SiouxRanger

We have a prospect that a Kiwanis group will charter our units, pack and troop. Catholic Diocese is done chartering all units. 8 months of worry. No help from National, nor from Council, though a new DE found the prospect. Never a second's worth of acknowledgment by Council staff that prospective chartering organizations' reluctance is due to concern over future liability for abuse claims. Totally tone deaf. Hello-heard about the 3 billion bankruptcy that has put the existence of the organization at risk? And alienated virtually every element of your business model? We think we can continue to meet at our parish who was our sponsor for 70± years. Discussions happening daily. Another thread waxes on about summer camp scouting fun. Chartering has been nothing but angst.

Just Yes. Precisely! Has anyone got a copy of the Churchill Report?

(Just trashed my prior work as I got it all wrong. Got to proof-read and check sources-this is important work.) Depending on the source ESSE QUAM VIDERE translates: "to be rather than to seem." Or "to be, rather than to seem." (Not sure what the comma adds.) I have not seen this quote before, and I just love quotes. They espouse important principles. And in my opinion the world would be better off if folks knew some principles and adhered to them. So, "to be rather than to seem" is attributed to an essay by Cicero, widely acclaimed as Rome's greatest orator. Wikipedia: Esse quam videri is found in Cicero's essay On Friendship (Laelius de Amicitia, chapter 98). Virtute enim ipsa non tam multi praediti esse quam videri volunt ("Few are those who wish to be endowed with virtue rather than to seem so"). Which seems to say, "Many want to be considered to be virtuous, but few really want to be virtuous." Or in more modern language, "Do as I say, not as I do." Or, in my interpretation, "I am what I say." All of which evoke the idea that the speaker can't or cares not to live up to the standards which they espouse others strive to attain. Another version, looking at it from the other side is the more recent Yoda, "There is no 'try," either do, or do not."

Well from my experience, and all I have read, will BSA answer the phone?

As a long student of the art and science of journalism (and its ethics), starting with Edward R. Murrow's life pre-journalism, my library of books by journalists is second in number only to my library of books by Winston S. Churchill (British-not the American Winston S. Churchill), there was a time that all broadcasts from Europe by "Murrow Boys" broadcasting on the "European Evening Roundup" (which included at least one female), HAD TO MADE LIVE so as not to permit the introduction of edited material which would be possible were the broadcast recorded, edited, and re-broadcast. Some decades ago, as I recall, the National Geographic Society digitally "moved" a pyramid or two, of the Great Pyramids' fame, to make the cover on its magazine more attractive. The first example of digital offensive hanky-panky I remember and NGS caught a harsh word or two over it. The tradition of journalists presenting facts, as news, long the touchstone of journalists, has long eroded. Journalistic commentators such as John Chancellor, David Brinkley, and the incomparable Eric Severeid (check out his farewell address on YouTube-no one thinks like him anymore), clearly identified themselves as presenting opinion based on facts. There was clear distinction between news (fact reporting) and editorial comment (opinion). Alas, no longer, and no one seems to care that it has all devolved into slop. And so, we are all left to form our own opinions on what passes for "news." Churchill referred to a "Bodyguard Of Lies," in referring to the intentional barrage of misinformation broadcast to Allied forces, but also intercepted by Nazi Germany, to conceal the truth of accurate information also broadcast. Churchill's "Bodyguard Of Lies" was intended to protect the Truth of accurate wartime information. Sadly, now the "Bodyguard Of Lies" is not the smoke-screen but presented as Truth, though it remains lies through and through. No longer can anyone trust any news source as the self-imposed rules of ages past are long gone. Free Speech has devolved into a free-for-all.

Having met with many thousands of folks, many situations being stressful, I have come to the conclusion that most folks "just want to get through the day unscathed and a bit better off for their effort." Most folks care not a whit for "sides." It seems to be the dynamic of human interactions that everyone gets pressured to take a side. "Tom and Mary are getting divorced...which side are you on?" And those that don't are considered traitors by BOTH sides. In truth, just about every situation is incredibly complicated, and no answer is clear or likely ever to be clear. All when the most reasoned answer is likely, "maybe," or "perhaps." The majority cannot handle the complexity of these things and insist on forcing all into one of two molds, those "for," and those "against." Reason is irrelevant. "Can't win, can't break even, can't get out of the game."

I have ruthlessly strict standards for licensed professionals (adults) in the performance of their professional duties. But for children, finding their way in life? Finding their personality, their sense of who they are? No. I have seen many young scouts mature over their years in Scouting. They changed dramatically. And that is what the movement is all about. There is a concept in politics that a buffoon, once elected to office will "step up" and realize the significance and responsibilities of their elected position and serve as an enlightened individual. Considering a particular scout-will that happen? Who knows. And who has sufficient foreknowledge to predict? Scouts stick with Scouting when their friends are Scouts. I lean toward any process which elects more Scouts to OA, and give them the opportunity to "step up" or fade away.

I think your SPL has done an excellent job. Just what rule has your pack violated? Only "at times?" I find it easier to tally the times the rules gave clear guidance. They never do. I have not been able to find a definitive answer to my questions. "When the police break the law, there is no law." -Billy Jack. Translated to BSA-speak: "When the rule writers can't (won't) write comprehensible rules, there are no rules." So, as is apparent from the comments, units are "just finding their way." I have just now come to the opinion that the BSA rules are intentionally written to be so vague that unit leaders, struggling to understand them and decide how to comply with them, fearing some "violation of BSA rules," back off any action or activity that MIGHT impinge on Local Council prerogatives (valuable things the local council wants to keep to itself to mine/capture/exploit). What we have is MUD. This is not a harsh judgment. I sell words for a living. Not just any words, the RIGHT words. They have to have the right meaning, right sense, and clearly delineate the rules. What is to be done, by whom, and when. "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” --Mark Twain. It is a brutal standard. (I missed a step a way back here, and apologized and expanded my comment.) But for folks in the business of selling words, "Be Prepared." So we can assume (and I do not make argument based on assumptions lightly but feel very confident here), that BSA hires smart folks-folks with the ability to write VERY CLEAR RULES-Masters of the "King's English." And yet we do not have VERY CLEAR RULES. "And why would that be?" --Carson, Downtown Abbey. It is intentional, to instill fear in unit leaders. To cause them to pause, and back off. Fantasitical ideation you say? Well, posters are discussing just this issue. And why are there not clear rules authoritatively addressing this "sticky wicket?" Has this situation not presented itself hundreds of times-and for such a common occurrence-there is no rule? As a distant aside, time and again, statues in my state start off with rules applying to the most unlikely situations only adding rules that apply to the most common problems later. Hello-shouldn't the FIRST rule apply to the most common/likely situation, and the minor situations be relegated to exception status somewhere buried in the statue?

I have not been following this thread. But as a Troop Leader for over 20 years, I have heretical opinions, so I am told, on the election of scouts to the OA. Time and again, the elections have been held at our Troop when senior scouts were then engaged in athletic activities, newbie scouts were the only electors, and the senior scouts were not elected. Without exception those senior scouts earned Eagle Rank. But never elected to the OA. So, to you OA oriented folks, I humbly suggest that Scoutmasters be allowed to ADD names of worthy scouts to the list of "elected" scouts.

I am not active in the OA, but I recognize "Wimachtendienk." There were 3 words, all beginning with "W."

Looks like a camp in Illinois has listed for sale a chunk or two of its camp. Lightly used and not part of the main camp. Ingersoll Scout Reservation.

My law school application: "Are you an idiot?" I checked "Yes!" Got accepted. (My professors probably gave the same answer-just kidding-most were pretty smart. Some even human.) Well, nonetheless, I draw a huge distinction between the Movement and those who deign themselves the high priests of the Movement. They have long ago brought it to its knees and it now lingers at the threshold of oblivion. Somewhere, I have an audible of a Churchill speech, spoken by Churchill, where he manages to get about 11 syllables out of the word "lamentable." Long and drawn out pronunciation beyond its nature... Seems that this bankruptcy is a 3 syllable word in 20 syllables. And "lamentable" is not nearly strong enough.

I was at Philmont in 1971 also. We'd get cooking fire firewood from within a hundred yards or so of our campsite. Maybe some folks would go 150 yards, but that would likely be the maximum distance deadfall would be scavenged. The wood would be up to about 2 inches or 2.5 inches in diameter, max, as that would reduce to coals fairly quickly. Someone can do the math, but it may be that the total area scavenged within such radii of all the campsites on the Ranch of relatively small diameter wood would not likely impact a wildfire very much. Scavenging deadfall would not seem to have any effect on lessening crowning fires, racing through the tree tops, nor standing dead trees, nor downed trees (logs). Back in those days I recall that each crew was definitely issued an ax, and I think a bow saw, so crews had the ability to process wood of larger diameter than 2.5" into kindling by splitting it ("batoning" we now call it), but I do not recall if that procedure was taught to crews. It is an important point, for if crews were taught how to baton larger wood into kindling size wood, crews would be scavenging larger wood and somewhat reducing the fuel load. I do have to admit that even in my day there, Cito was rumored to have run out of suitable deadfall for cooking fires and imported firewood from Colorado. I think that is very likely true. I was at Cito in 1968 and there was hardly a twig anywhere on the ground. On the other hand, Cito, was the largest, most heavily visited and camped camp at Philmont, situated as it is at the waist of Philmont, and the crossroads to just about everywhere. Cito was scavenged clean. But other camps I visited were not. I have an amateur's understanding of forestry wildfire prevention methods, but learning more every day. My professional forestry friends tell me that understory fuel reduction on a methodical basis is the path to moderating runaway wildfire. I am also told that administrative types see such efforts as an expense for which there is no budget-until there is a runaway wildfire-THEN cost is no object.

Not a fair question as the word "institution" includes both the National BSA corporation, AND the Scouting Movement. The National BSA corporation appears to be unredeemable. Management is so inbred, addicted to high pay and benefits, and apparently incapable of making meaningful change. Eight or more decades of poor performance can be laid at their collective feet. Not to mention a billion dollar bankruptcy. (Hard to get a job as a Fortune 500 CEO when the last corporation you helmed filed a billion dollar bankruptcy-that is no indication of success no matter how much lipstick on the pig.) Local SE said to me that "would the Fortune 50 folks on the National Board lead us astray?" (Uh, well other than a billion dollar bankruptcy, catastrophic declines in membership, and unit inability to recharter because former and potential chartering organizations are terrified of potential liability NOT addressed by National...well, other than that....Yeah, the National Board is a Judas Goat.) The Scouting Movement. It will endure. Somehow, some way. It should endure-we need it as a community. Kennedy, when he set the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning safely to earth had no idea how that could be done. It was a mission statement. Same with the Scouting Movement. It will survive-we just don't know now how that survival method will evolve. I stand with you @ThenNow.

Yes. 82,000 or so claimants say so. BSA is parting with several BILLION dollars to eliminate those claims, legally, which confirms the legitimacy of many of the claims.

One cannot DENY that National drew itself into a nearly 3 Billion bankruptcy. Tell me, please, how is a 3 billion bankruptcy any measure of business success?

And so, at the end of the day, the fire was LARGER.

That is a VERY TOUGH QUESTION and I am glad you asked. I am not a survivor, had a good experience with Scouting, and with my sons, had no idea of abuse issues in Scouting until some contact with articles about the Oregon case, but not quite recognizing the depth of the issue. THEN, a high school friend of mine called me about 6 years ago and told me of his abuse by a SM. I was stunned. This was my friend from high school, camped dozens of times together in the woods behind my parents' house. Dozens is 30 or 40, every third weekend-some years. Camped at the local scout camp together, worked on staff at the local camp 2 years, bunked together, and worked together several years at another camp. From 1970 until 2015±, NO MENTION of issues nor had I detected any (but as naive Eagle Scout, what do I know of these things?) And then he called, "in counseling since college..." I was crushed. He was such a gentle soul. My friend. I had no idea. It clearly massively impacted (maybe not ruined his life, he earned a Phd.) but it really ruined his adult life, phenomenally accomplished as it was. And so, in surrogate, I stand with the Survivors. "Balance and perspective" mentioned by some poster above. I have a very empathic ability to vision. (Well, if folks think otherwise, we can all debate that elsewhere.) My guess is that Survivors place their focus on "Perspective." That is, "what happened to me." "Grasshopper, you've been shot in the gut, what is your balance?" "Master, I did nothing wrong to entice that behavior or entitlement me to such treatment." I'd guess that Survivors only focus on what they experienced. And so they should. To answer the question, would I forgo? The answer depends on when I learned of the depth of abuse...and had persuasive evidence of the abuse. Well, whatever, stand assured that TODAY, I have not rechartered, and am not likely to do so. And I STAND WITH THE SURVIVORS.

"And so Grasshopper, a house catches fire...do the authorities and community rush to extinguish the fire and limit the damage...or do they lay back, content in the knowledge that their house is safe, and that house fires are rare and though they have been spared, and the damage to the homeowner and family is severe, few will suffer it, so no action is required and they speak not of it ever after?" "And, if the authorities and community never speak of the loss, is the sense of loss and actual damage to the homeowner and family reduced to zero?" "And if the authorities and community fail to step in to assist, and then fail to acknowledge the loss, will the risk of house fire be reduced, and the future loss to other homeowners and families be reduced?"

To what end? How would that help?

Where is CynicalScouter? We need his help.

Well, @fred8033I think you do yourself a disservice. I have not always agreed with you but always thought that your positions were well reasoned.

Scoutmaster of defunct troop: "Would your organization be willing to sponsor a Scout Troop-we've been a troop for 64 years?" Prospective Chartering Organizational Head: "Who sponsored your troop before?" Scoutmaster of defunct troop: "A Catholic parish now concerned over liability for abuse and molestation claims." Prospective Chartering Organizational Head: "Well, do you have insurance insuring against abuse and molestation claims that might be asserted against my organization?" Scoutmaster of defunct troop: "We don't know, we asked, but have no answer." Prospective Chartering Organizational Head: "Sorry, good luck."

It is official, our Catholic Diocese will not charter ANY BSA units. Somewhere between 30 to 50 units being dumped. ("Well, our Troop Committee can count about a dozen in our immediate area, and the Diocese is huge, so 20 to 60?) Lots. Worst fears realized. (Started the inquiries in October, 2021, guidance issued 4-19-2022.) Thanks. Nearly 80± years of sponsorship tradition DEAD. Still possible to enter into a Facilities Use Agreement with the Parish, but with conditions, specifically, certain insurance requirements (details yet unspecified-inquiries being made re details), and Catholic "youth protection training." AS LONG AS our Troop and Pack can find a Chartering Organization. That might be doable. So, our Troop (and Pack) has several options: 1. Suffer a DEchartering and wish all the scouts and parents "Good Luck." (Our Council has informed us that this is looming-"You can't meet, wear uniforms... (...well, I will resist comment...a bit)) 2. Encourage and assist scouts and parents to transfer to other units (allows them to continue to officially work on and be recognized for advancement). We have a number approaching Eagle. This is the "quail" solution-everyone scatters. 3. Merge our unit's scouts with another unit. This option could work well or go horribly wrong, depending on how the parents of the merging scouts react to a lessening of their role in the troop (pack) merged into. 4. Find another Chartering Organization, but enter into a Facilities Use Agreement with our current Parish, former chartering organization. A seamless transition, as far as the scouts are concerned. Keep meeting at the same place with their same friends and same adult leaders. (Adult paperwork changes, but scouts see no change.) 5. Find another Chartering Organization which will provide new facilities for the Troop's (and Pack's) meetings. Change of chartering organization (scouts probably will not notice), BUT change of meeting location, which scouts will certainly notice. HOWEVER, a unit changing its chartering organization raises the specter of the unit having to FORFEIT all of its assets to the former chartering organization leaving the transferring unit penniless and devoid of equipment. Oh, Happy Day. Not so, as my units have no answers. Suggestions?

Child abuse is a crime. Then. Now. Failure to report it consitutes being an "accessory after the fact;." Quod est demonstrandum. Q.E.D. "And for all the rest, I vote that Carthage be destroyed." (Some Roman Senator.)