David CO

Maybe the Omaha Tribe should send out a letter of apology to let us know that Philips is not representative of most members of their Tribe. A better title for this thread might have been, Omaha Tribe elder harasses youth visiting the Washington Memorial.

It has everything to do with Philip's motivation for getting into the boy's face. He didn't like the fact that the boy supported the President and/or the President's policies. This looks to me like creative video editing by liberal journalists. They deliberately left out the beginning where Philips approached the boys (in order to make it look like Philips was an innocent victim of unruly Trump supporters).

It is my understanding that the boy in the video did not approach Nathan Philips, but was just holding his ground. Philips was the one who got in the boy's face. Philips apparently didn't like the boy's hat. Philips had previously held protests outside of the Trump hotel. He is no fan of Donald Trump or of the President's supporters.

Just about all of them.

Personally, I'd rather see couples get engaged before they become parents.

I get enough of this bureaucratic garbage at work. Why would I volunteer my free time to get more of the same? Scouting is a game for boys. Let's keep it fun.

That is true. Less than the Scoutmaster... but a lot more than the District Executive.

That would be up to the Chartered Organization to decide. I know of no rule that would prohibit a CO from having an election to choose the Scoutmaster. Many CO's have elections to choose their IH.

That's a bit harsh. I don't care who he is. If he spoke about my Scoutmaster in that manner, I think I might have quietly informed him that the boys in my unit will not be doing any more projects for that beneficiary. Never disrespect the Scoutmaster.

It's not your job.

I am thinking of the liability issues. Yes, your Chartered Organization should be concerned.

I see the problem. You have parents in your unit who don't accept you as the Scoutmaster, official or otherwise. I can't entirely blame them. You are not a Scoutmaster. Your Chartered Organization should be concerned.

...and neither does anyone else, I'm guessing. Would you expect people to back you up in your decision without any authoritative "proof" that the incident actually happened?

OK. Who is officially the Scoutmaster?

That's what most people think. BSA promotes that version of revisionist history because it fits with what they want to do with Lone Scouting. The main difference between BSA and LSA wasn't urban/rural. It was middle class/working class. Boyce was a newspaper publisher. He learned that very few of his working class boys (newsboys, copy boys, etc.) were joining BSA. At first, he made efforts to convince BSA to reach out to working class boys. When that failed, he decided to form LSA to meet that need. He was also concerned that BSA was becoming too adult run. When word got out that there was now a scouting organization for working class city boys, many working farm boys also decided to join. Before long, the farm boys outnumbered the city boys.

Lone Scouting was originally a program run by a completely separate organization, Lone Scouts of America. It did not start as a program intended for BSA members who lived too far from a BSA unit. Lone Scouting started as a program for working class city boys. The first Lone Scouts were newspaper boys from Chicago.

Scout executives strongly discourage Lone Scouting. It doesn't really matter if it is the most appropriate choice for the boy.

I can understand how the parents could have been unaware of the bullying while it was taking place, since the incident took place in another part of the house. How did they react when they learned about what had transpired under their roof?

Yes. It is not a new thing. I've seen a SE threaten to revoke the membership of a COR because the COR wouldn't vote the way the SE wanted at council meetings.

Yes. Mac's solution not only replaces the CC, it also usurps the authority of the COR to choose and appoint the CC. I would not recommend doing that.

I agree. But Redman says they have already talked to the COR.

We have to take a lot of garbage from people too, but we don't get paid for it.

I have no comments to make about the decision, but I am a bit put off by the way it was announced. They made it sound like this was an OA decision rather than a BSA decision. If the comments of OA members on this forum are a reflection of OA members in general, I would have to conclude that this decision was not made by OA. Am I wrong?

Borders on the criminal?

I think you have your answer. I personally don't like the idea of having a BOR member abstain from the vote. The vote is supposed to be unanimous. Pressuring a member to abstain rather than casting a negative vote is a cop out. Others had reservations. I'm not sure if this means that they had reservations about your son, or if they had reservations about the correctness of the voting procedure (the abstention). I would also have reservations about the voting procedure. I can now understand why the committee might not want to offer an explanation. They might not like the fact that a BOR member felt pressured to abstain from the vote, but they don't want to say anything that would question the correctness of the process or the validity of your son's eagle. I don't see any point in asking for further explanation. The committee might feel that they are already doing your son a big favor by not questioning the procedure/results of the BOR. They might be dismayed that you are angry with them. I am curious how you now feel about it. Do you think the BOR member should have abstained?