MikeS72

So when you say you have not paid for rechartering, do you mean you have not paid the $75 charter org fee, or you have not paid the fees for each individual Scout to recharter? I could see units where an entire Diocese has not committed one way or another being treated like those of us sponsored by the Methodist Church and not paying the $75, but still submitting paperwork and paying for Scouts and leaders. Without at least paying for the members of your unit, I would fear that once the grace period for submission passes you would no longer be a unit.

A good contingent of UCs is important, and as stated earlier, try to avoid using direct contact leaders to fill those positions. Strong ADCs, particularly those involved in Roundtable are important. Be sure that you have people in place who are not afraid to disagree with you when needed, and above all else, do not let it overwhelm you and become the sole driving force in your Scouting life. We have lost more than one DC who did not know how to delegate and trust his people. That just leads to an ultimatum from the spouse.

From the National Catholic Committee on Scouting: National Catholic Committee on Scouting - Home (nccs-bsa.org)

Fees are prorated, although National's new $25 joining fee is not.

If YPT policies were followed, it should have been very difficult for something like this to have happened. When we did the Protect Yourself Rules adventure with our Cub Scouts, I emphasized repeatedly to them that they can never be alone with any adult at any Scout activity, other than their parents. Not me, not another parent, not anyone. The biggest thing YPT related that I hope comes out of this is the elimination of the 72 hour rule. I have voiced my opinion on this both here, and in my unit, district, and council. Anyone who wants to accompany us on any outing needs to be registered, take YPT training, and be background checked. When I have stated this here, I have on occasion been called out, with some stating that there could be many reasons beside CSA that could cause someone to not want to go through the background check. My view there is simple, and will not change. I do not care why someone might refuse to register due to the background check requirement. The fact that they would refuse it is sufficient to say that I do not want them around my Scouts.

Sounds like this may be something that happened quite some time ago, as Randall Stephenson has not been President of BSA since 2018. Without details, it is impossible to know whether this is something that rises to the level that would get a response from either your District, Council, or ultimately National. They are not likely to step in and get involved if it looks like internal Pack squabbles. If indeed you have been legitimately threatened, I would listen to MattR and let the police handle it.

When did you staff at Boxwell? I attended as a youth from approx. '67 - 71; and staffed at Camp Stahlman in 72, 73, & 74. Did my Ordeal, Brotherhood, & Vigil there, along with Wood Badge.

Not sure what the area is like now, but back when I attended Boxwell as a scout, and when I staffed in the early 70's, there were no high schools near enough to the camp to make that practical. My current council opened a similar facility a few years ago, which is extremely popular with scouts. I can easily see some of them going home after their first exposure to some of the trade MBs and deciding that is something they want to get more involved with, perhaps even leading to a good career. (and isn't that what the MB program should be all about)

As did I 48 years ago.

Since Cub Scouts is family scouting, I doubt that there is anywhere that would easy to find that explicitly gives the ok for parents to drop off and leave, although the fact that only Lion and Tiger require an adult with them at all activities and meeting seems to imply to parents that once they hit Wolf it is ok.

We do the Scout Oath, then the Scout Law, and then the Outdoor Code. The sign is up for all three, as they are done consecutively.

The 72 hour rule applies to any and all persons over the age of 18 who want to camp with a unit. I can see the application with Cubs, as other than the occasional Webelos Resident Camp, they are typically on one or two nights, so no need for that rule to hinder anyone there. Also, Cubs usually are required to have a parent/guardian when the camp. Where the 72 hour rule needs to be reinforced, and IMO made stricter, is at the troop level. I am all for any parent who wishes to accompany a troop camping to be welcome. However, I would really like to see the be required to register, take YPT, and be background checked. Any parent who just wants to observe what their child does on some of these campouts who does not want to register is welcome to come out and observe to their hearts content during the day.

What visible assets do you think the average pack/troop has, that they would 'hide in an instant'? Our pack assets really only consist of a pack flag and an American flag. The troop has the same by way of flags, along with 8 or 9 tents and several patrol boxes filled with yard sale cooking gear. Most of what we camp with is provided by the individual scouts. While I know that there are troops with a lot of high end gear, I feel safe in the thought that the average pack or troop could not raise more than a few hundred dollars, if that, even if they liquidated everything they own.

Unless I misunderstood something, we (UMC units) must still file the re-charter paperwork as we normally do, and must pay the registration fees for each Scout and adult leader. What we do not do is pay the $75 Charter Org fee until at least March 31, provided UMC continues as a Charter Org, in which case we would have to do so through what ever CO we may be able to find. In that case we would not see a surge of payments in April 2022.

I did the adult training module as soon as it was released, and saw nothing (at least to me) objectionable. As for the MB, I would support taking the various parts of it and integrating them into the existing Citizenship MBs rather than creating a stand alone Eagle required badge. Other than the MB counselors, most people would probably not even notice the changes. I could easily image it becoming something like the annual Cyber Chip renewals, where the scouts would watch and discuss a video once a year or once every other year.

This part seems to have gone out verbatim to every Methodist Conference. We got the same information in a letter last week, however, there are churches in our district and council who have looked at the wording "strongly recommend" and have said 'nope, this does not change anything for us'. Hoping that something gets worked out to allow the relationship between the church and BSA to continue.

Interesting how many times he faults the 'mass tort' lawyers, as he calls them (can't say what I would like to call them) "because the will take a piece of your payment which under the current $1.854 billion settlement fund will total more than $425 million." He only once mentions his cut: "Under your engagement letter with AIS, your payment will be reduced by 40% to pay for the attorneys' share of the payment". Not any different than what he is faulting the 'mass tort' lawyers for, other than to whom those $$ are going.

I would be both amazed and appalled at the same time if there was any regular poster here that did not agree that there should be zero tolerance for any and all CSA.

Some will try, few will succeed. No shower Friday night, momma better be driving to camp to pick you up - not getting back in my car!

I have known many a scout for whom 72 hours would be no barrier to eating something that the racoon would turn it's nose up at. There are times that I think many scouts think the 72 hour rule is the minimum time between showers when at summer camp. 😏

I think what @Eagledadwas saying is how much of that 50% number is what immediately comes to mind when the term sexual abuse is used, and how much of it is a couple of 11 or 12 year olds who got caught comparing development in the shower house at summer camp. Without that breakdown, it is hard to know how to react to that part of the announcement. I would think that if it is the former, that is very concerning, and may well lead to a 3 tiered program that many other countries use, splitting ScoutsBSA into 2 age distinct groups. On another note, I fully agreed with the comments about the 72 hour rule. My first reaction to that policy when announced was why? Why are we not insisting that any adult who wants to spend time in camp with scouts must be registered, trained, and background checked.

Not surprised at all by the first, extremely skeptical of the second. I am of the belief that 50% statistic includes a large percentage of curious exploration and 'show me' behaviors, which, when done in an adult to youth setting is definitely coercive and abusive, may be nothing more than that curiosity between youth of the same age. I would agree however, when it is a much older scout with a young one, that is different, and I would include those interactions in the definite abuse category. That is why even before it became BSA policy to not allow youth to tent together if they have more than a 2 year age difference we nudged them in that direction any way (not hard to do, as most older scouts prefer to either tent with someone their own age, or in many cases, prefer to tent alone. As to his assertion that the BSA is aware of people who are known sex abusers being involved and looking the other way, I find that tough not to question. That does not mean that there has never been a single occurrence, but I find it extremely hard to believe that any person in any position of authority in the BSA would ignore a known sex abuser and allow them to serve. It would be fantastic if none if these issues existed, and no one in scouting had ever had to suffer due to being abused, but the reality is that no matter how many safeguards we put into place we will likely never reach a level of zero cases. Before anyone jumps in with the 'so you think there is an acceptable number of cases', I fully agree that one case annually is one too many, but we do not, nor will be ever live in a perfect world.

We have several scouts in our pack who earned the award through the Methodist Church. Pastor signed a certificate and we presented them with the knot at a pack meeting. We also had several earn it in the troop. In their cases, it was presented at Scout Sunday service.

I watched as well, and that is not at all how I interpreted that comment. I took it to be a response to not signing the NDA, and not talking about the problems he feels have not been dealt with adequately, not that someone at BSA tried to tell him not to cooperate with a discovery request. I watched as well, and that is not at all how I interpreted that comment. I took it to be a response to not signing the NDA, and not talking about the problems he feels have not been dealt with adequately, not that someone at BSA tried to tell him not to cooperate with a discovery request.

We are hoping that extending charters until 3/31/22 will give time for something to be worked out between BSA and UMC. Our local church notified us a week ago that they would not recharter, but would be willing to go with a facilities use agreement. We would still have a place to meet, but would need to find someone to hold the charter. If this means that they may be near an agreement to continue sponsoring scouting, it would be great. My initial thoughts are that if we have to find a new charter, we would likely use their facilities as well.