BSA Territories Plan

[CynicalScouter]

26 minutes ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

As I said, when BSA starts to answer questions, then perhaps I'll be inclined to participate and help. But I cannot, in clear conscious and a straight face, help promote Safe Scouting when my own questions don't get answered and my emails don't get returned.

It very, very much seems as if engagement means "Do what your told. Don't ask questions. Don't expect answers."

EDIT: So I'll ask once again (and if it takes a letter to the bankruptcy court, maybe that is what it takes to get you/BSA to take this seriously).

What is the SAFETY reason for not allowing an adult to tent with his/her own child? Not the PROGRAM reason, the SAFETY reason?

If you throw me another PROGRAM answer I'll know you and BSA National are not serious about this.

Quote

Q. Why do youth tent separately from parents outside of Cub Scouting?

A. Scouts BSA, Sea Scouts, and Venturing are youth led programs.  The Cub Scout program is family-oriented.

Is, as I noted a PROGRAM answer.

Are you concerned that parents will sexually abuse their children? Ok, that's a SAFETY reason. I may agree/disagree, but I can see that could be a SAFETY concern, sure.

But simply throwing up the FAQ that talks about PROGRAM is not a SAFETY reason.

Deciding not to answer my emails regarding a SAFETY is not a best practice, either, but that's another story. Perhaps one the court and claimants attorneys need to know?

Edited March 19, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mashmaster]

Regarding the malase at National.

I had the opportunity recently to speak with the professional at National that is in charge of the program for Venturing and Sea Scouts.  We talked about the limitation of them not able to earn Merit Badges unless they had already attained first class in a troop.  We actually have requirements in our programs are to have scouts earn the merit badge for a few requirements.  To me, it seemed obvious that all Sea Scouts and Venturers should be allowed to earn the merit badge if they complete the requirements.  The response I got was that this would hurt Troops.  That made no sense to me.  If the ability to earn a merit badge is the reason why a scout is in a Troop then they are focusing on the wrong thing.  If they have already attained 1st class in a troop then they can earn it.

I know the National Commodore for Sea Scouts and we chatted, he said it was a commonly held believe that Troops think Sea Scouts and Venturers are a threat to their program.  The scouts move onto these other units because the program is more interesting for them.  

[mashmaster]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I said, when BSA starts to answer questions, then perhaps I'll be inclined to participate and help. But I cannot, in clear conscious and a straight face, help promote Safe Scouting when my own questions don't get answered and my emails don't get returned.

It very, very much seems as if engagement means "Do what your told. Don't ask questions. Don't expect answers."

EDIT: So I'll ask once again (and if it takes a letter to the bankruptcy court, maybe that is what it takes to get you/BSA to take this seriously).

What is the SAFETY reason for not allowing an adult to tent with his/her own child? Not the PROGRAM reason, the SAFETY reason?

If you throw me another PROGRAM answer I'll know you and BSA National are not serious about this.

Are you concerned that parents will sexually abuse their children? Ok, that's a SAFETY reason. I may agree/disagree, but I can see that could be a SAFETY concern, sure.

But simply throwing up the FAQ that talks about PROGRAM is not a SAFETY reason.

Deciding not to answer my emails regarding a SAFETY is not a best practice, either, but that's another story. Perhaps one the court and claimants attorneys need to know?

I didn't know that was not allowed per YP.  I agree for a safety aspect, a parent should be able to tent together.  If possible, I think it is best for the scouts to share with other scouts but that isn't a safety concern.  

I would love to know the answer as well about why it isn't allowed under the safety guideline.  If it is program based, then it should be a recommendation not a requirement. 

[David CO]

22 minutes ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

Yes.  Look at the responses that followed.  Look at them very closely.  

The problem is that BSA ignores customer response.  It is a foolish way of doing business, and BSA is now paying the price for its arrogance.

Edited March 19, 2021 by David CO

[CynicalScouter]

13 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

I agree for a safety aspect, a parent should be able to tent together.  If possible, I think it is best for the scouts to share with other scouts but that isn't a safety concern.  

THAT is my point. THAT is my question. THAT is my concern.

I can understand if the statement was "Because Scouting (other than Cubs) is scout-led, scout-focused, and scout-driven, adults should generally not tent with their children."

That's a programmatic reason. That is trying to keep Scouts, BSA and the senior-scout programs from becoming Cub Scouts Part 2. I can 100% support that PROGRAMMATICALLY.

The problem is that a parent now is BEING THREATENED WITH BEING DECLARED A YOUTH PROTECTION VIOLATOR if they tent with their kid.

I went up the chain. Went to my district chair. What is the SAFETY reason for this? Don't know.

Went to my S.E. What is the SAFETY reason for this?  Don't know. Email National.

Emailed national. Got the boilerplate PROGRAM answer I already found online at that @RichardBgave. So I followed up that email and asked again, that's a PROGRAM reason. What is the SAFETY reason.

Never got a response. Let me repeat. NEVER. GOT. A. RESPONSE.

So no, thanks. I'm not going to help BSA on Safe Scouting unless and until I can get ONE STRAIGHT ANSWER.

Will I obey the Guide to Safe Scouting? Absolutely.

Will I obey Youth Protection Training? Absolutely

Will I tent with my son at a BSA event? NEVER.

But if BSA cannot even bother itself to answer a basic question WHY something is done or WHY a PROGRAM rule is being wrapped up as a SAFETY rule, don't bother asking me to help lift a finger to promote that same program.

22 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

I would love to know the answer as well about why it isn't allowed under the safety guideline.  If it is program based, then it should be a recommendation not a requirement. 

Hey @RichardByou and BSA decided to ignore my email and question. Got another person asking the same.

Any response? At all? No? Ok then.

[CynicalScouter]

24 minutes ago, David CO said:

Yes.  Look at the responses that followed.  Look at them very closely.  

The problem is that BSA ignores customer response.  It is a foolish way of doing business, and BSA is now paying the price for its arrogance.

You KNOW that the world's turned upside down when @David COand I agree on something, but we agree on this.

BSA couldn't even be bothered to answer ONE question about the SAFETY (not program) need for the YPT policy on adults tenting with their own children.

Edited March 19, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

  @RichardB, your request has only been up for 36 hours...give it time...

Also, would you mind elaborating a bit??

What is the task and commitment required, please?

And what role do you play, if you can share...I think you work with Health and Safety at National, right?

Finally, please let me know if you will vet folks through their council.  If so, I'm out... not on good terms here... for asking a LOT of the same questions and not accepting unacceptable answers

But if you want someone to shoot straight, not beat around the bushes, and will really help you with issues, I might be one of your lackeys

Edited March 19, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter
fixed embedded @RichardB notification

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, mashmaster said:

The scouts move onto these other units because the program is more interesting for them.  

Well, duh!!  It is more interesting for them.  Unless very well executed, the Scout program, with the wide range of age groups, tends to focus more on the needs of younger Scouts.  I posit that is a drag for the older ones.  I know our older Scouts absolutely LOVE IT when we do program events for them only.

[KublaiKen]

6 hours ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

The solution to what? Not getting an answer? Is the solution that being a member of the upper echelons is the only way to get the answer, or that those now holding these upper positions will never give the answer, so you need new people and are recruiting them?

This issue came up last weekend when we were camping with a brand new Scout and his dad, and it was awkward telling him that tenting with his own son was a YP issue, especially given that less than a month ago when he was the AOL Den Leader it wasn't.

Short of me taking on yet another volunteer role, this time in the Service Territory structure, is there a way for me to find out why this is a YP issue and not a program issue?

[MattR]

6 hours ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

Touchè.

The future of the bsa, if there is one, is going to require a lot more humility on both sides. Too many hatchets flying around that are not in an approved range, so to speak.

 

[qwazse]

19 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Are you concerned that parents will sexually abuse their children? Ok, that's a SAFETY reason. I may agree/disagree, but I can see that could be a SAFETY concern, sure.

@CynicalScouter, I believe that no BSA official will tell you why scouts-tenting-with-scouts-only is under “barriers to abuse” because the liability of giving an answer is costly beyond belief. Simply consider that someone would consider a child to have been groomed if they received kindness from a person who later sexually abused other children.

Now consider the vast number of abusers who are parents. More than one or two of them might have tented with their children. Those children, even if they weren’t abused, may claim that whoever permitted that tenting scenario to occur allowed them to be victims of grooming — taking the loose interpretation of the term.

I could be completely wrong, about that, and nobody has ever attempted to make such a claim. But the mere act of someone going on record to deny it would compromise the organization’s position.

Edited March 20, 2021 by qwazse

[InquisitiveScouter]

8 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@CynicalScouter, I believe that no BSA official will tell you why scouts-tenting-with-scouts-only is under “barriers to abuse” because the liability of giving an answer is costly beyond belief. Simply consider that someone would consider a child to have been groomed if they received kindness from a person who later sexually abused other children.

Now consider the vast number of abusers who are parents. More than one or two of them might have tented with their children. Those children, even if they weren’t abused, may claim that whoever permitted that tenting scenario to occur allowed them to be victims of grooming — taking the loose interpretation of the term.

I could be completely wrong, about that, and nobody has ever attempted to make such a claim. But the mere act of someone going on record to deny it would compromise the organization’s position.

@qwazse, yes, that is certainly a reason.  But why allow it in Cub Scouts?  Ages 7 to 13 are the most vulnerable to sexual abuse.

https://victimsofcrime.org/child-sexual-abuse-statistics/

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm2019_4.pdf

https://americanspcc.org/child-abuse-statistics/#:~:text=411%2C969 victims (60.8%) are,2.3%) are psychologically maltreated.

[MattR]

Let's try and get this back on topic: the new territories plan and tangentially how to staff it. It's not about tenting regs and yp. I believe there are other threads on that topic.

I looked at the territory map and noticed that mine is bigger than an old area. It goes from Mexico to Canada. I'd hate having to do meetings there. Anyway, I assume it's by population. This territory is probably the leader when it comes to small troops.

Edited March 20, 2021 by MattR

[David CO]

3 hours ago, MattR said:

Let's try and get this back on topic: the new territories plan and tangentially how to staff it.

OK.  My concern has always been that councils do not have enough independence from national.  Councils are supposed to be separate entities.  But they're not.  They are totally controlled by national.  The new territory plan is just more of the same. Read the target goals.  Why is the territory setting council targets?  If councils are independent entities, shouldn't they be setting their own targets based on local needs?

If the bankruptcy court needs proof that BSA actually runs the councils, it has to go no further than the new territories plan.

[Eagle94-A1]

On 3/19/2021 at 12:09 PM, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

@RichardB, with all due respect a lot of Scouters are skeptical of professionals, both locally and nationally. Folks have been burnt by both sets. Best example I can give is the 2014 or 2015 survey on Instapalms and leadership requirements for palm. 94% of those surveyed were either AGAINST (18%) or STRONGLY AGAINST (76%) the awarding of palms at the Board of review. I do not remember the exact percentages, but a majority also believed that leadership PORs should remain in place for palms. And look what happened, Instapalms came about, and their is no POR requirement for palms anymore.

A friend of mine was on the Cub Scout 411 committee that came up with the June 2015 - December 2016 Cub Scout program.  I am told that the committee members talked to a lot of folks in the field, I know my friend did, They created an outstanding program. Not only did national change the program without giving the opportunity to work out the kinks, it was a radical program change that packs that did not go through the trainng leading to the new program needed time to update IMHO, but also National did not even have the courtesy to talk to the folks who created the program before changing the program mid-year.

Can you now understand why folks are upset and skeptical?

Edited March 20, 2021 by Eagle94-A1
To clarify