David CO

6 hours ago, Trail_on said:

If the adult is not a registered leader at that time then the actions that happened would not apply.

Yes, it may still apply. It would all depend on the nature and the severity of the offense.

1 hour ago, MikeS72 said:

Revocation of membership may only be a formality if that membership had already expired, the end result is not.  Depending on what caused said revocation, it would really not make much difference whether the individual was registered or technically just a parent.  If severe enough, it would, in my opinion, preclude him/her from any contact with the unit; regardless of registration status.

I disagree. BSA can deny a persons membership application. It can also ban someone from BSA owned property. BSA cannot, however, dictate to the Chartered Organization who can/cannot have contact with the unit. That authority rests solely with the CO.

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, DuctTape said:

I still don't understand why the need for a DRP. We don't have a DCP (Declaration of Citizenship Principles) and the Oath also states Duty to Country. 

Sure we do. It's called the Pledge of Allegiance. We say it at every scout meeting.

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I don’t understand, duty to god is our values. How is that redundant?

Barry

I agree. We say the Lord's Prayer every week at mass. Is that redundant? Maybe so. But religion isn't supposed to be a "one and done" type of activity. It's a 24/7 thing. 

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

The fire, its cause still unknown, 

Perhaps it is the just and timely wrath of God. Nine more plagues to go. Let my Boy Scouts free!

37 minutes ago, Peter1919 said:

then I really think they need to fundamentally look at their structure and decide if employing so many people is really justifiable and financially viable in the future.

That would be great, if it were actually possible. Unfortunately, the employees are in control of BSA. The volunteers can't fire them.

This is nothing new. The man who founded BSA got run out of the organization by the Chief Scout Executive. BSA has a long history of having powerful, highly-paid executives who can't be controlled by the volunteer members who supposedly employ them. BSA is a dictatorship, not a democracy.

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 2:10 PM, blackft said:

 

Last night the father walks in and confronts me to ask if I have a problem with his son being a Scout. Do I have a problem with his son specifically? 

  

When a parent asks if you have a problem with their son, what they really want to know is if they are going to have a problem with you.

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 2:10 PM, blackft said:

 

We have a 15 year old boy who may be special needs, or he may just be difficult.   

  

You should be very careful about characterizing a scout in this way.

7 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

It says “complete one service project benefitting the CO”

Having a well-run scout unit is (in itself) a service project benefiting the CO.

Just now, Oldscout448 said:

Quite true, yet he is no longer in the scout POR  hierarchy.    There needs to be a separation, lest he willingly or unwillingly, undercut the new SPLs authority.    To this end in our troop we scouters invite the JASM to eat with us on campouts,  attend committee meetings,  etc.

I think this is a bad idea. YP still applies to a JASM, just as it applies to all youth members. Inviting the JASM to interact with adult scouters in this way might cause an adult to temporarily forget that the JASM is still a youth member.

Scouting is already a risky business for adults. No reason to make it worse.

6 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

Not all Scouters may see you as an adult just yet.   Try not to take it personally.  It takes us a while too.   

JASM is not an adult. 

21 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

@RichardB, does the BSA realize that at some point, the cost and risk of volunteering ("cost" including time, and "risk" including statements such as appear above) is going to make people stop volunteering?  I think that for some people, the point has already been reached.  I also think that if all leaders actually read the Guide to Safe Scouting, a large number would decide that the point has been reached for them as well.  Does the BSA recognize this as a problem and have a solution?  Or is it just our problem?

Yes. Joining scouting can be a bit like reading all of the warnings and disclaimers on a medicine package. Knowing all the possible side-effects of a medicine can really discourage a person from taking it.

1 hour ago, ValleyBoy said:

No reason to change my Church membership at this time.  If I did feel lead to make a change I would have no problem moving my Church membership to my present Troop's CO.

No, no, no.   I didn't mean to suggest that you change religions. I was suggesting that you might like to participate in your own church's scout unit.

11 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

The FAMILY emphasis is the one that will be a challenge down the road.  The law of unintended consequences.  While signing up the whole family (Scouting for Dogs anyone??) 

I think the Brits have that already. It's called Rover Scouts. 

33 minutes ago, ValleyBoy said:

Personally I have never been a member of the CO 

Try it, you'll like it.

24 minutes ago, WonderBoy said:

If it becomes impossible to follow, as written, then my choice is to lose my honor by only giving lip service to the G2SS or maintain my honor and withdraw as a Scouter.

Not at all. BSA fully understood, when it created these policies, that they could not and would not be followed. Any resulting dishonor is on them, not on you.

BSA first offered its program to Chartered Organizations with a clear understanding that the scouts and scouters would very likely have a pre-existing relationship with the CO, and with each other, that both precedes and supersedes the scouting relationship.  If this now causes them some liability concerns, that's just too bad. 

We are not going to sacrifice the relationships we have with our church, with our school, and with each other just to placate some paper-pushing execs in BSA. Not going to happen.

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

When I was a DL, I recall problems with family tree requirements in Cub Scouts.  Why embarrass the scout and his family?

Jeff Foxworthy was in your unit?

24 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Why on earth would the BSA want to get in the middle of that?

BSA got in the middle of that because it once believed in that.

25 minutes ago, Saltface said:

By taking that position, BSA would be tacitly supporting the belief that truth is relative. It's a slippery slope...

 

A slippery slope that even a sure-footed mail carrying burro like Pedro would have trouble with.

I called it a fictional religion. I never implied that it is real.

In the context of the movie, they referred to it as a religion in the first film. So I used that for the lack of a better word.

13 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

I would just want her to be happy.  (Doesn't everyone say this?)

No, we don't all say this.

I would prefer that my family/students/scouts be faithful and true to our religion, rather than pursue happiness on Earth, even if that requires some sacrifices on their part. 

17 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I could never imagine having a discussion about whether being gay was morally wrong. 

Just a short time ago, I couldn't have imagined that we would be having a discussion in which scouters were arguing that homosexual conduct is morally straight. Yet here we are.

When I was growing up, we had several TV shows that dealt with children growing up with one parent. On Spin and Marty and Lassie, the fathers had died in WWII. On Julia, the father had died in Viet Nam. On Bonanza, High Chaparral, Andy Griffith Show, and My Three Sons, it was the mothers who had died (from various causes).

They didn't present single parenthood as an ideal situation, it was just a fact of life. These things happen.