fred8033

I don't believe that's true at all. BSA has been stuck walking a fine course between a long list of societal changes. Though I could see a more secular future, I doubt anyone "wanted" that other than a few historical forum posters.

Makes sense. The relationships were always very loose. Why misrepresent it with something formal that is written? Most charter orgs were just being supportive of the community. They can still do that without signing an agreement (aka a contract).

What is Kosnoff's reasoning to expect a chapter 7? Lack of good faith negotiations? The waters are so muddied by all sides on this case and with laws changing even during this process that I'd find it hard to believe a successful "lack of good faith" could be found. (but then again, I'm no lawyer) ... ... Bad future financial picture? We've seen scouting successfully resurrected in England and other countries to great success. If BSA can get past the current bankruptcy and the bad press related (and covid), I'd believe a 110 year old non-profit could successfully continue to function.

Is "No coverage" before 1978 may not be a clear cut? 43 years ago. Insurance practices, policies and laws have changed. Loose agreements. BSA's communications with COs has always been pretty loose. Not really legal agreements and more like marketing agreements. Only now being interpreted as contracts. Self-insurance? I could see BSA having practiced self-insurance for CO liabilities. It was more a general statement about BSA being behind the CO and supporting the CO. "if it exceeds what you can cover, BSA will be there to help" ... Many companies still self-insure. Most importantly, no one in 1978 could conceive of the modern era settlements. In a 1978 context, BSA could have easily self-insured their COs and covered incidents. Bigger cash reserves. More members. More donations. Drastically smaller settlements.

People might not realize this. I cringe re-reading my old posts. I'm often doing current real work and revising these hobby posts. I cringe when I see typos. advise versus advice. argh.

"insurance plan for ALL churches" ... a leading one, but I did not think all. They don't represent "all". ... 134 of 485 diocese (arch and non-arch ... not sure on exact numbers ... just a quick search) ... I was thinking the archdiocese of Boston versus Denver might have different needs as they had very different member bases and incidents. The bigger decision factor might be the individual cash reserves of the individual diocese / archdiocese / parishes.

@ThenNow ... Is it a real "grouping" for Catholic / Methodist Ad Hoc Committees? The ad-hoc committees can have one law firm, but the units are chartered by the individual parishes and arch-diocese. I thought I saw the arch-diocese had their own lawyers and had often filed their own claims / case filings in this bankruptcy. So, ad-hoc committees might help with consistent advise to their members, but it's still just advice. Individual members might have different needs / different views.

Good point. Many organizations allow outside groups to use their facilities. This may be a situation where the CO is better off not signing anything. Even signing the facility use agreement then introduces questions of involvement / responsibility in potentially bad situations. As a former long term COR, I really have never seen any benefit to the CO to sign either of these documents. It was signed as good will and helping out the scouting unit. The CO never had a driving need for a signed agreement.

Limo services are nice shuttle busses. Sometimes econoliners with four rows of seats. Other times, similar to airport car rental shuttles. Never the traditional stretch cadilac. BUT ... it would be fun to show up in a stretch cadilac.

Even worse. "Equity" is a nebulous, obscuring, euphanism for questionable fairness. Nebulous ... If you directly ask, people will give you contradicting definitions. Further, people can't consistently apply it. Groups says schools need to teach the definition. .... hmmm ... maybe the issue is more than just lack of knowledge ... I learned equity as relating to ownership / expected value if liquidated. If you are paying a house morgage, how much equity do you have ten years in. If you are playing poker, what is your pot equity (average winnings). Equity relates to ownership. I've had years of diversity training and been given many definitions of equity. I still have trouble clearly defining it without a cue card in my hand. Also, defined as being "fair" ... An equitable agreement. A good example of this is eminent domain. Government takes your land. In exchange, you should receive fair value. Or, someone sues you and the court tries to find a "fair" judgement. ... But what is fair? Obscuring ... Social justice "equity" is the inverse of long held definitions. It's not ownership or historical "fairness". Rather, it's how much extra you need to be raised up to be able to participate. This is not ownership or fairness. How do you calculate fairness when one group takes and another receives? It may still be the right thing to do to create a better society, but it's not about "fair". Example: Giving all students a laptop for school work is equality. But if some students don't have internet at home or fast-enough internet at home, it's not equitable. So, the logical solution is a subsidizing program to fund getting those students internet at home. BUT this essentially means giving some students more by taking from others. ... I know this happens all the time right now (school, taxes, etc). It's that "equity" is about extending the threshold further. Justifying an even larger imbalance. Euphanism ... In the 1980s, the "peacekeeper" obscured the ugliness of the MX ICBM. Here, social "equity" is formalizing giving more to one group than to another. Equity being redefined to give basd on an unearned situation. Fairness ... At some point, it's best to just pull out and not participate as social "equity" is not fair. I bend over backwards to help scouts participate. If they can't afford it, we subsidize or explicitly cover. If they have special needs, we always adjust as much as we can. BUT, that's by choice. It's a volunteer basis. It's very different when it's legislated into law. Worse, it's a system that is gamed. In the example, it's families that drop internet coverage or do something else to have the school pay for the internet. Essentially taking advantage. Summary: "Equity" is being pushed to jusitify more social programs.

Answers in-line....

Stop? A one sided request. Many ugly bad statements are being made about BSA. Without comparative metrics. It's wrong to take incidents and draw larger conclusions. BSA had at it's peak 5m+ members registered each year. Even with just a 20% turn over, that's well over a 100m members. Is the abuse rate high? low? I'm not sure. Then set in a context of times when such things were not commonly reported or processed. The BSA metric seems high because of BSA having the IVF files helped document and raise awareness. The question is what is the real incident rate. No one knows. What is the real incident rate in other organizations and society. No one knows. As an engineer, you've created processes and methods. The IVF files were a systematic process; very much like a good engineering would create. In the era before everyone had a computer ... before easy background checks ... before education and medical experts were advocating for similar. BSA should be applauded for that process structure and doing more than others did. Incidents are always ugly. Always. People have a right to feel angry. The issue is as you said. Numbers. Standards. Comparisons. There are some numbers and I'm not sure BSA fairs any different than others. Better in some ways. Worse in others. Maligning BSA based on incidents is wrong. Label the incident and the individuals, but many of us are uncomfortable labeling the larger organization due to this.

So ... is there now a whole new class of claimants who are now also time barred because they missed their state's open window? Is there a new set of class actions to be done against law firms for explicit fraud and intentional incompetence? Seems we should have law firms suing law firms for cash or suing investment houses that funded those law firms.

Allude to his having 25 years of experience in this makes it absolutely fair to remind everyone that the noble experience has made him massively rich.

This is where I agree. Adults can kill the fun in scouting. The most important thing is to keep the fun in scouting. ... It really is a hard balancing line.

Yeah. There is a line. I'll miss things like upside-down bobcat ceremony, but I agree it's more a safety issue. BUT then again, I could see one in 10 or one in 30 scouts reacting badly. I'd fear more for the 45+ year old, out of shape dad than the kid.

Teasing wasn't being compare to hazing. MattR introduced teasing as a related question. Personally, I can see teasing as a form of hazing if done as part of someone being newly introduced into a group. If not, it can just be yet another form of bad behavior. Bad behavior is attractive because sometimes it can be fun to be naughty. But, it's still bad behavior. IMHO, a good rule of thumb ... are you comfortable asking the parent to do the same? ... at the next troop committee meeting ... Mrs Anderson, before the troop camp out, can you get the quartermaster to refill the trailer blinker fluid? ... then wait for their words for you at the next mtg.

@MattR ... Your words are thoughtful and well written. My two comments. #1 Teasing ... Even teasing is a gray issue. Grey for those on the other side of the pond. ... Teasing can be fun, but can easily and very quickly turn into bad behavior too. Personally for me, this is my weakness. I have been consciously trying to minimize my teasing of others. Instead, I'm trying to focus on authentic, open discussion. #2 "if not done right" ... It's not about correctly or not correctly using such a scenario (smoke shifter, bacon stretcher, snipe hunts, etc). It's in the eyes of the receiver to decide. Some will handle it well. Some will not. ... I will agree that some people can more easily get away with it with little or no harm. When I was younger, they'd be called a Teflon person as nothing sticks to them. ... But it really doesn't matter. The simple fact is we don't use bad behavior as a teaching mechanism. And, we don't haze either.

This is an old argument. My apologies for raising it again, but I see the discussion and it's hard to not remind everyone that others have different opinions. Coddling? No. That's pretending to have an excuse for boorish bad behavior. I'm saying it's setting a bad example. We should not be teaching that it's okay to treat others badly; aka being a jerk. ... This specific situation is called hazing and against the rules.

One person's fun is another's misery. ... my apologies if I'm being blunt ... We don't need to be jerks to develop leadership.

Better give up everything from every institution you ever valued and every person you ever respected. Not much from the past withstands the scrutiny of the present. Ya know doctors used leeches and blood letting and celebrated healing when they say laudable pus (aka an infection). Choose almost any profession ... almost any institution ... and almost any individual and you can justify outrage. The past isn't perfect. It's just the past and how we got to where we are.

Yep. Brave is a great term for it. When I was young, it was having backbone or man-up or have a set of ####s. We had heros who taught us lessons about having to stand up for what is right and against what is wrong. Another more acceptable term, moral fiber. Or you could use the words "defend and protect" or "support and defend". ... or ... ... ... ... ... upstander, meh.

It seems "employee" is bring thrown about a bit too loosely. BSA may be responsible for it's volunteers, but ASMs are not employees. ASMs are worse off than unpaid volunteers. In fact, ASMs PAY to be members and volunteer. ASMs PAY to purchase training materials. ASMs PAY to get their uniform. ASMs PAY to camp. ASMs PAY to use BSA property. In reality, very little of BSA's treatment of volunteers looks like employees. It seems extremely shallow to summarize ASMs as employees. In fact, BSA looks more like a vender selling a product to the ASM voluinteers (and all scouting volunteers). Anyone ever used an employment checklist test to see if they are employees? I used to take one as a contractor at times. Or how about a volunteer test checklist. I'm not sure ASMs would even qualify as volunteers given the level of products bought from BSA. Laws have changed. This is not an area that has been clealy and consistently defined over time. Volunteer responsibility law has been evolving.

Training was generally fine. A few problems ... #1 "Everyone's opinions are valid". ... No. I value the person and make the effort to hear what they say. "Actively listen" without pre-judging. I'll bend over backwards to find truth and value in their statements. But we are still in a pandemic where people are upset because they claim their facts and asssert the other side was not using facts. ... My point is everyone's opinions are not valid. Everyone is to be valued and heard, but that does not mean all opinions are valid. #2 Weren't we already doing this stuff? Did I miss something? I'm confused. #3 Course is trying to address a hot button, current affairs issue, but the course removed the meat to make it acceptable to everyone. Simple fact is I'm still extremely upset from last summer with people calling police bastards. ... Just one example ... Bridges have been burnt. I can't see teaching / discussing DE&I without discussing 2020 and that means discussing what I believe happened. I can't see being a resource to talk about DE&I because of racial issues. As a middle aged white male I am a target that people will jump on and quickly label without knowing who I am or actively listening to me. So, if this is just about how to be a better more authentic leader, fine. If this is about teaching DE&I, then ... ummm ... we have a problem still. #4 Upstander seems like a pet-rock term. Meh. I thought we already had terms for that but perhaps the terms became too unpopular. #5 Feels like training just grabbed some good leadership stuff and has called it DE&I. Below are my notes from the training ... First sentence on the header for the training. "Diversity, equity, and inclusion work only if everyone is invited to participate and feels accepted for their uniqueness." ... Seems like a fairly innocous statement. So, everyone is invited to participate. ... Atheists and agnostics? ... begins to raise hair ... drug users? Those that drop the F bomb every fourth word? Those that learn how to socialize from South Park and Celebrity Death Match? ... Those that burn the flag? ... SWorse yet, those that pay $5+ for something that pretends to be coffee? ... I can quickly devolve this point, but "ONLY IF EVERYONE IS INVITED" and "ACCEPTED FOR THEIR UNIQUENESS" is a loaded statement. ... People do say scouting teaches values. ... Perhaps, we should just say scouting teaches canoeing and camping be done with it. Introduction ... Mosby ... Nice statement. I can accept that. Scouting has a problem recruiting from a wide pool of youth. Problems with groups by income or nationality or ethnic background. Introduction ... Chief Diversity Officer ... The role has always scared me a bit, but fine. Nice statement. Introduction ... Comittee on diversity. ... Nice introduction. I'm getting a bit scared about that will be pushed (definition of terms, etc), but okay. I'll do the training. Foundations ... Objectives ... upstander? ... Meh ... Foundations ... Defining identities ... okay Foundations ... Defining diversity ... okay ... BUT ... Units are comprised of many identities ... Yeah, I don't see that happening until the community containing the scout unit is diverse. Units reflect the community. ... In addition, scouting has a branding problem with different communities. Until it's successfully marketed, it's hard to recruit evenly. Until scouting is affordable, it's hard to be diverse. In may ways, scouting is now a rich suburb family activity. Foundations ... Defining diversity ... "everyone feels welcome in your unit" ... SO, units can't select their membership based on the charter org values? Is the DE&I superceding CO ownership of the unit? So, CO's can't represent what they value by selecting the leaders that represent the CO values? I can see bending over to accept people of all race, ethnic, income, disability, etc. BUT, I'd have a hard time accepting a leader that contradicts the values / wishes of the CO. Foundations ... diversity wheel. ... meh ... Foundations ... Defining equity ... examples ... We have that ingrained now. We bend over backwards to include. Examples of wheel chairs and money. Been there / done that. Foundations ... Defining inclusion ... "concerted efforts to bring" ... Okay. I can accept that within boundaries of not offending the CO. ... So, how much effort? ... I relate to helping children with special needs. We bend over backwards to help, but volunteer units can't provide the same level of support that a school with paid professionals can marshal day in and day out. We have done "concerted efforts" repeatedly, but we have limits of volunteer energy. Foundations ... "Authenticity" .... You hit my weak spot. I love that term as a tool to teach leadership. Foundations ... "Authenticity" ... Questions ... RED FLAG !!!! ... The questions raise red flags. The questions are meaningful and correct, but then need the skilled leadership using authenticity to create an effective program. ... This is a volunteer program ya know. Example: Page asks "are all leaders appropriately involved in decision making?" I'm not sure what that means. I've seen it happen in units where so many different voices were speaking that committee meetings took four hours and everyone was mad and it tore the unit appart. Scouters are passionate and often conflict. Sometimes the SM or CC needs to help chart a consistent path. Sometimes that strong lead can help create a good program. Foundations ... Dance party example is useful. Scouting values embrace ... Check your understanding ... Pretty basic. Not really special to DE&I Embracing Diversity in Scouting ... Active listening is part of DE&I? Embracing Diversity in Scouting ... "Treating others in the way they would like to be treated" ... Ya know, there was this guy in Hollywood that ran a restaurant in the 1930s who thought he was a Russian prince. ... Personally, I'd like to have my kids salute me each day and stand up when I enter the room. ... The quote begins to lose me. ... but within reason, it's an okay statement. Embracing Diversity in Scouting ... Love the Gandhi quote. Gandhi has been one of my heros for 40+ years. BUT, he's not perfect either. ... time for another discussion. ... Not sure Gandhi meant the same thing with diversity, but I can accept the use of the quote. Understanding equity ... Fine. not sure what the argument is. Creating a culture of Inclusion ... Fine Building the BSA of tomorrow ... What the ####? ... Well produced video. Very good message. But from a different course? ... A bit obvious message, but good. The issue I have is we just had all the earlier sections talk about what I'd call is basic good leadership and being a good person and authenticity as leadership. Now, the video is about blatant color of skin bigotry with explict presentations of effectively white supremist bigotry. It's a baiting video. It's like the video is from a different course. ... Worse ... though the mesage of the video is fine ... it's like the video is the direct output of the summer of 2020. The course earlier had examples of people in wheelchairs ... people who could not afford scouting ... language ... beliefs ... culture ... etc. The video is only about the color of skin. Earlier in the course, the examples were examples that any long-term experienced scouter has seen. Now, the video seems to be presenting a case that we all hope to never see. I'm saying ... either all the meat has been removed from earlier in the course or the video seems to be addressing a different course. Ummm ... what about the unconscious bias so prevelent in today's popular bigotry. That being that middle aged white men are poor examples and it's okay to silence and shame them. Building the BSA of tomorrow ... Upstander ... Feels like a pretend word, but the guts of it I can see directly in the type of actions I'd expect from my child hood heros of John Wayne, Jimmy Steward and Chuck Norris. Building th BSA of tomorrow ... quote Elie Wiesel " silence of the bystander" ... Great quote. I won't use the term upstander. The term sucks. But, it's about being a person of backbone for standing up for what is right and speaking out about what is wrong. ... Ya know, I really thought that was what we were supposed to be teaching from the beginning. I'm slightly confused as this training seems to be pointing out basics that perhaps BSA did not include earlier. ... In a way ... I cringe at this being called DE&I as it's fundamental leadership. DE&I introduces too much current day political crap and controversy. "being curious and asking authentic" ... Just listened to NPR in last few days where the speaker was saying it's impolite to ask questions about nationality, origin, etc. Another friend shared a cartoon of a spoons and forks and the message was implying it's wrong to ask basic questions about orientation. ... ... I'm not sure those educated really agree on what can be discussed and what can't be discussed.

@ThenNow ... I'm not sure whether to ask these questions as it is part of a very painful experience for you and because it continues to haunt your life. Please accept my apologies for asking. In #4, the "they" is law enforcement right? Here is what I'm uncomfortable asking. ... Obviously, the chain of events is ugly and painful. My apologies, but I want to ask. It sounds like either the parents or the SE or someone in the chain of events called the police. That is what we want to happen. That's the right thing to do. Question ... If the police had the case and things were being reported and credible, etc, was the abuser charged with a crime? It sounds like he wasn't. Why? Question ... Once the police were notified, what additional actions should be expected from the SE? The abuser was removed and attempts were made to document his case in the ineligble volunteer files. It sounds like significant effort was made to record that the abuser should not be allowed into scouting again. My apologies. I am seriously asking. From the outside, this case seems to be handled reasonably well. BUT, it's also being used as an example of a case handled poorly. Considering the year and the standards at the time, it seems like the right actions happened. Today, I would question what happened as the first adult should have called the police. Any delay notifying police these days raises the question of trying to hide or obfiscate the abuse. The first scouter hearing about this should have called police first. This should have quickly left the scouting hands and gone to complete police control. BUT, that's today's standard. For 1973, this case seems to be handled reasonably well. That is why I'm asking. I know you have stated the exact reasons. I'm having trouble connected the dots. So, I'm seriously asking for clarification. Please accept my gratitude for your detailed writing of what happened. I appreciate that.