skeptic

Thanks. For those that knew/know, that is pretty high praise, and I am not sure I meet that level. Still, I appreciate it.

A new thread is developing on "Talk About Scouting" authored and offered by Mike Walton, the developer of the site. It is sort of a wish list or if I could list; If I were in charge. While it is focussed on the BSA, it leaves an option to include other youth-serving groups, such as GSA or Royal Rangers. It promises to be a good discussion I think.

Wow, there is a connection of this thread clear back to "Beavah" in 2013. I often wonder what happened to him. I always found his often tongue in cheek method of comment refreshing, yet also very direct and on point. In relation to the current discussion, it occurs to me that this may be a good place to simply "let go, and let God".

I do not know if there are any actual noted National board members that read these forums. But I would personally think we should invite them to do so and to even on occasion help with clarifications and correct details if needed at times. Of course, we might need to try and keep the more irrational posters to not then attack them and not be scout like. Just a thought.

***UPDATE***** For those of use who have been following the long-drawn-out conversation regarding the background check.... After one of our fellow users revealed to me who the BSA was contracting. ( Incidentally nobody in Irving would give me that information)... I reached out and have a nice conversation with 2 different employees of the company and was directed to several valuable pieces of information that have satisfied my concerns regarding the background check....... I will summarize to keep it simple and post a link to their website where you can read the.... 1st....First advantage, enterprise. Is primarily a screening agency for new and existing employees of organizations in over 200 countries. 2nd. I confirmed By reading their declared policies and by conversations with 2 separate employees that they are limited to accessing the data that the client requests. 3rd. I discovered that in their own writing and through the same conversation that their organization does not in any way shape or form sell personal data to any other organization that is not an authorized customer or client and does not have a need to know that information..... In other words if Google tried to contract them for personal data you would have to have a separate authorization and you can opt out. Furthermore creditors and debt collectors are not allowed access to the information without your consent for those of you who were concerned about that part of it. 4th When I press them about mode of living... They are able to ascertain if somebody is for example living in a homeless shelter or has significant socio economic disadvantages..... And yes they are able to identify marriage records for people who Are gay and have legally registered a marriage..... However since the BSA has stated they will only be requesting information that is related to somebody is criminal and driving record.... The BSA will not be granted access to any mode of living information. 5th 1st advantage States very clearly that if any client is found to be using the background information for unauthorized or even nefarious purposes they will be scrutinized and terminated as clients from 1st..... In other words if the BSA goes back on its word and starts looking into people's personal financial information they can be held both legally and financially responsible for the damage as well as being terminated from 1st advantage. So the final general understanding is that 1st advantage is a world recognized... Has top echelon security in place for data.... Limits itself by contract with its client to what data will be accessed and released to the client..... And does everything in its power to maintain security and privacy over the information to prevent 3rd party or 4th party tertiary sources from having access to it..... I was able to get all that information in less than 30 minutes of research.... I strongly feel that had Irving release the same information when they 1st came out with this background check we would have avoided the last 3 months of heated and often crazy conspiracy level discourse...... As I said above I am now comfortable and confident in the nature of this background check and him happily signing it..... For those of you that still Unease..... I strongly encourage you to call 1st advantage and have a conversation and look through their website they are very very open about disclosing. Thank you for your time in reading and I wish you all the very best and 2020 Read First Advantage Corporation's Privacy Policy. First Advantage is committed to the responsible use of information and protecting privacy rights. FADV.COM Privacy Policy | First Advantage Read First Advantage Corporation's Privacy Policy. First Advantage is committed to the responsible use of information and protecting privacy rights. Read First Advantage Corporation's Privacy Policy. First Advantage is committed to the responsible use of information and protecting privacy rights. 88

I have felt for years that the highest paid people in National, and even in larger councils, could absorb as much as 50% (or more) and still be able to have a comfortable income. The savings could be partly pushed to the lower levels, mostly in the councils where they beg for qualified people, but cannot pay them enough. Benefits could be frozen or held to increase only at the cost of living, at least over a certain pay level. Lower end employees might actually deserve an upward change. Lower-level jobs in the councils might need a cost of living addendum, but only to a point. They all should learn, so to speak, the Personal Management merit badge. Part of the adjustment should also be channeled into local councils, but only to be used for the benefit of local camps. Keeping the remaining local camps open and properly maintained is a critical issue, from my perspective, and it should partly fall the larger organization, as those properties "can" be used by other members of the group, and are paramount to success at the local levels. Frankly, anyone with basic income above a quarter million, plus valid benefits, should be able to maintain a very descent living and family support. That might need a slight adjustment for the very highest COL areas, though I live in one of the most expensive parts of the country, and if I made even a quarter million and benefits, I would be in pretty good shape. Need and want and perspective on the world.🤔

Where was the breakfast; I am always up for that. Do I need a red coat? Have one "official" and two event lights.

On the other hand, unless there is something particularly concerning in the school, or on occasion a job, you would think the references would be chosen with care. Our biggest issue is usually the religious reference, especially since so many scouts are no longer family based in a belief or established church. We accept even a parental letter supporting that point of reference, though ask that they try to get beyond if possible, with connected family member or familiar adult that may have an ability to weigh in on it. But, in the end, we cannot hold a candidate back based on the lack of a suggested refernce or comments therein, though they can possibly in a rare instance cause a more in depth evaluation. Back to common sense and a bit of flexibility when needed.

In our districts and council they are destroyed after the completion of the board. I know that the letters I write, as SM, on occasion have contained straightforward evaluations of certain elements, some of which might be seen as less than totally positive. From my perspective, that is the point of the letter. I also know, having sat on dozens of boards, that most SM letters are two lines or so, rather than the two to three paragraphs I generally share. I can also state that 99% about of the letters I have read over the last 30 years sitting on boards have been pretty straight forward positive. A few give some new direction to review on the board itself. And some simply just reinforce the reason the young person is there in the first place. Reality would suggest that the candidate should not be going before a board if there is something truly alarming or questionable in the run up to completion. And that is where the functioning unit should play a part. We have had a few discussions here about SM or CC refusals to sign apps. Most likely, that would be where the issues should be dealt. JMHO of course.

Another instance where possible lack of proper supervision could end up with some kind of injury. People get overly exuberant, especially kids, and at times do stupid things. Most of us may have suffered the pain of a hit of snowball in a sensitive place on our bodies. We likely know or have heard stories of frozen snowballs and ones with "thing" inside. But, with proper supervision, most of this can be avoided and if it does occur, be dealt with. Then that means adults and older youth may need to take some responsibility for the safety, and that is where the modern problem lies. Lawsuits smolder in the background, their prosecutors just waiting for the opportunity and right scenario. And that puts us into the GtSS's content on projectiles. So we are back to the constant modern conundrum. Do we react responsibly, but still allow actual snow fun, or do we simply ban it all and sit in a cabin or house wasting away, but theoretically safe. The question may then be, are we emotionally safe when we allow such overkill to hinder simple fun and common sense? I do not have the answer, just the thoughts. The constant balancing act to stay rational and not perpetuate the bubble worlds too many people, especially kids, live in.

These old files can be great. Did anyone else smile a little at the article about pistol registration not going well?

While it is not the norm, I would suggest that there may be a few youth that earn a multitude of merit badges and yet never go beyond the lower ranks. Eagle IS NOT the goal of the program, as has been noted over and over. How much are we disenchanting a boy from simply enjoying the breadth of options in the merit badge program if we push too hard for rank? Most of us that have been around a while likely have stories of very successful young people that stayed with us through high school, and maybe even beyond. Yet they never became Eagle. When you have the privilege of simply visiting with them twenty plus years later, they all still talk about how this or that skill or merit badge had a particular impact. A few will say that their adult work started with the introduction of a lesser earned merit badge. Of course, the history of the program shows vignettes of First Class Scout as being the pinnacle, especially in England. Even the BSA early merit badge books focused differently with their titles; "Be Prepared for"

I find myself torn a bit on this general subject of merit badges and how the scout approached it or is approached. First, it really should be the scout doing the approaching in some manner. Whether he/she does that through a formal "class" setup, or does it independently is often contingent on the badge itself, as well as the scout's true interest in it. If it is one of the "required ones", chances are that the view of the scout is different than his doing, say stamp collecting because he like stamps and enjoys learning more about them. Or, it a scout has from an early age made it his focus to eventually become a specific type of scientist or scholar, their approach is going to be different than one that comes to it as part of the troop group approach, summer camp goo often gimmes, or introduction through a fair. How does the counselor approach the badge and the scout? Is there an interaction, give and take, and a challenge to reach slight beyond the mere basics? Is there actual discussion of the pertinent points, for example, what makes a library a place of learning when discussing the scholarship merit badge. What does the scout think about what is actually written in the Declaration of Independence, and have they actually read it? We are called counselors for a reason, and not simply signers of copied information. Work sheets are wonderful as a base, but we still need to review them with the candidate and discuss where it, especially where that is what the requirement actually says. So what if the scout might need a followup or two. Of course, that reputation is likely one of the reasons I seldom get scouts for Citizenship badges anymore, as I DO challenge them beyond the regurgitated form in their hot hands. All this thrown against the wall, we really are closer to the same basic issues when compared to the past. Counselors were often not really screened to determine if they even should be working with some subjects. It was assumed in the fifties, at least where I was, that most school teachers were good to go for many badges, as long as they had the requirements in hand. Was that assumption good or bad; it is hard to say. I know when I did reading, my teacher insisted on my doing it properly, even though I was the star reader in his class. Similarly, even though at the time I was an A student, I still had to write the essay and actually meet with the principal before I could be finalized. Even Automobiling, my very last one, was more than passing the written test and doing hands on driver training. My high school DE teacher made me discuss certain parts of the code, and even change a tire for him. But none of those people bach then were necessarily specialists, it was accepted that they were interested and would be honest in their approach. We can beat this to death, as is the wont on these forums. Ultimately it is still how the various players view the badge and the guidelines, and how willing we are to actually expect those guides to be used.

And I may have been a bit harsh as well. What I meant to try and say is that we need to all temper our selves at times, especially our knee jerk, rush to judgment. I see the proposed program as positive, as noted already. But it too needs to be monitored and tweaked to work for the specific group. And, part of that monitoring is keeping the youth in the leadership at the Scout level and above. The Philmont program appears to basically be an extension of what has been offered at PTC for decades, and many youth that participated in those PTC groups went on to become adamant, enthusiastic outdoor people. Before the changes to two deep, I twice took youth from my unit that could not go on a trek do to various reasons along to my training weeks and they participated in the program. I had one senior scout in college and an Eagle hired off the trail one summer, and he then returned the following year for the full term on staff. Not every program will work for every unit. Some may need a lot of adjustments. But, to write them off without even trying them, or because we think they are wrong is not the best approach from my perspective. As far as "younger", I likely have been around longer than most on this forum now, having passed my 3/4 birthday and received my fifty-year pin. My doctor told me to stop backpacking, but I still do summer camp so far, and an occasion drive-in. For some reason, after a stroke in 2015 some think I am too old.

I frankly am confused by the response by so many on here. I was at PTC in June and actually spoke with the National Commissioner and her husband, and their grandkids. Granted, it was the NC, but the kids were seriously excited and looked forward to returning. I spoke with another family with younger kids, and they too were excited about going beyond the family level. Yes, you can do "family" camping on your own, but far too many do not. Give them a bit of an entry with a few easy introductions, and suddenly we may have more enthusiasm and interest. They are looking to put the outing back into scouting, and when they do, they open a door to a more adventurous level. Surely, some will never get beyond the training wheels, but others will do that family hike and see options far more challenging, both kids and parents. What is it about the constant naysayers, especially when they have not even had any real involvement with the new option? For years we have struggled to keep kids in the program while combatting family overlap. Now, they are offering a more structured window to this, and it is a window, and many are knocking it. Get over your attitudes and find ways to extend the program with a little nudge after this easier intro.

While I am not able to verify, on another forum, "Talk About Scouting", one poster shares this: "Richard Pennington I am suspicious of this. Seems very unusual that it took place in April and in November it comes out, but only on very odd and little known sites. Plus he posted the article he wrote himself in the PSA group on facebook, almost like a self promotion thing." So, perhaps someone here can expand on this as well. I do know that there are people out there that are doing there best to undermine BSA, no matter what. I was at PTC in June, and the facility was full. I also am not the expert, but I have been led to believe that the ranch cannot be sold anyway. It would revert back to the Phillips family. Of course, that might only apply to the original parts, and it has had a number of additions since.

TOPICS SURVEYS & RANKINGS CASES & VERDICTS PEOPLE & COMMUNITY ALL SECTIONS Analysis Revisiting 'Boy Scouts of America v. Dale' and the Right to Discriminate How the Boy Scouts’ court victory to exclude gays defeated the organization and is instructive in the struggle for LGBTQ rights today. By Thomas H. Prol | November 14, 2019 at 10:00 AM Bigstock. In 1999, a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey read as follows: This is what I am getting on both the link just shared and the one that comes up in the original post. I can see no way to actually get the article unless some kind of registration occurs. Maybe I am missing something. Want to continue reading? Become a Free ALM Digital Reader. BENEFITS OF A DIGITAL MEMBERSHIP: Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days Access to the entire ALM network of websites Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing Search by a wide range of topics REGISTER NOW *May exclude premium content Already have an account? Sign In Now

Cannot find a way to actually read the piece. Is there another link I am missing?

Seems simple enough and really no real change if we can get past various biases. Any youth between the ages of 5 and 18 can be a scout in some manner or group, and any adult that chooses to be YP trained and follow the rules of YP and the group as a whole may be involved in mentor capacity, with or without family members. All will "do their best" to live their lives in the reflection of the basic tenets of Scouting shown by the Oath and Law. Adults will put the needs of the youth first, and youth will strive, though living the noted tenets to be the best citizens and members of society that they can, accepting the challenges and respecting others. How is that? Are we close?

I meant to suggest that they are now under the umbrella of Ventures, so that is where the new rates would be listed. Historically they are the oldest senior scout program, predating all the other various programs, such as Explorers, Air Scouts, Rovers, and so on. Thanks for clarifying it.

That is what might happen if you overcorrect to solve problems. Add to it the misunderstanding of many regarding OA and Native American cultures, and you end up with the proverbial milk-toast. I have posted before that the main issue I see is, as you put it, the gimme and no limit elections. But, it is mostly the lack of true mystique due to the fear of "secret societies"and the flack regarding regalia that seems most damaging. Pure lack of pride also often seems present to me. When we old guys were inducted, ceremonies not only had the regalia, but all of the players knew their parts without reading them. Ordeals had consequences if candidates chose to violate the restrictions. I have no answer though. Maybe I am becoming too jaded.

I did Google his name, and I got nothing that current. Of course, that just shows the Post as not using verified information. From the older posts, it would indicate he has and had issues with National decisions and stated them. That is his right. But I do not care how long he might have been in Scouting. His quote is misleading and ignores most of the facts. For me, he is simply continuing to grind his axe related to decisions about which he is and was unhappy. His comments do nothing to actually help the situation. JMO of course.

Other than being Yellow Press, what does the NYPost have against the BSA? They appear to simply look for reasons to bludgeon us. This is irresponsible and misleading, as seems to be their regular mode of writing. They use similar tactics to attack some politicians and click bait targets. They are at least somewhat partially responsible by printing overly hyped stories that infer unproven things and skew the truth, while encouraging the ambulance chasers. Just my view, but seems pretty obvious that someone there has personal issues with BSA.