dkurtenbach

There are different priorities at every level of the BSA and every constituency of the BSA.  At the National level currently, I would say that its priority is corporate survival.  (Not survival of the Scouting program, which can exist at the local level without a national corporate existence.)  Corporate survival on a national level is largely a financial issue, but is also a reputational issue:  BSA must have a significant, loyal constituency that will not abandon it despite the publication of lurid details of past wrongs committed by Scout leaders.  But beyond that, to rebuild, BSA also needs significant public sentiment that it is an American institution worth having -- not because of the good things in its past, not because of what current Scouts will be later in life, but because of what Scouting can contribute right now.  Because as a practical matter, making a "we develop character" argument is not particularly effective when you are being publicly flogged for the sexual abuse of youth members.

And on the question of public sentiment for keeping BSA around, I think BSA has several hurdles:  the notion that Scouting is old-fashioned, saw its best days when Leave it to Beaver was on television, and is out of touch with 21st Century society; negative publicity over many years, with the worst ongoing now; the departure of the LDS church; a vague, aspirational sales pitch ("to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law") that is unlikely to impress a "what have you done for me lately" society; a multi-faceted program that is hard to describe in one sentence (What do Cub Scouts do?); and activities that are often not visible to the public because they take place indoors or out in the woods somewhere.

So I would suggest to BSA National that it should be a top priority to show the country that yes, Scouting is not only relevant, but ordinary Scouts are making a difference that people can see now and every day.  Not Eagle Scouts walking on the moon in the 1960s.  Not business executives and actors and professional athletes who were Scouts.  Your neighbor's kid.  Your granddaughter.  Your son's friend.  The kid at the Wendy's drive-thru window.  Show the important, concrete contributions that Scouts everywhere are making for the community, the country, and the world.  Issues that a lot of people wring their hands over, but that Scouts are working on right now.  Things like cleaning up the environment, fighting obesity, collecting food for local food banks, reversing Nature Deficit Syndrome, and being prepared for emergencies like injuries and natural disasters and technology failures.

On 10/2/2019 at 11:45 AM, MattR said:

... followed by @Eagledad's description of giving the methods to the scouts and the aims to the adults.

I agree with @dkurtenbach that times have changed and everyone is busier. This has a negative impact on scouting and we all know why. From the district view at camporees, most patrols are ad-hoc.

So rather than fight it and form huge patrols (which I really don't like) or require participation or going the complete other way and just making ad-hoc patrols the meeting before the campout why not just embrace it and get back to Eagledad's view: The scouts own the patrol method, let them solve the problem. Look at the patrol method from outside the box and maybe a different solution will appear. Let the PLC deal with patrols that don't have enough scouts for an event. Maybe 2 weeks before a campout the PLC can identify those patrols with low participation and they can get everyone into a patrol. How they do it is up to them. They decide what the minimum number of scouts required is and how to distribute scouts from too small patrols. They can also review how it went. That still gives the scouts opportunity to grow in leadership, deal with people problems, and make everyone happy.

Following @Eagledad's framework, we adults need to understand the issue we are seeing in terms of the Aims, then explain it to the youth leadership in those terms.  So, for example: 

"The adults are concerned that our troop is not doing a particularly good job with the Citizenship Aim.  We're not talking about the patriotic aspects of Citizenship, but about people with different backgrounds, different needs, and different skill levels learning how to live together, work together, play together, support each other, and share equally in the work and the responsibility -- to be good citizens.  That's originally what patrols were designed for:  to be miniature communities where each Scout in the patrol had a job and a stake in the success of their patrol.  They learned how to be good members of the patrol -- that is, good citizens; how to make decisions together and support decisions even if they didn't all agree; and how to work together for the good of that little community. 

"But what we are seeing in our troop is that a few Scouts make the decisions and tell the rest of the Scouts what is going to happen.  The rest of the Scouts may not have any real responsibilities; all they have to do is show up in order to get the benefit of the work that the others are doing.  They only have to take care of themselves or themselves and a couple of friends, and not worry about anyone else.  They aren't being given anything to do that really contributes to the success of the group and the group activity.  They aren't being treated as equal citizens with duties and responsibilities. 

"So we'd like you to come up with some ways that will help every Scout feel that they are part of a community along with other Scouts, that each one of them has an obligation to the other Scouts in that community, and that each of them is responsible for the success of what their community is doing."

On 9/29/2019 at 9:31 AM, MattR said:

Is it about efficiency or just not trusting the scouts? Not trusting them to "do it right," not get in trouble, not get someone hurt or not believing that they can eventually figure it out?

Oh, I don't think it is a matter of trust.  Adults value efficiency.  Allowing Scouts to try, fail, try again, fail, try again, succeed is inefficient.  It is much more efficient to show them how to do it right the first time, and if they don't get it, take over and show them again how to do it right.  And another example I saw often at summer camp:  It is inefficient for Scouts to just hang out around the campfire talking and joking and whittling when they could be working on merit badges (which is really the point of summer camp to many adult leaders and parents).  And patrols are inefficient:  they are an additional bureaucratic layer between the Troop youth leaders (SPL, ASPL, QM, etc.) and the Scouts; they make organizing activities more complicated; they require having more trained adults to support/supervise patrol meetings and activities; and they encourage groups of Scouts to do different things at different times instead of everyone sticking to the same agenda.  So the more that the function of patrols can be minimized, the more efficient the troop will be.

3 hours ago, MattR said:

Both the uniform and advancement, if simplified, might make it easier for the scouts to see the forest rather than the trees. By that I mean seeing the aims and not just the methods. That's why scouts don't have pride in what they're doing.

I certainly think that the Uniform Method would benefit greatly from a statement of clear, concrete reasons for wearing the Scout uniform.  As noted previously, this is what we have now:

6 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:

To summarize, BSA states that the Scout uniform -- 

1. Helps to create a sense of belonging;
2. Symbolizes character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness;
3. Represents a democratic idea of equality;
4. Brings people of different backgrounds together in the Scouting tradition;
5. Identifies youth and adult members of the Boy Scouts of America;
6. Provides visibility to Scouting as a force for good in the community;
7. Can build good unit spirit;
8. Can attract new members;
9. Shows the wearer's activity, responsibility, and achievement;
10. Serves as a constant reminder to all Scouts, Venturers, and adults of their commitment to the ideals and purpose of the Boy Scouts of America.

Personally, I think that numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are too vague and aspirational to be useful in explaining to Scouts and parents why we want them to wear uniforms.  Number 5 is sometimes useful, but not for most of the occasions (unit meetings) where the uniform will be worn.  Number 6 is good, but only on those occasions when Scouts are out in the community in uniform.  

I would keep number 9, and suggest two restatements so that there are three clear, concrete, and easily explainable reasons.  The Scout uniform -- 

• Shows the wearer's activity, responsibility, and achievement.  Badges and other insignia remind the Scout -- and show others -- his or her progress in developing skills, developing leadership, and overcoming challenges.  (Character, Fitness, Leadership) 
• Shows that the wearer is a member of a team.  Regardless of their backgrounds, all Scouts are equal members of a team, with equal responsibility for helping each other and the unit to succeed in their goals and activities, and to grow.  (Citizenship, Character)
• Shows that the wearer is ready and willing to serve the community and the country.  Every member of an organization committed to directly helping others puts on some type of uniform:  fire fighters, clergy, military, law enforcement, medical professionals, and many others.  For more than a hundred years, Scouts have been recognized as people with special skills, and have been called upon time after time to help others.  (Citizenship, Character, Fitness, Leadership)

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

There's a difference between intent and effort.  As a leader, you can promote proper uniforming with very little to no effort.  With almost no effort, a Scoutmaster can share a positive word or an encouraging remark.  I believe that we should have the intent of proper uniforming.  In fact, it takes effort to detract from uniforming.  Should a Scouter really actively criticize the uniform, should they promote wrong patch placement, should they tell a Scout jeans are ok?  Scouters like @The Latin Scot may find the energy to put in the effort more actively promote uniforming, but the rest of us certainly should not detract from it. 

Well stated.  Yes, we should avoid saying or doing things in front of Scouts and parents that detract from BSA's program and policies, including uniform guidelines, even if we personally have reservations about or criticisms of program elements and policies.  

@Mrjeffit may be an old topic, but it is a perpetual topic; like a volcano, it goes dormant for a while, but then it erupts.  It would have erupted at some point anyway, even if you had not tossed a pebble into the crater.  

Uniform expectations are certainly ambiguous in BSA publications and materials:

Guide to Awards and Insignia, page 5, https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33066/33066_Official_Policy_WEB.pdf (bold emphasis added):

"While wearing the uniform is not mandatory, it is highly encouraged. The leaders of Scouting— both volunteer and professional—promote the wearing of the correct complete uniform on all suitable occasions."

Guide to Advancement 2019, paragraph 8.0.0.4, https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/boards-of-review/#8004 (bold emphasis added):

"It is preferred a Scout be in full field uniform for any board of review.  As much of the uniform as the Scout owns should be worn, and it should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It may be the uniform as typically worn by the Scout’s troop, crew, or ship. If wearing all or part of the uniform is impractical for whatever reason, the candidate should be clean and neat in appearance and dressed appropriately, according to the Scout’s means, for the milestone marked by the occasion. Regardless of unit, district, or council expectations or rules, boards of review shall not reject candidates solely for reasons related to uniforming or attire, as long as they are dressed to the above description. Candidates shall not be required to purchase uniforming or clothing to participate in a board of review."

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

The reason this topic gets debated and never resolved is because it's not a discussion about uniforms. The issue at hand is how adults approach Scouting.

Many Scouters look at the program, embrace it's structure, and then utilize it to it's fullest.  Others look at the program and say "I agree with about 85% of this" and then focus on the aspects they agree with the most.  Others of us treat Scouting as a fun activity with kids, are just happy Scouts are there, and don't rock the boat.  I could go on...

I agree that the real issue is how adults approach Scouting, and I applaud leaders who believe in the power of the correct complete uniform and act on that in a moderate and positive way.  But there are eight methods in Scouts BSA that call for our attention, so I don't think you can judge a leader's dedication to Scouting from how he or she handles just one of the Methods.  I suspect that very few troops have the skills and resources to "utilize [each Method] to its fullest."  Additionally, the circumstances, needs, strengths, and weaknesses of each troop and each leader are different.  So leaders have to make choices about where they are going to put their time and resources and what Methods they just aren't going to emphasize.  How to decide? 

Certainly personal preferences are part of it, as well as the preferences of Scouts and adults in the troop.  Parents complain about the cost of uniforms; but that's an easy fix -- start a used uniform closet.  Well, who is going to handle the collection, storage, communications, exchanges?  Parents complain that their children are growing out of their pants every six months and it would be a lot easier if their kids could wear pants they already have.  Is it likely that a discussion with them about the value of the correct complete uniform will change their minds about a garment their child will wear for a total of about three days?  And of course, if a leader is of the personal view that many youth are embarrassed to be seen in public in Scout uniform, or that the uniform is uncomfortable, or not suited for outdoor activities, or that the ten purposes BSA gives for the uniform are mostly fluff, or has other unfavorable views about the uniform, then that leader is going to apply resources to aspects of the program he or she sees as more valuable (such as Patrols, or Outdoors, or Leadership Development, or the Daily Good Turn).  But even if a leader is a strong believer in the value of the correct complete uniform, and wears an impeccable uniform, he or she may make the calculation that going beyond personal example would not be a good use of time or resources in that troop.

I think it might be useful at this point to review the purposes of the Uniform Method as set out by BSA in the Guide to Awards and Insignia, page 5, https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33066/33066_Official_Policy_WEB.pdf.  I have highlighted in bold each unique statement of purpose of the uniform (selecting what I think is the best statement, where it appears more than once) and added a number in brackets to each distinct purpose:

OFFICIAL POLICY
The Boy Scouts of America has always been a uniformed body. Its uniforms [1] help to create a sense of belonging. They [2] symbolize character development, leadership, citizenship training,
and personal fitness. Wearing a uniform gives youth and adult members a sense of identification and commitment.

Personal equality.  The uniform [3] represents a democratic idea of equality,  [4] bringing people of different racial, economic, religious, national, ethnic, political, and geographic backgrounds
together in the Scouting tradition.

Identification. The uniform [5] identifies youth and adult members of the Boy Scouts of America, [6] visible as a force for good in the community.  When properly and smartly worn, the uniform
[7] can build good unit spirit. When worn on the correct occasions, it [8] can attract new members.  

Achievement. The [9] uniform shows the wearer’s activity, responsibility, and achievement. What each youth or adult member has accomplished with program opportunities can be recognized
by the insignia worn on the uniform.

Personal commitment. The uniform is [10] a constant reminder to all Cub Scouts, Scouts, Venturers, Sea Scouts, and adults of their commitment to the ideals and purpose of the Boy Scouts of America. The uniform is a way of making visible members’ commitment to a belief in God, loyalty to country, and helping others at all times.

While wearing the uniform is not mandatory, it is highly encouraged. The leaders of Scouting — both volunteer and professional — promote the wearing of the correct complete uniform on all suitable occasions.

To summarize, BSA states that the Scout uniform -- 

1. Helps to create a sense of belonging;
2. Symbolizes character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness;
3. Represents a democratic idea of equality;
4. Brings people of different backgrounds together in the Scouting tradition;
5. Identifies youth and adult members of the Boy Scouts of America;
6. Provides visibility to Scouting as a force for good in the community;
7. Can build good unit spirit;
8. Can attract new members;
9. Shows the wearer's activity, responsibility, and achievement;
10. Serves as a constant reminder to all Scouts, Venturers, and adults of their commitment to the ideals and purpose of the Boy Scouts of America.

Yep, same old debate.

I think we have two much bigger Uniform Method issues. 

• The BSA has somehow managed to produce a "field" uniform that BSA itself says is for indoor and ceremonial use, not really for outdoor activities. 
• Beyond that, BSA is producing Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA members who look like Christmas trees.  

Both of these developments discourage the use of the Uniform Method where it would be most useful:  out in the world, while doing Scouting.  If uniforms are just "for showin', not for blowin'," what good are they really?

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I've said many times that the two methods that challenge adults the most are "Advancement" and "Uniform". The adults, more often than not, are doing both wrong.

It is no coincidence that those two Methods are the ones with highly detailed rules and requirements governing a large number and wide variety of separate applications (specific rank and award requirements in the case of Advancement; specific badges, patches, pins, dangly things, loops, sashes, neckerchiefs, hats, belts, and other uniform parts and accessories in the case of Uniform).

• The more numerous, detailed, and specific the rules are, the more opportunities there are to miss something or get something wrong.
• The more numerous, detailed, and specific the rules are, the more opportunities there are for a range of opinions and practices to develop concerning application of the rules.
• The more numerous, detailed, and specific the rules are, the more opportunities there are to get wrapped up in the rules and forget (or ignore) the point of the Method. 

37 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

National was looking into that a few years back. It was even tested in 1 council. It didn't work because just buying the individual rank shirts, eaht rank got it's own t shirt, was  more expensive than the current uniform.

Interesting -- I did not know that.  Here, it's a hypothetical, not a proposal.  The debate, as I frame it, is:  How enthusiastically should Scouters promote the correct and complete uniform in our interactions with other Scouters and with Scouts?  The idea of this hypothetical is:  How much of the uniform debate is the result of (i) complicated, detailed insignia rules, and/or (ii) the large number of insignia types, and/or (iii) the need to attach them to the uniform? 

This is the same uniform debate I've seen on various Scouting discussion forums for the last 25 years.  Lots of passion for a few days until the participants are worn out, but no resolution.

43 minutes ago, MattR said:

Maybe a better discussion is how can we possibly break this pattern? I don't have an answer but I'm guessing we aren't close. Just my cents worth.

Maybe redefining the issue might help us pin down the areas where differences arise.  What if we took sewn-on, glued-on, pinned-on, and hung-on awards and insignia out of the equation:  Suppose that for both Scouts and adults, their council, unit, patrol, rank, and position of responsibility were all indicated by a combination of pre-printed shirt logos, pocket flap color, and neckerchief design; no badges, patches, pins, or other items were authorized to be attached to uniform shirts.  How would that change the debate?

24 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

What then do I do about finding a "home unit?" I don't mind passing on the committee role and sticking to the part of Unit Commissioner, but am I able to "free float" as a registered member of the BSA without having a unit to belong to? Or can I register as part of the unit without filling a specific role? I just want to have a troop or pack I can call my own after my current unit (which I joined as an 8-year-old Wolf way back in 1991) is (tragically) cancelled at the end of this year. 

Unit Commissioner is a registered position at the District level.  

39 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I was asked to be on the committee, which I gladly accepted with the request to be put over leadership training (since, you know, training is kind of 'my thing' ). I figured that would be a role I can fill without it being too much of a conflict of interest, what with my being the Unit Commissioner and all, and since the UC basically checks up on training anyway I thought it would be a good way to be a registered part of the troop without being too meddlesome. Am I playing with fire here, or could I make it work? 

That's something to discuss with your "boss," the District Commissioner.  Generally, being Unit Commissioner for one's own unit is discouraged so that the UC can be a neutral and objective friend to the unit.  Obviously, you are already invested in the success of this unit, so you may want to consider making the most of that enthusiasm by serving as an adult leader in this unit, but also serving as Unit Commissioner for a different unit.  The District Commissioner might appreciate knowing that in addition to the SM there is another experienced and dedicated Scouter in that start-up unit; and he'd still have you as a Unit Commissioner.  Win-Win.

As a Unit Commissioner, your primary job will be to: (1) Assess the health of the troop on an ongoing basis, using the criteria in the detailed assessment - which are largely the same as the Journey to Excellence objectives.  (2) Encourage and assist the troop leaders on an ongoing basis to evaluate how the troop is doing compared to BSA's "best practices" (NOT rules) for troops - which are found in the detailed assessment / JTE objectives and in other written BSA sources such as the Guide to Safe Scouting, the Troop Leader Guidebook, the Scouts BSA Requirements Book, the Guide to Awards and Insignia, the Scouts BSA Patrol Leader Handbook and Senior Patrol Leader Handbook, and the content of the online training for troop leaders.  But you don't really talk to the troop leaders about those parts of your job.  

In helping to form and launch the troop, help the leaders to build a three-year plan for unit success, using JTE objectives and other BSA best practices to create annual activity plans and benchmarks in all areas, from uniforms to leader training to fundraising to advancement to high adventure.  Once they have a plan with objectives and benchmarks, help them to stick with it by reviewing it at every Troop Committee, SM/ASM meeting, and Patrol Leaders Council meeting.  Each year, they should extend the plan another year.  Helping them develop the strong habit of having a long-term plan in line with JTE and other current best practices will cover 90 percent of your job as a Unit Commissioner. 

The long-term plan, three years out, also helps prevent big shake-ups when the leadership rolls over.  It is harder to toss out an ongoing approach to program when there is a plan, everyone knows the plan, the plan is consistent with BSA guidance, the plan has a record of success, and the plan has created expectations in the Scouts and parents.  It is also easier to carry out a succession plan when the new leaders just have to follow the course that has already been mapped out and that they are already familiar with.

To be a resource for program elements such as Patrol Method, you need to know the current BSA program materials (like those listed above) and be sure you can point to something in those current materials to back up what you say.  Leaders or parents who want to deviate from best practices won't care what Baden-Powell or Green Bar Bill had to say on a subject; it is BSA's current guidance that will be persuasive.  But that cuts both ways:  If you don't like current BSA guidance on a subject, as a UC that is the official program and you can't ignore it.  But you may be able to help the troop to build on it without deviating from it.

@Owls_are_cool, thanks for sharing your efforts and struggles in developing the patrol method in your troop.  Of the issues you mention -- variable attendance by Scouts, adult supervision requirements, advancement focused Scouts and parents, and the need for long-term planning -- I think variable attendance may be the most difficult, because it disrupts even the most basic patrol activity.  If you have four out of seven patrol members at planning meeting and none of them are going on the upcoming campout, how do they plan the campout menu, getting the groceries, assembling gear, and arranging transportation?  If you have a twenty-Scout troop with three patrols but only eight Scouts are going on the campout, is there any real benefit in having three widely separated patrol sites?  If patrols have the flexibility to schedule things so that the most patrol members can attend, and as you say, awesome and challenging experiences that they want, you can really help with attendance.  

You may actually be able to use Advancement and Leadership Development in support of Patrols:  If one of the jobs of a Patrols Leader is to supervise Scout through First Class advancement of patrol members, including arranging for skill instruction and skill testing, and signing off rank requirements, then not only are you promoting advancement and giving your Patrol Leader real responsibility, you have a really good reason for (1) holding patrol meetings and patrol activities (that is where advancement happens), (2) scheduling those meetings and activities at times that the Scouts in the patrol can attend, and (3) patrol adults/parents making sure that there is sufficient adult presence and that the meetings and activities are not cancelled.

Well, as we would say in court, "Asked and answered."

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

What specifically do you think the lawyers did wrong and what do you think should be be done to be in the character of the Oath & Law?

Why does it not reflect poorly on the Scouting community that we sit here and criticize the lawyer's defending the BSA for simply doing their job?

 

@ParkMan, in answer to your first question, the judge explained what they did wrong:  "Discovery is intended to advance the merits, efficiently and economically. It is not intended to create a tortured maze to hinder the other side."  In the character of the Scout Oath and Law, the lawyers should comply with their obligations under the rules that govern litigation:  "The interrogatory and discovery demands of both sides are clearly relevant and proper, and should be answered, fully, promptly and responsively."

Your second question is premised on the notion that when they were engaged in their improper discovery tactics, they were "simply doing their job."  As @qwazse commented, and as the judge explained, they were not doing their jobs.  It does not reflect poorly on the Scouting community to highlight instances where people representing the Boy Scouts of America (and people representing the GSUSA) were in fact found to be acting inappropriately when carrying out that representation.    

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Most respectfully, I'd encourage us to consider if we should choose to follow the Scout Law here and give these professionals the courtesy to not second guess their professional ethics on this and to be helpful by not trying to stir up more trouble for the BSA here.

The judge has already ruled on their professional conduct.  And it is that conduct — in a prominent public forum — that reflects poorly on both of these  values- and character-based organizations.

2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The lawyers for each side would not be doing their job and fulfilling their obligation if they did not aggressively represent their clients.  It's silly to suggest that the lawyers should be following the Scout law inside the courtroom.  

It would be like saying race car driver needs to be a friendly, courteous driver in the midst of a race.

Lawyers are officers of the court, with professional standards, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local court rules, and civility standards. Compliance with those rules are part of their professional obligation.  The judge found their conduct crossed the line and is hitting them hard for it.  Beyond that, the lawyers apparently forgot who their clients are and what their clients stand for, risking reputational damage to their clients from their misconduct. That was dumb, not aggressive representation.

It's bad enough that two organizations claiming to build character and promote high ideals are fighting each other in a lawsuit over something as trivial as a program name.  But then their lawyers are caught using slimy tactics and are sent to the corner like naughty children.  CSE Surbaugh should fire BSA's lawyers, then call the GSUSA CEO and work it out.  BSA has bigger fish to fry than this embarrassing mess.

From Law360 Alerts:  An Order by the judge in the trademark litigation in the Southern District of New York between the Girl Scouts of the USA and the Boy Scouts of America. The case is in the initial "discovery" stage, in which the parties make requests to each other for documents and answers to written questions (interrogatories). Lawyers sometimes oppose such requests as not relevant to the issues in the lawsuit or as not proper under the rules governing discovery.  Apparently the lawyers have not been observing certain points of the Scout Law:  Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, and Kind.  The judge is emphasizing another point of the Scout Law:  Obedient.  "Merits" refers to the subject matter of the lawsuit - the trademark issue. "Sanctions" are fines that could be levied against the lawyers, based on a counsel's hourly rate times the number of hours spent on the dispute. 

Case Developments

August 6, 2019

Order

ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY: The Court has read the joint letter of counsel of August 2, 2019 and is dismayed by the conduct of counsel reflected by their discovery disputes. The interrogatory and discovery demands of both sides are clearly relevant and proper, and should be answered, fully, promptly and responsively. Discovery is intended to advance the merits, efficiently and economically. It is not intended to create a tortured maze to hinder the other side. The Senior Counsel of each side-Rachel Kassabian and Bruce Ewing-shall meet personally at the courthouse for at least two hours, in a room assigned by the Clerk, on August 13, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., and jointly report to the court, on or before noon, August 16, 2019, identifying each interrogatory and discovery demand remaining in dispute, and why answers and production thereto, fully, promptly and responsively, will not be made by August 30, 2019. If any disputes remain, the Court will set a hearing date to rule thereon. Counsel should anticipate that sanctions are likely to be awarded, at two times the combined rates and time of the counsel involved in the dispute.

(Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 8/6/2019) (mro)

Law360 | Portfolio Media, Inc, 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10011

38 minutes ago, TMSM said:

With that description the patrol is a relic of the past. The death of activities like pick up games has drastically reduced the number of young leaders that can lead a group to fullfill an idea about an activity. It still happens but most likely not as much as in the past.

To me this is why scouts is so important and why it gives scouts and advantage over non-scouts. Providing the opportunity to lead a group to do some type of activity is better than not even realising that skill is valuable. Some troop do patrols really well and do have patrol campouts and patrol hikes frequently. We still do patrol hikes and yes we thumb our nose at the "rules" and allow them to hike alone but I doubt it iss the same type of hiking as before. We separate patrols by 50 yards or more when possible and they do cook and have fires on their own but I doubt the experience is like camping alone by patrol. We still have some patrols meet at someones house - no way of stopping this but I doubt they have the freedom to do whatever was done in the past.

Thanks.  I think there are definitely some societal changes at work, of the kind powering "helicopter" parents, but also of the kind powering our Youth Protection imperative.  @MattRmentioned the adult desire for "efficiency" -- something Baden-Powell encountered and warned against almost from the beginning of the Scouting Movement.  Widely separated patrols, patrols each doing different things at different times, and youth advancing at different speeds are certainly not efficient.  And I think parent competitiveness or ambition on behalf of their children is particularly prominent these days; individual achievement that can be measured and recognized (and noted on school applications and resumes) gets far more attention than growth in character, teamwork, and interpersonal skills that cannot easily be measured. 

2 hours ago, TMSM said:

Interesting opinion. In my area the patrol method is alive and kicking. I do my best to make friends with other SMs and have sat in on quite a few of their troop meetings and can say each one does scouting different but they all used the patrol method. 

Well, I'm certainly willing to be convinced.  But just so we are clear on the kind of patrol I'm talking about (what I call a Patrol Method patrol, or "real" patrol), here's a description of the patrol experience from the Boy Scout Handbook, Seventh Edition, Third Printing, January 1967, page 93:

--------------------

     "Patrol Doings.  An honest-to-goodness, live-wire patrol does plenty of things on its own.  It always has lots of interesting plans underway, whether patrol meetings, hikes, camps, Good Turns, stunts, making tents, fixing up a patrol den.

     "Patrol meetings are held regularly in the homes of the members, in the patrol's own den, or in the troop meeting room.  The meetings are planned in advance by the patrol leader with the help of the rest of the patrol, and there's something for everyone to do.

     "It is at patrol meetings that you fellows help each other advance in Scoutcraft.  It is here that all the great things you want to do are decided on.  It is here that your friendships grow.

     "The good patrol, under a trained leader, has its own patrol hikes and camps from time to time.  Those hikes and camps are the high spots in the patrol's life.  It is around the fires of the gang that patrol spirit reaches its peak, where each of you comes closest to the heart of Scouting."

--------------------

There's nothing in that 1967 description that could not be done by patrols today (with, of course, the required adult presence).  But are patrols that operate like this still relatively common?  Or is this type of patrol a relic of the past?