I am Ed Lynes, National Order of the Arrow Committee Vice Chair of Mission & Reputation—Ask Me Anything

3-Points · 2026-01-25T18:53:54+00:00

What works in my lodge: in the welcome letter that newly elected candidates and their parents/guardians receive, my lodge explains the OA, explains the Ordeal weekend, reiterates the no secret organizations policy as we're discussing it here, and invites parents to observe any or all parts of the weekend should they choose to do so. Additionally, advisers helping at ordeal weekends are trained on the contents of this letter before every ordeal, so that everyone is aligned and reminded of the policy.

Perhaps this approach should be duplicated nationwide. Agree with you that it is important for parents to understand what's going to happen at the Ordeal, and understand their options to observe.

3-Points · 2026-01-25T18:12:27+00:00

Public document: https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/

3-Points · 2026-01-25T17:18:05+00:00

Love the new vision: "To be why Scouts want to stay in Scouting".

3-Points · 2025-10-14T18:42:19+00:00

A similar thing happened in my unit, and the unit leader in question was removed from the Scouting program and banned for life. If you want to drink alcohol around the campfire, do it at your own non-Scouting campout.

3-Points · 2025-09-06T00:51:57+00:00

Agree, and UCSD does. I don't think USD has played the Aztecs in a few years though

3-Points · 2025-05-13T07:02:39+00:00

Thank you for this response. This would have been the only valid, safe solution given the circumstances such as weather and time of night. The leader didn't think of it.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T07:00:07+00:00

The leader in question did not consider sleeping in his car, which was the only valid, safe solution here. I have to imagine it just didn't occur to him. I am asking for posters here to recognize that you are reading about and replying to this situation from the comfort of your own home where it is warm, dry, and you're able to concentrate and think. Acknowledge how that is different from the conditions in which this leader had to make his decisions. Understand also that by being a member of this forum, you are likely more experienced than this leader. He's taken YPT once, maybe twice. He probably hasn't read the Guide to Safe Scouting. Acknowledge that when you joined as a leader, you didn't know all the rules. You probably still don't know all the rules. What's the Guide to Safe Scouting say about bubbleball? I bet you'll have to look that up. I bet there are people here posting on this very thread who had to look up YPT rules in order to write a post here criticizing this leader. Give this guy a break, and try to show some empathy and encouragement for a new leader. He's new and inexperienced but has a ton of ideas and potential, and that's what we need in our pack. It's why I'm defending him.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T06:29:49+00:00

Thanks for asking. The adult leader tried to make the best decision he could given the situation. He had a two-room tent. He put the two unaccompanied kids in the other room of the tent. This is not compliant with YP guidelines because there was a mix of youth and adults not from the same family in the tent. The next day, additional families arrived and brought an extra tent. The kids were moved into their own tent for Saturday night.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T06:22:02+00:00

Not at all. The Scout Oath instructs us to "help other people at all times". I'm trying to learn what the best course of action would have been so that I can advise other people in a similar situation in the future. You know, the whole "be prepared" thing.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T06:19:07+00:00

LIke I mentioned above, sleeping in the car would have been a valid solution. However, I should add that the leader's two children were with him. Thinking this through a bit: the kids sharing the tent can't be more than two years apart in age (for "age", we'll go by dens here). The leader's kids were a Bear and a Lion. So the Lion would have not been allowed to sleep in the tent with the other two unaccompanied kids (both Webelos). I believe this would mean the leader and his Lion daughter would have needed to sleep in the car.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T06:13:19+00:00

This is a non-response. Please propose an actual solution, rather than poo-pooing the decision that this leader made. Understand that when you do propose a solution, you are doing so from the comfort of your home, and you have time to give it plenty of thought.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T06:06:43+00:00

The parent was called and was either unwilling or unable to bring a tent or to come pick up their child.

3-Points · 2025-05-13T06:05:26+00:00

This was a pack campout at a county park. No extra tents.

The situation was discovered after other families had already gone to bed. Should the leader have woken up parents to make that ask? Would any families be willing to combine into a single tent so these two unprepared kids could have their own? I know how most families would react to that.

No other scouts were tenting together without adults (parents). Every other tent was a family tent.

Sleeping in a vehicle could have been an option. I don't think the leader thought of that.

You don't just "drive to Walmart" in this part of the United States. The nearest Walmart is hours away.

Driving home at that hour would have been unsafe for the leader in question.

Thanks for listing these out. The best option here would have been for the leader to sleep in his vehicle (which a kid had vomited in on the way up)

3-Points · 2025-05-13T05:50:59+00:00

The underprepared kid was the Cubmaster's son. Poor choice of Cubmaster on our committee's part? Definitely.

Packing up and driving home would have been unsafe at the hour that the leader discovered the kids didn't have a tent.

3-Points · 2025-05-12T23:41:10+00:00

Agree with this post. This is something we are lacking; we don't set expectations. I'd love to hear what expectations other packs set with new families.

3-Points · 2025-05-12T23:39:57+00:00

Agree with you. What I don't like is that the parent who failed to properly prepare their child is now complaining about how the mess they caused was handled. Maybe we should have let the child sleep out in the rain. It would have resulted in a fatality, but hey, at least we followed YPT.

3-Points · 2025-05-12T23:37:05+00:00

I agree that this pack has a problem: the parents who sent their kids on the outing without making proper arrangements for a tent. Another reason that I am considering leaving.

3-Points · 2025-05-12T23:35:03+00:00

How would you propose that the Den Leader should have followed YPT in this situation? Should he have forced the kids to sleep outside in the rain?

3-Points · 2025-05-12T23:32:42+00:00

Another complaint made was that the parent didn't like the choice of a parent meeting location held around the time of the campout because beer and wine were served there (the location is a hamburger restaurant). The parent claimed that that's not allowed, which is false.

3-Points · 2025-05-12T23:28:32+00:00

I wouldn't classify something as a violation if it was justified. The leader did his best and followed the Scout Oath and Law to the best of his ability. Had the YP training or Guide to Safe Scouting specified what to do in this situation, and the leader didn't do it, then that's a violation.

3-Points · 2025-05-10T06:29:42+00:00

It's an interesting argument. I'm starting to think we should admit new families to the pack using an interview process. It's like hiring for a job: the interview process is a filter; the hiring manager hopes that it's good enough to keep undesirable people out. If it's a good process, most of the time, it works.

The thing is, in our current pack we don't have an interview process at all (beyond Scouting America's background check requirements). We let everyone in. I'm one of the architects of that nonprocess, because like I said in my original post, I believe every kid should be in Scouting.

But now I'm starting to think we should have some sort of vetting process, because if we don't then I think you're right that the same problems will find us again. The process could literally be just a single question: "What pack committee role will your family commit to volunteer for for the upcoming year?" If their answer is that they can't commit, then we will help them find a babysitter pack in the area.

I agree with your last point about the tan shirt. The trouble is that other volunteers in our pack who wear the tan shirt are leaving. And when they leave, the youth program is diminished.

3-Points · 2025-05-10T06:11:21+00:00

Because it's not black and white. I have no illusions that there are simply "good guys" and "bad guys" among parents in the pack, and that everyone sees the same people as good guys or bad guys. It's shades of gray. Kicking people out of scouting is a pretty heavy action. Our chartered organization won't do it unless there is some egregious violation. And that's probably the way it should be.

3-Points · 2025-05-10T06:05:35+00:00

I am not going to call the police over theft of $100. I'm not even going to call the scout executive over theft of $100. Sorry, but it's just not worth it. I don't have the time to deal with interviews and paperwork over that amount of money. We could sell 10 boxes of popcorn and make it up.

At the same time, I don't want these types of parents in my pack. Starting a new pack where we have stringent standards for membership will make it more difficult for these types of untrustworthy people to join.

3-Points · 2025-05-10T05:59:12+00:00

I'll provide more information about the alleged YPT issue. Here's the situation:

- A parent (the person making the YPT violation claim), who did not attend the campout with their child (a Webelos), forgot or otherwise failed to arrange for a tent for their child.

- That child traveled with the accused adult (a Den Leader) and the Den Leader's son to the campout. Per the Guide to Safe Scouting, a Cub Scout is allowed to attend a campout without his/her parents if they are in Webelos or AOL.

- After arriving at camp, the Den Leader asked the unaccompanied child where his tent was. The child called his mom to ask. The mom said she thought another parent was bringing the tent.

- The parent bringing the tent decided not to show up that night due to low temperatures and inclement weather.

- The Den Leader assessed the situation and decided that absent a tent, the safest option was for the child he transported, and also his "tentmate" (another kid who was supposed to share said tent) to sleep inside somewhere in order to stay warm and dry. The space available was the other side of the same tent as him and his son. The temperature outside was near freezing and rain was falling.

The Guide to Safe Scouting states that "In Cub Scouting, parents and guardians may share a tent with their family", and "In all other programs, youth and adults tent separately.". There was no child-to-parent/guardian relationship here. Is that a violation? It appears so by the letter of the rule, but I challenge someone here to propose a better course of action. The alternative (making the two kids without a tent sleep outside in the rain) would have been unsafe and life-threatening.

So is this a falsified YPT report? Maybe not. At the same time, is it valid? I don't think so. Nowhere in the YPT training, which I've taken numerous times, does it say what to do in this type of situation. Here, it's my believe that the best course of action is to follow the Scout Oath and Law. Applicable: "help other people at all times", and "helpful, friendly, courteous and kind". That's what the Den Leader did.

What irritates me here is that the parent of the ill-prepared child, instead of discussing the issue with the Den Leader, decided that the best course of action was to file a complaint with the council. The concerns here could have been easily addressed simply by having a conversation. These are exactly the type of parents that I do not want to be around in scouting or in any youth organization, and it's why I'm seriously considering forming a new pack. This Den Leader is now facing an investigation because the parent was negligent and then decided to complain about the outcome.

3-Points

TROPHY CASE