skeptic

Say what you will, these people seem to not find their levels of billing usurious. Who on here, of normal populace, ever made three digit hourly rates? What is non working transportation hours? I know, it is our system. And that is half the problem, as it has become far too much of money pit than a legal equity and fairness instrument. And since the wolves are in charge of the system, little will change unless we find a way to get rid of many of the wolves. Just saying. I am a peon, and this whole thing reeks, and worst of all is that the survivors/victims are also getting abuse again by this whole thing, along with the BSA and its conveyors of the programs. Maybe I am just too jaded and old to comprehend the new universal right of excess and greed.

Thank you for another perspective. I agree we need to deal with our own issue in BSA. I just wish the field would widen to deal with what seems a really larger concern, one that "nobody is watching". Those places could even include some of the individuals NOT able to get involved with BSA due to their efforts to do some kind of prevention, and those prevention methods improving. It is a societal problem, as well as one related to the worst parts of humanity. But we also do not want to see another disaster like the McMartin case.

Let me try one more time. The point is that the lack of safeguards in most of these camps is a far larger problem than the BSA due to the apparent lack of reasonable oversight. So, and the article hints at it, abuse is one of the things that the camps are open to and in a far greater way due to the lack of oversight. Note also the comment that no body wants to take that oversight responsibility. IF BSA is held to the grindstone when it has verifiably some the safest camps around due to their program requirements and training, and it is still the target of public disdain and legal attacks, even though they are safer, then what is wrong with this picture. Note also that while this is a California story, they note that few states have any real oversight of all these small camps and pseudo day care camps.

The whole point of sharing is that this is happening with no where near the turmoil as BSA has, even though they have far safer camps at far higher usage. So, not sure why the down vote, as it does relate as you noted, in comparison.

This article is on point and also, in my view, suggests how skewed the BSA lawsuit and its fall is. While BSA, that has huge levels of supervision and is in some states almost unable to meet all the restrictions, this is going on with little or no serious attention. And, it is not new, nor is it only in California. The article notes that few states have any real supervision over these types of programs, and that most government entities seem to NOT want to take responsibility. It does not excuse the BSA mistakes, it only points out that BSA is not the likely worst player, just has become the whipping group. Take a look. https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/19/a-daughters-death-at-day-camp-spurs-drive-for-licensing-laws-in-california/ This is simply sad and frightening, yet has been under our noses for decades. The likely only reason there has not been the clamor that has overwhelmed BSA is that these operations are not National, nor do they have any deep pockets. The black feathered legal opportunists do not see profit or they are so diverse that it would require serious effort to make their financial killing. JMO of course.

Let us try to not jump the gun with our already biased opinions. Until we see the entire agreement, and we also see how it comes together, or apart, we should move ahead. As far as most gear is concerned, the LC will have no place to keep it, and I believe that is actually part of the larger agreement. We will be very wary of how it works, but it is too early to panic completely or rebel. Our local church is still supportive and I do not see that changing.

"Humanity as a whole" is the key phrase here. And BSA at any level cannot fix that, no matter how many lawsuits or dollars are offered. That of course is the problem from day one. People in BSA are part of the larger existence, "Humanity", or the human species. And controling all of them is not possible, only watching as well as you can to keep the evil ones away. And even then, as is shown, no manner of rules or methods are fool proof. Meanwhile, society continues down the sump while it destroys many of the most overall positive options in its existence. The panacea that somehow we all will be secure from the worst of the larger group is simply that, a panacea. With that in mind though, we also need to try and assure that the safeguards are never let down and that we follow up, even if we are almost positive the problem is not real or is overblown in some manner due to a personal vendetta or simply misunderstanding.

A step, but we need it on the Scout level as well. Really no reason to not have coed other than lack of enough women, and that today should really not be a problem. JMO of course. Meanwhile, we now have to deal with the NEW charter model as Methodist units.

Thanks for the share. It touches on a couple of my concerns as to the approach. One for me is taking for gospel, or at least suggesting, that the 82000 number is accurate, even though few have been vetted even a little it seems, and we know the fact exists some likely were harvested. Another part is the time differentials of much of it. One of the primery survivors notes the abuse was also a teacher and much of the abuse was in school settings. Also there is admission that some did not bring it up until years later when the ads went out. That does not mean they are not victim/survivors, it just means we do not know if anybody might have been able to be charged at the time. The fact the files existed at all is not examined, especially in the context of the time when they started. They also appear to not note or be aware that in a few instances the files DID identify a problem that had moved, which should be part of the larger investigation in order to be balanced. I also have read that not sharing the files had more to do with libel laws of the time than the Red Scare issue. Finally, I really see little reason for noting the Dale issue and the Gay turmoil in relation to this, as one of the criticisms of that in the first place was and is that Gays seldom are also child abusers, so what is the reason for doing that? It remains though that much was not handled well, and some was simply completely botched. Trying to cover up may or may not have been the reason, but it likely played a part. And, no matter what, we know that the unwillingness of the victim/survivor and or his family to expose it in some cases, along with the societal position on such things in most of the time frames involved certainly had and have an affect. Going forward we need to stay on top of the YP program, finding a way to try to guarantee the parents actually pay attention to the available information and updating the youth in some manner. The tenets of Scouting are even more in need today, and we need to strengthen it , not get rid of it. Also we need to see the broader communities become more involved in confronting the rest of the iceberg. And we need closure to happen with the lawsuit so those in it are finally compensated in some manner.

This was a short piece I wrote ages ago for the local newspaper when they were doing a series on summer youth activities and asked me to do one on Scouts. Ironically, not much has changed in the couple of decades or so since. Summer Camp It's 6:30 on a Sunday morning. An assistant scoutmaster and I have been at our scoutroom since 6:00, getting troop equipment prepared for a week's stay at summer camp in the chaparral and pinion hinterlands of northern San Diego county. Now, as the scouts begin to arrive, organized confusion begins. One hour to check, verify, and load equipment and boys. The father who is the extra leader and driver is late. When he arrives, ten minutes late, his two sons are missing. Before he can explain, his wife roars up and the brothers burst out of opposite sides of the car, snarling at each other. Half of the scouts are inside, and the tardy father hopefully asks if we still need him to go; but then he sees the senior patrol leader emerge from the scoutroom directing six boys carrying the troop boxes and flags. He smiles sheepishly and sighs. By 7:45, only 15 minutes late, we're ready to leave. The older brother of the feuding pair has commandeered his father's car for himself and his buddies, relegating the younger to the van. The father seems oddly relieved. As I settle behind the steering wheel of the van, one of the fathers tells me how brave I am to take his son, and 12 like him, to camp for a week; and all of the other parents laugh in agreement. Then a mother asks what time we expect to come back the following Saturday. When I tell her sometime after 4:00 PM, she's pleased because they will not have to fly out of Las Vegas on Friday night. As we finally pull out, all the parents are smiling broadly, and wave with almost too much exuberance. Four to five hours on the road with a group of adolescent boys is a challenge. You'll learn some pretty sick jokes and songs, yell at them to be quiet at least once per hour, break up several push-shove-slap fights, and stop for one or more unscheduled bathroom, (or side of the road), breaks. This trip is no exception. Ironically, I've come to realize that once I wind down, it's pretty enjoyable. More importantly, I learn alot about my passengers; and they learn my limits. Check-in at scout camp is by necessity a tightly scheduled routine. Imagine trying to corral 13 boys who've been cooped up for five hours into this type of regimen. With experienced scouts it's only mildly maddening; but when they're mostly new you'll be ready for the asylum by the time taps is sounded. Fortunately we have only one first year scout, the younger son of our gallant volunteer. Unfortunately, this novice leader has not yet grasped the idea of boy leadership; and his older son is one of these junior leaders. It is a difficult adjustment, but he soon has the good sense to let me worry about it. Our next day is only slightly less chaotic. Yet by evening assembly our campsite is almost livable, and most of the boys are already excited about their activities. By Tuesday even our first year father has found it is fun to do leatherwork with his younger son and that there is a certain peacefulness in late afternoon as you sit alone in the campsite. At week's end the boys have completed 30 merit badges, mostly crafts and aquatic, but also cooking and wilderness survival. They also have garnered two mile swims and five snorkeling patches. And at the closing campfire on Friday night they are awarded two camp wide games firsts and one of four honor troop ribbons. But the award that brings the most troop applause is the second place totem to a beaming first year father for a painful belly flop earlier that afternoon. Saturday morning is anticlimactic. There is less urgency to our packing; though tired we are more relaxed. All of us look forward to a return to "civilization"; but most of us would stay longer if we could. When we arrive home late that afternoon there are no expectant parents waiting; but a phone call is all that is needed in most cases, though there seems to always be one who is not home and for whom alternate arrangements have to be made. When they get there the parents seem less tense than they were the previous Sunday, seem more receptive to their sons' excitement. And every one sincerely thanks us for taking their son to camp for a week.

Webinar this evening. As noted, my main concern is the "ownership model". As noted above, will we have to beg for funding from council, oris there some method that has been designed to circumvent that? I do know that should council somehow think they are going to "take" equipment and other things from us they will not get a positive response. Hope that will not come up. Hoping for a lot of clarification.

Sorry you cannot see beyond the lines apparently, or simply choose not to. The fact that it is being advertised and that few make these types of things without expectation of profits, is my reason for comment. The price of $15 is not the issue, it is the fact that they are charging for it in the first place. As I said, if they were to guarantee those profits all went to your Trust, I would be less critical. I am not indicting those that watch the film; that is their option. You seem overly critical yourself, and that is not like you. Whatever; frankly this has carried on far too long and the continued appearance of people using the hype and controversy for profit is just as bad as trying to rewrite the past. Think what you will, I have never suggested the issue is not real, only that the approach is unbalanced and too often egregious efforts to make profit off the survivors, either as lawyers or just these kinds of "films". I hope the case soon comes to an end and the survivors or victims can maybe get on with their lives the best they can. This entire thing has just added more pain to most of you.

Will review the Hulu option, but I will NOT pay for what appears from the intro to be a biased hit piece simply preying on people to make money. IF they were to guarantee all their profits from this endeavor were to go to the Trust, I might have a different view. But the cost should be offset by their backers and advertisers, not by average Joe that just want a clearer perspective on the subject. JMHO of course.

As I stated before, I cannot make real comment unless I see the actual video. Where can we actually see it? I have seen no link as yet, only the intro? Way too many questions without actually viewing it. Glad to see your comment about "various levels", though I truly want to know how many others outside of CO or National chose to be part of the poor response or no response, as seems suggested? Again, we are dealing with different periods of history and different societal responses to what today is noted as unacceptible, period. Any lack of responsible actions is now seen as it should have been then, but often was not. Who besides the CO or Natiopnal or LC also knew but made decisions at the time? Back to the balance and perspective thing. The farther back in time we go, the more vague and skewed perspectives get.

I am already signed up or have on my calendar the webinar for tomorrow. I was sent a similar note from our local minister. My main concern, before seeing the webinar is the definition of Ownership and transferring it to the local council. That is a little bit of a concern for a century old unit with historical items and documents. Also, how that affects any banking situations? My nightmare would be the idea that somehow the Council could simply walk in and take our equipment and whatever else they chose. Would hope that was addressed in the agreement, but have to wait to see. Related could be how this will affect other Sponsor arrangements? IF this form is set in motion, will it become the new method for all?

It is truly a sad and upsetting scenario you present, though we still do not know why authorities chose to not pursue it. Neither here nor there, somehow the banning, which apparently WAS filed in the IV files did not show as he moved, or locals had no clear reason to suspect so they simply did not check with the resources in use at the time. And BSA has admitted that mistakes were made and poor decisions as well. I certainly am not condoning or forgiving those mistakes, only pointing out that they are convoluted over time and are being viewed through more than one mirror. IT should not have happened that way, just as so many similar incidents likely should not have occurred in other parts of the community over time. That does NOT take away from the generally safer environment of BSA, especially in the window of the era. Why someone beyond BSA did not follow through might be asked, but it does not make the wrong right, only less clear as to WHY. We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future better. And, just as the medical profession has evolved and become safer and continues to do so, it has made many errors both in judgments and in practice. That does not mean we should throw it away, only continue to monitor and work to use the tools at hand. Similarly Law enforcement. Few really think we should throw out the police, only find ways to make them better. And both of these enitities have continued to make errors and poor decisions. And today, they more often are held accountible in some manner.

Unless the video discusses the files as they were intended, and calls them IV files and not the perjorative of Mr. K and others, and also notes that most of the files were not abuse, and points out that that until fairly recently making the files open to others would have been a serious chance of libel issues, and notes the cases that are in the files that were not followed up on by authorities leaving BSA to just separate the individuals, and touches on the strong likelihood that many of the "82,000 claims are not vetted and resulted from legal manipulations, and notes the constant improvements in YP to the extent that BSA was looked at as a model not too long ago for modern YP plans, and points out that comparatively to know stats in other youth serving groups the incidences, even with the questionable ones is still low, and also notes that they have accepted responsibility and admit poor decisions in the past in some cases and are still working to improve protections even before the bankruptcy, or possibly puts forward known instances of BSA doing it right; then I will possibly see it as not a hatchet job. Back to those words, balance and perspective. Also, possibly note that we are making judgments in a different societal time and that in itself skews the picture.

I simply quoted the OP. Frankly, it is not worth my time to try to find it in the numerous pages of things on this forum. Most on here over the last year or more have surely seen some of the indicators of exaggeration and possibly supposition by K, as well as some other "legal" line walkers. Reality is that most of the legal people involved often make me pretty skeptical.

"Just wondering about this. I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff." And he is NOT the champion of the people some seem to think, as should be obvious from some of his actions and his meddling with parts of the procedure and being warned by the judge. I suspect you actually know this.

Oh stop being sensible. Just because ther majority of the World Scouting has little issue with coed, and we even have girls in cub packs with their own Den, why would we somehow think coed in regular scouts should be okay with proper precautions and rules. You would think we would want to draw as many youth as possible and make the needed adjustments.

The answer is fairly simple; Kasnoff .

This from the most recent: " Adult Supervision Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth. Notwithstanding the minimum leader requirements, age- and program-appropriate supervision must always be provided.

Have to note; the police left your apartment and basically did nothing? Why, and are they also being sue? Simply trying to clarify this a little. Also, once again, we have the perjorative renaming of the IV files, most of which were not abuse records. Yes, too many were, and some were not handled well at all. Still, it has been shown that many other factors were involved, including people like the police noted above. Also not noted in this short is the fact that the IV files did on more than one occasion from the records themselves, stop someone. All this prior to the insta-check of the computer era. Can I again suggest, these things need to be balanced and put forth most of the broader information. Please, none of the calling me someone against fixing the issue, just want the window to have the broad perspective that is possible with a bit more investigation. Many are responsible, and some continue to be ignored due to the sensationalism BSA brings to the table. And, also due to how many public agencies are almost imposssible to hold accountible, and too many issues from the problem being viewed in a differewnt societal light. Withold further judgment

We have a local issue, or confusion perhaps, in regard to the use of the Lone Scout program to allow girls to join when they have not been able to find the minimum number, or their family location and schedules do not fit the limited options. I am aware that the program has been used in other parts of the country, and from what I hear, successfully. Those young women are able to work on their own schedules and also join in with other units as they can. I have read the explanation of Lone Scouting a number of times, and I do not see how this is not a viable option for these youth. But our local council executives refuse to allow the option, insisting we start a unit or they go to one of the three in the area. When we got three, briefly, they said we could have the unit, but after the year ended, that disappeared and our one still interested young woman is like in limbo. She meets with the troop, which her brother is in as well, and has worked with two of the nearby girl troops on occasion, but they do not fit their family dynamic, especially since she is comfortable with our group and her brother being there. The obduracy of the local executive seems to us to be foolish, as getting the young people into the program should be a priority, and discouraging them is not good optics, at least from my view. Of course, I found we actually have some Lone Scout girls at the other end of the council; but that leader just went directly to National when our local office said no. And those you women are doing well in that status from what I could see at a recent MB event for the council. Just looking for comments and possibly options. We are considering doing what was done at the other side of the council so as to keep the young woman involved; and we do have some girl cubs coming up, so we still might be able to start a unit. Of course, in my view, we should simply have one unit with a girl patrol anyway if enough are there; but assure we have the female adults in place as well, which we do.

Just a note. My "sad" emoticon is not about the comment directly, only that it seems to verify one of the early concerns I proferred; that ripping off the scabs and bringing it all back might be worse than leaving it alone and focusing onl the present to keep it from happening again. No easy answers, and this post seems to suggest that, as have a couple of others on here that are survivors.