All Activity

I think Erie Shores is the chartering organization for that pack. There were also prior incidents with the older child attacking the younger child.

Our school district was celebrating a couple of years ago that in a student high school survey, only 50% of the respondents identified as heterosexual. Now the same people are professing surprise that the number of students in the district is collapsing and claim to have no idea why.

That's not how garrisons work. Just not. I guess another non-military non-veteran thought on something this week. The West Point camporee presents a unique situation where cadre and cadets put so much into it because so many have a connection to scouting back home and get to invite their home troop. Not even GSUSA can replicate that network and process. No other scouting organization will have that relationship, it took half a century and literally millions of past members of BSA to create that network and connection to the academy. If Scouting America gets kicked out of the West Point camporee it means the camporee is dead. I highly doubt any other scouting organization will have a relationship with the military like Scouting America. Congress no longer issues charters for some reason; I've seen how this affects newer veterans groups, too late to the table and unable to fill the same space as the older groups like AL or VFW; those groups become niche organizations that are mostly filled by politically hungry people unwilling to put their time in to get district or state level leadership positions in the older groups. Trail Life in itself has some other issues that will keep it on the outside, Right now the political arm of the military is VERY protestant and pushing a very protestant position towards things; however, most of the military historically doesn't practice religion outside of boot camp (lots of "no-religion" people suddenly become "Non-denominational Christian" in boot camp when they realize the church goers go to mass on Sunday while the non-church goers scrub floors and garbage cans). Then toss in that the overwhelming largest religious group in the military is Catholic and you have a big problem (The Catholic church endorses Scouting America as it's partner group through NCCS, and Trail Life is anti-Magisterium).

I have also heard that there are a large number of councils under conditional charter; that came out of last years NAM and was related to some sort of discussion related to the financial health meeting. I believe the number was somewhere between 20 and 50 councils left the NAM being told that they might be placed on conditional charter before the end of the year. As I understand things national is looking at a handful of metrics: rolling 90 day cash-on-hand, unrestricted endowment contributions/growth, membership in relation to total-area-youth, and an amalgam of safety. Based on the councils that got merged out last year and so far this year the trend seems to be that if a council is surviving off of their endowment national puts them on transitional or if a councils membership shrinks below some ratio they are put on transitional. A good example of the financial is Suffolk Council in Long Island and their financial situation. A good example of the membership was Ohio River Valley (who had everything going good except the whole council was basically a district in membership).

In our society, that is the United States of America, the legal systme is so twisted that it does not protect most of us and can be rigged or leveraged to generally put the onus on those with the least ability to fight it. And personal responsibility too often is brushed aside by the "corporate", especially the insurance industry. Meanwhile, ridiculous payments continue to be made when someone can leverage the system effectively. And, when the insurance is forced to pay, it is likely the insured will be priced out of future insurance of dropped all together. Even small claims can lead to increased cost to the insured, whether or not they have had others. If somebody has no claim for ten years, yet pays on time and fulfills that obligation, why is it legal or seen as acceptable for the company to then drop them or raise their rates drastically? It is a Catch 22.

Awesome, you know you're wrong so trying to build something out of nothing now. Go read the article, get informed, follow the rules or get burned. You're welcome for my warning.

These numbers are highly suspect; except for the past 10 to 20 years in the United States universally transexuals have been a fraction of a percent of the human population across all cultures and ethnicities. Similarly the historic gay population has always been roughly 5% across all human populations regardless of culture or ethnicities. The United States is in a weird state. Personally I think it's all the medication and the agency producing power of the situation driving the increase. I have a teenage relative that was all in on being gay, using they/them, living an extremely alternative lifestyle and as soon as "they" stopped taking a cocktail of anxiety and depression medications "they" became "she" again, and suddenly had a boyfriend. I know it's anecdotal and 1 case, but watching it happen and hearing her mother describe the sudden change as soon as the medication was out of her system was an eye opener for me. Normally the supreme court only takes cases that have a national implication. I would suspect it's going to apply universally.

The lawyer and family are fundamentally reading the division by age stuff wrong. Cub scouts meet roughly weekly 2-3 times a month in dens (which can be but might not always be divided by age due to leader or program limitations); once a month cub scouts meet as a pack where all dens participate together. This will get ripped apart by any competent defense/litigation attorney. The lawyer and family are also misunderstanding the reporting requirements. The council is not at fault for the unit not following reporting rules. The fault is going to fall on the registered adult leaders (most likely the key 3 will get hit by the bus), and then the charter organization. This is simply logic, how can council be in the wrong if they were not notified because the unit was violating the reporting procedures? This right here is why our YPT/Safeguarding is online only; the councils lawyer will point out the youth protection training part that mandates reporting and will show negligence by the leader(s) and not council. Again the council cannot be at fault for the leaders not following the guide to safe scouting and allowing a prohibited event. The councils lawyer will again reference the mandatory youth protection training segments. Erie Shores and national are going to spend a bunch of money redirecting everything to the charter organization, unit leaders, and parents (involved that night). The entire organization is going to get a lesson in how everything is siloed and compartmentalized post settlement. The only risk to Erie Shores council that I can see is if the plaintiffs attorney can show that the council has a chartered obligation to ensure all leaders are trained and that the leaders present were not trained past 90 days so the council is at fault for some sort of oversight in ensuring trained leaders. If that happens it might actually help the rest of the program and force all councils to protect themselves by washing out all the F grade leaders who can't be bothered to do free online training.

This incident occurred in December when it is very possible to have 12 year old 5th graders at the AOL rank. By February, most of them will have crossed over.

This feels like more than a big kids vs. little kids issue. Accidents happen, but the police report noted 2 punches, a push, and a stomp. That has a lot more to do with the aggressor than it does the age gap or the game they were playing.

Saw a clip on local (to the unit) news yesterday. In that report it stated several times that the person who caused the injury was 12 years old. If that is actually the case then the part of the original article stating that the older kids should have been separated from the younger kids makes a little more sense, particularly if this was a case of a pack and troop meeting together for some reason, or of an older sibling being present and joining the banned activity.

The core issue is trying to do activities with kids ranging in age, size, and maturity from 5 year old kindergartners to 10 or 11 year old fourth and fifth graders. Scouting really forces all these ages together at pack meetings and other events and really doesn't work too hard at differentiating them as much as you would typically see in other environments like school, sports, etc. A too broad age range is also sometimes an issue at troop levels. Scouting asks volunteer adults to supervise situations that people who supervise children professionally typically try to avoid. Lions were not a helpful addition to this mix but National did it anyway for membership and marketing reasons. The lawsuit shouldn't be a surprise and I'm sure there have been plenty others.

It's all yours! It's a common phrase it my region used to question whether a benefit is worth the effort. In the case of Scouting, I think we can all agree the juice is really sweet, but our hands occasionally get sore from squeezing.

Exactly. I think the cooler heads at National understand their entire program would die if they lost the support of adult volunteers en masse, if they threw one adult involved in a situation to the wolves, and then lost control of the narrative surrounding the incident. Bad PR = loss of adult volunteers = loss of program = loss of Scouts = loss of Boy Scouts of America doing business as Scouting America = loss of their paycheck This is already happening in other areas, forcing Scouting America into survival mode (make no mistake, that is where we are right now). And I, too, often question whether "...the juice is really worth the squeeze." (Love that phrase, and I'm gonna use it, and not even give you credit )

To that SE, I would say "be careful what you wish for," because there are many leaders out there (myself included), who are doing our best but often wonder if the juice is really worth the squeeze. Per the article: The soft, sphere-shaped projectile was not the problem here. This seems more like a case of a 3rd or 4th grader just being a huge a-hole. @skeptic, you've touched a nerve here because this is my biggest fear as a volunteer. As hard as we try to keep things safe and fun, there are constantly factors beyond our control working against us. And yes, we can eliminate activities perceived to be more dangerous. And yes, we can have more leaders present. But then what are we really left with?

Great question! Even with all the "threats" I've heard and hand-wringing I've seen, I have yet to confirm one case where BSA did not step up and cover the volunteers leaders in their settlements... Anyone out there have an anecdote?

Releases are not as good as you may think .there is a expecting of due care but gross negligence is not covered. Some outdoor activities have gone as far getting state law level coverage in my area horse back riding is at that level. They could not get insurance otherwise.

The Scoutmaster is the master of the ship; he is responsible for the actions of his crew, whether he is there or not. Scouting rules can never be less than the state requirement,s but they are free to have higher requirements It's the way we have alway done ;is not a defense. it normally a sign of lazines with the rules. The cost of winning a defense may be thousands of dollars if BA decides not to defend you. Plus any criminal charges.

Anyone can sue, what are outcomes? Show a result where a leader ended up paying when they followed BSA rules and regulations....

From the Youth Application: "Parent Agreement. I have read the Scout Oath and Scout Law, and I want my child to join Scouting. I will assist them in abiding by the policies of Scouting America and the chartered organization. I will: • Serve as an adult partner while my child is a Lion or Tiger." The parent has some supervisory responsibility in this, at least for their own child. ----------------------- Also there: "Mandatory Reporting All persons involved in Scouting must immediately report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion or belief that any child is or has been physically or sexually abused; physically or emotionally neglected; exposed to any form of violence or threat; or exposed to any form of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution of child pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. No person may abdicate this reporting responsibility to any other person." This verbatim message is also purveyed through SYT and the Guide to Safe Scouting. All registered adults present are mandatory reporters... this is one area I think paid professionals, COR's and volunteers mutually fail at... discussing what this means and what their responsibilities are. The basic mentality I see is that many people think SYT applies only to sexual assault. ------------------------------------- From the Annual Health and Medical Record (which parents must sign): NOTE: Due to the nature of programs and activities, the Boy Scouts of America and local councils cannot continually monitor compliance of program participants or any limitations imposed upon them by parents or medical providers. ----------------- And there are many questions here... -- What is an "indoor snowball fight"? See G2SS Prohibited Activities #15. Activities where participants shoot or throw objects at each other, such as rock-throwing, paintball, laser or archery tag, sock fights, or dodgeball https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss07/#b -- Was this "violence" or was is a rough-and-tumble game where a large kid fell on a small one and hurt him? This may have been perceived initially as an injury due to the activity, rather than "violence." -- Were the Scout leaders actually negligent? I can see something like this getting out of control and an injury happening really fast. They will have to explain the "indoor snowball fight" vs Prohibited Activities list, though... that is where a claim of negligence would have grounds -- OK, the "Scoutmaster" (probably means Cubmaster or Den Leader, but OK) was outside... but were there two other registered adults present? If yes, kind of a moot argument there. (That he was rumored vaping is moot... he/she could have been in the bathroom for all we know.) "All Scouting functions, meetings, and activities should be conducted on a smoke-free basis, with smoking areas located away from all participants." Was he vaping in an area away from participants?? If so, and any two other registered leaders were present, this argument falls away, too... --------------- I relayed in a post sometime back... our SE told volunteers (at a type of fireside chat) that National's patience with volunteers violating policies was wearing thin, and there are elements within the organization who advocate not defending volunteers who do, or offering settlements based on their non-compliance with policies. This one will be interesting. Like @skeptic says, "Follow the rules people" And like @Eagle1993 advises "Just get excess liability insurance and follow BSA policy and you will be fine." , which would be great legal advice, too, if he were lawyer ------------------- From the G2SS (key overall points underlined) GENERAL INFORMATION When it comes to the safety guide, here are some important points for you to remember: Know the Guide—All participants in official Scouting activities should become familiar with the document and applicable Scouting America program literature or manuals. The guide is a resource as well as a summary of the materials provided by Scouting America. Know the Law—Be aware that state or local government regulations supersede Scouting America practices, policies, and guidelines. Know the Risks—The Guide to Safe Scouting does not cover every possible activity, but it provides guidance on how to evaluate risks and proceed safely if explicit requirements do not exist. Check out the Activity Planning and Risk Assessment section. Know the Restrictions—The document includes a list of restricted or prohibited activities. Know the Limits—The document contains age-appropriate guidelines for activities. Find out which and when certain activities are appropriate for particular age groups. Know the Program—The guide points to other Scouting America program documents such as Safe Swim Defense, the National Shooting Sports Manual, and additional program materials.

https://www.fox10tv.com/2026/03/04/family-claims-5-year-old-was-beaten-cub-scout-meeting-while-pack-leader-was-outside-vaping/ After reviewing this and a number of other related pieces from the ether, I cannot say anynthing else but: FOLLOW THE RULES AND BE ADULTS. I am sure the whole story will never be shared, but the basics indicate a lack of paying attention, both by the leaders and the parent. Does it equate to a huge settlement? In our society, it likely will. Should it? In my view, no; but that is not the legal world in which we here exist. Balance and fairness, not "wind all you can". (hmmmm).

SECTION 2. Clause 1. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. So, yes.... applies nation-wide. A SCOTUS ruling is the "law of the land". As examples, Brown v. Board of Education, and Miranda v. Arizona. Enjoy

I would expect it would apply to any similar law nationwide. The specific lawsuit is California, but now anyone can sue a state with similar laws and likely win at District, probably fairly quickly.

Is that nation-wide? The decision summary reads like it's only focused on California.

SCOTUS just ruled on this... Mirabella v Bonta https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4207 That is now prohibited in government, as it violates parents' rights.