David CO

Or by anybody else. It is up to the parents and children to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk and plan their activities accordingly.

Would it be possible to place some reasonable limit on the number of posts by an individual member? A few people are dominating the conversation by the sheer number of their posts, most of which are just repeating what has already been said a hundred times already. I am not suggesting that you limit the content, just the numbers.

I hope the men didn't review and approve the adult leader applications at these alcohol-fueled Saturday-night poker games. I fear that some scout leaders may have been chosen for their ability to socialize with the adults rather than their skill at leading boys.

I watched My Cousin Vinny, so I knew that's how you New Yorkers pronounce it. I just didn't know you spelled it that way, too.

That really isn't true. The committee chairman was expected to thoroughly review all applications for unit leadership. If the committee members weren't personally aquatinted with the applicant, they expected references from people who were well-known in the Chartered Organization. At one time, the local Superintendent of Schools was expected to review the charter renewal and unit roster. They were pretty well aware of most of the disreputable persons in their school district, and were in a good position to point them out to the unit committee and chartered organization. This was a lot easier when scouting was more local, school districts were smaller and less bureaucratic, and each unit had only a handful of leaders.

I think some people came into scouting with an unfair expectation of us. Yes, we always strove to be safe. Teaching about health and safety is an important part of scouting. My unit never promised to be their safe place, as you put it. I am not Fred MacMurray. I never adopted Kurt Russell. I had a few foster kids in my program, but I never adopted them. My troop was not an adoption program. We were also not a big brother program. I did use adult association as a method of scouting, but that is different from being a big brother program. I did have some scouts who had terrible relationships with their fathers, but I was not their surrogate father. Being a surrogate father was not my role in my unit or my Chartered Organization. Like everyone, I am shocked and appalled by the revelations of child sexual abuse in scouting. That is not scouting. Parents and scouts had a reasonable expectation that this would not take place in scouting. I also think that some people came into scouting with an unreasonable expectation of what we would be able to do for them, and what we would be able to be for them. Scouting is not a panacea for all of the world's problems. That is too high an expectation of us. My CO only asked me to run a nice scouting program. I think I did that. But I apparently failed to meet many people's expectations. Sorry.

I still believe, whole heartedly, that scouting is still a worth-while activity for boys. I haven't wavered in that. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend scouting to any boy. My family has been very fortunate in that dual citizenship has given us a choice of scouting programs. I wish it were within my power to make a similar choice available to all boys in the United States, but that is sadly not possible. I do question the value of scouting to the Chartered Organization. BSA has made its scouting program increasingly inconsistent with the goals and aims of our youth outreach. Even as the program's value has decreased, the cost and liabilities have dramatically risen. When Lone Scouts of America was bought out, alumni organizations were formed for us to continue our fellowship outside of LSA. I hope something similar will happen for the many former members of BSA.

I assume this is a joke. Good one.

It would be very unusual for the CO's to all show up at a council meeting to vote out the council leadership. This might do it.

(Raising my hand and waving it wildly in the air) Ooh! Me, me, pick me!!!

Just move to Chicago. The whole city is a shooting range.

I guess it depends on where you think the crime occurred. Did it happen exclusively in a remote location in a campground of a time-barred state, or did it also happen in a hidden away corner of a secret file room at BSA headquarters? I think both. It shouldn't be treated like a local issue.

I not only think that this is the compassionate thing to do, I think it is also the smart thing to do. If claimants start turning on each other, they will lose much of their public support. They will convince the general public that it really is all about the money.

Is there a gagging emoji available?

Yes. Obviously, the COR cannot sign off on his own application. In that case, the IH signature is required. In my unit, the COR signed off on all applications other than his own. He brought them to me for review. I initialed them to indicate my approval.

The COR signs the applications. The IH signs the charter renewal, which lists all of the youth and adult members of the unit. So all members of a unit get signed off by both the IH and COR, but not on the same document.

I was an IH in the early 80's. Yes. IH and COR signatures were required.

Many CO's looked at it that way because it is what their councils were telling them. Councils constantly lie to the CO's.

That surprises me. Most people at that level have little to no concern for the lower-income families.

I agree with you 100% on this point. Scouting should be an affordable activity. Unfortunately, its not. BSA is more interested in providing expensive destination activities for well-heeled families. That's where the $$$ is.

Do you really believe your council has the authority to do that?

Is this a joke? Recruitment boundaries?

I very much doubt that. I think it is much more likely that members maintain their anonymity in order to hang on to their positions. You can't be held accountable if nobody knows who you are. Anyhow, I think the risk of abuse is far greater for the children than it is for the national committee membership. When you can honestly say that 80,000 committee members have been abused in scouting, I will have greater sympathy for BSA's viewpoint.

This is not unique to national scouters. Over a hundred thousand of our good citizens serve on city councils, school boards, park boards, library boards, etc.. It can be a thankless task. It can draw criticism, both deserved and undeserved. These local bodies conduct open meetings, and the names of their members are made public. BSA could do the same. I don't buy the argument that BSA needs to operate in such secrecy.

Feel free to start a separate thread.