skeptic

Well, since we have the ubiquitous note at the article's end that Skylar is considering legal action. Who would have thought that would not pop up? Back to the legal morasses we create with our "creative" system.

This is a very odd perspective to me in scouting. Not sure what you mean by this. I do not see a program or council wide concern regarding safety rules, other than the foolishness relating to basic tool use and age, especially if properly suprevised. I know of no Scouters that have serious issues with helmets, knee and arm guards, proper foot wear, eye protection, shooting safety rules, and so on. Now restrictions on certain games is another story, as it is so vague. Again, we do also have the concerns with litigation that rise up regularly. So, for example, the old king of the mountain, or dog pile is frowned upon and basically banned. Overprotection can be a disservice to youth when it does not allow them to test themselves. I may be missing something, or maybe my age perspective is showing?

Seems to me that once again we really are stymied by our ridiculous legal system. The constant fear of law suits does not contribute to reporting things that are not absolute.

Uniforming is only a tool, and even on the youth level NOT required. The units can choose their "uniform", and it does not have to be a class A type, in reality. We hark back to the days when the majority of units likely had little more than a neckerchief, and makeshift bits and pieces. Scouts were encouraged to save to earn a uniform. But, few early units would have been able to pose as a group in the recognized "uniform" of the period. While we encourage a complete uniform, and we have a substantial closet, we are sort of a waist up unit, as the youth outgrown pants far too quickly, and while we have shorts and such in the closet, the sizes are a challenge for older scouts especially. Many Scout groups around the world are similar, in that they have that absolute minimum of a necherchief over a simple shirt, often withouth any patches.

This might overlap with the other attempted discussion of what we might like to see, or feel is important for improvements. Can they develop some type of background check method that can apply to those sort of "in between" adults? YP, period, and then background to include proper reference contacts? But, they do not pay for full membership, but rather a lesser fee to cover the legal clutter? Reality still applys. We need to not ignore warning signs or fall back on the good guy, well known disconnect. The two deep and no one on one with a youth are critical, and that applys to parents also. Our unit has struggled for years, due to our makeup with lesser opportunity families, to assure a youth is not left stranded, and if is, that we have a mechanism to safely get them to their guardians. And I have a few times been concerned that once we got the youth to their place of residence, that they would be okay, based on our knowledge of the home situation. Thin lines, and hard decisions once in a while, over time. It is sad that I am not overly confident that the child protection departments in many of our government entities are that "safe". We read of many night mares, many that seem repetitive and getting kicked down the road. Meanwhile, we, as an organization are being ravished by the unbalanced and impossible expectations of "absolute" safety or else.

Unless I am confusing it with one of the many others I have read over the past decade or two, it discusses the interactions of professionals in the early days, including their often running the summer camps and having real interactions with real commissioners.

Have you read the book The Scouting Party"?

Connected to my tale was the year I voiced the idea that the middle level managment and office people that worked in the various regional and district offices should be put into the stores at the peak times when getting proper coverage was a serious challenge. My thought was, of course, that they would reconnect a little with the reality of the customer. Of course I was told I was nuts, even though most of those same workers were given holiday time off because their jobs were in hiatus pretty much. Sound familiar to one suggestion here?

I find this current disconnect discussion interesting, as when I was a retail manager for a large company, they began the top down nonsense. Most of the ones making these decisions once worked in stores and faced their market users in some manner. And, at the store, and usually the next "level" they were aware of the realities of everyday interactions with both staff and customers. But, then came the idea that it is cheaper to manage from above and it began the slow fall to almost oblivion. Local stores no longer were able to viably serve their local needs, and specific departments were told to buy such and such in particular group estimates of volume. This in turn, caused serious markdown issues in many stores whose cleientel was not responsive to the products. Service had been a mainstay for decades, and specialty areas had true professional "associates" that were expert in their lines and worked on a commission basis. Most made far more that way than a simple clerk, and they did it by "selling" the products to the matched patrons. But, of course, some made too much money, even though it was earned by moving the merchandise, and so they changed the pay design and most of the experts either left or retired if they could, and many had many years. But the sad thing is, was that what worked was not built upon, but rather cast aside for "modern" concepts. That is how I was let go as a specialist jewelry manager after 20 years. Ironically, the year they eliminated my job, our department had led the L.A. market in every category of profit and sales, and we were in the top five in the nation. Yet, I lost my job, as specialty managers were not needed anymore. And, those tactics put them into out of control losses and recently bankruptcy as well. Hmmmmm.

Very possible, people, and boys being of that nature. Today though, the lawyer is in the wings to sue anyone that touched the swing during its manufacture or installation. And it is fifty, fifty it will actually fly and even get a settlement.

Let's face it. This whole thing has been ripe for legal abuses from day one, especially with some of the major players. Again, we need to overhaul the legal processes in this country, as far too often, the cases get hijacked by certain individuals who are not known for high integrity, including bringing in questionable claimees. Justice is not well served if it has a constant dollar sign on it.l JMHO of course. And it does not just relate to this fiasco.

It seems to me that at some point, if we got the movement going, we began to jerk in the swing. That was where we either slowed down, or bailed if we could control (well, maybe not). The physics experts can explain or whatever. Just know I never saw anyone go over the bar, but did see some thrown loose by the jerking.

Depending on how far back they need to go, many recharters were still hand done. That means hand written materials on carboned forms, at one time. Reading some of our units very early charter lists is a study in patience and lots of guessing. Printed rosters only were common going back about 25 years or less.

"If the troops have lost that number of rosters it does not look good. " Not sure why that looks bad. Many troops do not keep historical records, or they purge files over time; if nothing else for space and so on. Now, unit charters that are part of annual recharter, the copies at the Council offices, I do not know if there is a legal time they need to be kept. Most types of files are no more than 7 years I have been led to believe. So, not having them would not be odd. Considering how many emails appeared in my spam box soon after the advertising began, and also the ads coming on FB and other sites where my Scouting involvement was noted, it is obvious that the accumulators were seriously beating the bushes. Even recently I got another ad in my spam list.

I had forwarded this recent item to our local church, who just a few weeks ago told us we are theirs as far as they are concerned, but maybe under the lease option. Now she tells us that should they not arrive at a satifactory agreement, they are being told that too is out the door. A century of service with our church; it is simply maddening. The church loves us, but they cannot put themselves in a position of legal danger, especially as they too, as the oldest protestant church in our city, are struggling. The really sad thing of course is that the mainline churches are at the forefront of working with transients and the less fortunate. Our facility leases to a half dozen or more groups that serve the community social issues. In the next few days, or youth from all three very tiny groups will be helping make cards for seniors, and collecting food for local pantries.

Not to be mean or uncaring, but this is something with which adults simply found a way to deal with it, often with others in the group. But, taking it to extremes and thinking somehow a local, adult confrontation should be handled beyond the immediate unit is extreme, as I see it. Certainly the idea that somehow the National President somehow should be involved is surely not a real expectation, and really maybe not even the local head council executive. Guess I am viewing things from my age perspective. Today, for some reason, many people think they need to find a solution beyond their own interpersonal groups. This often is now seen in families too, where people try to involve outside people in solving their personal problems. I live in a HOA, and we regularly get people that complain to the management and board about so and so, a neighbor, or someone in the larger HOA area. But, they have made little or no effort to actually deal with it, but think the board can fix it, even when there is not a clear infraction, or even absolute eviden ce that a particular person is responsible. And they often refuse to simply call police for trespass or noise disturbances, and even threats. I understand that people often are afraid of any confrontations, especially in our modern society where suing is a first resort, and often people are prone to overreaction and violence of some order. Still, most problems can be solved with direct discussion and compromise. Of course, our so called leaders have no idea how that works either, and meanwhile some people continue to bend rules and even laws with little accountibility.

That she did not include the part where they note that it is still in negotiation and that the No vote recommendation would, and could change if the ongoing discussions reach an agreement. That is sort of important. I have seen other articles from her that also leave bits and pieces out in realtion to the Church ongoing issues, such as the LBQT disruptions.

It might be good to have a complete look at what is shared by the Church on the Methodist Mens' Site, who are responsible for the Scouts. The above is an incomplete and misleading piece, and it does not lend itself to the larger picture. Here is the link to the actual Methodist site, including the announcement. Note the additional comments regarding "ongoing negotiations", as that changes the the picture dramatically. Still a mess, but posting incomplete info is not helpful. https://www.umc.org/en/content/congregations-encouraged-to-vote-no-on-bsa-bankruptcy-plan

No disagreement from me here. But, we are unlikely to see this attitude change much due to our terribly flawed legal system. Many of the lawsuits we see in this country would never even make it to court elsewhere. While common sense appears in danger globally to some extent, in this country it is on life support. JMHO of course, having ridden in pickup beds and not having had a helmet for my balloon tired, coaster brake bike, or for that matter, when I first rode a horse or rolloer skated. No pads either. That does not mean I do not agree that these safety items are not needed, only that overkill tends to lead to rebelling, or simply ignoring.

The reason the Region 12 song was put aside, to be kind, is because it suggested sleeping in the nude, and it sort of snubbed noses at other regions in its chorus. Ane we loved it. I still occasionally sing the original, just for fun.

So, for fun, not whatever contentious opinions might transpire, share some old songs and skits we used before the age of "verybody" is offended, and there is unacceptable innuendo in that skit or song. The old "mine is longer than yours" skit. It was a standard in the fifties and sixties. Or, the original Region 12 song; the one we sang literally to death at the 1960 Jamboree.

https://1funny.com/allan-sherman-performing-camp-grenada-1963/

While I personally understand your point, I feel calling it a lie may be a poor choice of words. To me, it is simply a sloppy use of words. Too many today are unable to write concisely.

Perhaps too much redirection, but I could see a variant of the merit badge that allowed segments for various specialty areas.

Not certain the above is accurate, but if somehow it is, it discourages Scouting brotherhood, sharing with other units in activities. I do not see an issue with two or even three units combining on some activities, both for the needed participation for success, and for the simple concept of Scout Spirit and sharing. IF a CO has reservations, then they can make that decision related to a specific activity. I do not see most having any real issues with other unit events and visiting and participating. Our summer camp regularly attaches occasional provisional scouts to units for various reasons, with the approvals of the other units and the parents. Maybe I am not reading other comments accurately? After all, how would this apply to a Jamboree?