Eagle94-A1

Most Scouters I know do not have a personal attorney, nor can they afford one. As for the CO, most I have encountered are not active. And if they are active, councils tend to give them very little info on the situation in my experience. Heck when I was a DE, the SE kept info from me, and when I called him to tell him something about a situation, was told , " Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you....." And another organization's investigation won't mean squat to BSA. I knew someone falsely accused of sexual assault. There was a criminal investigation, and the evidence they found supported my friend. Even though she was cleared, she was still banned by the BSA.

I guess mine is not enforcing it at all. I knew other councils had mandated training, heck neighboring council wanted you to have the training BEFORE ( emphasis) assuming the role. But was told National won't mandate training, except YPT. You would think that if you had S24 showing, all the online modules would not show up as "To Do's." Why whenever I teach a class, I add my name to the Training Report. Personally prefer inperson training to online. The interactive, personal touch is much better than the monotone online stuff, even if interactive.

Can you show me how long that is a national requirement, because this is the first I am hearing about this. Also does anyone know how to remove courses that My.Scouting.Org say I need to take, but have taken already, and taught, in a classroom setting? Thankfully it says I am fully trained, but keeps showing online modules as if I need to do still.

Former commissioner here. Agree the Commissioner Corps is suppose to be about quality control. But you also need Scouters who are willing to acknowledge they have weak programs, and be willing to listen to advice. Sadly I have encountered such Scouters over the years who refuse to see the weakness of their program, and refuse to change. Commissioners can only coach and advise. they have no authority to implement change in a unit. I had one such unit. After over a year of being ignored, I stopped trying. Successor commissioners to that unit, including one who knew the SM well as they were ASMs together at one point, were also ignored.

So if the settlement is declared null and void, what happens to the money that councils gave National for the settlement? Will camps on the selling block be put on hold? What about COs that put money towards to settlement? Will post 1970s COs have insurance coverage from National cover any lawsuits against them per the charter agreements?

Talking to folks in the UK when they went coed, single gendered troop, whether all male or all female, gradually died off.

I am so glad that 1 camp I go to is not owned by the council, but rented to them.. Non-profit trust owns it, and will not give it to the council outright. Trusts handing over ownership of camps to councils has been a very bad move for about 20 years now, but especially in light of the ongoing bankruptcy.

I know my local Catholic Church was in the process of starting a new pack and troop. Then they decided against it. I am told it was the lawsuit and the insurance increases involved.

Yes, pros are are held accountable for the number of new units they start.

Yes, the practice didn't end in the 1970s. I knew councils that did it in the 1990s and later. A lot of UWs stopped funding because of this.

Only if they got caught. Even then, they would try to blame subordinates, even though they were the ones pushing it and doing it. If they were suspicions, and no hard evidence, they were "promoted" to smaller sized councils. But not everyone being sent to a smaller council was a screw up. Sometimes it was a way to get rid of the whistleblowers, "promoting" them to a higher position, but in a smaller council. Met an SE who was in this situation. Went from being a DFS with 3 FDs directly under him, and 18 DEs under them to being a SE with 1 FD and 3 DEs under him.

Yes, BSA did set up packs, troops, etc in the internment camps. part of it was to give a sense of normalcy, instill patriotism for the USA, etc. And there were interactions with local communities. More on that in a bit. As the article stated there was pro-Japan internees, to the point that they formed paramilitary units inside the camps. After the war, a lot returned to Japan. I do not remember the exact number, but I think that it is over 8000. I will try t find the book on this when I get the chance. And it wasn't just Issei ( Native Japanese in the US) but also Nisei (Native US of Japanese ancestry). Japan not only had an immigration policy like the Nazis which granted automatic citizenship to anyone of Japanese ancestry, but also had active recruiting and indoctrination programs set up prior to the war. And those pro-Japanese internees did cause lots of problems, both inside and outside the internment camps. As for involvement with local communities, one thing to remember is not all Japanese-Americans and Issei were interned, only those in the the Japanese Exclusion Zone, which was All of California, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Arizona. Those Nisei and Issei outside the zone were not incarcerated, and in fact the War Department created some camps in areas with Japanese-American populations in the civilian community. In one locality, the pro-Japanese internees caused so much trouble to the non interned Japanese-Americans, the community wrote a letter to SecWar asking for the removal of the interment camp as it was creting tensions between them and their neighbors.

A bunch of mixed feeling on this one. I can see why being anonymous is important. I know folks who reported stuff to the council, and they become persona non grata. I had that happen to me when I reported an alcohol in camp problem. Dealing with camp staff was one thing, but dealing with the council professional staff was a completely different situation. But I also know it can be abused. As I posted elsewhere, a good friend was falsely accused of propositioning a Scout to save his own skin because he was being a peeping Tom.

If there are any national requirements, I do not know about them. Back in the late 1990s, there were no national requirements that I was told about, I and I started 2 ScoutReach units in my district, and a friend of mine was SM for three or four in the early 2000s.

That is the thing, most packs still use a 9 month cycle based upon the school year. In all my years in Scouting, in multiple councils, only 1 pack had a 12 month program, and even then it was modified: instead of weekly meeting, it was biweekly fun activities to have Cubs earn the Summertime Award. In fact the entire reason why that award was created was to give an incentive for packs to remain active in some way over the summer.