vol_scouter

Eagle94-A1, By abusive I mean cursing, screaming, and threats. A polite disagreement or registering of differences is not abusive. Threats are common and death threats not unusual. I do not know what is reported but suspect that a call will not be reported because the caller cannot be identified.

All should realize that there have been hundreds who have lost their jobs at the National Council and Supply so the staff is strained to do their jobs and several others who are not there. Also, most inquiries are now directed to local councils. This new policy does make me concerned about questions being answered uniformly but it has happened.

Tahawk, I outlined that the charter for a council could be revoked or not renewed. So do think that it is a good policy to revoke charters because some volunteers think that a Merit Badge College is too easy despite others, i.e. those doing the MBC see it as appropriate? Really? You would totally reorganize a council for that? Of course not! It is a so called nuclear option. It takes months if not years to work through everything and harms relationships in the council. It should only occur for grievous problems. If the council has an SE who is wishing to move up to increasing larger councils, non-compliance could theoretically harm their ability to be promoted but it is not really very practical because of HR law. So as I said earlier, the only reasonable way to have compliance is the appeal to the local council and volunteers.

CynicalScouter, Not certain how looking up names tells you anything about the volunteer status. Just as your local board members are required to register as members of the BSA, so are the members of the NEC and NEB. My friends on the National Staff get abusive, threatening, and obscene calls over policies. One close friend has received many death threats. Think about that, receiving death threats for a change to a program to help children. It affects those staff because they do not know if any are really serious. Could one of them be killed for doing their job in a children's afterschool program for changing some requirement as directed by others? Do you not think that NEC and NEB members would receive similar emails, calls, and letters? Could it cause really good people to chose not to volunteer? Would you not want to try to minimize the ability of others to abuse NEC and NEB members? I do.

Eagle94-A1, Many of my National Staff friends have many examples of how clear policies and rules that local councils do not follow correctly and that there is no way to compel them to do so except by the means that I noted. National can ask but not compel compliance. I have been on committees that voted in a policy or rule change and have seen some councils not comply. The NEC and NEB make the policies and rules - it is true. They are all volunteers. You do hit upon something that is absolutely true, the NEC and NEB sometimes has additional information that may be sensitive for one reason or another. That is not shared outside the committees because of the sensitivity. There is essentially a need to know standard. So if we had the same data that the committees have, we may have made the same decisions as the committees. There are politics in all organizations. Local councils and the national council are no exception. No doubt that volunteers at all levels feel that they have not been treated well and that might be true. They are all people. Over the years, decisions have been made that the field has not liked. The field takes the attitude that volunteers would not have made that decision so it must be the national staff. That is not the case. Volunteers make the decisions and if one of us had been on the committees and had all the same information that they had, we may have done the same thing. One way or the other, volunteers in Scouting and Scouting professionals are dedicated to the youth whom the program serves. They are always striving to make things better. Most of the time, they are achieving their goal. Occasionally as in all human endeavors, they fall short. In this time of great stress for all of Scouting, it is good to pull together. The National K3, Roger Mosby, Dan Ownby, and Scott Sorrels, along with the NEC and NEB are doing their very best to lead the BSA through this morass. All are giving more time than their predecessors by a large factor. Let us support their sincere efforts even if it might not always be what we personally think is best. For the BSA to survive and lead Scouting back into a leadership position for America's youth, we must all work together and support our leadership.

Tahawk, I have been a national level volunteer and have many national staff friends too. Tico served longer as the National Commissioner than anyone else and has significantly impacted many key decisions. Most of the time, he was successful but occasionally Tico's view was in the minority. Tico is a very dedicated national volunteer who has done much for Scouting and has been and is very influential. I did not say that the National Council will not enforce its rules and policies but rather that it has little power to do so. It has to rely on local councils to enforce the rules and policies correctly as it has no ability to compel compliance. There can be interpretive issues. Ultimately, local councils, districts, and units make the determinations. Whenever asked, the National Council tries very hard to be absolutely consistent. The national staff carries out the decisions made by the volunteers on the committees. Local councils should be led by volunteers who are responsible for following national policies and rules.

To Tahawk, Sorry to get you so upset that you used all capital letters that is said to mean yelling. Was not trying to argue. See below. To Tahawk and Eagle94-A1, Perhaps some of the issue between us that to me in these times, BSA means the National Council. Local councils are independent 501c3 corporations with their own boards that operate largely independently. The contract between the National Council and local councils authorizes the local councils to operate the program. The only actual recourse that the National Council has over the local councils is two things. One is that the National Council can decommission the Scout Executive that means that they are no longer qualified for the position. It is not clear what would happen if the local council Executive Board refused to allow the SE to leave. Probably would be decided by the local councils state laws. The other option is to revoke the council charter that would mean that a new council would have to be formed. Both of those are extreme measures and would never be used because a council is not being rigorous enough in youth fulfilling requirements. So many of the issues between us appear to be that I am exclusively referring to the National Council unless it is specifically called out to be the local council. There is much variability in councils and how they are managed. The BSA has little input into those councils. How they are run depends upon the local Executive Committee and Executive Board. All members of the EC and EB are by definition volunteers. On the national level, all National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Executive Board (NEB) are volunteers by definition. For nearly a decade, I have served on various national committees. All are chaired by volunteers (usually a NEB member), have a single national professional who serves as staff, and only volunteers can vote. All decisions about all policies, program changes, financial issues, human resources, benefit packages, etc (in other words, everything) is made by those volunteers. During the past decade, I have been involved with a Venturing Crew, a Troop, and a Pack. Most national committee members whom I know are still active with units in their councils or have been so within the last few years. Like local council executive boards, the National Executive Board has some members who are not active at the unit level, some may have been Scouts as a youth, but all are very successful in business. All are volunteers - it is required just as it is for local boards. The National Staff carries out decisions of the committees of the NEB. They do not make any significant decisions themselves. Their job is to carry out what the volunteers have decided. The National Professional Staff strictly adheres to Volunteer Led and Professionally Guided, that is the professionals provide input but the volunteers make all of the policy and other decisions. The NEC and NEB volunteers are very dedicated, loyal, sensitive to all points of view, and always want to know how potential decisions affect the youth members. Local councils boards are similar in make up. So the volunteers who are working in the units need to be pro-active. There are 253 local councils and it makes no sense for me to try to defend the actions of which I only know about one - my local council.

Tahawk, Referring to your numbers: 1. Scouting has evolved as society has changed. If it had not and still did the same things with the same uniforms, it would be an anachronism. So sound. 2. Until the 1980's, there was no policy on gays. Ben Love announced a policy (I do not know how that was decided but would imagine that the National Executive Board approved) in the 1980's that aligned with public sentiment at the time. The decision soon came under attack. Dale was an important decision and principle. Retrospectively, the best course would have been to drop prohibitions on gays very soon rather than years after the decision. Research studies have not shown an increased incidence in child sexual abuse in gays than heterosexuals and society had changed in its acceptance of gays. Scouting does not adhere to any religious tradition so a quicker change would have been better. So the appropriate decision though likely delayed more than would have been ideal. 3. That is not my experience in my local council. Cannot comment on other councils. 4. Who determines the recipients of those awards? It is not the National Council but rather the local councils and usually the volunteers who make those determinations. Some councils and districts across the country are more likely to be rigorous. 5. Those problems were decades ago and have been addressed by measures to prevent the fraud. That is why volunteers in the units must sign off on all members - adult and youth. 6. Volunteers DO run Scouting. They chair all national committees, are the only people who can vote, make all policies, make all program changes, determine budgets, etc. Volunteers run the BSA. Many or perhaps most are currently volunteering at the local level or did so in the last few years. 7. This is a very complex and delicate subject that I shall not comment upon at this time. 8. The BSA felt that the SE should be the reporter of YP issues. That was shown to be a faulty policy as some states had begun making mandated reporter laws that meant that those who first find an indication are required to report. The BSA changed the training to reflect that. This happened as laws were being promulgated so was the appropriate action. The BSA has not always made the best decision when viewed retrospectively, but the actions were taken with the best intentions by successful men and women who carefully considered all the evidence and made the best decision at the time. They are good people how are intelligent, successful, and very dedicated to Scouting. They are volunteers who love Scouting just as do we.

The leadership of the BSA is largely center with most leaning to the right rather than the left. They have many volunteers at the national level still working on the unit level. The realities that the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board must address often dictates decisions. For example, the BSA had no policy on transgender Scouts prior to a couple of years ago. At that time, there was a sudden attention paid to transgender youth in the country. The reality was that at that time 16 states allowed parents to change a child's gender at any time and they were protected by the state constitutions. If the BSA did not accept transgender youth, then in those 16 states any lawsuits would almost assuredly be successful in forcing the BSA to do so. Such suits would be costly and the BSA would be negatively portrayed in the media as discriminating against children. There was only one viable option which was the path taken. Personally, I believe that it was the correct one for many reasons including doing what was best for the child. The PhDs that I know in Scouting are all involved or have been involved in the last few years on the unit level. The leadership of the BSA has been and is sound but the current perfect storm of covid-19 and Chapter 11 is a major challenge.

Good point yknot. Such a study must include those who never signed up for a Scouting program but were aware of it; those who were members only for a meeting or two; and those who were longer term members but left early (before aging out or reaching a top rank such as Eagle, Summit, or Quartermaster). The youth in those groups often have inaccurate contact. It would be especially helpful to survey them immediately after they leave and at 12 months but the local council and national do not know that they have left until the next recharter. Only national has the information at all. Such a study would be very costly (millions to do it correctly with scientifically grounded questions and independent researchers at a university) and needs to go on for several years. That is why it has not been done as there is awareness of the need for such a study. Life has always been complex but youth of today have a data rich environment that requires the ability to evaluate the quality of the data and to analyze it. So we have traded manual labor for more challenging intellectual tasks. It is not popular on these forums but youth want to explore their world which today is STEM. Combining STEM into an active outdoor program can be a very attractive proposition. Otherwise, few of the program skills learned in Scouting will ever be used in everyday life. The resilience, grit, character and leadership are applicable but are not things that attract youth.

4-H made a big push in STEM programming and grew by a couple of million. It has been very successful and is meeting a large demand for STEM activities. Both youth and their parents want more STEM programs.

Nicely said, Skeptic.

When this movie was released, I was in high school which is a much different viewpoint than now. Had not thought about the film for many years but I totally agree with you. This is not a coming of age movie but sexual molestation. Society and its leaders justify what they they personally like and condemn what they do not. It is not consistent nor rational.

Barry's last paragraph is a great summary. Please consider it as Scouting goes through a difficult time.

Like Eagle1993, I plan to continue Scouting working with a Scout Reach Pack and Troop. Here is my perspective from what I have read beginning in the 1990's through today. It represents my understanding after integrating all sources that I have found. The youth still need the values and lessons that Scouting teaches. Scouting has benefitted tens of millions of youth to be better people. Scouting has had 130 million individuals in its programs since founding in 1910 so even if one were to round up 100,000 injured that is only 0.08%! Not even a tenth of a percent. This is not to say that that is acceptable but rather to put it into perspective. Also, the cases that were made public in the past showed that many times that actual acts of abuse occurred outside of Scouting. Perpetrators used Scouting as a way to meet children and establish trust. This does not change the reprehensible actions of the criminals but it was grooming most often occurring in Scouting that is much better understood now. Growing up in the 1960's, sexual abuse of children was entering into the public discourse. Of course it had been occurring since there have been people, but 'nice' people would not publicly discuss it. In the 1960's, if a child accused a respected adult of abusing them, it would be the child who was scrutinized for making up the allegations. Let that sink in - it was the child who was not truthful at that time in American history. People cannot put themselves into that mindset but it was the way people thought. It was not until the late 1980's that many states passed legislation to protect those who reported concerns of abuse. Before that, if one reported someone of possible abuse, the reporter could be sued for defamation of character. Had the BSA reported every case, there would have been numerous defamation suits unless the person was convicted of child abuse. If you were a SE and had a concern reported to you, would you really report something that was second hand possibility of abuse (that is now covered by state laws but not before ~1990) and risk being sued for defamation of character risking large sums of money for your council? If you had that possible concern about a volunteer, would you as the SE put the volunteer on a list to keep him from ever being in Scouting again? That is what happened. SE's had to report it but there was no enforced reporting standard so some reports were very short - this should have probably have been corrected in those years long ago. The Ineligible Volunteer File also has people who needed to be excluded for other reasons such as safety issues or not handling money appropriately. The file was never called the perversion file by professional Scouters - that is made up by plaintiffs attorneys to imply malfeasance. The file has limited access but it is important to never allow names to be released for someone who was removed on a suspicion. This system erred on the side of protecting children while acting in the realities of the laws of the day. Such a system is exactly what the CDC is recommending now. One cannot look at things that happened in the past and draw accurate conclusions unless their view is taking into account the norms and values of the day. The actions that others did in the past were doing the best that they could under the laws of the day. One must evaluate their actions with that view - not today's. We believe that we are doing the right thing now in regards to youth protection and we are by today's rules. What if in 30 years, what is required changes and what we are doing now is no longer adequate? Do you want to be judged by your compliance with today's laws and views or some new set that we cannot even predict? We can all say 'why didn't the BSA do some specific thing back in some particular time?', but very good, dedicated, successful, and smart people have been directing the organization. They did their best as would we if in that situation. Also, it is likely that if we were in that seat to steer the BSA at that time and with only the data available at that time, we would have done something similar. Scouting can help to rescue at risk children, allow children with disabilities to find a place to succeed or even excel, provide an ethical and moral code to define their lives, learn teamwork, learn grit and resilience, and learn outdoor skills. Those things change lives. I encourage everyone to continue to work with children and, hopefully, do it through Scouting even if things structurally change.

The majority of the cases are claimed to have occurred 30 or more years ago though the large number reported in the NYT above has not been characterized that I am aware. The time period is important because before the late 1980's, there was liability associated with reporting things such as abuse that was not subsequently supported via a court case. The accused would sue for defamation of character and would likely win. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, states began protecting accusers. If the BSA had reported all of those cases, the councils would have been sued unless there was a successful criminal trial. Ironically, if the BSA had not tried to protect children with the ineligible volunteer files, then it would not likely be in the same situation as it finds itself. The BSA is being punished for doing what was right even though such a list is what the CDC recommends to protect children.

Mrjeff, Building character and leadership is the entire reason for Scouting. If the program is executed as designed, then youth will develop character and leadership. Sure didn't realize that on my way to my Eagle years ago but it worked with me and almost all of the other Scouts in my troop regardless of whether they earned Eagle. Camping, hiking, trying and failing, leading, making mistakes, and working through hardships (at least in the eyes of the youth) accomplishes those goals of character and leadership.

Do you all understand that the response that the BSA sends to the media is edited by that media? The media often (usually) omit much of the positive in a response. The BSA cannot compel the news media to pick up a story so getting ahead of stories or getting positive news out to the public is not something that the BSA can control. Everyone seems to believe that positive stories and effective responses are not being made but that is simply not true. The media tells the story that it wants you to consume, not what is true or accurate.

desertrat77, Others have pointed out how information can be twisted and I noted how the media uses very little positive so the BSA is very cautious about what is published to avoid stories being twisted. Also, if the media does not pick up a story, we will never know about it. vol_scouter

From people who would know, the BSA does provide positive, supportive information but the news media usually chooses not to include those comments. The news media seems to have a point of view on many (most?) articles and provides only the information supporting their point of view. When it comes to science topics of which I am familiar or an expert, the news media never gets a story entirely correct. No sure if that is from a point of view or lack of knowledge but it is wrong. The BSA is trying to get positive information out through responses to articles such as this and news articles that the media simply refuses to publish. Advertising has enormous costs.

skeptic, Like you, Beevah presented clever, thought provoking posts. Miss him on here. vol_scouter

There is evidence in the fossil record indicating a much warmer climate in earlier eras that is not disputed in scientific circles. So a warming period could be a natural process or it could be due to anthropomorphic factors or it could be due to both. It is telling that all, including climatologists, say that they 'believe' in climate change (previously global warming until the CO2 levels continued to increase but the 'average temperature' did not). Who funds climate research? Governments. Do those governments fund research that could disprove AGW? No. Do journals accept contrarian views - in general, no. The first world can keep the third world poor by depriving their citizens of energy by buying them off. On any given day, the temperature difference between Mt Everest and Death Valley is ~80° F (~44° C) or even worse if one considers temperatures averaging as low as -76° F in the Antarctic mountains would make the temperature range more than 140° F (~78° C). Considering such large differences in daily temperatures across the globe means that cleaning a daily global average temperature is not valid to the 10th let alone the 100th of a degree C - it is ridiculous. In a large lecture hall, we might talk about the temperature as if it is constant and the same throughout the room. However, simply walking from the floor to the back row demonstrates a temperature gradient as hot air raises. So even the tiny volume, compared to the ground atmosphere, of a large lecture hall does not have an easily definable temperature. One would need many probes throughout the room. Stating an average temperature of the earth is nonsensical. Climate science is not a real science but is an observational science. Science is doing experiments while controlling certain variables but climate science is entirely observational. We cannot control any variable in the climate and observe how the climate changes. We can do that in models, but not experimentally. So it is not a classical science (neither is astronomy, cosmology, and others). So all climate work involves modeling and observing if the models fit the actual changes. Modeling is only as good as the underlying equations. There are 23 major climate models - think about that, there is not one but 23 models who do not all agree. Like the hurricane models where there is considerable differences due to different models using different assumptions. The hurricane predictions are generated by taking a visual average. If models cannot predict near time events, they cannot correctly predict long term events. So when climate models fail to predict near term events, they are not valid. Is there a connection between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? It is likely but it might not be as large an effect as thought. CO2 is about 0.04% of the atmosphere - it is a tiny part. The strongest greenhouse gas? H2O - water. It is very difficult to model H2O so most models do not account for it. Our climate is nearly entirely driven by the sun but sun variances are usually not taken into account. Climate change is more of a religion and is not treated as a science by the scientific community. This is seen by the ridicule even to which the very best scientists are subjected. Science encourages questioning. The high energy physics community had theories other than the standard model and were a little sad that the Higgs boson was found. If climatology was a real science, then it would welcome questions, concerns, and alternate explanations. In science, there does not need to be a consensus statement as the truth becomes obvious. Consensus statements have been notoriously wrong. All that to say that models do not agree and the predictions are not valid to make policy. Should we heed the warnings? Probably a good idea. Should the US destroy its economy, decrease its standard of living while paying the second largest economy and largest polluter, China, as per the Paris accords - does not seem like a good idea to me. vol_scouter

TAHAWK, The BSA still has boys doing Scoutcraft in single gender troops. So the BSA is still fulfilling its congressional charter. Adding single gender girl troops affords more youth the character and leadership development of Scouting. That is good. vol_scouter

No matter what the registration is for 2020 and beyond, I will continue to work with an inner city pack and troop. The youth need Scouting and I am helping to fulfill their needs.

From what I have seen, the BSA has NOT lobbied against changes of the Statute of Limitations (SoL) as is clearly stated in this release: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6444251-Boy-Scouts-of-America-Statement-to-USA-TODAY.html that was posted in response to this piece on USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/10/02/catholic-church-boy-scouts-fight-child-sex-abuse-statutes/2345778001/. The references in the article by my read are to individuals not working for the BSA who have not agreed with extending the SoL. One has the right to support or oppose legislation as a private citizen while the member of a group without the group asking for one's involvement. That seems to be the case here.