walk in the woods

UK Scouts has been at it for what, 20 years now?

I'll plead the 5th.

He was the SE for my council and tried to do the same thing here.

Nothing wrong with the idea of tort reform. But let's be clear, the lawyers in these cases are operating inside the system created by politicians.

It's been said before, but, worth saying again. The current cultural zeitgeist requires full compliance and submission. Organizations like the BSA, the NRA, or the Church that refuse to fully comply either have to be destroyed or taken over. Multiple corporations, the NFL, MLB, NBA, GSUSA, etc. have already bent the knee, literally in some cases and figuratively, in an attempt to save themselves from the postmodern leftists. They may or may not be spared the wrath of the mob. The BSA has come to believe the path to survival is to also bend the knee. It is likely too late for the BSA. The reason "parts of the government" (e.g. public schools) and the "entertainment industry" get a pass is they are already controlled by the leftists. They are a means to an end. I believe the correct term is "useful idiots."

What do you think he could do?

Oh please. He was a lackey of American Imperialism! 🤣

I did it with my son at PTC 10 or 12 years back. I seem to recall knife throwing at 2013 Jambo.

Just poking around a bit. https://www.mississippi-umc.org/newsdetail/united-methodist-churches-and-boy-scouts-of-america-14335626 https://www.gnjumc.org/the-boy-scouts-of-america/ https://www.gnjumc.org/the-boy-scouts-of-america/statement-on-boy-scout-bankruptcy-from-gnj-chancellor/

Yep., I get that and have no issue with the strategy. I'm just suggesting there is more than one way to skin a cat, and none of them involve turning assets over to a council.

Offer your equipment for sale to the families and CO membership. Spend that cash and every cent in the treasury on the biggest blow out fully catered no holds barred CoH. If there's any equipment or cash left tell council to come and take it. They arent going to lawyer up over it. Hell they wont even force a DE to visit the CO.

I suspect there were well trained RSOs at Ft. Leavenworth.

Agreed. @yknot and @CynicalScouter what changes are you advocating? Being a premier youth outdoor program is a mission statement not a change. What are the specifics?

Sure, but like it or not there is an enumerated constitutional power to establish a postal service, and, I have options beyond the USPS. Just because the feds have one power doesn't mean they should have all of them.

The Post Office didn't and doesn't own the infrastructure necessary to be an ISP. I suppose they could have contracted to build an entirely parallel infrastructure. Or they could have demanded access from all the telecom, cable, satellite, and cellular companies. But, do you really want a federal government agency in control of the internet? Reading your email, denying you access to encryption services, watching your reading habits? Having the power to shut your access down indiscriminately? Do you want to give that power to Trump? Biden? Harris? Imagine if today's internet existed during the 60s. How easy would it have been for Hoover to surveil King?

I agree with @ParkMan, this is a good topic. But the thread does point out a challenge with the concept of authenticity, namely, it's in the eye of the beholder. I didn't bring up the GNY Council issue to rehash the gays/girls issue. But it does point out the challenges with a concept like authenticity. Some people saw that decision as authentic, leaders doing what they thought was right regardless of the rules of the organization. Others, saw it as inauthentic because the leaders didn't uphold the rules of the organization they'd signed up to serve. Much like @CynicalScouter charged against @David CO. Your own OP said it explicity: Authenticity is a quality that others must attribute to you. We can pick any number of issues we've discussed in this forum that confirm the "others must attribute to you" reality. For example. Laser Tag/squirt guns. We've were initially told it was a safety issue, then we learned it really was a "simulated firearm" issue. Some folks find the simulated firearm reason authentic leadership, others, including every kid and parent I ever worked with, thought it was a load of PC bumpkus, well, let's call it inauthentic. The gaslighting on dodgeball is another good example. We were told it was never an approved activity. When it was pointed out, with documentation, that it had been listed as an activity, we got doublespeak. Some people no doubt agreed that the ban on dodgeball was authentic leadership in taking a stand against bullying or whatever the reason was, others, not so much. Now, if in all those cases the BSA had come out and said, look, the insurance company lawyers have told us we can't do these things, people would have accepted that answer. They'd have ignored it anyway, but, they'd have accepted that answer as authentic. Instead, we got inauthentic "safety" arguments that defied common sense. The risk of being perceived as inauthentic, is to be ignored. That's where BSA leadership finds itself. Ultimately, I think authenticity is implicitly wrapped up in trustworthiness. If you've ever thought, "I just don't trust that guy" you've made a judgement on "that guy's" authenticity. If you've ever been duped by someone, the cliché used car salesman say, you've experienced somebody who can fake authenticity. I don't think authenticity can be taught as a skill but rather only as a concept; like trust and integrity, it is built up over time by the consistency of ones actions.

Like when the GNY Council hired Pascal Tessier in violation of then current membership standards? It was a clear violation of the regulations and BSA national did nothing. Agree or disagree with the decision, the BSA showed they don't have the courage to enforce their own rules therefore the rules are meaningless. Never give an order you know will be disobeyed if you don't have the courage to enforce it.

So 3 random thoughts: 1. The charter agreement used to say the council would send a representative to discuss and sign the agreement with the IH. I never once saw that happen in 15 years of charter/recharter efforts. People treated it according to the importance so assigned. 2. I don't recall anything in the agreement that prevents a CO from placing additional requirements on leader training. 3. The CO selects and approves leaders for their units. I seem to recall during the membership changes the BSA specifically said COs had full control of leader selection. Has that changed? So my suggestion is take the training and sign the form if your conscious allows. If not, respectfully decline and find a different unit to serve. No drama required.

@ParkMan, if two units decided to camp together why would these standards apply? Not sure I'm following your logic.

They did, https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/boy-scouts-lobby-in-states-to-stem-the-flow-of-child-abuse-lawsuits/2018/05/08/0eee0a44-47d8-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

Where to begin. There's no such thing as culturally neutral. Everything we do, all of our symbols and ceremonies, occurs in the context of culture. BSA is awash in cultural appropriation. Heraldry, uniforms, patrols, salutes, etc. all came from different cultures. Woodbadge beads? Appropriation. Vikings, Trojans, Spartans, Valkyrie patrol patches? Appropriation. Heck, the entirety of the Cub Scout rank system, based on the Jungle book, was written by a racist defender of British Imperialism and stereotypes culture. Further, appropriation of culture goes way beyond the words. As you mentioned above, many cultures use face painting for any number of reasons. Some cultures use face tattoos for similar reasons (face painting is just a temporary version of the same). Therefore, the very act of face painting, even in complete silence, is potentially appropriative in its own right. Our postmodern zeitgeist tells us that it's not the intent of the actor, rather how ones words or actions are perceived, that defines appropriation. So, even if your Pack comes up with something they all agree is inoffensive (i.e. works for the culture of your Pack), anybody from outside that takes offense at the action has the postmodern moral high ground. To be clear, I'm just a stranger on the internet. I don't really care how your Pack celebrates your scouts and I'm happy that you are in fact celebrating in person. Just be honest about your reasons for change. Now, don't get me started on Yankees making grits! 🤣

6 and 7 figure salaries of the Pros.

And it is exactly what happened in the GM case. New GM LLC came in with $50B in tax money, bought the best of the assets and emerged from Ch 11 as GM. The old GM changed their name, kept the less desirable assets, the tax dollars, and the liabilities, then liquidated it all to satisfy creditors.

When GM was in Chapter 11 a new corporation was formed to buy the functioning assets of the old GM, including the brands. The old GM then took that money, sold off the dregs and went away in liquidation. So why couldn't some monied interests buy the IP and leave the real estate and debts and liabilities behind with the old org? I'm not sure I'm buying the charter argument. As pointed out above the purpose of the BSA, in the charter, is to serve boys. If you click to the next page you'll see the charter of the Boys and Girls Club is to serve youth. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/31102. Clearly the authors of the law understood the difference between boys and youth. Seems like if the BSA offers the charter as a defense it wouldn't take much lawyering to argue the BSA is in violation of the charter.

That's the beauty of postmodern philosophy invading every aspect of culture, media, and education. There are no objective truths, there are no facts outside of their interpretation by the receiver, there is no objective reality. Your personal feelings are as good as actual facts, because, facts are filtered by the power structure. Your kids believe America is an awful place because some teacher, media person, pop culture personality told them so. The personal also told them that any "facts" that contradict that feeling are racist because facts are a tool of the oppressor class. This creates an unfalsifiable premise because anything that contradicts the premise is deemed racist (or sexist or homophobic or islamaphobic or genderphobic or whatever the case may be). When confronted with actual facts or data, the postmodern simply has to say "I don't feel like that's true" and the debate is over. https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/