fred8033

This is where I disagree. Really. I do disagree here. I hugely disagree that there was less opportunity. Mentors. Sleep overs. Camping. Lots of private locations (barns, shops, trips, etc). Previously also lacking YPT rules such as no one-on-one contact (getting in mentor's car). Parents trusting the great virtue of the volunteer leaders. ... This is where there is much in common with BSA. I'm not saying it's the same. I am saying it's naive to think it's fundamentally different. Abuse requires opporunity, time, privacy, etc. It is all there in 4-H just like BSA and many other programs. SLEEP OVERS ... https://www.deseret.com/2007/7/4/20028174/4-h-leader-in-tooele-is-charged-with-child-sex-abuse Monroe Music Makers in the Monroe County 4-H program ... https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/06/12/former-music-store-owner-convicted-in-child-porn-case-awaiting-trial-on-sex-assault/ 4-H Mentor and Coach ... https://www.abc15.com/news/crime/pd-former-glendale-4-h-coach-accused-of-sex-with-minor Acquittal, but very familiar comments. People testifying to volunteers good nature. People not believing accuser. Imagine this was 1980. This is how many trials would have gone. https://www.augustachronicle.com/article/20131006/NEWS/310069882 Search engines do yield far, far fewer results. Search engines have trouble with 4-H as a search parameter. Not key issue, but it is there. Much easier to search on BSA, YMCA, youth pastor, etc. I suspect it has to do with the 4-H as a tag and how it's search indexed. Change term from 4-H to YMCA or school or teacher or youth pastor and you get a current incident rate that is at least as high as BSA. I do believe 4-H as a search parameter is hard to queue up correctly. Looser boundaries may not be reported as 4-H. Family friend hosting a sleep over. Unless there is a cow or an animal, youth programs that don't immediately trigger "4-H" connection, example Music Makers. Scouting is "uniformed" and much more clear boundaries about inside scouting or outside. Reflecting back decades and you think about an adult friend / community member who taught you about animals or music and not necessarily a uniformed troop member. Do you immediately think 4-H? Or just a guy who did something wrong? Certain gender mixes and age mixes trigger less outrage. Seriously. Example is male youth with high school female teacher. In the 1970s / 1980s, this would not have been brought to police. If anything, friends would give a pat on the back and non-family adults would be not necessarily consider it abuse. ... NOW ... you see many female teachers regularily in the news arrested for sex abuse. ... I'd argue that was true with female-to-female also. ... And the nature of the incident is different, but yes, men tend to be the main predator. I think it opens many more possible cases once you recognize it was an abuse situation and not just a he's too old(20s) and she's too young. Or F/F or adult woman / male youth. I'm not debating a statistical difference. I'm asserting it's naive to 4-H has less occurences even though it has mentors, a loose program structure and a similar history to BSA. ... What I am betting is there is a definite difference in that 4-H doesn't have a 70+ years of records of volunteer incidents . I'm betting because it's recorded and administrated very differently.

Yep. No such files exist there. They did not track occurrences. Either the larger organization was more loose or the nature of the program had weak boundaries with inside / outside the program. 4-H had less occurrences. I don't buy it. 4-H has lots of private opportunities and lots of youth-adult interaction. What I do buy is either the incidents took a slightly different form that people don't interpret as so ugly or the program has suck lose boundaries that people don't strictly interpret it as a 4-H issue.

Per #1 LDS always had a special and unique relationship with scouting. It almost needs to be discussed separately. Per #2 Smaller collectives ... I've never really seen that. I don't think it exists. From what I've seen ... outside LDS ... I've not seen any hint of a faith based national org that knows which churches (or school districts or elementary schools) host scouting units. ... if anything, national level faith oriented scouting groups were more about disseminating info and providing options for faith specific pursuits. "if your church hosts a scouting unit, consider *******" Per #3 Yep.

Current events demonstrate the importance of having documents match reality. Yes. The charter org agreement did not match expectations. Now, it's an issue. The COs knew. The unit leaders knew. The councils knew. BSA knew. Most parents knew. ... Maybe less involved parents didn't think about it, but anyone attending committee meetings or campouts quickly saw a lack of CO involvement. Those signing just didn't think the CO had the level of responsibility now attributed to it. ... The charter agreement was more a promotional tool to increase CO involvement and not really a contract describing responsibilities. Now it's being used to argue a higher level of involvement and responsibility than was expected. So, it's important to have documents match reality. It's why I'm suggesting our CO move to a facility use agreement instead of a charter org agreement. I'm just asserting current legal attributions don't match what people were expecting.

Yeah, I flip flop all the time on OA. There is value in the OA elections and ceremony. It causes lots of reflection. It causes lots of pain too ... mainly from adults and parents ... why didn't Timmy get in? ... Well, maybe Timmy should be a #### in the ###. .... I'm in a flaky mood right now .... But the fact is except those scouts running OA, I see little practical use for OA. The elections and ceremonies teach lessons. But the actual day to day activities? ... I don't see. ... but that doesn't make OA meaningless. Maybe it is the election and ceremonies. That's the value OA provides.

This sounds like an over zealous volunteer situation. I've never seen a church vote on a unit budget. I've scene the budget submitted at times, but never voted on. Church has the right, but umm ... doesn't happen.

Yeah ... this is where most disagree. Most everyone in scouting ... and the families of the scouts too ... know the churches were not running the show. It was not a real expectation. The unit leaders knew this. The churches knew this. The local councils knew this. The problem starts with taking a 1920s casual "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" style agreement and treating it as a more mature modern era legal agreement. Many time-honored hallowed organizations have this trouble. Since WWII, roles and expectations continue to change faster and faster. Organizations like BSA, Catholic church, etc just aren't able to keep their internal structures up to date. I myself continually shake my head wondering where BSA's lawyers were in the 1990s. Revisiting charter partner agreements because they can be taken to mean more than they are. Revisiting the practice of keeping a private record of effectively crimes. These originally really good ideas became huge legal liabilities. I could see that argument. All youth often registered in scouting. Bishop directly telling leaders they would be a SM. Much more direct involvement.

Agreed. It's why I think the facility use agreement is much more more accurate for how churches relate to scouting and is a much better match. Not perfect, but better.

Well said ... very good argument for CO liability. Same could be made for national government liability. I'd strongly argue those from patriotic families would be strongly drawn to scouting. Uniform. Salutes. Federal support (president, charter, etc). Military benefits. Previously recognized on college loans. etc. National government definitely benefited in military, projects, and promotion of patriotic citizenship. The whole scouting patriotic package is extremely appealing and benefited Uncle Sam. It's definitely one reason BSA has a congressional charter.

I generally agree you are right, but as the CO charter agreement has been taken more serious recently to infer more responsibility on the CO, similar arguments could be made at the national level. Almost every year there is a picture of the president in the oval office with scouts to receive a report on how scouting is doing. For decades, military hosted and supported scouting jamborees and other events. Our own state has hosted an annual huge scouting event at the local military base. For a long time, military has acknowledged Eagle scouts with rank and effectively extra cash. For a long time, different levels of government have actively supported scouting and benefited by projects. It is easy to see strong national support / involvement for scouting. It seems easy to assert that if COs should have known better, the national government should have known better and was negligent. Until fairly recently, most COs thought their charter was ceremonial. ... who knows what the future will bring ... But I agree with you ... it's a much larger stretch to assert at the national level.

Isn't that protecting the individual "actors"? ... mayors, governors, police chiefs, etc. It doesn't protect the organizations. Cities. School districts. Counties. Federal government. Governments organizations are sued all the time for damages.

I've wondered that continually too.

Been following these cases for years and the bankruptcy from the start. Usually things make sense. In this case, I just don't understand how this case makes sense. Any settlement right now would need to be BSA only. I don't see how any settlement now would end liability for insurance companies, local councils or charter orgs. Even if insurance somehow was in a settlement, they just need to be sued via CO who thought they were insured by them too. This is a "BSA" bankruptcy. There is no insurance or LC or CO bankruptcy involved. There is no "class action" covering all unknown injured. It's only covering the debts currently owed by BSA. Even if there was a settlement, wouldn't that need to go to the bankruptcy to be shared / negotiated by the other parties. The only path I can see is a BSA agreement to lock the amount of funds BSA will put into a bankruptcy trust fund to pay debts. Then BSA can proceed forward. Such a settlement is beneficial to those owed money because it could quickly stop the BSA legal spend rate which could consume a huge portion of assets. Then again ... I just don't understand how this case works and I'm not a lawyer.

Agreed. Also, look at the money ... BSA's advice. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/financeimpact/pdf/fiscal_policies_and_procedures_for_bsa_units.pdf "...the tax status of your unit is usually the same as that of your chartered organization if the chartered organization includes the unit in its tax-status." "... shall turn over the surplus, if any, to the chartered organization or the council." "Should our unit consider insuring our unit equipment? Yes. Remember, the chartered organization owns the assets" Even without the financial advice, it's clear because the CO selects the charter org rep / charter head. That rep then selects the committee chair and signs off on every unit leader application. There is vagueness. The charter partner agreement is written more as a friendly agreement than a strong contract. That's why I'm actually advocating our charter org partner using the facility use agreement. It's more accurate to how the church and scouting partner. We can still do pretty much the exact same things. Help the church with projects as a thank you for using their space. Sell flowers / popcorn. etc. ... you've never heard of folks thinking, but it's happening currently in your church? I've seen it twice in two local units. Once during starting the unit and once was a church elder who loved scouting and decided to become the Charter Org Rep ... and then attended every committee meeting, troop meeting and camp out. Yeah, little good comes of it. Churches don't have the manpower. ... I can envision it working, but I just don't see it happening. ... The trouble is the local churches don't have it as a core goal that they professionally monitor and grow. Rather, it's usually some quirky situation that is slightly uncomfortable with someone exercising a bit too much influence in the wrong way. IMHO ... facility use agreement ... sounds like the right way to go. The driving reason is liability. The church accepts liability for pastors and their own employees. They oversee their people. But from what I've seen, the churches have never overseen the scouting program effectively. In fact, in many units, most of the members are not from that church. ... point is if you don't want want to oversee and manage it, then down pretend to own it. Friendly documents from 1950s can be taken as legal contracts and proof of negligence now. Get the right agreement for the right situation. ... IMHO, most should switch from charter partner agreement to facility use agreement. Time will tell. I'll have to see how this washes out with our charter partner.

I thought I was the only one who had that opinion. I have never seen the unit commishioners as effective at all.

I'll take the bait. And, I'll answer for the month before covid. Things are rebuilding right now. #1 Yes. It was one person, but then they'd use the whole district committee to drive nominations. The person took the job seriously. #2 "Council" members? Is that a requirement to have some outside "council" person on the "district" nominating committee? I would have never known and I've taken lots of training. #3 All were unit leaders at some point. 50% to 70% still are, but usually at the ASM level or unit committee level. None were SMs at that time. It's just too much work to be a CM/SM and district committee at same time. A few were retired scouters looking for a place to spend time.

Well said.

I'm comfortable with what you are saying. And, I do think very highly of BSA. But when I read page four of G2SS as it exists today, it says to fulfill legal requirements, but also then has a "scouts first" hotline. Doesn't introduce the concept of scouts first. Doesn't mention that calling law enforcement is not fulfilled by calling scouts first. Perhaps it would be as easy as saying "first report to local law enforcement. Then after the reporting process has started, also report the incident to the scouts first hotline." Right now, I can easily read and interpret it as scouts first hotline is part of how I fulfill the legal requirements. Perhaps it's the place where I'll get the phone numbers. Or get advice on if I'm really in a reporting situation. Even in the best attempt to make things clear, policies often leave vague holes. Though BSA's G2SS statement is pretty good, it is far less than perfect.

View it this way ... The old charter agreements were used as a marketing tool by BSA to get more buy-in from local organizations ... to get those local organizations help with BSA's youth program objectives ... to get local orgs to view packs and troops as an extension of the local church/school/other. Many local orgs took it with a grain of salt and never did anything. Most everyone knew that's how it worked. Even the document itself looked pretty weak and light weight. Think of it this way ... US GOV charter to BSA is honorific. Just really good marketing with little effect. Charter between BSA and local orgs was mostly honorific too. Then over the last few decades, it's inferred more and more. Lately the signed charter agreement has been used as a legal liability too. It's a contract right? I doubt many churches viewed it as a very significant contract. Just an honorific thing. NOW ... Scouting is a real liability. Real risk. You could get sued. So ... is that scouting youth program that critical to your own purposes as a local organization? If so, you should actively manage it and be involved. I myself am recommending our church change from a charter agreement to a facilities use agreement. We've had discussions. They have zero interest in overseeing the scouting program. They are glad to lend use their facilities though. They just don't want to own and be responsible.

I'm also not comfortable with policies that say call before reporting ... in any organization. It infers creepy motives. The reality is it can quickly create a mess. The reality is false reporting does happen by the over zealous or those with other motives. BUT, I'd rather see that over-reporting than any delay in reporting. Even the hint that there is a policy of "call us first, before you do what is legally required" is just not great marketing and definitely not good teaching and it might result in someone not reporting something they should. I'd rather see the police and public organizations spend their money on it than a non-profit try to manage it. It's always a hard decision. I've had to report twice in my role as a volunteer; not thru BSA, but thru another organization. I'm pretty sure in both cases the parents lost the kids. Hardest ### call I've ever made. I could have easily been talked out of reporting or not done it. SUGGESTED SPECIFIC BSA G2SS CHANGE ... https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... page 4 ... Who to call first? It doesn't explicitly say who to call first. Should I call the BSA help line? Is that mandatory reporting? Should I call 911? Should I call ? Do I call 911 then BSA help line? OR BSA help line and then they route me to the right reporting method? ... Even having the helpline infers something that I suspect it is not doing. ... I'd like the guide to say "Call 911 first if immediate danger or call your local police / ??? / ??? if not an immediate danger" ... or call 911 to ask how to report abuse ... (I'm not sure who the first contact should be either). ... As a second step, you should call BSA scouts helpline so that they can help handle the implications for the scouts, the unit and local scouting. The key is due the mandatory reporting first. Avoid implying BSA before required legal obligations.

Sad to hear that. Volunteers that are not flexible are not helping and might need to move on. It's good to keep friendships and connections, but ultimately we volunteer to help the organization. That means being flexible as the organization needs to change. Districts get re-organized. It happens all the time. Rebalancing unit numbers. Budgets change. Concept changes. Membership number changes. In my 20 years, I've seen three major district re-orgs. AND, there was a major one the year before my oldest son joined scouting. That would be four district re-orgs in 21/22 years. Districts get re-organized. It happens. Always look for something positive.

Minimizing risk? I have no clue what you mean. But I'm 100% offended that you are asserting this statement is the attitude that will cause us to lose scouting. Baloney. Absolute baloney. Wanting to blame others is what will cause division and destroy scouting. Worse, it's just mean and un-scout-like. If you really want to protect vulnerable people, you need to understand the patterns and nature of abuse. You need to look at the many, many varied failure modes. To repeatedly bash a single source is unconstructive. Past society failures to identify and prevent abuse were huge and everywhere.

Far too often authors think they are expressing justified righteous indignation when in fact it's closer to ugly bigotry and motivated by past grudges. We all should stick direct connections. The simple fact is society as a whole did not handle any of this very well in the 1980s or 1990s. Society started adopting the modern understanding of abuse in the late 1990s / early 2000s. People want someone to blame. You might as well blame every part of society.

I am betting there is another path. I've interacted ... "worked with" would over state my invovlement ... I've interacted with the local chapter adviser and youth lodge chief. They have much more flexibility than officially published. If the scout really wants to be in OA, that scout should write a polite mail (or email) to the lodge chief and copy the lodge adviser. State that he/she would be proud to be an OA member. Explain his troop doesn't hold elections. Communicate how he fulfills requirements (rank, nights camping, troop involvement, etc). Further state why he/she would want to be a member. IMHO, the perfect answer would be "to serve" and to learn from other scouts. My only fear is the scoutmaster response. BUT, the ideal scoutmaster should say congratulations and let the scout explore OA. I am betting the lodge adviser and lodge chief would find a path in for that scout. I'm not saying this would work every time, but I suspect it would work a good number of times.

Scoutbook works good for advancement. Roster mgmt too. But that might be our troop. Our troop only records what must be sent to BSA to record advancement. Ranks. MBs. Awards. We do record time in position (because it looks pretty in ScoutBook). And hikes, campouts ... for bragging rights. ... But it's up to the scout to manage the individual line-item advancement and we encourage the scout to use the paper book for that. It's an intentional choice. We don't want our adults tightly overseeing the scout's advancement. It's their path to navigate and not ours to pull them thru. If I had to record each of 50 entries for each rank and another 20+ entries for each MB, I might think again about TroopMaster. ... But we stopped using TroopMaster a long time ago and never regretted it. As for calendar, etc, we use different tools over time. Its moved a few times. TroopMaster never worked well for that ... "for us". Ultimately, it's about good communication with the parents.