mrjohns2

I assume you are talking about the poly wool pants? Boy Scout Men's Polyester Pants | Boy Scouts of America (scoutshop.org)

When I felt this, when I saw this... I knew why adults volunteered so many years. To see, from a distance, a patrol "get the job done" or to see them work out there differences or plan something... it was amazing. I feel like I have to use clichés, but this is the magic. No adults, just the Scouts, doing Scouting. Again, we are there for safety and to avoid large monetary loss. Other than that, it is theirs.

Yes. The wrong interpretation. SM and ASM are not to be advancement coordinators.

We already already constrained in a million different directions. The problem is almost "over defined" - meaning there is no solution that can meet all requirements. To impose additional hard limit requirements, when they are not there, is very frustrating. None of the third party campgrounds and facilities in our area have any ratios in their rules and regulations (I read them). School districts in our area don't impose their standards meeting in their facilities or other tangential groups.

I agree with this 100%. It really depends on the outing (location, activity, weather) and the Scouts (age, maturity, past issues, health, capability, leadership skills, etc.). One of my proudest moments on a campout was when I had gone on a hike with 6 of our Scouts. They were having a great time in this one area of an old camp. No one else was at the camp besides the 7 Scouts and 2 adults. I needed to get back to the campsite to change my socks or something. Now, I didn't have a buddy, but I was headed back to camp along a clear trail. I told the group "I'm headed back to camp. You saw how we got to this side of camp, let me know when lunch will be, and I'll at least see your cooks back in the campsite" They were shocked I would leave them alone. I made it clear that they should not go into the water and to not go anywhere without a buddy. They were thrilled that they would be trusted to be by themselves and get back to camp on their own. Shocked and trilled.

Where are you getting that from? 2 deep is not required “at all times”. You are reading extra rules into it. You are confusing no “one on one” at all times. You can be on a camp out and 10 Scouts and one adult go one way and 10 Scouts and another adult go another. Prudent? Maybe not. But again, don’t create extra rules.

This isn’t a case of “liberal view” of BSA policy. There is no direction on a ratio required. 30 would be a lot, but it isn’t against policy. It would be hard to get 30 Scouts somewhere without 5 or 6 or more drivers. So, it is only theoretical. But, it is mot against the policy. Maybe against practicality and good sense, but again, there is no required ratio for Troops.

I don't believe there are any YPT rules against this.

That is a lot. It makes the medal very impressive. We camp every month and go to summer camp. If a Scout did that, it would still take about 5 years. I know you can count Cub Scout nights (if I recall), and I assume things like OA and NYLT, but still, 4 years then? Wow.

Wow. Interesting approach to be a SM.

My Wood Badge course (2019) could have benefited from acting more like a troop. I still felt the staff / senior staff / participate gaps too much.

I'd have to agree. There is zero decision space by the PLC, or the staff, for most of the activities, locations, and who is leading them.

Scouting units are very well thought out structurally. There should be a separation between the program (SM and ASMs) and support (CC, MC, etc). Thus the advancement chairs should be a MC. The ASM should be "busy" with the program, supporting the SM.

The COR could also be CC, but then you need 2 MC's for the same total of 3.

I don't like the wordiness either, but there are ADULTS who work hard to find an easy out. I got into a polite argument with a district & NYLT staffer who insisted that if a Scout set up a tent in a cabin, it would count for rank advancement if they slept in it. I said, no, no it wouldn't, not in my troop; as the SM, that wouldn't fly. They went on to say that they checked with the council commissioner and that it was legit. I said, that, well, in my troop, that is not what we do. I then used it as a SM minute. I asked the troop to think about doing that, that was that the intent, and that would they all like me to sign them off on their next two ranks and go to the council office and buy them the badges? Then there is the other side. I met a SM this summer who said he wouldn't sign off on any first class scout who couldn't do 6 basic knots in under 1 minute. My thought is that the legal-eese of the requirements is to stop either these "supper loose" interpretations or the "supper stiff" interpretations.

That is what they want. It is clear from their rhetoric. Everything they are asking the court to do is to make it as hard as possible for the BSA to integrate girls. They are freaking out. If the BSA gets it girl Cub recruiting act together, Girl Scouts will have little to fall back on as its program is so lopsided to the younger ages. This has nothing to do with trademarks and everything to do with the BSA welcoming girls.

That is the argument the GSUSA has to make. They haven't made it.

To whom? Why? To what end? Definitely not to the GSUSA. To the board? They were the ones that did the action. To the membership? The action was done and won't be going back. I assume it was simply multi-faceted. Declining numbers, running out of money, running out of relevance. What better action to open to girls, expand the market place by 2x, and improve opportunities for girls. What other intentions could their be? The destruction of the GSUSA? No. Cause people to leave because it is now for both genders? No. Case closed.

Their argument seems to be 2 fold. One can be fixed simply (and already has) and the other has no merit. 1) Some Scouts BSA units used confusing, wrong, or protected wording and imagery in the recruiting 2 years ago. This was rectified, apologized for, and stopped. No material loss is shown, none intended, issue done. 2) The GSUSA doesn't like that the BSA is allowing girls. They don't like that we are calling it Scouts and that girls are involved. There is no protection to this at all. If we changed the name to Scouts BSA, but did not involve girls, they would have had no issue. Now that the BSA allows girls, GSUSA is upset. Too bad, they can't dictate our program. Move on.

From the examples I saw early on in the lawsuit, the infringement was done by units. So, if anything, the units would need to “pay”. It seems like. Or ally in these cases, they would first get a cease and desist. That is, unless those infringing made money off of it. They didn’t.

GSUSA was originally Girl Guides of America, but the name didn't catch on and they changed it.

It wasn't super long after I earned eagle when Family Life rolled out. I just remember, as a Scout, being happy I wasn't affected. For Scouts, I just recall them working on it like other merit badges. No drama.

Thank you so much for sharing. Any idea on how much longer this can go on? Is following this filings the best way to stay up to date?

Does this mean they have made progress with the lawsuit with GSUSA or does it mean they are moving forward without resolution?

That is a great question. I don't know if many/most of the bankruptcy choices have flowed to the origination yet. I have assumed that all of the current cuts are just due to budget issues, but I have no knowledge. It would have been neat to have a Girls' Life, Boys' Life, Cub, and Scout editions. But, like you said, with the circulation numbers, it would be hard.