skeptic

It is becoming more and more clear to me that in reality, probably always has been, this case has less to do with the survivors than it has to do with money to the legal scavengers. Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine the resurgence of emotional turmoil for those that are the fodder for the lawyers. And, we who still harbor hope that somehow we can simply refocus the program on those that so need it today, find ourselves frustrated and in a seeming endless limbo. It is simply sad that the very tenets of Scouting, the ones that have turned out millions of good citizens and strong adults is somehow not recognized for its overwhelmingly positive impact on a society begging for direction. That compass point symbol still carries significance for the overall betterment of our country and society. The past cannot be repaired. But the future can be redirected and refocussed on societal growth and movement from ego and greed.

Back to one of my favorite thoughts. Balanced and well written. It seems to reflect somewhat accurately the realities of the time it occurred, and the responses of various individuals. And, while BSA is noted, as is the Catholic Church, they did not turn the article into a verbal lynching of them. It accurately notes that at the time, too many societal responses and ideas were not in accord with what is better known. At the same time, it also does not blame the camp, but rather the perpetrator and cutltural attitudes. I have to wonder if the camp was not a small, mostly well respected facility, but instead had franchises and could be considered to have financial resources, if we would not see some lawyers coming out of the woodwork to milk it. But, that is perhaps my own skewed views of the legal system as a whole, and not just my exasperation with what I continue to see as an unfair, or "unbalanced" response to the BSA, especially since they too seem to have been responding with the common manner of the times, and is some respects, like with the IV files, were even going a bit farther. The size of BSA, in comparison is a factor, and this article certainly points out that it is not a problem just for BSA or the Church, but rather a still shadowy thing, often hidden by the victims themselves, some of whom still choose to keep it in the dark of the past. Thanks for sharing the link. It helps to get a bit clearer reflection on the issue, even as it does speak of connected concerns of how to respond, and also how to help.

We are back to the wishful speculations and refusal to see the larger realities. Most councils have struggled for years to keep above water, and some had those "old resources", but they passed and are in the past, as most families chose to NOT continue any real largess. On this forum, the loss of camps has been an ongoing complaint. Part of it may be lack of use/attendance; some may be poor maintenance over time; and some is simply time itself and encrouchment of the once distant communities around them. Natural disasters are not something for which it is possible to plan, only try to make camps as sturdy and fire resistent as possible. And, due to some of these factors, even if some unexpected money comes into a picture, the needs are generally more than the amount in many cases. In our case, not only is the only remaining active camp still in need of millions to make up for deferred maintenance, but the council office, which is a historical building, needs a huge amount to make it useable throughout. Not only dealing with aged building issues, but also the historical elements. Much of the properties held by councils, as has been discussed, may have special legal fiats on them from the donors. Location often makes the property a target, and too often it is lost because of that. And then the service options it once offered need to be duplicated, but at more modern expense levels. Back to one of my favorite words. Balance. It is an important factor in most larger issues dealing with people and the societal changes. JMHO of course.

This jogged a thought. Our youth, the peers of scout that is living in such a situation, often become the protectors in some form. But they also have been known to point out an issue. Over more than 40 years, I have seen it. The group becomes a safe place for the youth, even extending to them a temporary escape, quietly taking them in to their homes when one is needed. These are the things too often we do not see, and I admit that much of my experience is past tense, discovered in visiting with past youth over decades. A few of those mistreated youth, now adults, have directly told me their story, years later, being thankful for the haven we and some members offered.

Thanks RS; that is what I should have done I guess. Of course we also have to have approvals on the council level, as well as YP and in some states other certifications.

Enough to allow you to give correct info if needed and to evaluate fairly the completion of the written requirements. Ideally, of course, you might specialize in a subject, which SHOULD make the prior comment mute. On the other hand, and this is just my opinion, we should not have counselors that really have no background at all in a subject unless they pursue that level of knowledge prior to taking it on. Obviously, some things are pretty straight forward, but many are open to interpretations of some things, and some ask the Scout to actually discuss it. So, the mentor should be able to be at least on that level, and preferably a bit higher.

The best solution is for people to follow the rules and actually report concerns as needed. Then, as soon as possible, deal with the issue and any actual violators, no matter how connected. And, BSA, at all levels must be sure to validate any refusals beyond their power to deal with the issues. That means authorities than poo-poo things, people that make threats of legal action with no foundation other than trying to intimidate, and also document any family choices that are made to NOT do something. Lots of grey area, and unless there is validation of actual attempts to do the right thing, it will still come back on them. Again, just a view based on what has come out over time, both recently and in the past. Of sourse, if we had any people with guts, they would also find a way to overhaul the whole legal approach to these types of things, BSA, or other areas.

Only if he has taken YP training and been vetted in whichever states that have special volunteer requirements.🙄

Yep, every year we see sticker shock discussed and screamed about relating to the cost of summer camp. Compare it to most other group type camps and it is a bargain. If you took the family to an amusement park for one day you would pay close to half that amount. Still, these things are planning issues and should be on the calendar a year out for approximate costs. And scouts are better off actually earning part, or all of their camp cost. It is part of a good program, learning to pay your way. My experience is that scouts that have contributed to their camp cost directly generally enjoy more for some reason. Still, some families can be priced out of high end camps. Here in So Cal, going to Catalina is truly expensive; yet two camps are there and always full. It is always a challenge to prioritize things, and find ways to meet challenges. Most parents know already in our area that summer camp is always going to be at least around $500 with spending money and incidentals. On the other hand, how much will you not spend to feed the youth while home, or to allow them local entertainments like movies or museums, not even considering the high cost parks? Pick and choose, and decide what is best or the most bang for the buck. Just an opinion of course. We struggle every year to fund our low income members to camp, but we get them there if possible, and they grow from the experience.

It occurs to me that we might want to consider either shutting this down, or finding a way to avoid emotional overloads for some victims or others. Obvioously, the thread has a detrimental effect on a few, and they seem wont to take it out on other posters, often making unfair attacks on those that are fortunate to not have suffered the specific taumas that trigger some. As I have suggested before, we all have things in our lives that are bad memories and possibly serious pychological and maybe even physical traumas. How they affect us differs, and some of us prefer to not talk much of these things, and perhaps are fortunate to not be "triggered". That is not a reason to accuse us of ignoring other forum posters' pain. Few of us are qualified to measure the damages inferred on here, nor do we intentionally intend comments to hurt others. If the moderators have some idea how to deal, it may be time to do so. Just my personal view, and I hope I will not be once again be accused of not caring and other worse things. Thanks for the time.

From the BSA official material. "The official scout uniform consists of shirt, pants, belt, and socks. A neckerchief and hat are optional. In reality, each unit may have different uniform expectations, with some expecting socks to hat while others expect just the shirt. Having all scouts consistently uniformed for meetings and outings makes for a much better adventure. It is also important to remember that the scout uniform is not a mandatory part of scouting and a scout should not be prohibited from participating just because they do not have a uniform, or a complete uniform." "Imitation of United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps uniforms is prohibited, in accordance with the provisions of the organization’s Congressional Charter."

Have no idea how long they may last, but we have had two district level executives added this month. They had all been riffed last year, and it was only the exec and assistant doing it all, with two office part timers and part time store. They did keep the camp ranger. One of the newbies has no Scouting experience other than a brother who was one; he was not. The other is an Eagle. Have not met them as yet, and waiting for bio's. It was not too long back we had as many as six field exec's, and two years ago still 3.

Thanks; it is now much clearer to me what is going on with it. I guess I should have understood that part of the actual background check includes the fingerprints, which then allows the process as noted with the procedure above. That then will not only validate the prints for their file, but also verify that no criminal issue is connected to my prints already on file.

For me it is simply why more sets when they already are on file with the state anyway. Just seems another time and money annoyance, mainly the time. But I am old and hate driving places that I can avoid.

What?

Still, could that not be done with the one already on file? What am I missing? Or is it to see if you match the one already on file perhaps? Our council has indicated they will attempt to offset some of the cost that might be incurred, though not sure how that might work, as it has not been set up yet.

And that is your right. But his post is simply poor taste at least, and certainly not reflective of what I would hope a lawyer would consider ethical. I do not have an issue with his preferring rejection, or even concluding it has happened. It is the post itself that I find nasty and in, as I said poor taste. Oh well, I cannot do anything about it anyway.

Sorry, but this man has no character. First of all, he does not know the results, or should not know. More importantly, even if he is right, his crowing and making negative comments is surely poor attitude, and would, I it seems to me, to reflect very poorly on his ethics. JMO of course. I know some here seem to feel he is an honorable and worthy lawyer. Don't see it, and he is in my list to have predator birds named in the large bald flock.

Next likely step may be saying we all have to have DNA tests?

I guess I do not understand finger printing. It has always been my belief that once they have your prints, unless something occurs to affect the fingers, they will be the same. Not sure if that follows with age, though, other than size, I believe the basic pattern is the same. So, what is the point of requiring new printing if they already exist?

Yep; and they are on file already with the state teaching department. So, since that is the case, simply addend them from the teaching file to the BSA/Volunteer file? No additional prints then need to be done. Of course, I may also have prints from my short time in the Peace Corp, and not sure if they printed us in the military.

https://mandatedreporterca.com/training/volunteers I thought I had posted something, but cannot find it. We were notified in the last day or two by council of the new law, and I have already taken the online certification and received the official coverage from the state. Working out the connected fingerprinting is still in limbo. The law does not appear to allow for them picking up already printed individuals from other mandated areas, such as teachers. I had to be printed as a credentialed teacher, in order to work. So you would think that file could be appenede, but currently they are looking at a separate method. Seems not only poor planning, but also it is annoying, as there is of course an expense involved. Fingerprints do not change normally, so why not just marry the files, especially ones like mine that allowed me to teach for two decades or so. What do I know, other than governmental processes are often bloated and poorly designed.

We too often jump to conclusions in judgment with these types of things, forgetting that Scouts, and Scouters are actually real people. They are not somehow less prone to mistakes in judgment or foolish decisions to "see what happens", or "what it is like". I still remember why I chose years ago NOT to smoke, even though was surrounded by smokers. My mom made the first strike by giving me a cigarette to light when I was maybe 13, as I kept bugging her to let me try. Once my eyes stopped running and I had enough water, the negative experience stayed with me until I though one more try, when I found apack of cigarettes in the parking lot of the Foster Freeze that I cleaned before school. I decided to try it again, "now that I was older". The same basic experience transpired and that was it, other than a few ventures during my 1960's "rebellious " time. They did not last long. Similarly with alcohol. A few bad experiences put me off of it very early, though I do on rare occasion still drink something; a six pack of ale or hard cider sits in the fridge for weeks, and even months. Had my beer period while stationed in Germany, and that may have helped later, as our more local fare leaves much to improve. The point here, is that those withing the program are also part of the larger society and simply the human race. And they can, and do act at times like others around them. Hopefully they recognize and do not become addicted or lost in a temporary "adventure".

Please move to where ever it may be better. Just a note to say that California now has a new state law that means all volunteers working with youth have to take a state certified course and have it on file. They also will need to get fingerprinted as part of the process, and they will not take already on file prints. So, once they figure out the prints process, I will need to get it done again, even though on file as a teacher. Already took the online course and have my certificate. Frankly, it is not a hard course, though a bit long. I think YP is more detailed, personally. Am now a madated reporter it appears, or will be once the fingerprint part happens.

Like this new word; "disapparated". Can we get a definition please, or should we all come up with our own? Disappear and dissipate merged?🧐