Oak Tree

It is very definitely disappointing to see the level of disorganization in rolling this out. National doesn't even have any official statement on their web site - in any direction. I believe that I'll stick with the notice in ScoutingMagazine and assume that the program is going to roll out as planned. The requirements were already posted, so I say the heck with the "Go!" "No, wait, stop! ... but just for a little while, then we'll tell you to 'Go!' again."

See this thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=263078

From the Scouting Magazine blog:Stay connected at the Jamboree You already know that the 2010 National Scout Jamboree will be the best, most exciting, fun-filled, and safest jamboree ever. But now there's another superlative to add to the mix: "most connected." Thanks to a unique partnership with AT&T, the site at Fort A.P. Hill, Va., which in the past has had spotty wireless coverage, will become a hub of communication for the 45,000 participants and staff and more than 250,000 visitors expected to attend. John Alline, the jamboree's director, recently announced the plan to create a three-level wireless canopy that will cover the entire site. The first two levels will be for the medical and administration teams, but the rest of the coverage is for the participants and staff. "If 45,000 Scouts and Scouters all press send on their phones at the same time," Alline says, "their messages will go through." Instead of the long banks of payphones you might remember from past jamborees, the 2010 jamboree will feature AT&T kiosks at which you can recharge cell phones of any brand. Don't have a cell phone? No problem. AT&T will also have tethered phones boys and adults can use to call home for free. Can't go 10 days without checking your e-mail? Wi-Fi hotspots will support your smartphone or laptop computer, and a computer bank will be available for adult leaders to use in 10-minute blocks of time. Because the wireless carrier T-Mobile uses the same technology as AT&T, those phones will work on the site as well. Verizon has also announced that it will provide coverage. There's no word on Sprint just yet.

Ack, Ed, not the same discussion again... Merlyn writes:Oak Tree writes: but [the BSA] also will not charter to more conservative groups that would insist that they can tell the Scouts that there is one correct religion. I don't know what you mean by the above statement -- the BSA is perfectly willing to charter units that only allow members of a particular religion, typically churches that only want members of that church/religion to be members. Yes, correct. I was referring to the situation where a church is happy to run a unit that is open to all, but which involves some religious instruction - that is, pretty much like the way church youth groups work. I believe, for example, that Royal Rangers works this way, which makes it different from BSA. Some units may actually run this way, but it's very clear policy that In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denomination or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church.

Scoutfish, I didn't read back through all the posts, but I don't think most of the Scouters used the terms prejudiced or biased. Those terms have certain connotations. What we do all agree on is that the BSA does discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. Churches certainly discriminate on this basis - you cannot be a member of a church unless you agree with some faith statement, typically. High school basketball teams discriminate on the basis of basketball-playing ability. They also pretty much discriminate on the basis of physical or mental handicap, too, insofar as that ties into basketball-playing ability. What many people feel, though, is that they should not discriminte on any basis that is unrelated to how well they play basketball. When most people look at Scouts, they don't see a "religious organization". They see a group teaching outdoor skills, or teaching about nature, or practicing leadership skills, or just doing worthwhile things. To them it does not seem like it makes sense to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs in order to join that group. Gern asks Shouldn't the BSA hold their chartering partners to the same level of standards that it imposes on itself? Well, the BSA does have a subsidiary Learning for Life that does not have a religious requirement. If BSA is willing to have a subsidiary like this, clearly it's ok to have chartering partner with those characteristics. And it's not really contradictory - a VFD, for example, may feel that atheists and gays are completely able to fight fires, but may not make the right leaders for a Boy Scout unit. This question cuts in both directions (BSA->CO and CO->BSA) and both tighter and looser. The real question becomes how dissimilar must the beliefs be before the relationship is terminated. BSA will not charter to more liberal groups that will insist on non-discrimination nor to more "liberal" groups like Wiccans, but it also will not charter to more conservative groups that would insist that they can tell the Scouts that there is one correct religion. And likewise, some more liberal (and I know I'm not using this term exactly right) groups will not sponsor BSA groups, either for legal reasons or just because of the message it sends. There are also conservative groups that won't sponsor Boy Scout units - Assemblies of God has Royal Rangers instead. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod at one time did not allow congregations to sponsor Scouts.

It's hard to believe that there would actually be any debate about whether public schools are part of the government. That part is pretty clear. And I'm sure that most/all states have laws that public schools/government cannot discriminate on the basis of religious creed. Schools can offer some programs just for girls (e.g. volleyball team) and they can have programs with age-restrictions, but they really cannot discriminate on the basis of race or religion or a bunch of other things. In some states they may still be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, I'm not sure. I don't have a problem with VFDs sponsoring a unit, although I believe that some Scouters on the forum do. But the idea that schools aren't actually a part of the government? That's a pretty fringe legal position.

Interestingly, YMCA's hold the position that their programs are open to all, regardless of age, race, sex, faith, background. I wonder if they realize that their Scout programs do not meet this condition. (I couldn't find one official national statement that was precise - each local YMCA appeared to have their own slight variation on the statement.) I will say that I find the non-discrimination statement to be inaccurate as a completely general statement - they certainly have programs that are age-limited.

I'm with Lisabob. Can we keep this discussion specific to non-governmental entities? Both Merlyn and Gern make this point: any VFD that gets any funding from the government or via taxes would not legally be able to practice religious discrimination. I find this to be uncertain. Many organizations get funding from the government (YMCAs, for example) and still sponsor units. That is, unless there is some specific law dealing with VFDs or something. Can you point to something that supports your claim? Or do you also believe that all YMCAs should not be sponsoring units either? And again, if so - what is the legal basis for such a claim? I easily believe that the government money itself cannot be used for any discriminatory purpose. But as another example, if a church runs a soup kitchen open to all and gets a government grant to help it do so, does it then have to let anyone be a member of the church? I'm actually curious as to the law here, so I'm not looking for more unsupported assertions. Convince me about how it is, not about how you think it should be or how you might hope the current law works.

I'm not sure I'd say "not covered at all under any circumstances" - but can you elaborate? Why would you think that they would be? Were they invited to come along with the unit? Are they potential recruits? Have you asked them to help supervise? I'll point out that there is also the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (here: http://www.doi.ne.gov/shiip/volunteer/pl_105.19.pdf), which protects individuals performing services for nonprofit organizations. Commentary here: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/horselaw/volunter.htmThe New Federal Law. On June 18, 1997, the President signed into law the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. The purpose of this law is to assist non-profits and governmental entities in their efforts to recruit and retain volunteers for their activities. It does so by providing immunity from and limitations on liability for harms caused by volunteers in the course of their volunteer activities. Immunity means that the volunteer who harms another by conduct engaged in as a volunteer for a nonprofit organization or governmental entity is not liable for and cannot be successfully sued for the harm inflicted. The organization or entity can be sued, but not the volunteer personally. This new law applies to any harm caused on or after September 10, 1997, the effective date of the legislation. Of course, the new law applies to any non-profit organization or governmental entity, not just to those that are particularly worthy because they focus on horse activities. Who is a Volunteer? The federal law defines volunteer very broadly. It is defined to mean an individual performing services for a nonprofit organization or a governmental entity who does not receive -- (A) compensation (other than reasonable reimbursement or allowance for expenses actually incurred) or (B) any other thing of value in lieu of compensation, in excess of $500 per year. The statute protects a volunteer serving as a director, officer, trustee, or direct service volunteer.

Yes, you're right, Kahuna. I think most of the parents will be fine, especially if we describe it as you say, and don't tell them that they are "forbidden" from contacting their children. I think that some of the kids will find time to call home, though.

We do the big focus on the boys. The adults don't light candles, but we usually have any appropriate uniformed adult leaders cross the bridge, too, as symbolic of the fact that we still need their involvement. Very similar to what Twocubdad says.

parents should be strictly forbidden to call except in emergencies Hah. Good luck enforcing that one. The kids are so connected nowadays that it just seems foreign to be cut off, especially for the older ones. How would you enforce a ban, anyways? Going to search through everyone's stuff? Banning them just drives them underground, in my experience. I think the biggest problem will be having them get lost or broken. So just make it clear that it's the Scouts' responsibility for their own items. The only rules I would make are ones that are at least mostly enforceable. E.g., no phones at dinner, or no phones in the public area of the campsite, or no (audible) phones after 10pm, or other things like that.

Is there another prohibition out there? No. At least, if someone says there is, ask them to show it to you. I've never seen such a prohibition and I feel like I've read over most all of the relevant documents.

Councils appear to be all over the map with merit badge counselor tracking/approving. In our troop, we just have someone hand in an application and consider them good to go. We drop off the form at council at some point, and never worry about it again. Other places are more stringent.

Merlyn, I get your point here. But do you have any binding court case or law that states that it is illegal for a government entity to charter a unit? I mean, I know why we would conjecture that a court would find that way, but is there any actual law or case law to that effect? The other point seems a little bit more accurate. The BSA in 2005 said it was going to pull all of its charters from public schools and government entities, but possibly (probably) has not done so. As Ed keeps pointing out, we don't have actual data on this, but I think Merlyn's data (from the BSA) is likely to be reasonably correct unless someone has reason to believe that there has been a huge effort to scrub the chartered organizations in the last year. The actual statements by the BSA appear to originate in this article where Gregg Shields was interviewed by the Baptist Press. (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20306) The Boy Scouts of America is removing the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools after an American Civil Liberties Union threat to sue taxpayer-funded institutions that charter BSA units. While BSA is continuing to assess the number of Boy Scout and Cub Scout units that will be affected, BSA national spokesman Gregg Shields said units whose charters will be pulled from public schools would number in the thousands. "Boy Scout troops will still have the same rights as any other community-based group to meet in school buildings, but the charter will not be held by the school administration," he said. The ACLU's threat also precludes other government organizations such as police, fire and recreation departments from holding charters for scouting units. BSA will seek groups such as fire and police department auxiliaries to pick up these charters, Shields said. I happen to agree with Merlyn on this one - that the BSA should not be offering charters to government entities. I also agree with Beavah that it would have been nice to have all the schools actually vote to change the BSA's policies. But as they say, it is what it is.

Ack! Of course!

Yuck. That's a messed-up rollout. diogenes, I think I'd still go ahead with it. It sounds like they are still working out the details, but the program will happen more-or-less as described. Looks like it may mostly have to do with BSA Supply and making sure they actually have merit badges on hand? The program is still listed as official on some council web sites (for example, http://advan.counciltraining.net/sites/default/files/2010_Historical_Merit_Badges.pdf), and it was announced in the ScoutingMagazine blog.

Seems fine to me. The YMCA sponsors 456 units, according to http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/operating_orgs.aspx

In general, Merlyn, I think that test is about accurate, but probably not that helpful as most people don't know the legal answer to that question either. It does make your point.

Not required nor strongly recommended. They just mentioned that one ticket item could be related to self-improvement.

If you look at your post, you should see an icon of a pencil and paper, right after the paperclip and before the thumbs-up. Click on that. I believe they are only editable for a short period (one hour?) after posting.

FScouter in his bits and piece on the forum generally assumes that other scouters are a wretched hive of scum and villainy who are out to break the rules and be unsafe and violate da BSA program. This seems just a wee bit of an extreme representation of FScouter's positions. It's always dangerous to describe other people on the forum, because they so often take offense, so I'd like to commend FScouter on his response. I also agree with Beavah that it is useful to know where other people are coming from. I'm just diaappointed he didn't describe me :-) I would have said that FScouter is a by-the-book Scouter who tries to come down on the side of the kids and assumes that people who bend the rules are doing so for their own convenience and/or because they don't think that rules should apply to them. So we don't always agree on those points, but I looked back over a bunch of FScouter's posts, and they didn't seem quite so polarizing as Beavah's flowery description might lead you to think. I'd describe lots more posters - it does sound like a fun project - but I'm afraid it would quickly degenerate. Perhaps we should have one thread per poster, where that individual isn't allowed to post, but where everyone else can talk about him/her. On the other hand...

Here's one example of a VFD: http://www.delmar74fire.com/ "The Delmar Volunteer Fire Department is a non-profit organization that is funded by the State and County. However, we rely heavily on fundraising events and donations from the residents in our area. Please support our organization with your tax-deductible donation. Your donation will be used to help purchase new fire gear, and maintain existing fire apparatus. " Perhaps a good analogy would be Catholic hospitals. They appear to depend on government funding, but they are clearly a private organization.

I think it's going to come down to the specifics of how the organization is structured and what the state laws are. With respect, Gern, I doubt that the legality is as simple to establish as you suggest. I can imagine a situation where the government owns the equipment and pays for the upkeep, but a separately organized, non-governmental volunteer group operates the equipment. Now, I have no idea how VFDs are actually structured. I would guess, though, that they are almost always not part of the government. The question would be whether they have signed some contract, or there is some governing legal authority that would require them not to sponsor units. My completely uninformed guess would be that it's ok. Playgrounds, on the other hand, generally are run by the town, with government employees, assuming they have employees. At least, the town where I grew up would hire temporary workers for the summer (often teachers). It didn't operate year-round, though, so it would make an odd sponsor. But unless it's a distinctly private rec center, it seems like it would be government-sponsored. Certainly, "Park and Rec Dept" strongly sounds like a government entity.

Yes, the small liberal group of Congresscritters isn't likely to change many minds in BSA. And yes, it would be nice if Congress stopped their own favorable discrimination. But regardless, this is not great publicity for the BSA. I see the military has started their evaluation of what it will take to end don't-ask-don't-tell. I feel fairly confident in guessing that they are going to decide they can end the policy and let gays serve openly.