moosetracker

By the way, if the OP is still around and we haven't scared you off, I would like to alter what I said about the IH being absolute, and COR as their spokesman being very close to absolute.. There are some exception, but it would have to be something that is a strict BSA policy that the CO has signed a contract agreeing to follow in order to obtain their charter.. Or something that you feel is mental abuse to certain scouts.. Ex. They want you to hand out the rank advancement as candy.. Now this would have to be a definite statement of "just give it to them", or "give them this merit badge, but don't have them do requirements A, B or C.. BSA is very particular that no one add or remove from advancement requirements.. But, this has to be an absolute.. Not a disagreement about where the bar of competency should be.. ie. one wants it awarded on the first attempt the other side wants it awarded when they can do it blindfolded with one hand tied behind their back.. Or if they are telling you that if a homosexual comes into the unit, to be nasty and unwelcoming so that he quickly moves on.. Or make up a ridiculous excuse why you can not allow them in the troop, like you have to many scouts already.. Here is a link to what is signed annually by the CO in order to charter a BSA unit. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/524-182_web.pdf Again though.. You could get BSA involved if they are out and out not following the charter agreements, but.. then it is up to the CO to decide to comply -or- to give up the charter (and thus the BSA program.) Again, their decision to keep all the equipment & money etc, or to let you relocate to a new CO and they will sign the equipment/money over to your new CO for your unit to continue to use with them.

More then that.. We know the issue is with the CC, COR and CO on one side of the issue and that the Adult leaders (at least some of them) are on the other side of the issue. Therefore we know to tell them the CO owns the troop and the COR is selected by the CO to make sure the unit is proceeding in accordance with what they desire from their youth organization.. We also know his reason for not saying more is due to this being a public forum.. So, yes.. Probably fear that someone else from the unit, or if this battle has blown up wider then their little unit.. Someone in the district may see it.. Is it fear of lying??? Why lie, here?? He won't get any good advise for lying.. That is some sort of assumption on your part. More like fear of escalating the dispute.. Someone in the group getting upset over seeing their dirty laundry aired over the web.. Or simply is desire not to air dirty laundry in a public forum. Definitely there are two sides to the story, and somewhere in the middle is the compromise -or- the truth.. But, usually the two sides is rarely due to lying.. If the whole upset is due to this person being the type that walked in and lied to one group about the other group in order to cause a civil war.. Why would his personality not be someone who would not delight in coming here and spinning alto of lies in order to cause upheaval in this forum.. Maybe his perspective is shaped by someone lying about something and he is on the side that either believes or disbelieves said person.. But, he is not acting to me as a person who came here in order to spin a tale of lies to us.. Two sides to a story, is normally due to different perspectives on the subject. The perspective of being the Adult leaders out in the trenches with the scouts and knowing the scouts, and having goals based knowing the scouts and having personal interests.. Verses not being in the trenches, but having goals for an organization based on goals of the CO, or by seeing problems within the troop by not being so personally involved with the troop.. Or the perspective of looking at something as fun and adventurous .vs. someone who is more worried about safety and if a CO then their liability if something goes wrong.. Being the start of the new year and the new rules on homosexual youth perhaps is some disagreement on that issue. We normally only get one side of the story, we still have found ourselves siding with the other side, or at least seeing some possible reasons the other side is pushing for what they want..

Exactly, I would expect the doctor not to call the husband stupid, but rather to ask pointed questions in order to draw out more information from the man. Like I said, what was said did give a very detailed response. The CO is the boss.. Now if the OP had said. "My troop is having a problem, can you tell me what to do".. You would have an example similar to yours.. As stated you answered it correctly, you just could have not added the first paragraph. It added nothing to your post, but being cantankerous to a newbie poster.. Give them a chance to learn how to write more helpful post through friendly guidance.

Well Basements' adivice is spot on, but I disagree with calling a newbie's first post "stupid".. If you want more info ask for it.. I thought what we had was sufficient enough to say.. "CO rules.. rest of troop drools...".. More info and we could maybe help him with suggestions for a compromise, that may be suggested.. Or, the positives of the CO's course the parents/leadership has not thought of.. Or, if it is important enough to leave the troop over, or if there is just some pride being hurt, and ways to get himself and other upset parents over it so the unit can move on, before it gets ripped apart.. Or if he wishes to leave how to find a troop with what he is looking for, or how to start a new troop.. Guy may benefit from some other advice here, but I don't think we are welcoming him to open up and discuss the matter by calling his first post stupid.. Remember there are no stupid questions??? So, Barring Basements, not so friendly post, would you like to impart more of the story to us..?

Our pack only has Tigers and Wolves. So Fall of 2015 is when we get our first Webs.. I don't know if I am hoping they iron it out by then or not. If they don't then we get to change our first group of Webs mid-stream. If it is totally ironed out and they totally separate what Webs I and Webs II do, it may throw a monkey wrench in some plans. I was hoping our Webs I could pick-up some Webs II who are new to scouting as both Webs I and newbie Webs II scouts would do the same thing, perhaps the Webs II had an additional Arrow of Light, but maybe not if we could move the Webs I through everything and then they would just have a year to do whatever they truly have an interest in with little concern to advancement.

Yeah, by "Charter Organization" you mean the head of your CO or your institutional head.. Then argument is over. You either have to follow what your IH wants, or find a new CO who agree with your viewpoint.. But.. If it is a break due to disagreement and hostility rather then amicable.. You need to know the CO owns all the troop equipment and the money in your bank account and even the Troop number.. If you leave, and it is a bad breakup expect to just leave with the uniforms that you paid for on your backs. The COR is close to bottom line, but if you think the IH of your CO may not agree with their decision if you can sit down and give them your version, there is slim hope.. Very slim, because the IH chooses a COR to make all these decisions for them, not backing his COR means the COR will probably leave.. It's like an Executive telling their middle management that they are wrong and siding with the employee rather then backing their middle managements decision.

Commented on your above statement. I will restate it here. National has not forced mandating position specific training. But, many councils have, National has even recommended that Council do this. Our council has mandated it by this year's rechartering (Dec 2014).. We may have LARGE classes this year, and people upset we aren't offering training every weekend from now on.. So depends on where Kathy lives if it is mandated or not.

National has not forced mandating position specific training. But, many councils have, National has even recommended that Council do this. Our council has mandated it by this year's rechartering (Dec 2014).. We may have LARGE classes this year, and people upset we aren't offering training every weekend from now on.. So depends on where Kathy lives if it is mandated or not.

Very true, which is why the MBC was handled within the unit. But, the SM had to be handled outside or not at all. They had an "Friends of" for CO.. And that was in name only, no one really did the job. The SM was a charmer, those whose kids he showered in extra attention loved his methods and practically treated him as a saint. He had got his Silver Beaver by having parents during the scout meeting organizing all his work that he then presented. He was a big wig of the Council and put on an air that he was even more then that, had all the answers and was always right. The parents with scouts who were "unworthy" feared that due to his perceived position, no one in the council would pay attention to him.. Most just left.. I know of two who stayed and tried to earn their Eagle in spite of being on the "wrong" list.. One almost didn't make it. Age 18 he had done all that National required, (including the fact his BOR's would always be extra hard and grueling in order to turn him down.) The one troop requirement he couldn't get. Per troop rules he had to be SPL and the SM choose the group of scouts that were "worthy" of consideration for the position.. Surprise, Surprise.. He never made the cut. He finally got the SM to reluctantly sign his paperwork by his father threatening to go to council to complain over the procedure.. So he got through, but unfortunately he was not one of the verbal complaints.. The other one was younger and so did not get to the 18 yo cutoff before the SM was removed. He made his Eagle but barely due to the extra hurdles he had to endure, plus the verbal abuse of the SM telling him how worthless he was, and promising him he would make sure he never made Eagle.. The question was why do scouts and parents stay with an abusive troop. I understand wanting to continue with scouts.. These scouts, as my son probably saw the Eagle rank as a goal due to this SM telling them over and over how unworthy and unqualified they were, and how they would never make it.. For my son, we moved him to a different troop so he could ENJOY his time in scouting, while working to prove this person wrong.. For these two boys they felt the need to make Eagle under the abuse of this SM, as if going to a different troop was cheating.. Many boys and parents just dropped out with the abuse. Some also moved to other troops.. But at least two other parents had the guts to report the SM's actions.

I will need to retake YPT, it’s been a year.. I have another year before I need to retake. I don’t think I have ever retaken it over a two year gap where it wasn’t totally redone and different. The last time I took it I thought I applauded the addition of some info an mental & physical abuse.. Not much, but definitely it was there, and I had been looking for it. That is because I have never hit the physical or sexual abuse, but on two separate occasions, I have had to deal with a person I thought created mental abuse for our scouts. One problem with it is that parents second guess reporting it. They don’t want it to come across as overprotective parents. Even with me as a sounding board and telling them they were not over reacting and pushing them to speak up they would not.. Also I hope the Council has changed how they handled it from around 2000.. At that time 3 different people had to report on the same person with 3 separate issues.. I came in and gave the DE (what I think was) the first complaint.. He said his hands were tied until 2 others came in. Other parents with the same issue feared reporting it.. So it took 5 years and 2 other reports over that time period (that I knew of) before Council swooped in assessed the situation. They concluded the SM was indeed abusive to select scouts he did not think worthy. He can no longer volunteer for BSA. No police, no jail time. But, then I think the actions didn’t cause either.. You can’t arrest a person for allowing the “preferred†of a group to do events and activities, the “unworthy†were not invited to.. Or for yelling at kids and belittling them.. The other one was an in troop Merit Badge Councilor. I got reports by two different parents of another MBC who was totally nasty to the scouts and both scouts were ready to give up scouting due to her. I was MBC for the same merit badge which was Family Life. Both reports were very similar, and both parents did not want to report it for fear that it would look bad that their son could not handle the situation. I had to report the woman and the incident to the SM and committee with (correction I meant to say without) naming names.. Luckily they took it seriously without the names of the scouts, and she was removed from the list of recommended MBC’s. But, when YPT was still an in-person course I would ask about mental & physical abuse, and the trainers really had not much to add of how to report it, or what should be taken seriously and what not.. They, just agreed it was also something that should be seriously looked into. Then came the on-line training, which had nothing.. Until, I thought I saw a change in the last YPT course I took..

No, I am suggesting that they can act as normal couples do. I do not know the intimate details of what goes on in my heterosexual friends bedrooms (or on their kitchen table).. I do not need to know that from homosexual friends either. I have no problem with them introducing me to the same sex significant other, talking about their significant other in the same way I talk about my husband.. Like my partner & I are going to the museum this weekend. Or my partner & I went to this fabulous restaurant last week. I also have no problem with hand holding or a peck on the check.. If they get too "snuggly" and "kissy-faced" and you want to say "Get a room".. Then it is too much, same as with a heterosexual.. For both of them especially when at a BSA event. Where ever you got the idea that I prefer a "don't ask don't tell I don't know".. Especially from this comment. Maybe the one where I pointed out that YOU should have a problem with the "Don't ask, Don't tell" we have now, because it condones people putting on a false persona.. Which is the biggest trait of a pedophile.. For me a married SM with a same-sex spouse, would not raise my antanne.. But, it would yours, and it would many people in the pack/troop.. The day when everyone accepts them the same way as a heterosexual couple is far, far away from today.. When it happens THEN and only THEN will a pedophile use this as their false persona.. Today is not that day.

More likely they will not marry to try to "hide" or deny who they are.. Or if already marry cause some heartbreak by accepting who they are and leaving wife & children. It is sad for both them, but more so I feel for their spouses who they lied to, or maybe more accurately it would be they lied to themselves with them. That is sort of what I meant by aside from knowing them married with kids, I do not know the intimate details For all I know they get out the whips, chains and leather.. But unless it is a very open marriage, I doubt few spouses know their significant other are closeted homosexuals.. Could be wrong though. Even with accepting homosexuals into BSA, the intimate details will still be "unknown".. We will just meet the "significant other" who will tell us, hetero or homo.. I hope the day will come when the recognition is no more mind boggling then figuring out a person is single or married. Probably not in my lifetime, but perhaps in my son's lifetime.

Hmmmm... I knew my sons SM and CM sexual preferences, and I am sure my son did too (If he stopped to think about it.) They were all married with their sons in the troop/Pack. Now anything further then that "No".. Like were they swingers? Did they cheat on their spouses? Bi-sexual? Any thing kinky? "No" other then married with kids, I knew nothing more.. Eventually I had met the wives.. In CS the wives were just as involved. In BS the wives only showed up for courts of Honors or other big events where all family members were encouraged to attend.

jpstodwftexas - should have known by your moniker you were from Texas but the whole thing just is a jumble of letters most times.. Anyway after reading that you floored me that his came out of the State of Texas.. Now, Texas being mainly Republican, that says a lot, because if they could tie pedophiles with homosexuals they would have ! Wow Eagledad.. JP got you good with that one.. Besides the fact as he stated, he was talking personal experience, and you totally rejected his personal experience, like you know better what JP's personal experience is more then he himself does. That was good!

Probably.. If it hadn't wound down the homosexual fears and misconception route. Fred & I would have probably done 4 or 5 posts and it would have ended as a short thread.. The homosexual topic may cause it to get longer.. Although it has been rehashed multi times before.

If it is the CS version, then yes. It I felt the same way. The BS version wasn't so bad. It had something to do with older youths can get references and inuendos where as younger children will not. I am not recommending it for the CS.. I kindof agree.. I would rather they just put in on their on-line education so parents can view it and decide for themselves.. What I was recommending is that for the adult leader, viewing that would give you the piece the YPT training lacked.

Scouter99 - Sorry - not an absolute. I did not use ALWAYS.. It is a statement which refers to majority of the time.. Yes, sometimes they think they love them, but most times they are using kindness not because they love them, but with children it is another form of control. dcsimmons - All I saw was a statement to the fact there was no changes coming due to the same-sex attraction.. They may be making changes otherwise, just no changes for this.. Before this the conversation wasn't dealing with homosexuals.. So perhaps, it was not your intent, but yours was what started the conversation down this path. But.. I would like to restate for Scouter99's benefit.. The statement that you quoted.. "This change in membership standards is not a youth protection issue. To consider it a youth protection issue would lead one to believe that sexual abuse and victimization is considered inherent to same-sex attraction. This is not the case." Again they Did not use ALWAYS, or maybe here it would be a statement of NEVER.. But like me, they are stating pretty much what I stated.. So go pick your fight with BSA.. Also, I will still restate this fact. The pedophile (molester) wants to be in a position that other adults trust them with children. Therefore they will not gain your trust by being a openly gay person.. Even if gay, they will be in the closet.. You know those BSA Adult leaders we have always welcomed into the troop..So you can currently worry about that, even though right now you are lulling yourself into a false sense of security that openly homosexual adult leaders are currently not accepted.

Fred – You didn’t start the twist, dcsimmons took us down this curve. Most likely inevitable for about six more months until those frightened by this change settle down to the fact that little will change. About the Catholic vs BSA youth protection. I was always told that the Catholic Church took the BSA YPT as a model, I was disappointed when I saw the Catholic version.. It was a poor interpretation.. Again check out the videos.. One was titled “A Time to Tell†not sure if that was the BS or the CS one. Eagledad – “That doesn't mean the BSA is more of a risk with gay molesters than other youth centered organizations, but it certainly isn't less either.†True Eagledad, but the gay molesters will be a fraction of those that are married (with/without kids), divorced, or single heterosexuals. Again, molesters are not aroused by the sex (boy or girl) but on overpowering someone weaker then themselves. Most are neither homosexual or heterosexual, but they take on a backstory that is least suspicious.. That will not be those who backstory is of an openly homosexual person.

Here is an interesting article about the change on Jan 1st.. It has common questions asked in the forum, but with responses from BSA official. Most likely similar questions were asked if you went to the public gripe sessions just before the vote, but I hadn't gone to it as I didn't hear about it until after it took place. http://news.msn.com/us/boy-scouts-open-ranks-to-gay-youth-on-jan-1-1

Hey pchado.. Nice to see you. Did you leave when the forums were not acting well, or simply due to other things you needed to attend to. If it was the forums they are much, much better. They just did an upgrade last week and we have a few small issues.. The main one, is that now when you comment to another post, the thread does not recognize and indicate to other that there was new activity on the thread so they can check it out if they are following the thread.. If you post a new reply rather then a comment, it will indicate the activity on the thread. The other thing is if you save your post, I think most people it works as expected, but with some of us, it seems to get hang up, but if you look at the bottom of the screen and see something where it is asking if you want to open, save or cancel some file.. Just hit cancel and get out, your post will be in the thread.

Statement is true enough, and something they should stress when people stress it as the reason that homosexuals should not be adult leaders. I still have no issue with troops that need to work out some logistics to make all scouts feel comfortable. But I am fine with other peoples suggestion to let the kids work it out for themselves, as long as the kids are made to feel comfortable that they are welcome to speak up and their concerns will be listened to seriously, rather then just phoo-phooing the concerns away. Nothing to do with sexual abuse or victimization, just simply sexual attraction, if someone is known to be gay and another feels they are perhaps flirting with them, they may not feel comfortable sharing a tent with them.

The BSA on-line training did a little, but didn't harp on it. If you annually play the video you should for the youth, it is very explicit.. The cub scouts I think more so then the Boy Scouts, I feared I sent them home with nightmares when I played it once. I wish they would put it online so that we can direct the parents to it, and they can decide if they want to show it or not. I did the Catholic one this year, just starting to work for a Catholic Church with the scouting program this year.. I thought it was bad, I mean ours will never win an academy, but I thought it set it up so that you remembered what was presented.. All I got from the Catholic one was talking heads obviously reading from a teleprompter, and obvious they had no training in it, and had not practiced much.. So a monotone person reading.. That is all I remember of it, nothing else was memorable. I guess I retained enough to do the questions. I think sometimes I didn't then I had to get the questions and review the boring video to get the answers to retake.. Seriously, someone reading to me is the worst form of training for me.. It would have been best, if they gave me the script and let me read it for myself if they couldn't have gotten better trainers for the video.

Not quite. Lockheed is not putting on the merit badge program only for scouts and their parents who support BSA changing the program for total inclusiveness and telling those with different ideas to go pound sand. They are simply stepping out of volunteering for BSA.. Reason is not the issue your scout leader may step down because of job or family commitments or because he had a big disagreement with the committee chair or COR and their vision of where the unit should be headed.. Doesn't matter why the scout leader step down, the time he commiteed should be appreciated, and someone hopefully will be able to step up and fill the gap.. likewise Lockheed volunteered with BSA, they are stepping out.. Doesn't matter why they are moving on, you should appreciate what they have done for the program and thank them for it.. If it's a merit badge course, I can see them not running it.. That is BSA specific.. A public educational program.. Most likely you could attend as the general public, but perhaps you can not attend as a scout unit in uniform.. This is not really stated in the article, so not sure.. All I know is don't expect them to run a special program geared to a BSA award, merit badge or whatever

I guess I am seeing the comments here that seem to indicate that Lockheed has the nerve to do this, and how insensitive it is.. I see people who did not appreciate the support but have changed to expecting the support.. Fact is it is Lockheed's time and money, and Lockheed "owes" BSA nothing.. They did it out of generosity, for public relations, and most probably for a tax break.. They will most likely find a new project to contribute to.. It may benefit children it may not. It is sad if they did a great program.. But, if you had an outstanding Scoutmaster or Cubmaster that put on a terrific program and he suddenly they decided they could no longer volunteer their time to the program, would you react the same way.. "The nerve. We depend on them. He is ruining the program the kids depend on.." I don't know what type of program the provided, but perhaps some of the best of the program could be run by some of the adult volunteers who have gone to it and know the basics. Same as if a volunteer from the unit steps down, you figure out who in the unit can step up to fill the hole. This year it may be a statement, next year it will be a memory.. Life will go on.. Eventually BSA will change. When it happens Lockheed may return, or they may never return. The may think twice about returning to a program who stopped appreciating what they offered and started expecting it to the point that when they moved on, it was demanded they return..

Where they both employed by A&E???... Different networks, different attitudes.. If the conservative branch didn't vocalize distaste for it, I would be surprised.. I can tell you that MSNBC recently lost Martin Bashir over his comments. although he apologized for them. And what the conservatives said he said was not what he did say.. It is just that you can mentally make the leap of what he inferred.. Martin Bashir they stated voluntarily stepped down.. We will never know though, sometimes voluntary resignation is forced upon you, but it is an easier cleaner transition.. Also MSNBC terminated Alec Baldwin for comments he made, since his show was only 4 weeks old, they didn't soft tap around it. I liked Martin Bashir.. If what the conservatives said he said was true, I would have agreed it was crass.. But, I didn't find what he really did say all that awful, yet a little over the top.. Yet, had MSNBC suspended or fired him for it, then that is their right.. Even with Martin Bashir having apologized.. I saw none of these same people who take issue for a network suspending (not firing) someone as totally unfair to their free speech, picking up the same stance on the firing of Martin Bashir or Alec Baldwin.. In fact know a lot of the same people say Martin should have been fired, but Phil should not be suspended. They didn't like what Martin said, they agreed with what Phil said. So when is freedom of speech something your employer can restrict, and when can they not restrict it? All I can say is each network, really each company can choose how to handle employees who verbally cross the line.. If you are a public spokesperson for the company, I would not be surprised if you have signed some form of agreement on how you conduct yourself, your attitude and your speech.. But, you have the freedom to voice your opinion to the network or anywhere else if you find the words offensive or not..