ParkMan

Let's not conflate the issue. The insurance companies are not the point here. deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? Which path do you think is the correct one.

So let's net this out then. The choice is either: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? Is that it?

You know I didn't say one year. The Ski Patrol skipping out on a contract is not germane to this discussion. The core public policy problem we are dealing with is how does a federally chartered organization with a mission to serve the kids of the United States deal with bad acts in it's distant past. If you go back far enough in history you can certainly find all kinds of bad things that occurred. This isn't s family business that got rich through illegal activities. This is a national non-profit created by Congress with a specific governance structure. By virtue of that structure the organization will survive as long as people show up who want to help. As there is no stock, the owners of this corporation are effectively the people of the United States. By penalizing the organization today you are penalizing the children it serves today and in the future. Selling Philmont hurt kids. Selling council camps hurts kids. Raising fees to pay lawsuits means kids today pay more. A great many kids in the program can not afford to pay hundreds of dollars a year to cover lawsuit settlements. Why do you want to penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

You know that the BSA is a 100+ year organization You know that the issues with abuse were many years ago. You know that the vast preponderance of the volunteers and professionals involved with the BSA today had nothing to do with that abuse. The owners of the BSA are us - the people of the United States. The BSA is here today to serve the kids of today. The people involved with it are largely volunteers serving the kids of today. Just who precisely do you think my proposal shields? And - your response did not point out that my proposal is not workable. You stated that I was trying to create a haven for pedophiles with money. You inferred that I was trying to blame the victim. That was out of line.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote - which was about the public policy question from a federally created organization being impacted by statute of limitations changes in individual state laws. You're trying to turn my comment into something very different. No thanks.

Yes - I am sure you are correct 100%. I don't see a poltiical reason why congress would act here.

Absolutely. I love when I get to attend talks on outdoor skills. Camp cooking, tool usage, tent setup - that's interesting and fun stuff. Learning to be a great outdoors person is an amazing skill. I love that you pulled out prior references and shared them. I'm all for older Scouts have a training role in Scouting. It's a great way for them to practice adult association. Being 16 and really teaching a skill to a bunch of adults is a great life lesson. Yet, I think it's important that the lessons be real and not dumbed down. My sense is that training for adults needs to be real training - not superficial stuff. Real people sharing real skills. If that can be taught be a 17 year old - that's great. But, the adult has to walk away from that session thinking - hey, that was really useful.

Honestly - nor do I. This is not an important enough national issue. But I hope. Congress should get involved because it's a question of federal vs. state powers. The federal government chartered the organization and charged it with certain responsibilities to the nation. Because of the action by the states, the federal corporation is in real danger of not being able to fulfill those responsibilities to the nation. This is akin to other situations where there is a conflict between federal authority and state authority. The Boy Scouts of America is very different than the Salvation Army USA. The BSA is a federal corporation charged with responsibilities to the nation. The Salvation Army is a non profit corporation registered in New Jersey. We tend to look at this from the ground up and say they are both nonprofits. But in reality they are not at all the same. A similar analogy is the Smithsonian vs. NY Museum of Modern Art. Both are great museums - however the Simthsonian is a museum enabled by Congress for the betterment of the nation. MOMA is a world class museum located in NY. Both are treasures, but one (the Smithsonian) was explicitly created by the US federal government. That aside - I would argue that generally this kind of protection would be worthwhile for other prominent non-profits as well. We all want to see people who hurt kids punished and we all want to see the victims of abuse supported. Yet, it does not do the kids of the United States any benefit to destroy the Scouting program. Our country continues to need Scouting to help support the growth our our kids. At a time when Scouting should be focused on how it should grow and evolve, it is instead hunkered down, fighting lawsuits, fighting for survival. This does absolutely nothing to benefit the kids of today or tomorrow. If there are other nationally prominent non-profits that are dealing with this kind of problem I would theoretically support a cap on the statute of limitations for them as well. Again - this is all a pipe dream because Congress isn't prepared for this kind of display of leadership.

I would like to see legislation that limits extensions of statue of limitations for federally chartered organizations. Here we have a nationally chartered corporation whose ability to fulfill it's legislated charter is now in doubt because states have extended the statute of limitations to levels beyond what is practical for what is largely a volunteer organization. Congress should recognize that this action by the states is causing harm to the ability of these kind of organizations to meet their charters. Having a reasonable duration on the statute of limitations for a congressionally chartered corporation (say 10 years) would still allow the states to ensure that the corporation is following current law and that volunteers and employees of the current organization are held correctly responsible for their actions. Limiting the duration of the statute of limitations to something reasonable would enable the federal corporation to predict it's ability to meet it's congressional charter and not be continually responding to actions by people involved with the corporation years ago. Congressionally chartered organizations like this have a unique ability to have a long corporate lifetime which makes it unusually susceptible to problems like this. It's in the best interest of the people of the United States to enable these corporations to fulfill their congressional obligation while still being reasonably held accountable for the actions of it's contemporary volunteers and employees.

I know, but I still hope.

I wonder what happens if the TCC tries to pull various COs affiliated with major relgions into this. Does the national leadership of these various organizations then get engaged and try to push back? I really wish that congress would put a stop to all this.

In content - probably essentially. I wouldn't ask the adults to work through the program though - I'd do it much more interactively. Have a Saturday morning where a knowledgeable Scouter teaches all the ins and outs of using an axe and creating an axe yard. For volunteers I think you have to increase the interaction and make it more hands on. That groups needs to add some fun and socializing to it. In a sense there has to be a distinction between work and Scouting.

My single favorite moment from Cub Scouts was when my son''s Bear den leader taught knife skills. He spent three whole meetings on it. Week 1 - he brought in the largest selection of knives I've ever seen. Hunting knives, cooking knives, utility knives, you name it. He explained blade construction. He explained handles design. The scouts got to handle everything and see how they worked. He then taught the boys how to sharpen a blade. He had more sharpening stones than I've ever seen. He explained how to remove gauges and how to progress through different stones to get the best edge. He explained why you need oil on a stone. He had every Scout try it. Week 2 - he taught the scouts how to handle and cut with a knife. I learned things in that meeting as the asst. den leader that I use in my kitchen every day. How to hold food with the tips of my fingers pointing down. He explained how different knives were better for different applications - how a scalpel is good for cutting skin, how an kitchen knife is good for food, how a hunting knife good for splitting bones. Week 3 - the scouts worked on carving different substances. There were no games those weeks, no other advancement. It was a serious discussion with a bunch of 9 year olds on how to use knives. You know what - they loved it. To this day, the depth of knowledge he shared was amazing. If I had my way, that's what we'd do with adults too - not try to condense learning to use an axe to an hour or do it online.

I'm not attempting to suggest that you are saying you don't want female leaders or girls in the program. I'm pretty sure from earlier conversations you're happy that we have both in Scouting today. My deepest regrets and apologies if you perceived otherwise. I'm just proud of the fact that we have leaders and scouts of all different genders in Scouting today. In fact, when I talk with my wife (who is a girl scout leader), I often point out that we have as many female leaders as we do male leaders in the program. I think that's a really good thing. In fact, many of the Scouters who I respect the most are women. I do get the point you are making. The way I took it was that for a long time continuity in the Scouting program occurred because kids in the program turned into leaders in the program. With a high percentage of leaders having a youth BSA Scouting background, it led to a pretty consistent program. As the percentage of leaders with a youth BSA background dropped, we saw less consistency in the program. New leaders without a Scouting program began to "guess" and "interpret" what they were supposed to do. Regardless of why this transition has occurred, I don't doubt that it has. Myself, I believe that the BSA has relied too much upon leaders showing up with prior experience. It made the BSA unprepared for the time when leader development really mattered. When that occurred, the BSA wasn't (and still isn't) prepared for it. That the BSA training program today is essentially a few online orientation courses and a one weekend overnighter speaks to how little this is understood. Scouting needs more in-person training, more in-person roundtables, more commissioners who understand how to mentor newer scouters. Scouting need COs to develop stronger units so that those units have enough continuity and senior leadership to effectively run an unit. Scouting needs a stronger development program for senior Scouters like we were discussing. If I had my way, I think there's a whole shift in mindset that needs to occur. Encourage experienced leaders to share their knowledge. Make roundtables work again by having them be hands on, Scouter workshops. Make roundtable a series of four 15 minute talks by experienced Scouters where they teach and share knowledge. Bring back Scouting magazine - but have it be filled with article after article with "how to" stuff. Make the BSA the role model in outdoor adventure for kids. Create such an adult learning environment in the BSA that adults want to attend roundtable just to talk about gear and adventure. Stuff like that...

Nope. And I don't think that more girl moms or more boy moms are bad either. I've always found the best indicator for success in Scouting is a desire to be a great leader. I'm thrilled with the diversity we see amongst the leaders.

Holy cow! They sing it that often outside of Wood Badge. Yes, I think (and really hope) that it's something specific to your council. I first attended Wood Badge about ten years ago and have never seen it done outside of a Wood Badge event. I would mind the council events because it's not an appropriate venue for something like that. It's not that I think it's bad or should be hidden - but almost never do people outside of a group think traditions like that are as fun as the people do in the group. Building resentment like that only cheapens the thing you are trying to hold up as special. I'm perfectly happy to swap the word entrenched for enthusiastic. You've captured well what I was thinking.

By bling, I simply meant that we're used to getting patches, t-shirts, and other similar items for attending events. Go to camporee, get a patch - that kind of thing. This is why I don't mind a few items for a specialty training like this. On the topic of showing off I'm a bit more restrictive myself. I believe our culture should be consistent and that we shouldn't ever show off. 5-10 minutes for a beading at any meeting - regardless of whether it's pack meeting or a roundtable. I don't think it should ever be a big to-do. That said, I don't think we should ignore adult accomplishments. If anyone does something noteworthy, let's celebrate it.

Thanks for the great feedback. This is where I'd really love for the BSA larger structure to foster this kind of initiative. A council would pioneer this, show value, then the area, etc... At some point, BSA national could internalize this and roll it out more broadly. We really shouldn't need to wait for national for this kind of thing. As an advanced course, I would consider the topics advanced. I would not tone it down at all for those committee members who want to attend the advanced Scoutmaster course. If that means you only hold it every other year or that it becomes an area course - so be it. Make the course matter.

I find that sometimes the more enthusiastic Scouters tend to forget how that enthusiasm can come across. Just because people who are into Scouting enjoy something doesn't mean that everyone else does too. I've seen lots of stuff that Scouters do that to a casual parent is indeed pretty odd. I do not believe it is ever appropriate to sing the Wood Badge song outside of Wood Badge. It's not a show, it's not a production. Don't sing it at a beading, don't sing it at a campfire. It's a tradition of the course that is done for the enjoyment of the participants. Do it with other Wood Badge participants and enjoy it together - don't make others sit through it.

@Eagledad - thanks for the wonderful post. You've captured a lot of great points here. How to improve Wood Badge - I agree with you that it would be a better course if the material naturally helped paint the bigger picture. I've watched course directors work hard to build those connections amongst the staff. I can certainly confirm that doing it well is a benefit, but that not every course will have a course director who can do that. How to revamp BSA training - I see a very similar problem in the BSA. There is a lack of depth of knowledge at the unit and district level these days - to your point those senior Scouters who make this all work magically. You describe that very well and I concur. In a sense, I wonder how much of the various training efforts around the BSA are really all trying to address this issue. I would welcome an advanced unit Scouter course that covers the mechanics of unit level Scouting. In fact, I could see a small collection of such advanced, in person courses. A weekend or two for each sounds correct to me. These are serious courses for serious people. leadership development & team building advanced Scoutmaster training advanced unit mechanics advanced district mechanics While I don't think I'd lobby for it, I also wouldn't argue if the Wood Badge regalia went back to the advanced Scoutmaster training.

This is where I sure hope that local training teams are showing the value of local training. In-person training is usually better than online training. The one time in-person training isn't better is when the in-person training is crappy.

Is the virtual IOLS because of Covid? That was the impression of the point of the virtual ILST/ILSC I saw on that facebook page.

What keep striking me in many of these comments about Wood Badge is that I feel like I'm seeing a world painted that I just don't see. I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong and perhaps that's what it is. I have a suspicion that there's another possibility - we're seeing differences in how our councils operate. I only signed up for Wood Badge because I'd heard about it in my youth. When the flyer came around, it rang a bell and so I said - hey, this was a big deal for the ASM of the troop I was in as a kid, I should look at it. No one ever mentioned it to me. I've been to enough roundtables and district committee meetings to know that Wood Badge gets mentioned maybe once or twice a year. There is next to zero arm twisting in our council The staff on our courses is very well prepared and work exceedingly hard. They put in tons of hours and have a very high level of integrity in the course. Selection for Wood Badge staff is almost entirely by merit and reputation. Good staffers then continue on to staff again. I rarely see any kind of Wood Badge show. I only see WB regalia at the occasional council recognition event, round table, or other large council function. Wearing beads is hit or miss - even amongst staffers I see almost no selection for district or council level positions because of Wood Badge experience. I write all this out not to suggest that you are wrong - not at all. But, I wonder how much of this goes back to the same, repeated topic here, of we've got "good" councils and "bad" councils in the BSA. Some full of hard working Scouters and some full of cliques and politics. In this dynamic, programs that otherwise are well meaning get caught up and then get blamed. It's not that Wood Badge itself is fundamentally bad - but that "bad" Scouters have soured yet another Scouting experience. Wood Badge is certainly not perfect. It's a training course - it's got good parts and bad parts. If done well, it can be an asset to Scouting. Done poorly, it's detracts from Scouting. This is no different from any program element in Scouting

Respectfully, I don't think this is true. As a staffer myself, I have met very few participants who signed up because they wanted the status. Most folks I know won't invest two weekends of their life and a bunch of extra time for "Scouting status". Most people I know really don't care that much about Scouting that they want some kind of perceived status. Most participants I've talked to say pretty much one of two things: I'm a new leader and I thought this would help me be a better leader I'm an experienced leader and people have been telling me for years I should take it. I had some time this year and so I did. I'm not naive enough to think that there are not places and times where people do take it for status. Yet, for every one of those there are probably many more participants that take it for the right reasons.

Except that it's uh... Scouting. Scouting has all kinds of bling for stuff. It's just part of the culture of Scouting. You plop down $250, spend a couple of weekends at camp, and spend a ton of hours working on some projects for your unit. You get a neckerchief and some beads. That doesn't seem crazy to me that you get a little bling. I am neither an OA member nor an Eagle Scout. I cannot tell you how much I've heard about both. OA chapters, OA lodges, the OA running campfires, OA tapouts, OA ordeals, OA sashes, OA patches, conclaves, etc. The requirements to be an OA member as an adult are more exclusive than Wood Badge. OA is much more of a fraternity than Wood Badge will ever be. The Eagles stuff isn't as strong - but there clearly is an assumption that just because someone is an Eagle Scout that they are a superior leader. I think you described this well. I suspect that the real issue here is that it's simply become an accepted part of Scouter culture that's a good target. It makes us all feel better to pick on Wood Badge and the people who take it. In the process, we end up openly discouraging people from getting some training that could help them along their journey as a volunteer. Again, it's just a course.