fred8033

Venue shopping though isn't just an issue for big companies. Even in these threads, we've heard lots of discussions for victims to justify pulling in their claims. Example I've seen is the CO and scout who are in SOL blocked states, but their once a year camp was located in an open state. Should victims be required to file where the majority of the relationship was? Or where they live? or where the majority of the incidents were? I don't like venue shopping either, but selective focus is wrong too. I'd like to see a consistent approach across all levels.

Evolve them beyond a brand new provisional patrol. Do activities to get them to know each other and to connect. Games. Activities. Work. Discussions. Anything. The more the better. Get them socializing together. Get them comfortable interacting together.

Are they safer without camp? After-the-fact individual case-by-case basis, yes. If you know in advance that a specific person will be abused, they are better off at home and not at camp. If you look at total numbers? Would the total number be less? I'm not sure. Most common abuser is a direct relative. After that, the abuser usually knows the victim in some context (neighbor, co-worker, coach, teacher, etc). In addition, other dangers exist as youth look for ways to spend their time. I'm aware of too many youth our city has buried because they made fatal mistakes in their spare time. Related, camp teaches youth about their own mortality. Survive a big thunderstorm. Bang your head on a tree. etc, etc. It seems experienced scouts, tend to push the limits less. (but that could be my biased view) I just don't accept the argument that youth would be safer without camp.

It sounds right. Now old arguments. I'm sure some victims will get some funds, but I cringe at the the damage and the cost and the ugliness and the injustice in the whole process. I see the web sites of the advocates proclaiming their aggressive history and it's often listing those who have deep pockets. It smells. Side comment ... I'm not sure I'd want my lawyers propagandizing on twitter. We just got done with the mad twitter. Haven't we learned anything? ... What was that political guys name? I can't remember.

System didn't work if it keeps happening? You expect perfection in life? No crime? No evil? ... The system was not about eliminating all evil / crime ever. ... That is an impossibility that would not even be achieved by shutting down scouting as I'm not sure youth would be safer at home or safer in other activities that would fill the scouting vacuum. .... The YP system was to strongly discourage by making it very difficult and then to property handle when it happened while still allowing the scouting program continue. meaningless and irrelevant in the face of the visceral emotional response. ... You can't defend against a visceral emotional response. You can only focus on being kind, considerate and as graceful as possible ... I remember a graduate course in handling such incidents. A strong memory of a press conference video where a CEO was barraged for a failed oil storage tank that polluted the local water supply. The guy stood up there and took a beating. I remember one reporter pointing out that no one in the city could shower and wondered if the CEO was going to go home and take a shower. The CEO's job was to stand up there and take the beating of the emotional response.

Yes. The irony, symbolism and explicit imagery is bad. Then again, the internet is filled with bad imagery from almost every type of profession, country, etc. ... The system worked. It got reported. The guy is in jail. That is what was supposed to happen. Sometimes doing right is hard when the image looks bad. The image is bad marketing. The actual bad is working to hide the imagery. Also Yes. BSA's YP is good, but evil and crimes still happens. It's how we discourage crimes and how handle incidents after they happen. Background checks. Training for awareness. Explicit practices (no one-on-one contact, etc). Mandatory reporting. Sadly funny story ... When my first son was wolf, we attended a weekend cub camp. ... Staff took cubs into the field for games. Camp ranger gave orientation to the dads / moms. Camp ranger joked that he'd prefer if all the dads minimize late night trips out of the camp, but if we needed to leave don't wear anything saying scouts at the near by bars / adult businesses. ... Apparently it happened more than once and he didn't like the imagery.

If the correct thing is to shut down, then public swimming pools and youth locker rooms are in question too. Shopping center fitting rooms and public bathrooms should close too. Evil exists. It's how we react to it that is important. It went to police. Charges pending. Not hidden, etc. I'm just not sure creating more fear is right either.

Hard to comment without violating the guidance to avoid commenting on lawyers, their motivations and their ethics. Perhaps the best path is to fail bankruptcy. Period. Pay the existing personal injury awards that have been blocked by bankruptcy. Then, partner with insurance companies in court on a case by case basis. Each of these cases could have their day court. Liquidation is not an answer either. Too many huge questions. Are LCs legally separate? Restricted assets? Pensions / benefits / PBGC / etc. I really question whether liquidation would ever result in more funds to the end victims. I'm not even sure if it would be more or less costly to administer. My only real desire is to see Philmont and The Summit become something like national parks preserved and dedicated for the youth of this country to challenge themselves with adventure and wilderness. ... Imagine Yellowstone trying to host even a fraction of the 10 person crews hosted by Philmont? Bigger events like at The Summit? ... I'm not sure I care if it's via BSA or a special new national park category. I just hope they get preserved for the youth to do youth oriented adventures. Sea Base (my favorite) and Northern Tier are special, but similar adventure opportunities exist with private parties on the ocean, the golf and the BWCA. It's just that Philmont (west) and The Summit (east) have very special roles being able to target adventure for higher numbers of youth. Perhaps every state should have a national park dedicated for youth to experience outdoor adventure.

Years.

I'm not sure of legalistics. I'm just suspecting that some will change to "Parents Of" instead of establishing "Facility Use" agreements and a council charter.

Yep. BSA is highly motivated. BSA's good in bankruptcy is moving on ASAP.

Great summary statement. So fundamental. I swear this smells very much like a person I knew from years ago. His profit was tied to delays and difficulty. A certain percent of companies gave up chasing small amounts they had a right to just because of delays or cost chasing the funds. It was tens of thousands at a time. It was unethical to me, but it was just business to him. It smells like this case. Way too many open questions, but rushing to a settlement that might not be legal. It feels like people want to get funds distributed even though it might later be found not legal or conveying protection. BUT then try to get those funds back to pay the correct rightful order of debtors. It feels like it would quickly be too late to pull funds back as the funds would be covering costs to execute the legal case. It smells like a quick push to accept a settlement because there are long questions whether it's legal that could take a much longer time. People want to pull some funds out.

... OR ... we end up having many "Parents Of" COs.

Absolutely agree. Fixing the agreements will have little to no impact on the the units. This is about correcting misleading agreements. Words matter. Written agreements matter. For most charters, no one expected the words to be 100% followed thru. Not the unit leaders. Not the council. Not the charter org. Parents were oblivious to the words. ... The old charter agreement was more about soliciting discussion and making everyone feel good. Now in hind sight, these words are being used to infer more responsibility than ever existed. Words matter. It's time to make the charter org agreements reflect reality. Perhaps, we should not have a choice between charter org agreement and facility use. Rather it should be a selected list of needs with check-boxes on who will fulfill the role. [council] [charter] * Select unit leadership. [council] [charter] * Oversee training requirements. Encourage unit leaders to be trained. [charter] * Provide storage space for unit materials [charter] * Provide space for meetings [council] [charter] * Review unit program planning (camping, activities, etc) Each agreement could be personalized to the charter. It would also be clear who is expected to do what.

Thank you for the extremely helpful summaries. I've always wondered about these issues. Insurance prejudicial. No significant relief. Duplicative services. Conflicts of interest. Are we getting to where LCs will need to find a path to continue scouting for years or even forever without BSA? I'm surprised this is not a new standard.

I liked what you wrote ... That sounds exactly like our summer experiences. Way more relaxed. Way more freedom to create their own experiences. Each year was a slightly different flavor, but each was for all troop aged scouts. Each year brought something special ... the year the scouts discovered a short (????) cut from the group site to a gas station / ice cream shop. ... An unused / unlocked / enclosed 1910's era shelter that became the 10pm shelter for a magic the card game ... etc. When you have 30/40 scouts, you still need other activities even if you have 10 scouts going on a high adventure. It's how we got started with the troop extended camps. Parents started asking about stuff for the rest of the scouts.

Summer (off school) is three months. The perfect time for camping and activities. Council camp is 7 nights. For ten years, our troop did it's own extended camp too. The troop extended camp was often destination based and other parents stepped up for skills or MB or helping out. Those camp outs were often the best.

I often argue our expectations of the scouts should parallel the expectations of the adults. If no phone charging stations means no adults, I'm not surprised at all that our youth membership is dropping. ... BUT ... that's another debate that's been had many many times.

... 20 years ago. Now, I can do remote desktop screen sharing using cell phone from most camps in my state. Often, I'm lucky enough to have reasonably high speed data inside the tent. ... real question now is "why"

Your carefully-chosen humor to relieve the seriousness / stress of this topic is always appreciated.

Has this channel been quiet for almost a full day? Wow. Or am I missing something.

Absolutely. Ditch the stuff scouting does not shine at. .... at least minimize. Scouting SHINES when it takes kids outside. Hiking. Biking. Canoe. Teaching outdoor skills. Scouting bumbles around in just too many other areas. Scouting can claim so many positive reasons to be a scout IF IT WOULD JUST STOP DESIGNING THE PROGRAM TO TARGET THOSE REASONS. The reason to be a scout is simple. To be outside. To have adventures. To try new things. To make friends. To explore the world. To sit by a campfire. ... The rest is hogwash. Sure it's neat to point and brag at, but it gets messed as often as it helps. I swear ... scouting is an easy win if we just stop pretending it's more grandiose than it is.

Timely advancement is important. ... For my old pack ... end of the year was for the last-push to help stragglers and to transition to focusing on the next rank. ... aka ... award at the next pack meeting whenever possible.

Argh ... I just re-read my writing ... Wow did I blow it. ... I should never connect and try to say something meaningful when I'm extremely tired. I add, edit, etc until I'm too tired to make sure it's really written well. So much for trying to be insightful. My point is simple. Times have changed. Fifty years ago people would often say "let's be realistic" about what was really expected. Today, it is all in the words. Words matter. The written word can be used against you and often will be used against you far beyond anything you ever intended. COs should NOT sign documents that contain words they are not willing to own and follow. Even without this large liability case, this is very true. Times have changed. The idea of a "CO" that is not really an owner and not really in charge is a bad idea. If COs are to really sign on as a CO, ... if a church ... the CO needs to spend church funds to pay their business administrators and youth pastors to help run the scouting programs. Make sure training is current. Make sure plans are safe per safe scouting rules. Make sure background checks work. Scouting is either an internal program owned and run by the CO, or they should NOT sign saying they are doing those activities.

Even without the latest lawsuit and insurance issues, charter orgs should sign the agreement. Signatures mean something. Words on the paper set expectations. If you don't plan to fulfill the words, don't sign! COs need to do-what-they-say and say-what-they-do. Encourage training (lack of training is fault). Maintain membership (unregisterd adults / youth is admitting it's out of control). Follow BSA program, GTSS, etc (not following indicates rouge program) ... etc ... Review unit leader apps. Make follow-up inquires to confirm moral, educational and emotional qualities. It's not just about after-the-fact libability. It's about doing hat you say you will do. If you don't plan to actually do what is in the agreement, don't sign. It's not an honorific documents. It's an "agreement". Our charter org is absolutely glad to provide space. I suspect they'd even donate fund or materials. The real issue is their signing this agreement says they want to take responsibility they don't want. I hugely agree they should not sign. Churches and public facilities will continue to support community organizations like the scouts. Even without the current COs, units can find space. Even cheaply rent space. This is about making the CO agreement match the current reality. Most COs agree to provide space. Very few actively oversee teh scouting program. "WHAT IF" ... Latest registration costs are skyrocketing. What if current unit leaders decide to help families that are tight on funds, by not registering their scout. Scout can participate, but BSA won't know about cub's advancement ... except AOL does t really matter? Slso, adults will be minimized to save pack cost. ... So some adults and scouts are not fully registered. Would the CO know? Would the CO know they are taking responsibility for that?