accused.  Scrooge is a cantankerous old skinflint, but he is no pedophile.   That doesn't matter though, because he was partners with Jacob Marley.  The entire business will be sold to pay off the lawsuit.

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Could you please share this stat, it's source, and methodology used for creating it as it is impossible to be registered without YPT. 

I was wondering about that too.  Now I am wondering how BSA manages to count the unregistered leaders.  I'm sure there are unregistered leaders.  I suspect the number of unregistered leaders will increase as the fees and training requirements go up.  Don't know that for a fact, but it would make sense.  I'm just wondering how they came up with that number.

It certainly feels like BSA is trying to undermine its own program.  It's hard to believe that they could be doing all this by incompetence alone.  There must be some degree of intentional self-injury here.  

10 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

??? Seems backwards, the renter specifies the terms of renting his/her facility.

Totally backwards.  My church has its own form.  Fees and availability are determined by the relationship with the parish.  Parish owned/run groups get the most favorable rates and have the highest priority.  Non-parish groups pay the most and get the lowest priority.

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nevermind, I found proofThe new plan is that the COUNCIL OWNS THE UNITS.

So the council owns the units.  Then the council must appoint the COR's.  This means the execs control the voting members of the council.  

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Especially in swamp conservation projects. 

No!  Don't conserve the swamp!  Drain the swamp!  

5 hours ago, yknot said:

Rather than no touch it ought to be no tolerance for folks that don't follow the rules. There are still so many scouters that despite all the scandals and bad press and YPT training and exhortations who still do questionable things or flaunt YPT. These folks need to be called out. If they don't stop, they need to go. Even if completely blameless in intention, they make it easier for predators to hide among them. 

I'm not a big fan of YP.  YP a lot like an appropriations bill.  The original bill may have sounded like a good idea, but by the time it comes up for a vote, it has so many unrelated add-ons that I can only agree with 50% of the final legislation.

BSA cynically uses YP to get a lot of stuff that doesn't belong with YP.  They can't resist using YP to further their social agenda.  

7 minutes ago, Greeneagle5 said:

My buddy was a little cool to the idea for unknown reasons....

I didn't know that discarded Christmas trees are good for fish.  My first thought was about tinsel.  We always put tinsel on our Christmas tree, and it is impossible to remove all of the tinsel before disposing.  Is tinsel a problem?

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

 

I don't agree about your version of rivalry. What I have seen are anti athletic factions in scouting -- which are vocal and virulent -- put down sports. I have of course also seen sports factions -- which are vocal and virulent --  put down scouts. It goes both ways. The best solution is for parents who are coaches to also be leaders and vice versa. We've got a couple units where this is the case and it is like the lion laying down with the lamb -- it's a beautiful thing. 
 

Sorry, I can't see where we disagree.

This is exactly why my CO put scouting under the authority of the athletic director.  We wanted to have equal treatment/policies for athletes and scouts.  We didn't want the boys to see themselves as rivals.

BSA makes this very difficult to do by instituting policies and practices that widen the gap between athletes and scouts.  I wish they would stop and think about this before they act.

49 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 

In fact, as a Scouters I cannot remember ever physically touching a scout.  It's not something I've avoided- I just really cannot remember ever having a reason to do so.

  

I can't remember a scouting activity where I haven't touched a scout.  

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

No touch policies just seem to make common sense to me at this point - regardless of lawsuits, insurance, or the like. 

I think this is the point.  Those who support a no-touch policy would probably do so regardless of the current problems.  It has nothing to do with the lawsuits.  

I don't think people should be taking unfair advantage of the bankruptcy in order to promote their social agendas.  If there are to be culture changes, these changes should be discussed on their own merits.  

I have spent 35 years trying to end this silly rivalry between scouting and athletics.  The athletes should not be putting down the scouts as nerds, wimps, etc..  I am concerned that a no-touch policy in scouting would make this more difficult to do.  It would add one more excuse for athletes to mock the scouts.

22 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

Would you tell a parent no touching their child in Scouting...well unless it is an emergency? Good luck with Family Scouting.

 

In every place where I've seen these no-touch policies, they are very unevenly enforced.  Usually they are enforced against the men, but not the women.  I've seen women get away with doing stuff that would get a man fired.

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Well that makes perfect sense, but that's something that is pretty individual to you. 

I agree.  That's why I dislike these mandates from national.  Units need the flexibility to take advantage of the unique abilities of each of their scouters.

Did we lose the edit button?  

1 minute ago, yknot said:

Does that come up for you much though as a leader issue? Never did for me other than maybe a random eww... 

 

Yep.  I was their Health teacher.  They're pretty comfortable talking to me.

13 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

 

Males do not have this opportunity.

 

Nor would we want to.

50 minutes ago, yknot said:

In scouting, I think it's partly a practical reason based on biology. I don't know too many unrelated males who would be comfortable instructing a 12 or 13 girl on first time tampon use while on a hike or camp out. 

Been there.  Done that.  

52 minutes ago, yknot said:

There really isn't anything similar to worry about with boys. 

I suppose then that your boys never have nocturnal emissions.  My boys have this occur at the usual rate (about 3.5% of nights).  

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

Do you think children are adequately protected under the current policy?    Are we doing a exemplary job in this regard?

No.  I do not.  BSA is doing a terrible job.

30 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

“Touching” and “Good touch/Bad touch”

Credible allegations assert sickening accounts of severe abuse by horrible people “teaching” lessons central to the Scouting curriculum as their “excuse” for inappropriate touching.  It starts as grooming and progresses to horror.  A culture of generous touching of youth to teach merit badges, first aid, and other lessons will need to end.  The experience is that while a Scout might know what a “bad touch” is, Scouts have often been unable to prevent the eventual abuse from taking place.  We can teach these Scouting lessons by example without touching a child.  We need to be open to these changes if we are to regain the trust we have lost – or even be able to operate.

 

This sounds like some dystopian sci-fi movie in which children are raised without physical contact.  Maybe we should change the name again from BSA to Scouts BSA to Bubble Boys BSA.

52 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 Just some more useless information one may or may not care to know. 

We're scouters.  We thrive on useless information.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

BSA chartering model has been broken for a long time.  This is just acknowledging things need to change.

We need to remember that the COR has a seat on the council board (for all the good it does us).  Changing the unit structure would also necessitate a change of the council structure.  I'm not sure what that might look like.