David CO

It is from our CO. This is getting to be a thing. A prominent Catholic speaker gave a speech last summer on the topic of Catholic moral values as they relate to modesty. (I think you can find it on the internet.) She stated that she doesn't allow her boys out in public without a shirt. She strongly recommends that Catholic boys wear shirts in the pool or at the beach. I have heard LDS people say something similar before. This was the first time I heard it from a Catholic conference speaker. It sounds nutty to me. Historically, the Catholic Church has been known for having nude statues and frescos, even in our churches. Catholic high schools often had nude swimming in their gym classes. Growing up, I never considered Catholicism to be a prudish religion. My point was that our CO is coming up with new rules and restrictions. I don't think it would allow the unit to expand the scouting age to 21.

I agree. A lot of new rules/restriction are being imposed. We recently got a new rule that boys are not to remove their shirts. No shirts and skins in basketball. No changing shirts on the field. If a boy is wearing a sweatshirt underneath his uniform shirt, and it gets warm, he cannot just remove the sweatshirt. He must go to the locker room to change. Things are getting Victorian.

The sexual abuse scandals. First we had the scandal in the Catholic Church. Then we have the scandal in the boy scouts. Put them together and it is quite a mess. Our pastor would never approve of us having young adults in the unit. It could be a deal breaker. Extending the age limit might increase membership in some units, but it might cause others to drop their charters entirely.

I can think of one. Many Chartered Organizations wouldn't like it. My CO wouldn't like it at all.

I did very poorly at finger painting in kindergarten, but I have never had any desire to go back and finish the job. That time is past, and I have moved on to bigger and better things. None of the goals/achievements of my childhood, whether I succeeded at them or not, compare with the goals/achievements of my adulthood. This is the way it should be. I have no desire to be a Boy Scout again. I think the most important lesson we men can teach our teenage sons is that there will someday come a time when they will need to put away childish things and become a man. Once they become a man, they can never go back to being a boy again. So they should enjoy their boyhood now. They can only travel this road once.

People won't care what BSA exactly admits to. The numbers will tell the story. If the numbers are anywhere close to what they are now claiming, BSA will be found guilty in the court of public opinion.

Just about everybody will see a settlement as an admission of guilt.

You make some excellent points. But I don't think this is an either/or situation. We can pursue all groups that molest children.

I'm frustrated too. Been so for a long time now.

I don't think so. The problem isn't that BSA is getting bad press. The problem is that many thousands of scouts were sexually molested in scouting. There is no faux outrage here. The outrage is real.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we abolish public education. I'm not worried about that happening. I am a little concerned that distance education may become seen by many public school districts as a practical alternative to face-to-face learning.

I disagree with most of what you are saying, but I do agree that it was a different era. Attitudes were once very different than they are today. One of the most successful movies of 1971 was Summer of 42. No matter how beautiful the music and photography was, it is hard to get past the fact that it was about a 14 year old boy who has a sexual encounter with an emotionally damaged war widow. At the time, many called it a coming-of-age film. I saw it as a child molestation movie.

As members, yes. At the national level, no. At the national level, they are all of one mind, and it is not conservative.

All of those things (dentist, home repairs, chores, etc.) sound preferable to being an election judge.

When my unit stopped attending council and district events, our parents became less inclined to donate to FOS. The execs know this. It is all about the $$$.

There aren't very many CO's who have more than one troop. It's cheaper to run one large troop than 3 smaller ones. Besides, if you use the patrol method, what difference does it make how large the troop is? Some units take a broad view of the meaning of CO when it applies to multi-unit camping. My Catholic unit would not have hesitated to do camping activities at our diocese owned facility with other units who were chartered by other Catholic CO's. As a matter of fact, our annual scout mass was always a multi-unit event. It didn't much matter to us if the CO's were parishes, schools, or KC's. We were all Catholic units. I would think the same thing was true of public school units, back in the day when public schools chartered units. I doesn't matter if the unit was chartered by a school or a PTA. All of the units chartered by the various entities of a public school district should have felt free to do joint scouting activities together, so long as they were under the same "umbrella".

Not all Chartered Organizations like to announce their scouter appointments in advance before a vacancy occurs. Mine doesn't. People just have to wait and see. Sometimes it's an obvious choice, and sometimes it's not (if the CO is looking to make a change).

I do have mixed feelings, but it doesn't put me in a conflict of interest, since my loyalties are entirely with the CO. I have always been clear about that. I can understand how some people might feel differently.

Yes, but I can't share them with you.

Me too. I took a break from the forum a couple times. Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.

I've never taken an omnibus. Is that like a Greyhound?

Yes, people knew that youth were being abused. Parents taught their kids to be wary. I would add that some people did a very good job at keeping predators away from the kids. Not everybody was negligent. Many people were, but not everybody. My objection to your proposal is that everybody is punished alike. The protective parents, scouters, and CO's are treated exactly the same as the negligent ones. There is no reward for good behavior. Some parents recognized the abuse and didn't sign their kids up for scouting. They avoided it entirely. Should they now be responsible to pay for the abuses in scouting? Should they pay higher taxes? I don't think so.

Yes and no. The government is responsible for law enforcement. It should have done a better job at investigating and prosecuting crimes. So, in that sense, the government should have done more. Many people in law enforcement are supporters of BSA, and some of them turned a blind eye to the crimes that were being perpetrated in scouting. They were more interested in preserving BSA's reputation than they were in protecting kids. Shame on them. The failure of law enforcement to protect our kids should not become an excuse to relieve BSA of its liability for its misconduct and inaction. There is a difference between criminal and civil actions. The absence of criminal prosecution does not relieve someone of their civil liability.

Units aren't allowed to solicit funds in the name of scouting. This is just one of many contradictions in BSA policy. Units cannot raise funds in the name of scouting, but unit funds belong to BSA because they were raised in the name of scouting. Pure self-serving double-talk. BSA is just trying to intimidate CO's into turning over their property. Or, worst yet, BSA is encouraging unit leaders to steal camping equipment from their former CO's.

I'm not a lawyer either. Yes, part of the charter fees was for insurance. I don't think this relieves the CO's from liability. Regardless of who purchased the insurance policy, if the CO's are under-insured, I believe they are still liable for any judgement in excess of the insurance. My CO never relied on the BSA insurance. Only a fool would believe you could insure a unit for the amount we were charged on the chartering fee. I think it was $100 back in the 80's. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to collect from the CO's insurance policies as well as the BSA policy. I don't think the CO's insurance company would be willing to contribute to the bankruptcy fund. Each CO would have to be sued individually.