David CO

That is exactly my point. OA is not a unit activity. OA should not be involving the unit in their elections.

It is always a challenge to provide appropriate supervision for scouting activities.

How many units are in a Lodge?

The OA leaders in my area fiercely opposed any interference from the unit leadership and CO's. Once the boys were elected into OA, their activities were totally outside of our control. Our only recourse was to not hold OA elections.

I think that is a very good idea. CO's should be supervising and safeguarding their unit's scouts at all scouting activities.

I think you are all missing the point. The Chartered Organization has an obligation to protect its children. The CO can protect its children while they are participating in unit activities, but the CO has no control over OA. The CO cannot protect its children at OA activities. Why would a CO want to have a "pipeline" from its unit to some other program whose leadership and activities are totally outside the CO's control? It doesn't make any sense. I understand why OA would want to have this "pipeline", but I can't see any reason why a CO would want it. Even though the KC's are a Catholic organization, my church felt that it needed to have more direct control over Catholic scout units. It ordered all KC councils to transfer their units over to the parishes. If the bishops don't even trust the KC's to run scouting units, imagine how they feel about sending Catholic scouts to OA, which is completely outside their control. I can easily imagine how a CO might someday be liable because it allowed OA elections. But even if CO's aren't financially liable for issues arising from OA elections and OA activities, they still have a moral responsibility to safeguard the children in their units.

Yes. I have run into this many times in both scouting and sports. A boy feels he needs to quit an activity that he very much enjoys in order to show solidarity and support for his parent, who is no longer welcome. It happens a lot.

There is a very simple solution. He stays. You go.

I am not aware of any new rules that would prohibit a non-Catholic from serving on a unit committee.

I have zero confidence in BSA. Too many good people have been removed on baseless and unfounded rumors. Too many bad people have been left in because of influence and money.

When I was the IH, the Chartered Organization was the Athletic Department. It has since been transferred over to the parish office. The policies and practices were exactly the same for the scout unit as they were for the sports teams. We did that intentionally. Youth spectators weren't allowed to "join in the reindeer games" at sports events. Only registered team members.

I don't think so. Not entirely. There is a clear tie-in to this thread. The 24/7 thing is relevant to this discussion in that the Cubmaster thinks the den leader should have informed him about his visit to the troop. That's a 24/7 issue if I ever saw one. I don't see how we could leave it out. But I'm willing to drop it if that's the moderator decision.

This is the dilemma most of us are facing. We were raised to believe that we should obey the rules and do the right thing at all times regardless of whether or not someone is watching. A scout is trustworthy. No crack-down should be necessary. My unit would not require one of our scout leaders to "log-in" every time his son has a friend over to the house to play. That would be ridiculous. The topic of this thread would not apply to that situation.

Depends on the proximity. I often hire kids to mow the lawn, rake the leaves, pull the dandelions, as well as other outside yard-care activities. I think its good for boy scouts to earn some money and pay their own way.

I don't agree with this 24/7 thing that national is pushing. I totally agree that a den leader is not always acting as a den leader. Sometimes a den leader is just being a dad. A den leader can be off duty, so to speak. I get that. However, a den leader is always our unit leader at scouting activities. This is particularly true if he is wearing the uniform with our unit number on the sleeve. He is representing our unit. We expect him to comport himself like a scout leader, and we expect him to "log-in" his activities.

I hear that all the time. Visitors are allowed to observe our unit activities, but they are not allowed to join in. We would note any visitors in our troop log. We would not report it to the visitors' unit. If their unit requires notification of their visits, we would expect them to do it themselves. A scout is trustworthy.

I understand. As a long time baseball fan, I have a tendency to over-identify with my favorite team. When they win, I win. When they lose, I lose. Of course, I have no actual ownership stake in professional baseball. I'm not a billionaire. Being a fan is about emotions, not reality. It's not really my team. The same is true of BSA. We don't actually own BSA. We are not BSA. We never have been. We never will be. It's time for all of us to stop over-identifying with BSA. It can be fun to be a fan, but it stops being fun when we over-identify with our teams. When we start hating people because they cheer for our cross-town rivals, that is going too far. When we riot after a heartbreaking loss, that is going too far. We can be fans, but we need to ground ourselves in reality. The people who are suing BSA are not attacking us. The people who are defending BSA are not attacking them. Let's not start hating on each other over this bankruptcy. Regardless of what happens in the bankruptcy, the sun will still come up tomorrow. We will survive. We can still be happy and contented with our lives. We can continue to love our children and raise them to be successful and responsible adults.

Don't forget his wife. If you are going to report him, report her too.

My Chartered Organization insists on being informed of all scouting activities involving members of our unit. Every meeting. Every trip. Every training session. Every visit. No exceptions. How is it a bad thing for a den leader and his scout/son to tell the Cubmaster about their invitation to a troop meeting?

Please don't misquote me. I did not say less forthcoming. I said less than forthcoming. Different meanings. One is a comparison. The other is not.

Are you sure these are two different lawyers? It looks to me like this is probably the same person, but with the name misspelled somewhere..

I've never seen a school (CO) held liable for hiring the wrong guy, so long as they were unaware of any previous wrongdoings by the applicant. It is always the lack of oversight/supervision that gets them in trouble. By itself, signing off on an adult leadership application doesn't create any great liability problem for the CO. The CO's insurance company is fully aware of the fact that the CO signs off on all adult leadership applications. There is no deception. No hidden risks. BSA is in big trouble because it was less than forthcoming with information about the risks involved in its scouting programs. It hid information from the scouts, parents, units, CO's, and insurance companies.

You really don't need to cite any BSA rules as backup. Just calmly and politely tell him your expectations. You are the Cubmaster.

I don't know of any BSA rules that were violated by the visit, or for his failure to let you know about it. However, if this were my unit, his actions would have violated several of my Chartered Organization's policies and practices. As the Cubmaster, you are responsible for ensuring that your den leaders are following the policies and practices of your CO. If you feel that the den leaders actions contradict these policies and practices, then you would have every right to raise the issue with him.

I disagree. While CO's do face liability for any incidents that have taken place in their own units, they have no liability for the problems in the other units. Many, if not most, scout units have had no claims of sexual abuse. Also, the CO's did not have control of, or access to, the ineligibility files. Insurance companies will not be able to make an effective argument that the CO's hid information from them.