News from National Meeting?

[Gwaihir]

One other concern that hit me this morning: helicopter parents.  With national's new emphasis on family instead of boys, I see a major increase in the number of helicopter parents.

 

"We will develop the leaders of tomorrow... that cant make a decision unless its cleared with their mothers" 

[TAHAWK]

This is just my opinion, but Venturing seems to be suffering from the same problems that Boy Scouts has, only it's worse. Namely, scout leadership is even more important in venturing, because there's no advancement carrot such as Eagle, and yet the venturing scouts I've seen have no more leadership skills than the boy scouts. It takes a certain amount of self motivation to make things happen. Without it scouts just sit and wait for someone else to do do it. The parents aren't around in venturing to run things. That's why I think fixing venturing will fix boy scouts. This has little to do with coed.

Yes, if we just had more adults around "to run things."  

 

We agree on one thing - leadership is the issue.  BSA has misplaced leadership training for youth by eliminating anything between the unit and week-long courses.  The former is typically, but not universally, incapable of delivering the training and the latter is not attractive to the majority of youth for a variety of reasons.  Our one notably successful Venturing crew has a WB Course Director as Crew Advisor.  She runs several effective training days a year, reaching out to bring in staff from outside the unit and council, and the leaders of that crew plan and carry out a diverse and exciting program with 25-40 active members over the last six years .  We have had other adults in the area run "unofficial" training weekends for Venturing leaders, and we need more of that response to deficiencies in "official" programming.

Edited May 30, 2017 by TAHAWK

[Eagle94-A1]

"We will develop the leaders of tomorrow... that cant make a decision unless its cleared with their mothers" 

 

Don't get me started. we have 2 helicopter moms going to summer camp with the troop. The moms are so use to Cub Scouts and family camping that so far their kids have not camped with us.

 

To quote the late Han Solo, and many others, " I've got a bad feeling about this."

[NJCubScouter]

Don't get me started. we have 2 helicopter moms going to summer camp with the troop. The moms are so use to Cub Scouts and family camping that so far their kids have not camped with us.

Are these people leaders in the troop or just unregistered parents? Have they taken YP training? As has been discussed in this forum many times, leaders on a trip whose son is also on the trip should be acting as leaders, not as parents. Has that been explained to them?

Edited May 30, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Gwaihir]

It's funny, I had a discussion with a well meaning mom, who was lamenting the first year scouts creating their own camp meal plan, and it being woefully bad.  When the boys got to camp, they were watching the other patrol of experienced scouts enjoying all sorts of food, and they were mad at what they had.  She was upset with the SM because he let the boys do their own plans, and didn't coach them or help them"

 

i then saw an interview with Tico Perez where he talks about that exact experience when he was a scout, and how that was one of the most important experiences he had in scouting.  Failing and being hungry on a camping trip... he never made that mistake again.  

[Eagle94-A1]

Are these people leaders in the troop or just unregistered parents? Have they taken YP training? As has been discussed in this forum many times, leaders on a trip whose son is also on the trip should be acting as leaders, not as parents. Has that been explained to them?

 

Registered with the pack, not sure about troop. We are in a bit of "transition" as we have a new SM, soon to get new IH, and several committee members are soon to be stepping down. I do not know if they duel registered or not. Have the Cub training, and are supposed to do SM Specific and IOLS at summer camp.

 

As to having it explained to them, yes it has been, and there was a little "push back" with one mom stating how another troop doesn't mind mothers camping. We told them point blank, mothers camping is not a problem, it's parents babying the Scouts and interfering that is the issue. 

[Col. Flagg]

Well if a working group was formed to explore the girls-in-scouting issue, the press is pretty darn silent on the topic. You'd think someone would pick it up if it were true.

[NJCubScouter]

I don't know what new policies came from the National Meeting but I hope there will be more-effective and parent-reassuring Youth Protection policies.  Safety is job one.

 

Hardly a week goes by when there is not a new story about a recent abuse and always the BSA is pitted against the victim. Oh there are still stories about abuse that occurred 10, 20 or more years ago.

 

1. Stop withholding information. No lame excuses. Turn over all information to law enforcement, let them investigate.

2. Get on the side of the child in legal proceeding. Some school districts have succeeded in doing this in cases of teacher abuse of students.

3. Publicly lobby FOR child safety and protection at both the state and National level. (See NY article below).

It appears they are following a typical litigation strategy which is of course lawyer-driven and probably also insurance-company-driven, rather than public-image-driven. In the case of the New York legislation, passage of that bill will allow people to sue whose deadlines had previously passed, and the BSA is taking a somewhat reflexive approach based on the idea that fewer lawsuits means fewer payments to claimants. It makes sense from a short-term financial point of view but again, does not improve the BSA's public image.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "get on the side of the child in legal proceedings". In most cases the claimant will have sued both the alleged abuser as well as the BSA and possibly the council as well. "Getting on the side of the child" would most likely involve settling with the claimant and then going after the alleged abuser. But that person may very well have nothing that the BSA could recover. He may already have been convicted of a crime for the same abuse, in which case he may have "lost everything", assuming he ever had anything.  The BSA's alternative is to take the case to trial, in which event they might win and pay nothing. So the question would be, how much does the BSA end up paying for the possibility of improving its public image?

Edited May 30, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[CalicoPenn]

 

 

But my biggest concern is the BSA changing the program majorly to accommodate girls. This quote on one of the slides posted on facebook from the meeting greatly concerns me: " Do current programs meet the character and leaderships needs of older girls?"

 

I'm sorry, but if girls want the BSA program, they need to accept it as is and not change it.

 

 

 

Without actually being in the room and hearing the discussion around this question, it's a bit hard to know what is meant by it.

 

I can think of a number of things that this question might be exploring.

 

The most obvious, to me at least, is the question of whether the BSA is successfully meeting the needs of older girls in those programs they are already involved with - is the BSA meeting the needs of older girls in Venturing, Sea Scouting and Exploring?  If the answer is yes then maybe the BSA can build on that at the Boy Scout level.  If the answer is no, then maybe they need to concentrate on fixing that (and they should fix it if it's not working since those are already co-ed programs) and not expanding to Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts just yet.

 

Another meaning is that it could be leading to a discussion on if the Boy Scout program meets those needs as the program exists, which will make it fairly easy to bring girls in, or whether the program as is will not meet those needs without major changes that will likely prove extremely controversial and lead to a bigger decline in membership numbers than would be already anticipated.  I think it's a fair question to explore and to understand and I think its one that needs to be considered early in the process.

 

I doubt the BSA will move forward with admitting girls in to the Cub Scout program (which seems to me to be the program that may be easiest to adjust to) unless they can integrate girls in to the Boy Scouts - to let girls join Cub Scouts then to tell them they can't "graduate" to Boy Scouts seems a bit self-defeating.

[RememberSchiff]

It appears they are following a typical litigation strategy which is of course lawyer-driven and probably also insurance-company-driven, rather than public-image-driven. In the case of the New York legislation, passage of that bill will allow people to sue whose deadlines had previously passed, and the BSA is taking a somewhat reflexive approach based on the idea that fewer lawsuits means fewer payments to claimants. It makes sense from a short-term financial point of view but again, does not improve the BSA's public image.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "get on the side of the child in legal proceedings". In most cases the claimant will have sued both the alleged abuser as well as the BSA and possibly the council as well. "Getting on the side of the child" would most likely involve settling with the claimant and then going after the alleged abuser. But that person may very well have nothing that the BSA could recover. He may already have been convicted of a crime for the same abuse, in which case he may have "lost everything", assuming he ever had anything.  The BSA's alternative is to take the case to trial, in which event they might win and pay nothing. So the question would be, how much does the BSA end up paying for the possibility of improving its public image?

 

Is an employer/organization always liable for the criminal actions of its employees/volunteers?

[NJCubScouter]

Is an employer/organization always liable for the criminal actions of its employees/volunteers?

 

No, it depends on the circumstances.

[Rock Doc]

Yes, if we just had more adults around "to run things."  

 

We agree on one thing - leadership is the issue.  BSA has misplaced leadership training for youth by eliminating anything between the unit and week-long courses.  The former is typically, but not universally, incapable of delivering the training and the latter is not attractive to the majority of youth for a variety of reasons.  Our one notably successful Venturing crew has a WB Course Director as Crew Advisor.  She runs several effective training days a year, reaching out to bring in staff from outside the unit and council, and the leaders of that crew plan and carry out a diverse and exciting program with 25-40 active members over the last six years .  We have had other adults in the area run "unofficial" training weekends for Venturing leaders, and we need more of that response to deficiencies in "official" programming.

 

Mecklenburg County Council runs a highly successful youth leadership course that bridges the gap between unit-delivered ILST and council-sponsored NYLT, known as Scouts Excited About Leadership Skills (S.E.A.L.S). This course is targeted at 11 to 14-yr old scouts to teach them the skills to become proficient Patrol Leaders, and focuses on team dynamics, teaching using the EDGE method, camping using LNT methods, and SMART goal planning. Graduates from this weekend-long program come back to the troop buzzing with enthusiasm and primed to make a difference.

[RememberSchiff]

No, it depends on the circumstances.

How does the BSA get into those "circumstances"?

 

Simply put by this layman, I want to reduce the possibility of the family suing the BSA and , if the evidence warrants, increase the possibility of the scout and the BSA together prosecute/sue the alleged abuser. 

 

Sorry for the clumsy language, hopefully you will get my meaning.

Edited May 30, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[TAHAWK]

BSA has been found liable, in part, for its own actions, like an organizational decision not report abuse or abusers.  When YPT started, the "correct answer" was to report suspected abuse solely to the SE.  That changed.

[NJCubScouter]

I doubt the BSA will move forward with admitting girls in to the Cub Scout program (which seems to me to be the program that may be easiest to adjust to) unless they can integrate girls in to the Boy Scouts - to let girls join Cub Scouts then to tell them they can't "graduate" to Boy Scouts seems a bit self-defeating.

 

Well, first, even if they could collect registration fees for "only" the 5 years of Cub Scouting, from youths who were not previously eligible (i.e. girls), if the number of members is large enough I doubt the BSA would see that as "self-defeating."  That's potentially a large chunk of revenue that they are not getting now.

 

Second, let's look back at what was reported earlier in the thread about the potential options at the Boy Scout level:

 

Boy Scouts

- a separate organization that is structured like the Boy Scouts for girls

- a Troop that would have a Patrol (a small unit of 4 ~ 10) for girls and other patrols for boys. All Patrols in the Troop would participate in the same activities.

 

And all of this (both Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts) would be a matter of local (CO) option.  So even if there is a Cub Scout pack in a given area that admits girls, either as an all-girl pack or a coed pack, there is no way of knowing whether there will be either an all-girl troop or a coed troop anywhere within a convenient distance for the Webelos girls to cross over to.  In other words, they can make all these new options available to CO's, but there is no way of knowing whether existing or new CO's in a given area will decide to offer all of them, some of them or none of them.  So the idea of getting the Boy Scout portion established before the Cub Scout portion may not work.