PeterHopkins

The most important element in the youth protection proposals in the plan is that survivors believe it adequately addresses the needs of today's Scouts. I've served in multiple roles within the BSA in the past including a lengthy stint as a Scoutmaster and a member of a Venturing crew committee. Presently, I'm a Cubmaster. I don't think anything in this plan present a challenge too great for units to meet. Troops, crews and ships will need to get any parents who might participate in overnight activities registered in advance. The rule that will prevent registration end dates from being later than training expiration dates is a good idea. We recently reregistered a den leader for calendar year 2022, and she last took youth protection in January 2020. So, her YPT expired just days after her new registration period began. I noticed it, and let her know. She took it right away. Some councils already require that an adult may not reregister past the expiration date of his or her YPT. I know Baltimore Area Council requires this. That effectively means YPT must be done every year. If a unit charters on a calendar year, and a Scouter took YPT on December 30, 2020, it would be current at the end of 2021, but it would expire a day before the 2022 registration ends. So, it seems everyone will be doing YPT annually. If everyone will be taking YPT annually, the annual refreshers would seem superfluous. Why not simply update the main course every year to account for the material that would be in the refresher? I don't see why we would want people to annually take YPT and a YPT refresher. Twenty years ago, only direct-contact leaders needed YPT. I was a Scoutmaster at the time, and many on my troop committee did not want to take it. The commitment was bigger then, since it involved going someplace where the course was being held. There was not yet an online version. I tried encouraging it, but I got a lot of pushback and very little compliance. Nowadays, parents expect that this sort of thing exists, and most of them get it done rather quickly. Also in that era, resident camps would offer YPT to adult who arrived in camp without it. They had to be trained within 48 hours of arriving. So, the course was usually available after lunch on Monday. Many would attend, even of their YPT wasn't expired, because it was a convenient way to push out your expiration date. You're already in camp. What else do you have to do? An hour in the air conditioning (where available) wasn't a bad carrot to hold out either. If survivors want monuments at high adventure bases, I won't speak out against this, but I was surprised to see it in the plan. I suppose it puts the BSA's history front and center. The 9/11 Memorial does the same.

If one has survived something so tragic and dastardly and nevertheless achieved something that made his or her mark on the world, such a person might appreciate being recognized for the accomplishment. That's my understanding of the proposed Phoenix Award. (I like the name of it.) While appreciating the recognition, even if the award recipient preferred to receive the award privately, that same person may wish not to be defined by the award and may prefer never to wear it. That's a different decision from the decision to accept the award. It isn't at all uncommon for Scouters to receive awards represented by square knot aches worn on the uniform shirt and decide not to sew them on. The reasons for those decisions are varied. It's easy for me to see how someone might appreciate receiving a Phoenix Award but not want to wear it, because they might be called to explain what it is, or, to those who already know what it is, the pin identifies something that happened to them as a child that they might prefer not to share with the general (Scouting) public.

Wearing the Phoenix pin is a different decision from agreeing to be publicly (or perhaps privately) acknowledged for achievement despite going through an experience no child should have to endure. Many Scouters have received awards they choose not to wear.

@Eagle1993 I agree with your assessment that Scouting is not a priority for families nowadays. That's what I see in my pack. The reason we didn't have a female adult for our October camping trip is that we have three active registered female adults. Two of them are moms of one boy, and the third is the mom of another boy. The boy with two moms had a soccer match on Saturday and preferred to play in the match rather than camp. His mothers were both aware that we cannot camp without a female adult. The third mom has never camped before other than on the grounds of our chartered organization, so she was a bit timid about it. She also has two younger-then-Cub Scout-age children and would have needed her husband's cooperation to watch them for the weekend. She just couldn't make it happen. When you have 100 Scouts, the odds that you can get one registered female adult to attend an activity increase significantly over those of a pack with five active Scouts. Frankly, sometimes we don't find out no registered female adult will be there until the event happens. We did a shore cleanup in September. The boy with two moms, who are divorced, was there, but the girlfriend of one of his moms brought him, and she's not registered. The other mom texted me that morning that her husband had to work, and she couldn't get a babysitter. That means my daughter is not allowed to pick up trash on the beach according to the Guide to Safe Scouting, and she doesn't know she's not allowed until she arrives there. Even though packs run far more active and ambitious programs than they did 40 years ago, the level of commitment they get from families is less than it was at that time, Just about everything else is more important. Part of that is because they pay more to play on sports teams they join. The sports seasons also run only a few months, and Scouting will always be there when they want to return. Other programs put pressure on the children to force them to attend every practice and game or risk not playing. Scouting does nothing like that. While my BSA involvement is measured in decades, I am in my fifth year as a GSUSA volunteer. I agree with your CM that the chartering process introduces a complication BSA leaders need to handle that happens by itself on the GSUSA side. Families reregister their girls for the following year online. There is no chasing after them for money. Girl Scout troops are all "chartered" so to speak by the local council. They simply have meeting places, and they can change those at will. While it is a good idea to have a good relationship with the organization that runs the meeting place, the organization cannot shut down the troop. It can only stop the troop from using the space. Girl Scout troops typically do not need to charge dues. The cookie program is, in my opinion, the greatest fundraiser ever invented. The fall product programs is incredibly profitable. Our troop, like many, donates part of our profits to charities selected by the girls. I could never imagine having a conversation with my Cub Scouts about what we should do with all this extra money we earned that we don't really need. I think there are some things the GSUSA does that could be improved by looking at the BSA approach. Girl Scout troops tend to vanish when the troop leader's daughter loses interest. Generally, they do not reach out to parents to engage them in the program once the leadership positions are filled. I was shocked when I took my daughter to her first Daisy meeting, and the troop leader was surprised I planned to stay rather than do a drop and run. Since most Girl Scout troop have a limited life, a problem arises when their is interest expressed by new Daisies. Once all the girls in the troop are beyond Daisy level, it is not uncommon for the troop to stop accepting Daisies. In other words, it is built in that the troop will eventually see all its girls age out, if the troop makes it that far. So, a new troop leader must be recruited from among the parents of the new Daisies, and this can be very difficult. The oldest troop in my GSUSA service unit is 14 years old. It started as a Daisy troop. All the girls aged out. It is now a Trailblazer troop that plans high adventure activities. All the girls it has now are cross registered with other regular Senior or Ambassador troops. Its only meetings are for planning its activities or fundraising. I have my daughter involved in both programs, because I see the value in both. They are vastly different approaches to presenting programs that have a common origin.

We're in upper Delaware, and recruiting has been a complete failure. In February 2020, we had 20 Scouts with better than 95% weekly attendance. That was up from 6 in June 2019. We felt so good about ourselves at that time. We had 13 Scouts vanish when the pandemic arrive. One Scout graduated to a troop in December 2020. We started 2021 with 6 Scouts. One of the Scouts who vanished during the pandemic returned in February 2021. Shortly thereafter, two friends of his joined. Both of those have become inactive, having signed up for martial arts on our meeting nights. Two Scouts who started 2021 with us became only intermittently active, since their mother will not allow them to attend indoor meetings. We haven't seen them, since they attended a minor league baseball game with us in August. One other Scout who drifted away during the pandemic showed up for a meeting last month, and his mother said his sister would join as well. However, she did not register either of them and doesn't return messages. We spent money on a Facebook ad for a Raingutter Regatta recruiting event. Not a single member of the general public showed up, even though more than 1,000 parents of Cub Scout-age children within 10miles of our meeting place saw the ad. We cannot access any of the local schools. We have received several inquiries through BeAScout.org. However, the parents never actually show up with their children for a meeting. They say they will, but they don't. I've become sick of wasting time communicating with them. This used to be our most successful tool. We found that when families are looking for Scouting, they usually join. Not anymore. They seem to be just curious. Perhaps this has something to do with quoting higher costs for dues and registration than we did two years ago. Perhaps they read uncomplimentary things about the BSA in the news. We presently have 5 active Scouts: one fifth grader, three fourth graders, and one Bear. There are four boys and one girl. It is extremely difficult to run a program with those numbers. Every Scout has at least one registered parent. We had to cancel our October camping trip, because the only adult with BALOO is the dad of the girl, and we could not get a registered female adult to attend. We were expecting our fifth grader to move on to a troop in December. That may not happen until early 2022. Our pack will be 66 years old on December 1. I don't know where we will find any more Scouts. Our chartered organization has a boys' troop that was founded in 1956. They have three Scouts on the roster. One moved to Utah earlier this year. Another has become inactive. The third serves as our den chief and has no meaningful Scouts BSA program in which he can participate. It is sad to see that troop go. If things don't change, we'll be having those same discussions at this time next year about the pack. I've seen so many post from folks around the country about solid recruiting in the fall of 2021. Many other are about packs that are on life support or losing their chartered organizations. It doesn't seem to be working the same way everywhere. Here in Delaware, the going is rough.

Having not given this package much thought since Tuesday, and allowing half an hour to pass since my post, I now wonder whether this was delivered to the church office, and someone there left it where we would find it, assuming we, and not they, needed to address the contents. The outside door is usually locked. There are three adults associated with the pack and troop who have the key. Other groups have the key as well. The door was locked when we arrived on Monday. So, whoever left the package there seems to have used a key. Currently, we are required to leave the outside door open during our meetings to limit the number of people who need to touch the door handle. This is a COVID precaution required by the Catholic diocese.

There was a package left for my chartered organization when our pack met on Monday evening. I didn't see it or learn of its existence until Tuesday. Someone saw it and dropped it off at the office. It was left on the floor outside the door of the room in which the church meets. Mail is not ordinarily delivered there. No one seems to know how the person who delivered it got into the building.

I'm speechless after watching this video.

If it costs $50 for each background check, and many need to get done to allow adults to participate (under some possible future set of rules), would it be worthwhile to have spent those tens of thousands of dollars if exactly one predator is identified and prevented from registering? How about if no predator is identified, but the hurdle the background check represents prevents one predator from attempting to register? My answer is yes, it's worth the time, trouble and cost.

Outside Pennsylvania and, perhaps soon, California, unregistered generally does mean without child abuse clearance. Given what we know has happened within the BSA, we should be moving toward registered meaning cleared. The screening process needs to be far more robust than it is now.

Being in Del-Mar-Va Council, we're in the same section as National Capitol Area Council, and they, Baltimore Area Council and we form a section with just three lodges. More than half of section conclave participants typically come from NCAC. It is a marvel to watch their lodge leadership tackle organizing their charges. Yes, an ungainly beast.

Greater New York Councils (No. 640, properly written in plural) is a confederation of five borough councils. They are organized as follows: Bronx Council (No. 641) Bronx River District Brooklyn Council (No. 642) Breukelen District Lenape Bay District Manhattan Council (No.643) Big Apple District Queen Council (No. 644) Founders District Pathfinder District Tomahawk District Staten Island Council (No. 645) Aquehonga District The entirety of Greater New York Councils' territory is within the City of New York; it has no suburban area. So, there are eight districts in the city. The borough councils are similar to other "regular" councils in some ways and different in others. For instance, they form their own committees to select Silver Beaver recipients, but the borough executive is more like a program director than a council Scout executive. GNYC also presents its own Silver Beaver awards. The borough councils do not have separate offices; everything is coordinated through the GNYC council service center. The borough councils do not have their own endowment funds, so James E. West Fellowships are awarded by GNYC but are recognized by the borough council, based on where the Scouter (or Scout) is active. Scouts and Scouters in units and at the district level wear CSPs that indicate their borough council. There is also a GNYC CSP which is worn by most professionals (excluding DEs and borough executives), by volunteers with GNYC positions (like the GNYC council commissioner) and by camp staffers. I served as an ASM at the 2005 National Jamboree for a combined Manhattan-Bronx troop. One of the commissioners started talking about the other GNYC troops, and he was stunned that I hardly knew anything about what the other troops were doing, because they were from my council. When we organized for the Jamboree, there was a single member of the council staff who served as staff advisor for all the GNYC troops, but the troops didn't coordinate anything. We even wore different JSPs. When I served as lodge contingent adviser for 2006 NOAC, they asked for my council number at check-in. I asked them which one they wanted: 640 or 643 (Manhattan). It took them a while to figure out who we were, because GNYC's organization is unique. Up until about eight years ago, GNYC had five separate OA lodges: one for each borough council. The lodge numbers were 4, 24, 49, 82 and 112. These were merged into one new lodge. Guess which lodge number they kept. The eight districts have been stable for about 15 years, perhaps closer to 20. Around 2002, Big Apple District was split into two new districts: Liberty and Freedom. The split lasted les than a year, and the districts were merged back together. During the period of the split, the new districts never had separate roundtables. Instead, there were Manhattan Council roundtables. Liberty and Freedom districts never even presented any District Awards of Merit or organized any camporees. The most recent district merger in GNYC was in Bronx Council. Eastern District and New Horizon District were merged to form Bronx River District, which covers the entirety of Bronx Council. Kintecoying Lodge #4 has six OA chapters: Uteney Gohkos (Bronx River District) Shu-Shu-Gah (Brooklyn Council) Man-A-Hattin (Big Apple District) Matinecock (Founders District) Mespaetch (Pathfinder and Tomahawk Districts) Aquehongian (Aquehonga District) The chapter names in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Staten islander are the names of the former lodges before the merger. In the case of Brooklyn, the two districts share a chapter. Queens has three districts but only two chapters. When I first joined Scouting in Brooklyn as a youth, there were 11 districts - just in Brooklyn - and 11 OA chapters. These were Waramaug (Atlantic District) Nakowa (Bath Beach District, where I grew up) Lenhacki (Bushwick-Arlington District) Petapan (Eastern District) Achewen Shingue (Flatbush District) Uchtama (Parkway District) Showandasse (Sheepshead District) Wambuli (Stuyford District) Ktchquehellen (Sunrise District) Nah-Ne-Wah-Ye (Five Bridges District) Sakanenk (Kingsway District) In 1979, Atlantic and Bath Beach Districts were merged to form Nieuw Utrecht District, Sheepshead, Sunrise and Kingsway Districts were merged to form Thunderbird District, Bushwick-Arlington and Eastern Districts were merged to form Rainbow District, and Parkway and Flatbush Districts were merged to form Midwout District. This resulted in six OA chapters: Majawat (Nieuw Utrecht District) Tequiechen (Rainbow District) Achewen Shingue (Midwout District, keeping the name of Flatbush District's chapter) Kotohke (Thunderbird District) Wambuli (Stuyford District) Nah-Ne-Wah-Ye (Five Bridges District) These chapters were large enough to each run their own ordeals. The inaugural May 1980 ordeal for Majawat Chapter had more than 50 candidates. In 1986, Rainbow District was split into two districts: Rainbow (the former Buchwick-Arlington District) and Dawn Star (the former Easter District). Petapan Chapter was reformed to serve the new Dawn Star District. Shu-Shu-Gah Lodge eliminated chapters in 1994. In 1995, Nieuw Utrecht, Stuyford and Five Bridges District were merged to form Lenape Bay District, and Rainbow, Midwout, Thunderbird and Dawn Star Districts were merged to form Breukelen District. In 1997, chapters were reinstated to Shu-Shu-ah Lodge. Eluwak Chapter served the portion of Lenape Bay District that was formerly part of Nieuw Utrecht and Stuyford Districts. Phoenix Chapter served the portion of Lenape Bay District that was formerly part of Five Bridges District. Shawondasse Chapter served Breukelen District. In 2004, Eluwak and Phoenix Chapters were merged to form Majachsin Chapter, which served the entirety of Lenape Bay District. When the five New York City lodges merged in 2013, Shawondasse and Majachsin Chapters were merged to form Shu-Shu-Gah Chapter. That's an awful lot of merger and consolidation, and that's just Brooklyn. It saddens me that Scouting's membership has decline so precipitously. While everyone understands that New York City is large, some don't realize the true magnitude. New York City has more than twice the population of Los Angeles, the second largest city in America. If Brooklyn became an independent city as it once was, New York City would still have the largest population of any city in the country, and Brooklyn would be America's fourth largest city, behind Chicago and ahead of Houston. Drawing from such a tremendous population, I wish we could attract more youth to the greatest program ever developed. I'm now in Del-Mar-Va Council, and I feel the same frustration. We just don't seem to get as many youth involved as we should.

If we assume it's true that the presence of unregistered parents increases the accountability of the registered Scouters, wouldn't we get even more comfort as to the safety of the youths at an event, of those parents were background checked?

There aren't really loopholes taken advantage of by local councils. Local councils can enact policies more restrictive than the Guide to Safe Scouting, but not ones that are less restrictive. A neighboring council near me requires Youth protection Training will not expire during the upcoming registration period. So, if someone took YPT in November 2020, it will expire in November 2022, and they need to take it again before registering for calendar year 2022. My council does not allow Cub Scouts to camp on council property without a parent. Several council, including my council, will not allow a direct contact leader to register or reregister unless the person has completed training for the position. In my council, the requirement is waived, if the person has been in the position for less than the months at the charter renewal date. So, if someone registers as a Lion den leader on September 25, 2021, that person needs to be fully trained to reregister for calendar year 2022.

For the moment, let's assume that advising clients in closed state to vote yes is sound legal advice. How could he make that video and give the same advice to every client? If it's true that survivors in closed states cannot do better than what the plan offers, it must also be true that survivors in open states are virtually assured of doing better by suing the local councils in state courts. They wouldn't be sharing anything with those in closed states. I don't know how he could only say that those in closed states risk (and, the way he put it, should expect) getting nothing without also saying that those in open states are making a large financial sacrifice, if the plan is approved. It seems to me that if an attorney is representing survivors in both open and closed states, a conflict of interest exists IF we assume that advising clients in closed states is sound legal advice.