Jump to content

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

By BSA, I mean professional and legal staff.

BSA rules are made by BSA committees. They are just as enforceable. Each committee has at least one staff member that represents the professional staff. 
 

I don’t understand your point. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK, I hid a couple of comments that I felt were a bit too descriptive for an open Scouting forum.  While they may be historically accurate, they felt a bit uncomfortable for me. I have asked the other

I work with several national staff and national OA on a regular basis, I can guarantee they would want to know and it would cause an immediate reaction, particularly given the current headlines regard

Turning a blind eye? That is more than a little insulting to people who care about scouting and scouts and are trying to make sure things are done right.  And you become indignant toward peopl

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Exactly, the OA National Committee is volunteers. By BSA, I mean professional and legal staff. 

Oh, so BSA volunteers cannot legally get BSA in trouble? YP doesn't apply to them, only professional and legal staff?

This conversation is useless. Pretend Mic-o-say is not doing what it is clearly doing under the direct auspices of BSA

Quote

Mic-O-Say serves as a leadership enhancement program of the Heart of America Council designed to help the Heart of America Council fulfill its mission of preparing the young people of Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

Hey, hey. It's ok. Just keeping looking the other way.

There is no use trying to persuade you at this point.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

BSA rules are made by BSA committees. They are just as enforceable. Each committee has at least one staff member that represents the professional staff.

Yep. As I said: if I am a lawyer reading this forum (and we KNOW they are) these comments about how it isn't not REAL because it is just volunteers are exhibits in the next court filing about how BSA is not really taking YP seriously.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway to bring it back to the main point: what the TCC's proposal for YP reform in the BSA might entail.

Unlike BSA, which selected its own "outsider" to review the BSA YP policies (and made 100% to tell BSA it was just oh so perfect!) the TCC is so much superior.

There will be a Child Protection Committee that include outsiders and especially survivors. Here's my only fear: the composition of the committee is ambiguous: all that is required is that within 6 month the committee will be formed and include "members from the BSA, Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, and the Coalition (including survivors)."

I would suspect BSA and the LCs will do everything they can to pack that committee with cronies and insiders with token representation by survivors. If it were me, I'd have specified a 9 member committee: 1 BSA crony, 1 LC crony, 7 survivors (3 TCC, 3 Coalition, 1 TBD).

The Committee (which I pray I am wrong about it being a stacked deck) will then be consulted when BSA selects the "Evaluating Entity". Here it may not be a person, "entity" may mean a group (e.g. a university department or center that is focused on child abuse) And that's the other thing: the Entity MUST be an expert in child sexual abuse. Gymnastics USA survivors made sure that NO ONE within that organization would have control over their similar entity.

The Evaluating Entity is going to tell the BSA how BSA needs to start doing annual reporting. No more hiding the data.

There will be changes to YP based on the recommendations of the Evaluating Entity. Here are some of mine

  1. A listing of all YP violations and the subsequent actions taken each year, BY COUNCIL. Clery-type reports. I don't need names, I want data. Show me BSA you are really doing something.
  2. The abandonment of the pretend game that COs are exercising any kind of oversight. The BSA mandatory criminal background checks was a start. Checking references is another. Having the District Executive or other professional sign the application is next. The DEs and SEs need to start owning this mess.
  3. For each LC, the appointment of child sexual abuse/youth protection monitor. I don't mean "add yet another assignment to the SE's plate". I mean like the Catholic dioceses have done: every single diocese has a paid professional whose sole purpose in life is to maintain a safe environment for youth.

That's just a start.

BSA needs to get the message: the days of hiding the dirty laundry in IV files is over.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm predicting that a "Child Protection Committee" will not just be overseeing the rules, it will be creating its own rules.  Just like an activist Supreme Court, we will have an activist CPC.

Various posts on this topic illustrative of what such a committee might do.  It might unilaterally declare that boys can not take off their shirts at scout activities.  No discussion.  No vote.  Just an edict from the committee, and that's it.  

I am not in favor of having such an undemocratic BSA.  I have frequently complained that the current leadership is undemocratic and unresponsive to its membership.  I don't want to replace it with a BSA that is even more so.

 

Edited by David CO
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, David CO said:

Just like an activist Supreme Court, we will have an activist CPC.

Activist is simply short hard for "render a decision I don't like".

And when it comes to child protection, I'll rely on the experts (the Evaluating Entity) and victims before I listen to BSA cronies.

8 minutes ago, David CO said:

No discussion.  No vote.  Just an edict from the committee, and that's it.  

Yep. That's how rules work in the real world. You don't get to decide. BSA is not a democracy. Don't like BSA's child protection rules? Leave.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, David CO said:

I am not in favor of having such an undemocratic BSA.

BSA has never been democratic. There's never been a vote of all registered leaders or scouts on anything.

And the fact that you want to subject child sexual abuse rules to a vote says a lot.

But if we are going to have a vote, I vote AGAINST children being sexually abused.

What about you?

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2021 at 1:30 PM, yknot said:

However, if you think shirtless youth wearing loincloths, even over shorts, in the company of adult men in camp ceremonies in the woods for no reason is not inappropriate from a youth protection standpoint, then that's the explanation for why this kind of thing persists.

 

Nope.  It's not inappropriate. I'm not quite sure why you would think it is.  Young men and boys have been swimming, playing sports, mowing lawns and attending sporting events shirtless for at least the 45 years I've been alive.  

I would agree that wearing loincloths with nothing underneath is wholly unacceptable, but over shorts?  If that bothers you the only conclusion I can come to is that you've seriously over-sexualized everything. 

That's the sort of attitude that gets us rules banning an unrelated adult from hugging a crying child and results in men being unable to be in a playground (without a child immediately in their presence) without being suspected of being a pedophile.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Appropriate attire is required for all activities under BSA Youth Protection and Adult Leadership rules. Start there. The recent inclusion of girls in the program, as an earlier poster noted, is a logical time for BSA to enforce its own rules. 

Going without a shirt has never been generally inappropriate for boys. (Though it may be situationally inappropriate)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is funny since they are able to do a number of things that due to the national oversight of OA, the OA isn't allowed to do. Bare chests, face paint, AOL ceremonies, adults conducting ceremonies, etc. are not allowed in the OA. Mic-O-Say gets away with a lot. 

 

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

The National BSA’s OA National Committee is making those rules. I don’t buy your “national isn’t making them” since it is a committee of the national council. Thus, national is making them. 
 

Your argument is akin to the national advancement committee making a new rule “doesn’t come from national since the committee is mostly volunteers”. Yeah, so, that is how national works.

 

 

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

BSA rules are made by BSA committees. They are just as enforceable. Each committee has at least one staff member that represents the professional staff. 
 

I don’t understand your point. 

My point is this. There is no BSA committee, professional or otherwise, that is forcing the OA to make changes it its organization regarding regalia, ceremonies etc. Any changes in that regard are being made by the OA National Committee (a volunteer committee made up of OA members). The issues you are calling out like, bare chests, face paint, AOL ceremonies, adults conducting ceremonies, etc. are not allowed in the OA because of the OA National Committee has made rules against them, not due to some oversight or rules being forced upon the OA. 

Mic-O-Say is not a National organization or recognized by the BSA so they have no National Committee making rules regarding regalia, ceremonies and practices. Should they? Maybe, but that committee would still be made up of members of the organization. Not to mention there other local organization all over the place like Golden Eagle, Nani Ba Zhu, Lone Bear, Quivira, Silver Tomahawk and more (who are NOT doing the same things Mic-O-Say is doing), how do you manage them? DO they even need management? Shouldn't the YPT rules be sufficient?

But in the end, none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. The only reason OA is even in this discussion is because someone said the OA was doing these things. I mistakenly volunteered to help root that out via my contacts. But when asked for details I was given snarky "Google it" replies and pointed towards Mic-O-Say activities which are not governed by the OA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Oh, so BSA volunteers cannot legally get BSA in trouble? YP doesn't apply to them, only professional and legal staff?

This conversation is useless. Pretend Mic-o-say is not doing what it is clearly doing under the direct auspices of BSA

Hey, hey. It's ok. Just keeping looking the other way.

There is no use trying to persuade you at this point.

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what was said. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA has never been democratic. There's never been a vote of all registered leaders or scouts on anything.

And the fact that you want to subject child sexual abuse rules to a vote says a lot.

But if we are going to have a vote, I vote AGAINST children being sexually abused.

What about you?

If this thread represents how you approach national, or anyone else, regard filing an abuse complaint I can understand why you are not getting any responses. 

I genuinely offered to assist when accusations were made about the OA, but I was meet with snarky "Google it" replies, then pointed toward Mic-O-Say practices, that while distasteful and objectionable, have not clearly violated any YPT policies. You have been insulting by accusing people of tuning a "blind eye" and "looking the other way".

Your attitude is much more like to drive people away, than it is to draw people into solving the problems.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

But in the end, none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. The only reason OA is even in this discussion is because someone said the OA was doing these things. I mistakenly volunteered to help root that out via my contacts. But when asked for details I was given snarky "Google it" replies and pointed towards Mic-O-Say activities which are not governed by the OA. 

I, for one, have been specifically talking about Mic O Say in all my comments. You brought up OA and claimed MOS has nothing to do with BSA despite evidence easily obtained and provided for you at least a couple times on Google. BSA doesn't have to do anything to address it other than to enforce its own rules. Honestly, OA ought to be concerned about Mic O Say because from the perception of the general public, OA will be lumped in with Mic O Say when it all eventually blows up. The public won't see any of those fuzzy lines of distinction drawn by scouters. 

1 minute ago, elitts said:

Going without a shirt has never been generally inappropriate for boys. (Though it may be situationally inappropriate)

It's the situationally inappropriate that is the subject of this discussion.  BSA regulations require appropriate attire. It's in black and white and pretty clear. 

 If the inappropriateness of that isn't clearly apparent then no wonder we have YPT issues. 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, yknot said:

It's the situationally inappropriate that is the subject of this discussion.  BSA regulations require appropriate attire. It's in black and white and pretty clear. 

 If the inappropriateness of that isn't clearly apparent then no wonder we have YPT issues. 

Is it black and white?
As someone who has had to deal with what is considered appropriate clothing, I can tell you not everyone one will agree with you? Some will be less restrictive on what is appropriate clothing, some will be more restrictive. Who decides?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA needs to get the message: the days of hiding the dirty laundry in IV files is over.

It's just a snide mean incindeary post.  We have mandatory reporting.  IT's THE LAW !!!!!    It's 100% absolutely emphasized everywhere.  YPT emphasized everywhere.  We're out of society's YPT dark ages where parents, police, teachers, doctors and everyone did not believe what was happening.  

Even saying hiding in the past is a misrepresentation and just #### ####.  

But what ever.   

@CynicalScouter ... I appreciate your legal analysis, but your just mean and twisting in so many other posts with ugly misrepresentations of the past.

If these postings represent the future, we're all screwed.  I'm not just talking BSA.  Society either needs to choose to work together or it's going to burn down.  Mean, ugly, deluded postings by so many here.  I'm embarrased by all of it.  

Perhaps the bankruptcy is not broken.  It's just a reflection of a broken society.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mix issues.  Indian lore is a cultural appropriation issue.  The bankruptcy YPT topic is about sexual abuse.  Crimes.  It's a logical falacy to use the anger of cultural appropriation to further incriminate past sexual abuse or current YPT practices.  

Indian lore ... IMHO, BSA/OA needs to stop using indian lore.  Some Native Americans are bothered by it.  Others not.  But, it's a controversy and offensive to some.  Now is the time of change.  Washington Redskins changed it's name, but the 2020 Super Bowl winners are still the KC Chiefs.  These changes will continue for decades.  Time for BSA to make it's change.  

OA Shirtless / loin cloths ... I've not seen a shirtless OA member for 15 years.  Every ceremony I have seen has always had pants or shorts under the loin cloth.  If a shirtless OA ceremony did happen, I would not treat as a YPT any more than shirtless scouts at the beach.  Yes, it would be tacky and out of place and time.  But not strictly a YPT violation.  On the flip side, if no shorts were under the loin cloth, yeah I'd immediately file a report.  I'd feel like I need to file a police report and let them tell me how it should be handled.  I'd absolutely let the SE know.  ... BUT ... Do we need to file a YPT report every time a camp staff teen takes off his shirt in the rain or on a hot day when working?  It's happened more than once where a cocky 19 year old camp staffer shows rain won't stop them and walks outside in a torrential down pour.  

GTSS appropriate attire ... I've always read that more directly for physical safety and grossly inappropriate violations.  I've never thought of applying it to shirtless scouts. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, yknot said:

I, for one, have been specifically talking about Mic O Say in all my comments. You brought up OA....

Actually, no. Cynical first brought up the OA. But to be fair to him, you did define the abusers as doing camp ceremonies and for greater than 99% of BSA camps, that is the OA, not Mic-O-Say

But thank you for clarifying you were not accusing the OA of committing any violations "currently".

Edited by HelpfulTracks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...