David CO

I don't think anyone really gets anything out of it. YPT is just a matter of jumping through hoops and checking off boxes.

It is definitely BSA's fault.

I don't see any point in having in-person YPT sessions. It is a one-sided conversation. There is no discussion.

I really liked how you added a seasonal touch to your argument. But we all know that Jacob Marley has been dead these past 7 years, and he can't defend himself from accusations of child abuse. He is the one who will be accused. Scrooge is a cantankerous old skinflint, but he is no pedophile. That doesn't matter though, because he was partners with Jacob Marley. The entire business will be sold to pay off the lawsuit.

I was wondering about that too. Now I am wondering how BSA manages to count the unregistered leaders. I'm sure there are unregistered leaders. I suspect the number of unregistered leaders will increase as the fees and training requirements go up. Don't know that for a fact, but it would make sense. I'm just wondering how they came up with that number.

It certainly feels like BSA is trying to undermine its own program. It's hard to believe that they could be doing all this by incompetence alone. There must be some degree of intentional self-injury here.

Totally backwards. My church has its own form. Fees and availability are determined by the relationship with the parish. Parish owned/run groups get the most favorable rates and have the highest priority. Non-parish groups pay the most and get the lowest priority.

So the council owns the units. Then the council must appoint the COR's. This means the execs control the voting members of the council.

No! Don't conserve the swamp! Drain the swamp!

I'm not a big fan of YP. YP a lot like an appropriations bill. The original bill may have sounded like a good idea, but by the time it comes up for a vote, it has so many unrelated add-ons that I can only agree with 50% of the final legislation. BSA cynically uses YP to get a lot of stuff that doesn't belong with YP. They can't resist using YP to further their social agenda.

I didn't know that discarded Christmas trees are good for fish. My first thought was about tinsel. We always put tinsel on our Christmas tree, and it is impossible to remove all of the tinsel before disposing. Is tinsel a problem?

Sorry, I can't see where we disagree. This is exactly why my CO put scouting under the authority of the athletic director. We wanted to have equal treatment/policies for athletes and scouts. We didn't want the boys to see themselves as rivals. BSA makes this very difficult to do by instituting policies and practices that widen the gap between athletes and scouts. I wish they would stop and think about this before they act.

I can't remember a scouting activity where I haven't touched a scout.

I think this is the point. Those who support a no-touch policy would probably do so regardless of the current problems. It has nothing to do with the lawsuits. I don't think people should be taking unfair advantage of the bankruptcy in order to promote their social agendas. If there are to be culture changes, these changes should be discussed on their own merits. I have spent 35 years trying to end this silly rivalry between scouting and athletics. The athletes should not be putting down the scouts as nerds, wimps, etc.. I am concerned that a no-touch policy in scouting would make this more difficult to do. It would add one more excuse for athletes to mock the scouts.

In every place where I've seen these no-touch policies, they are very unevenly enforced. Usually they are enforced against the men, but not the women. I've seen women get away with doing stuff that would get a man fired.

I agree. That's why I dislike these mandates from national. Units need the flexibility to take advantage of the unique abilities of each of their scouters.

Did we lose the edit button?

Yep. I was their Health teacher. They're pretty comfortable talking to me.

Nor would we want to.

Been there. Done that. I suppose then that your boys never have nocturnal emissions. My boys have this occur at the usual rate (about 3.5% of nights).

No. I do not. BSA is doing a terrible job.

This sounds like some dystopian sci-fi movie in which children are raised without physical contact. Maybe we should change the name again from BSA to Scouts BSA to Bubble Boys BSA.

Yes. I don't think Boy Scout units can survive as a Cub Scout program for older boys. If BSA tries to turn it into that, it will die. Boys won't be interested in joining. Boys are aware of this prevalent attitude of girls are good/boys are bad. They get it all the time in school. They don't like it. If BSA keeps pushing this idea in scouting, boys won't be interested in joining. Boys understand the good touch/bad touch thing. They understand the difference between someone giving them a pat on the back and someone fondling their genitals. They're not stupid. If BSA starts saying all touch is bad touch, boys won't be interested in joining. Boys are aware of the fact they will soon be men. They are also aware of BSA's attitude toward men. They don't like being told that men are bad. As future men, they feel than the negative attitudes BSA has about men reflect poorly on them as well.

We're scouters. We thrive on useless information.

We need to remember that the COR has a seat on the council board (for all the good it does us). Changing the unit structure would also necessitate a change of the council structure. I'm not sure what that might look like.