David CO

I think that is exactly what we are talking about. Do scouts and scout leaders have to follow YP in those areas of our lives which many of us would normally consider outside of the world of scouting? Some good examples were given. Can scouts invite their friends out to a movie? Can scouts invite their friends over to their house to play? Yes. As a teacher, I have run into some of the same protection issues at school. Sometimes they make sense. Sometimes they go too far. At one Catholic school I worked at, the principal and pastor were insistent that male teachers not join the local YMCA. Our students regularly used the YMCA, and the school didn't want the male teachers changing and showering with their male students. It made no difference to them that the YMCA activities were outside of school. One of my principals clearly stated that she preferred to have the teachers live in a different town. She felt it was best to have the teachers avoid contact with their students outside of work. She lived 40 minutes away from school. Said she didn't want to bump into students and parents at the grocery store, and thought it would be best if teachers took the same attitude. Public schools don't have this problem. The union would tear the administrators to pieces if they tried that sort of stuff on public school teachers. The teachers are allowed to live a normal life outside of school. If scouting rules interfere with your family's ability to have a normal life, it is time to get out of scouting.

There is no way I would apply YP outside of scouting. It doesn't make sense, and it's not practical. I think most people would quit scouting if it meant they had to follow YP in their everyday lives.

That might work at the unit level, but a conservative parent doesn't get a choice between a conservative or liberal council.

It might help some if we stopped using academic sounding terms like University of Scouting.

Let me guess. Is her salary about $375,000 each year? I might also guess it hasn't been determined that her salary is too high. It would appear that Boy Scouting and Girls Scouting do have some things in common after all.

Toxic masculinity? If only that were true. Most kids today think the boy scouts are a bunch of wimps.

Both. Scouting has always been a game with a purpose. It's a good game. It's a good purpose. But scouting has never been this all-important, world changing movement that many die-hard scouters keep imagining. The stewards and guides of the program broke it by giving it this inflated sense of greatness. They encouraged adults to treat scouting like some sort of religious cult. It is not at all surprising that child sexual abuse (and a cover up) arose out of this mentality. Sexual abuse often occurs in cults, or cult like organizations. Many people still fail to understand that this cult-like attitude is what created the problem. Their cult-like devotion to scouting is what perpetuates the problem. They see themselves as the solution, but they are actually the problem.

I agree.

Isn't that what we want a chief scout executive to do?

There has naturally been a lot of stories in the press about the BSA bankruptcy. This is to be expected. The press would be remiss if they didn't report on it. This is real news. I will admit that I don't watch much late night TV, but the best/worst of the parody sketches usually get repeated in the daytime press. I haven't seen any parody sketches arising from the BSA bankruptcy. The so-called comedy shows seem to be laying off of scouting (for now). This could change. A PR campaign would almost certainly trigger a response from the entertainment media. BSA cannot saturate the media sufficiently to overwhelm negative press. First of all, they don't have that much money. Even if they did, the bankruptcy court wouldn't allow BSA to spend the money that way. A PR campaign would be a losing battle, and would just make things worst.

Advertising would invite parody. If BSA put out a commercial, the entertainment media would immediately come up with parody sketches about scouting. Many of them would be certain to include allusions to sexual abuse. The so-called comedy shows are very clever about this. They could take any positive message that BSA PR people might come up with and make it look sinister. If the scout uniform is used in the commercials, fair use rules might allow them to be used in the parody. The more visible the PR campaign, the more vicious the parody. If BSA bought commercial time during the super bowl, for example, the resulting parody would be merciless. Do we really want that?

Maybe this should not be used as an example, during the bankruptcy proceedings, to demonstrate how councils are separate and independent entities.

This sounds like a government solution. When in doubt, form a new committee. I don't think we need a new committee, or any other new entity. Just ask the Chartered Organization Representatives. This could be done by mandating a one-time vote of confidence/no confidence in every council. Only the COR's vote. If they vote no confidence, everybody at council is fired. Then let the COR's form a new council. If they want to merge with another council... fine. If they want to divide up into smaller councils... fine. Let them decide. No interference from national. Once the new councils are settled, have them choose delegates to a sort of constitutional convention. This time, we have a vote of confidence/no confidence for national. If they vote no confidence, everyone at national is fired. Have the delegates form a new BSA. Could BSA leaders survive a vote of no confidence? I doubt it.

Yes. It distracts us from nationals talking points, and brings us directly to the main issues of the discussion. We certainly can't have that.

They aren't. My unit has high hopes for the scouting movement. These aspirations just don't include the council. Many people make the assumption that the scouting movement and BSA are inseparable. Not true.

If he were around today, the Artful Dodger would probably become a lawyer. There is more than one way to pick a pocket.

I don't know why. Many of us have been saying for years that the BSA insurance coverage was probably insufficient to adequately protect us. We recommended buying your own insurance policy. I certainly did. My Chartered Organization did as well. Insurance companies still sell insurance. I would suggest that scout leaders contact a good insurance broker. He/she will be able to help determine the amount and type of insurance needed. Much better than asking for expert advice over the internet.

It's a nice thought. It would be great if camp alumni bought up these camps (and created endowments) as BSA and councils sell them off to pay debts. I just haven't seen this happening. The camps are mostly being bought up by developers.

Since many of the reported cases of sexual abuse occurred at camps, I don't think the camps and the endowment funds would remain protected. The lawyers would definitely go after the endowment fund.

This is yet another example of top down thinking. The council thinks that volunteers exist to fulfill their priorities. The volunteers, not surprisingly, think and act differently. We tend to think that councils exist to fulfill our priorities. I agree that this is the only reason that district executives exist. They exist because the volunteers won't fulfill the councils' priorities. Hiring district executives allows the council to create their own priorities rather than focus on things that actually benefit the units.

My school gets a lot of professional services donated to us. The largest business in town has a bunch of IT people, and they give their employees some comp-time for donating their services to our school. This saves us a ton of money, and gets us some highly skilled people (who we could never afford to hire full time).

Shutting down is the only helpful thing my council ever does.

I always liked the sound of Round Table. It evokes the feeling of a meeting of equals. Nothing top down.

Fair enough. If it is shown that Chartered Organizations knew of the abuse and covered it up, my guess is that they will be included in the lawsuits. I not only think that this is a possibility, it is a likelihood. Yes, I do think Chartered Organizations should be actively involved in their units. They should carefully select the leaders and properly supervise them. The Chartered Organization owns the unit.

I think we agree on this. There should be a better way. The victims of the past should have been given justice many years ago. They weren't. The executive board and the employees were (and still are) more concerned with keeping their secrets and hiding their complicity than with giving justice to the victims.