fred8033

That's what I thought too. I suspect we have a nationwide inconsistency on re-opening lapsed liabilities.

Okay. Sounds like what I heard is wrong. I thought it was not being retroactively applied to public schools and other government orgs. I'm surprised this is not happening nation wide. I'm aware of similar rumors in my school against specific teachers. I'm betting this is nation wide and could easily be reverse applied to the 1960s and 1970s.

I recognize you can sue. What I'm saying is ... from what I understand ... the recent law changes that allowed re-establishing expired liabilities ... even decades in the past ... again from my understanding ... did not re-open expired liabilities to schools and other government organizations. If it was extended, then these lawsuits should be hitting every city, state and school district that chartered scouts for the last 50 years. If you want deep pockets, go after the school districts.

I actually think your proposal is a reasonable response. Parents failed. Teachers failed. Police failed. Many, many parts of the system failed here. If damaged needs to be made whole, it's our whole society that should pay the price.

Does BSA get any protection for the scouts chartered to government organizations? This is at least 10,400 units in 2004. From my limited understanding, past liability was re-opened by recent law changes. BUT, that liability was not re-opened for public schools and other governmental organizations. I'm trying to understand ... So BSA can be sued, but the charter organizations of many can't be sued even though they selected the leaders, provided the building, owned the materials and implemented the specifics ? From what I read below, as of 2004, 400 units were sponsored by military bases and another 10,000 were sponsored by public schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Governmental_sponsorship_of_Scouting_units Are there any claim limitations for people that were in the 10,000 public school chartered units and 400 military units? It just doesn't make sense. If the professional expertise of teachers and public school administrators failed to protect those scouting youth and were closer to the units, how can BSA that is a further step away be liable. Seriously. NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE. Yes, the past abuse was outrageous. But that was the past. AND, much was done right. The BSA files were an aggressive attempt to protect youth. I doubt such files were kept by other groups. BSA put YPT, rules and expectations in place years before other youth organizations. BSA is in at least it's 20th year of YPT improvements. This is just wrong.

Or to add the insurance companies and their policy limits to this suit.

How could anyone protect themselves from what is happening today? How could anyone decide the proper insurance amount? How could anyone protect themselves against a drastic societal change? Most blatantly ... Laws changed to re-open lapsed liabilities. I now I've said it before, but this whole situation is ugly on top of ugly and injustice on top of injustice. Sadly, the only ones profiting are muck rackers.

I agree with you. Supreme court decided BSA vs Dale correctly, but it skewered BSA's future. I've seen a few massive screw ups related to this ... I really question BSA's relationship with their legal representation. Any lawyer worth his salt would have advised to avoid BSA vs Dale. ... There are other clear blatant massive screw ups too.

Alumni support has dropped because of heated political positioning. I'm hoping in 10 to 20 years, it returns as the support is based on getting kids outside camping and teaching responsibility and independence. IMHO, the heart of why people donate to scouting will not have changed. ... But it is not a short term fix. BSA needs to get out of the controversies. Yes and no. There was not activism, but there was systematic on-going pressure and open hypocrisy. It started with moms asking why they could not be registered leaders. Then, why could they only be cub scout leaders and not boy scout leaders. Then why not SM or ASM. ... Then, questions why staff at cub camps and boy scout summer camps are near 50% female. And why Venturing allowed female scouts, but only the male scouts could finish their Eagle scouts rank as a venturing scout. It's like tearing a bandage off. I think BSA had the fear of a long slow burn on yet another issue, while at the same time trying to save scouting membership numbers. Best to do all the big changes in a short few years than to draw it out over another 10 to 20 years. As a parent, I just don't see. In cubs, we had sister after sister want to participate. And packs would always allow them to attend, but it was for the "boys". If it really was, why did we let sisters attend as much. In boy scouts, the scouts learn many merit badges from 17 year old female scout camp staff. So, why can't those can't those staff also be members. There may not have been outside activism, but there was clearly pressure.

For summer camp, our troop adults bought a two burner version for the adult patrol. We love it, but it's a beast. A three burner version scares me.

Very well written. I'd add a few points. Religion ... <modified your point> ... I don't want to remove religion because I value my faith. But I agree, de-emphasizing is reasonable because at no time has scouting been a primary channel for teaching faith. BUT, there needs to be a comfort and tolerance in scouting with having faith present and having a place for faith. I'm not sure we really have to do much different or if anything needs to change. It's just that I think scouting shines in the outdoors. I'm not sure scouting shines when we start talking specifics with politics or faith or STEM or .... Promote patrol over troop ... Fundamental redesign. Consider Many troops stagnate and ruin scouting for their scouts. Trouble making patrols significant and the primary unit of scouting. Troop meetings often poisoning the opinion of many scouts on scouting. Troop meetings subvert patrols as the fundamental unit of scouting. ... aka 60 to 90 minute troop meeting with 10 to 15 minutes allocated for patrols ... even then patrols have to be "released" from the troop meeting to their patrol time. Then, they are called back into the troop meeting. Worse, troop plans often leave no time for the patrols. ... IMHO, troop meeting structure 100% subverts patrols as the fundamental unit of scouting. Idea - Synthesize concepts from cubs and girl scouts to make patrols the primary unit. Scouts experience scouting in their patrols. Scout's uniform re-considered to de-emphasize troop. As much as I'd care, it could be line 1 <name> patrol line 2 <city>, <state> (city or area or ??? ), 10 to 15 patrol leaders gather to form a troop and organize troop activities. Patrols focus on being active and getting out and doing things. Patrol members help each other advance. Patrol size could be 6 to 16 scouts. Related Girl scout "Troops" are more like Boy Scout "Patrols". Cubs experience scouting mostly in their den with periodic pack activities. Rethink the need for "charter" organizations. Rather, it's a set of parents that support their patrol. ... aka like Girl Scouts Move advancement out of the patrol and troop to an organizational level. Could be district boards of review. Thoughts I'm not fully sold on if this is needed or even a good idea. ... just a suggestion to think about. My sons have benefited most when we get out to tent, bike, hike, paddle, tour, etc. My sons have benefited very very little from troop meetings. If I had my druthers, I would not have a troop meeting unless we were preparing for the next event / activity or celebrating. The idea of having a troop meeting for the sake of having a troop meeting is a thing of the past.

I agree. My view is slightly different. BSA membership changes were done to end 20 years of being a political punching bag. External groups intentionally targeting BSA for their own political purposes. The membership changes have really changed little. Yes, girls are now allowed, but it's not really anything significantly structural. I think BSA knew the membership changes would hurt as much as helped. BUT, BSA had to get out from under the abuse from other groups.

Program is king. "Active troops" attract and retain youth. Scouting leaders should keep focus here. Of course "active" does not mean meetings and sitting down quietly. "Active" means "active". Getting out. Doing things. Camping. Outings. Adventures. Some merit badges, but more about doing things. The challenge is marketing to today's "INVOLVED" parents. They are looking for one of many things. Organization? Reputation? Troop goals? Compatibility with family vision? I'm not really sure anymore. "active" can actually scare these parents away as it might hurt competing objectives. I just fear that today's INVOLVED parent changes the dynamic of scouting ... at least the ages 11 to 17 where we want the scout to experience scouting mainly on their own.

I'm not always the best at handling subtle situations like this. If it happened outside scouting ... and one kid is not showing up ... there is not much we can do. Perhaps a friendly chat might be nice with the kid that is showing up. Maybe if done well, the kid might not realize there is advice during the conversation. BUT, I am a firm believer that we as adult leaders can make things worse if we inject ourselves too much.

Slow cars move to the right lane ... Agree, but the reasoning never makes sense. It's an oxymoron ... How can drivers expect slow drivers to move right as a rule while at the same time ignoring the speed limit rule? It's hypocritical. I still agree on the rule, but it is hypocritical. ... Plus, police will penalize even low level speeders, but you have to be blatantly or dangerously slow in the left lane to get a ticket. Speeding ... In my city, there is a grace of up to 4 or 5 MPH above the limit before police stop you. After that, our city does ticket for 7 MPH over the limit. Ticketing for rolling stops. Car stops for not signaling. I've gotten caught a few times. BUT, generally our city is pretty good. So, I need to smile and say thank you. The article you quoted uses the term "ignore" to inflame and drive thought. It misrepresents how society treats speed limits. Virtually everyone I know will NOT drive 75mph in a 30mph even when no one is around at 4am. No one will drive 95mph in a 70mph. I'd say there gets to be fairly good observence at 10mph above and very good observence at 15mph above. ... Speed limits include a societal grace that we all generally agree. Most of us are fairly comfortable at 35mph in a 30. BUT, I know many home owners who will yell and pursue neighbors who drive 45mph past their house in a 30mph zone. ... "Ignore" is a poorly chosen term. There are societal norms applied to most rules. Even with the speeding societal grace, liability starts much earlier. When things go bad (accidents, damage, death), if you are violating that speed limit at the time, you will be summarily judged at fault. Driving 45mph in a 30mph neighborhood and you hit a kid ... even if you stop and call an ambulance ... I'm betting you will be arrested and charged. I'm not sure the level, but there would be a charge. I'd argue that's similar to G2SS. BSA makes the limits clear. BSA scouter community is pretty clear too on any grace on the boundaries. BUT, if you choose to ignore those, I'd expect you are exposing yourself, your family and your assets to personal liability too. ... AND moral guilt too. I can't say I'm 100% clean .. .ummm laser tag ... but we are hard line on most of the limits. For example, even before G2SS, we tried to keep test sharing to kids of similar age. It's just common sense. ... Hard lines on safe swim defense and safety afloat. Pretty good observence on weather dangers too. YPT pretty absoute.

Work with that newer councilor. Move past the SM and just get it done. It's sad when things like this happen, but in reality ya want your kid working with adults that want them to succeed. And, the vast majority of scouters are that type of person.

LOL ... colorful intrepresentation of history. ... based on settlement of a massive anti-trust lawsuit. One of my final undergraduate courses was an independent research project for credit based on the AT&T breakup. 80 typed pages of research ... before Google, before search engines and largely before the modern internet. Libraries. Copy machines. Phone calls. A retired AT&T employee sent me a book they had called Heritage & Destiny by Alvin von Auw. I still have the book. I was about to donate it to Goodwill. https://www.amazon.com/Heritage-destiny-Reflections-System-transition/dp/0030696070 AT&T is a fascinating case The problem understanding the breakup is it's so absolutely huge, painfully detailed, drawn out over years and the implications go every direction.

It's not a real choice. BSA has a structure to create a youth program that charter orgs can use. That youth program is part of a brotherhood of other youth programs around the world. The charter org can create something very special and unique to their organization ... BUT it's without the boundaries of the scouting program.

G2SS is interesting to follow there ... It says ... Tenting Separate tenting arrangements must be provided for male and female adults as well as for male and female youth. Youth sharing tents must be no more than two years apart in age. In Cub Scouting, parents and guardians may share a tent with their family. In all other programs, youth and adults tent separately. Spouses may share tents. Seems writing should be cleared up. Points #1 & #2 are the real rules here. As for points #3, #4 and #5, those are more comments or directions about the program. At least, they did not use MUST such as #1 and #2. I'd rather see the RULES (#1 and #2) be called out as they are simple and concise. The rest are really just commentary. We often do this when writing requirements. The requirements are explicit: MUST. Then, the requirements are often followed with context (which is what I see #3, #4 and #5).

I started this thread to suggest a framework to teach out scouts leadership. Failed, I have.

@ParkMan ... Well said. So leaders visiting or asking to visit is the reaching out from outside leaders to the unit. How does the unit respond? We're scouters. Friendly service. Servant leaders, etc, etc. Absolutely fine to try to figure out root concern, open communication and maybe even get it addressed in advance. Beyond that though, we are friendly toward our fellow scouters.

No. It's not a sexual thing. I used the analogy. ... As with YPT where I've been taught to look for signs, there are other signs for other issues. The question is why would anyone not welcome people from the same organization to see what they are doing. That's a red flag for a group that is going a different direction and perhaps a direction that contradicts fundamental assumptions / directions/ guidance. Heck, as a parent, my kids can do certain specific things that raises red flags and makes me more alert.

It's from training that teaches warning signs. For example, an adult touching the hair of a non-related child is a red flag. A member organization not welcoming leaders from the same organization is also a red flag. It does scare me. What are they hiding? What's the concern?

Yeah. Units can pretend to be independent, but their not. It's a fallacy. Ya wear the uniform. Ya buy the boy scout handbook. Ya sign the form. Ya submit the Eagle applications. Ya walk the brand. Most importantly, BSA national bankruptcy is not happening because abuse that happened in the corporate office lunch room. It happened in the units. Now, national is being held accountable because of unit leader abuses. That's what the courts are saying. Courts are saying BSA national is paying for unit damages. My apologies, but your exact statements scare me. I can't say I'm 100% perfect following BSA's guidance, but I try my best and I work hard at it. We need to show that we are trying our best. Essentially, explicitly saying you sign kids up as BSA scouts, but then say you're independent scares the crap out of me. I'm not sure where the difference is? Or why to emphasize the independence? You probably run a great program. But those statements scare me. It absolutely TRUELY scares me that you would not welcome a council or national visitor to your unit. That's a red flag that I'll trust is just bravado in the conversation. I'm not sure where the independence would popup, but it scares me. Unregistered leaders on camp outs? Unapproved activities? Singing to get your stuff back ? I'm sure what the real issue is. Emphasizing grievances, differences and independence just scares me.

Perhaps there is a way to turn the "BSA vs UNIT" to reflect on Authentic leadership. So much distrust could be driven by non-aligned goals. Unit leaders want their unit health, active and great experiences for their scouts. BSA leaders need membership, growth and visibility of BSA as a product / value statement. So often we see this as national leaders only talking to units when it involves recruitment or problems that have happened. We think of ourselves as one team, but it's not really true. BSA (national and councils) have an annual cycle of talking to units that have little to do with unit program. (fall recruitment, recruitment, popcorn sales, fundraisers, etc). None of those directly help the unit accomplish unit goals. Units may do more on their own for recruitment, but it's usually disconnected from national / council. Further, units rarely see BSA national talking about camping, advancement, fun, etc except through publications. Instead, units see external pressure about external goals with little care for the unit goals themselves. Perhaps the BSA could promote trust and connection by better aligning the goals of the unit with the BSA goals. Maybe this means splitting BSA's organization so that membership, risk, fundraising, etc is separate from unit interaction. ... I'm not sure, but this seems to be part of the broken chain.