ParkMan

In our council only a currently valid YPT is needed to recharter. Your YPT could lapse a month after recharter and the rules would allow it. Of course, once it lapses you are supposed to not volunteer again until you become current. I see most people in our council and amongst our leaders taking YPT seriously. Most of our YPT non-compliance is because leaders simply lapse along the way and then don't retake it until they have to recharter. There was a move at one point to require it be valid for the entire yet. But, when that started volunteers realized that it meant everyone was taking YPT every 12 months. Given the length of the training and the fact that national said it was valid for two years, not one - people complained. It appeared that this experiment stopped. They then tried to recruit district level volunteers who would remind unit volunteers when they went out of compliance. In my mind - this is one of those places where simply aligning the national & council rules would make it easier and would result in better compliance.

There is a simple solution to YPT training compliance - make it mandatory for all your leaders to have current YPT when you recharter the unit. I would encourage a simple solution to get to 100%. When a unit recharters, make it mandatory for every member of the unit to have YPT valid for the entire recharter year of the unit. Extend the length YPT training is good for to 30 months. We need to extend this a bit or else everyone will be taking the same YPT training every year due to point #1. We have to focus on is shifting the conversation of YPT from a council or nationally mandated "thing you have to do", to a Scouter embraced cultural goal. The real point of YPT is to create a culture in the unit where other people notice suspicious behavior by a predator and stop it. I'd submit that YPT isn't particularly onerous or difficult to follow. It's mostly just some common place best practices coupled with some awareness of what to look for. Make the rules unambiguous and also make the rules easier to follow.

I think it would have to start with a shift at the council/district level. The Commissioner corp can be the right group to lead the charge, but we need to stop ignoring and abusing the commissioners. I would start with a few things: 1. Make the Council Commissioner the top volunteer in a council. Same for a district. Today we place a business person in the role of Council President/District Chair. That means the top volunteer is going to focus on what they know - membership, money, and growth. If you made the top volunteer a tenured, uniformed volunteer who had primary responsibility for unit service, that would change a lot. 2. Really focus on the unit support role for commissioners. A Unit Commissioners success is defined by the success of the unit. Unit service is about building relationships with unit. This is not a skill that most Scouters inherently understand. 3. Create a growth path from Scoutmaster/CC to Commissioner. Set the expectation that good Scoutmasters & Committee Chairs become Unit Commissioners. Stop the expectation that unit key 3 members should not be recruited for district service. My understanding is that in the UK senior unit leaders are expected to also have district responsibilities.

If the claimants want the Summit I think most Scouters would be happy to give it up to settle this. How about: claimants get: the Summit and Northern Tier scouts keep: Philmont and Sea Base.

It strikes me that when the CC starts overruling specific decisions like this, we're getting into micromanagement territory. Can the CC - probably yes - the CC leads the Committee which the SM reports to. Should the CC overrule the SM - probably not unless the CC wants to embarrass the SM. Much like my earlier comments, I would think the CC/SM conversation is one of general vision and approach. What kind of troop are we trying to have? What kind of culture do we want to see? This seems like a good example vehicle for the CC/SM to discuss - not so much about whether the SM made the right specific decision - but instead why was this a choice in the first place? As CC, in key three meeting I would bring up two questions: 1. Did the patrol method fail? Why did the PLC not discuss the problem and come up with a solution on their own? Getting Scouts to help at a ECOH seems like a very adult solution to the problem. Really, this should never have even involved the Scoutmaster at all - let alone bending BSA advancement rules to allow it. 2. Why are we bribing Scouts to help in the troop? That suggests that the Troop is doing something unpopular with the Scouts - why is that?

Fair. But it's relegated to a requirement for a rank and it's a handout pamphlet in the Scout book. For leaders, we've got an extensive online training with talks by professionals in the field. It's very sobering and thought provoking. For parents, it's a pamphlet that a youth does with his/her rank advancement. I think for most parents it's a check-box item. I think this is typical: Scout to parent: I need you to sign off on this requirement for my badge. Parent to scout: What is it? Scout to parent: It says we need to talk about abuse of kids. Parent to scout: Ok. You know abuse is bad - correct? Scout to parent: Yes Parent to scout: You'll tell us if anyone does anything bad to you - correct? Scout to parent: Yes, I will Parent to scout: Ok, I'll sign off on it. It's in the category of - no one thinks it will happen to their child. YPT for leaders really makes you think if you are paying attention. I would believe a very sobering version that parents take every year or two would be a good idea. Make parents aware of the signs that they go over in YPT. Give parents steps that they can follow to increase the likelihood of catching a problem.

I think we may be discussing something slightly different - but that's OK. My point was that while this is an important case legally and for public policy, I don't get the sense that this is one of the primary political issues of our day. People are certainly sensitive to and feel bad for abuse victims. There are also a lot of people with a Scouting background. I suspect that if asked 60% of people want to see both sides come out from this ok. Everyone is on board with helping abuse victims. Even from comments here, I gather that people assume that somehow the executives at the BSA or insurance companies will feel the brunt of this. If local kids Cub Scout packs start shutting down because of this I wonder if we'll see a shift in emotions. I doubt that shift will ever be enough to affect legislation, but I'm guessing that in many people's minds we'll see more sympathy.

Isn't the real truth here that regardless of whether it's the BSA or any other activity, no activity can ever ensure 100% safety. 1. YPT is a has best practices an individual should follow. But, it cannot make the individual follow them. 2. YPT has built in checks and balances - but it relies on volunteers to follow them and report concerns. Yet, no parent should ever assume that their child is 100% safe from risk. Don't drop your kid off and assume nothing can happen. Don't place blind trust in the leaders of the unit. Don't neglect to ask probing questions of your child. I would suggest that one of the best things the BSA could do is to have a mandatory 30 minute parent YPT training as well. Just as a volunteer needs YPT to volunteer, so too should a Scout's parent need to sign off that they have completed mandatory parent abuse awareness training. No parent training, no Scout participation in the program.

These are all good ideas. To this I would add: - Have the BSA follow a model similar to Scouts UK where units at a CO are integrated. Have a unified committee led by a single CC. This will provide for a stronger ability to oversee volunteer activities and ensure good practices.

Guess it's just me then. But - I don't think I'd change my point. I don't think this specific case is enough to drive legislative action. Sure, the principle may be something that people still advocate over. Do you really have groups telling you that they want to expand the SOL to specifically go after the BSA in more geographies? Which groups are those again?

I'm looking for some documents that would clarify that. I found a fairly recent annual council charter agreement. It's at: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/523-027_WEB.pdf I see nothing in here that binds a local council to send assets to national if they decide to leave or dissolve. There is the BSA Charter and Bylaws. A copy is at: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Charter_and_Bylaws_June_2019.pdf In the BSA Charter and Bylaws it says: So let's assume that my council had done this and put a section in it's bylaws that says it will send it's assets to national if it dissolves. Couldn't the board of the council simply just vote and change the bylaws? The council agreement is an annual agreement. As such, a local council could just say - we're not going to renew next year, then change it's bylaws, and move on. As I see it - as a separate corporation the LC could easily decide to jump from the BSA to the BPSA. I see as inherent in all this is an assumption that this would not happen. Why else would a council exist if not to be a part of the BSA. But, with all that is going on, I could easily see councils doing exactly that.

Maybe it's just me - but I don't think this case is a big enough deal to influence legislation. The BSA is feels the heat and so will be pressured by publicity. Similarly, this is important to the claimants and so they will feel passionately about it. Like anything, a vocal minority has enough impact to get favorable articles in the press. Yet, for your average person I just don't see that they are that inclined to pick a side here and advocate on their behalf. Everyone is sympathetic to abuse victims. Yet, few people like lawyers. Many people were also involved in Scouting as a kid. It's a no-win situation. This is why I'm expecting a settlement that makes neither party happy, but leaves the BSA functioning.

Agreed - will be interesting to see what the judge says. Without going too far into a tangent, there are two other factors of why this is so muddled: 1) People tend to look at the actions of the employees and not the board. The professionals are structed in a high autocratic model. As such, the culture is one that drives employees to follow the instructions of the Scout Executive. The SE's career path is dictated by national. This drives a lot of uniformity in the professional ranks. The board, on the other hand, is more independent. 2) It's a non-profit It's without doubt that the board signs off on following some national policies too quickly - but it's really just because it's a non-profit and economics are not the driving factor. I gather the legal definition never contemplated a case like this. So to your point, while they are separate, they may not fit the legal definition. I'd submit that the separate legal structure is there - but the professionals in the BSA have really confused it.

I will be very interested to see how the court rules on LCs being legally separate entities. Is there a timetable for that decision? It very much strikes me that the LC are separate - though the BSA's need for brand control and uniformity makes it seem that they are not. We have our own budgets, build our own camps, control our own programming, drive our own membership. We just have to do it all according to BSA policies, have to hire BSA trained people, at the higher levels we have to hire people with BSA experience, and have to have our facilities accredited by the BSA. It almost strikes me that it would be a court decision on how independent individual franchises are in a franchise model.

I was the worst at attending these - even as Troop Committee Chair. There's only so many hours for volunteering and since so many of them were on a Saturday afternoon I was always doing something else. In our troop of 50+, there might be 5-10 Scouts there. To me this was another reason to do them at a Troop COH. Better to have the whole troop there on a normal Scout night to see the event than the 5-10 that knew the Scout well enough to go to their special event.

It's funny - I don't know where that tradition started. Our troop is that same too. I suggested changing it when I was committee chair only to get a very stern "why do you want to mess up our Eagle Court of Honor process." So I left it alone... Sounds like you've got a role similar to another troop I am familiar with - a very experienced Scouter served as Eagle Court of Honor advisor. That made a lot of sense to me.

Good luck! When I was troop committee chair, I used to stress out over getting Scouts to do things. Then I realized two amazing things: Scouts are great at committing other Scouts. It's a wonderful skill for them to learn Scoutmasters have a lot of pull to just say - "I need you to do this at the ECOH". Parents get that and will respond. The kicker is that it's exactly how a Scout led troop is supposed to do it.

Bigger picture comment - I've never been a big fan of parents organizing an Eagle COH. It forces parents to figure out how to put together an Eagle COH everytime and puts a lot of stress on them. In addition, that usually then adds yet another event to the troop schedule. But that's a different topic for another day. If in general attendance is good and this is a one-off, then I would suggest that the SPL needs to appoint a scout to each slot. My specific recommendation: The Scoutmaster requests a list of positions needed from the mom. Scoutmaster turns to the SPL and says - appoint a Scout for each open space The SPL works his/her magic. If the SPL cannot fill the spots, the Scoutmaster appoints people If the Scoutmaster can not fill the slots, then fill them with older Scouts.

If we take a giant step back - the question I would ask is why? Sounds to me like the Scoutmaster is trying to fix a problem (helping at the Eagle COH), but using the wrong tool (service hours). If the Eagle COH attendance is such a problem - why is that? If getting service hours is a problem - why is that? There are probably much better solutions to those problems than - use service hours to get the Scouts to help at the COH. Figure out why kids don't attend the COH. Perhaps make the COH more meaningful or easier to participate in. If service hours are the issue, then perhaps schedule service hours during a troop event to prime the pump. I bet if the Scoutmaster addresses the real issue, it will be better for the troop and the Scouts.

Understood 100%. In the world of optics one can be both proactive and reactive. Yes, in a reactive sense coming to the rescue of the BSA might be a difficult thing - though I'm not sold that's so true. Let's remember that Scouting is a 100 year old organization. Yes, the BSA is struggling now, but many, many people benefitted from it over time. I suspect that there is a great deal more warm feelings for the BSA than many people realize. Putting that aside - in a proactive sense, there is a story that one could tell about how scouting is a good thing. The argument would be that scouting today has been left unchecked and as a result has made bad choices. Congress, by devoting some attention to it, could clean up the issues that concern people and put scouting back on the right path in the United States. Think less "rescue the BSA" and more "rescue scouting for kids from the BSA". America loves a redemption story. Taking something that is motherhood and apple pie and redeeming it can be a win.

I've often wondered the same thing. Seems to me that it would be in the interest to the US to take this category of organizations and give it additional oversight. I think we all would welcome an inspector general as well to oversee the operation and youth protection programs to make sure that they are operating in the best way possible.

There may be some possibilities about the NRA designation - but don't know for certain. I think back to the inclusion of many of the national battlefields. As I understand it, that designation came into being when the NPS inherited the properties from the Army. I'm wondering if a similar thing could occur here - call it a national youth recreation area or something like that. You could even hire the BSA to operate it as a concessionaire.

Thanks for the numbers - this is very useful to have. Insurance is crucial and critical to what we do - it's unfortunate that a byproduct of so much of what happened is the increases in insurance premiums. I suspect that in a roundabout way they will impact the settlement numbers as the BSA will need to figure out how to keep dues manageable enough to attract members, still pay these premiums, and also still pay into the settlement.

My sense is that Philmont is the one HA base that works as a National Monument - though probably not a full park. There might some argument for others such as Northern Tier as a National Recreation Area. The Summit you just annex as part of New River Gorge NRA. It would be a fascinating idea for the NPS to develop some sort of new youth category - be able to use places like Philmont for their intended purpose under the auspices of the ownership of the NPS. Expand Philmont and the other main HA bases so that they can be used by any similar youth organization. The GSUSA for example.

Gotcha - thanks. Myself, I don't even think about national that much anymore. I'm a district level volunteer and so I live in the world of unit health. What national does certainly impacts us, but they more or less do what I need them to do and don't get in the way too much. As part of my volunteer work, I've seen enough at the council level to recognize that we really do operate as a council independently of national. The layoffs we've had locally in the professional ranks have more to do with Covid and membership loss than anything. No one at national is telling us who to lay off or how big the staff should be. The board looks at our budget and cash flow and then works with the SE to figure out the staff we can support. What I'm getting at is whether the BSA execs have meager salaries or giant salaries and drive Ferraris, it really doesn't impact things at the council level. The only thing it really impacts is how big the dues are that we all pay to national are each year. It's without question that we all want to pay less in dues, but it's such an abstract number that I stopped sweating how it might be impacted by professional salaries. My guess is that dues right now are more a factor of insurance premiums than anything. What's going to ultimately kill dues at the national level is what happens with insurance.