HelpfulTracks

We need an up vote emoji for "I see what you did there"

I agree. I do think those convicted or have pled should be listed publicly. My initial gut reaction is to list even those who have been arrested, but I would want to give it some more thought before definitively saying that is a good idea. I think in most states (if not all) arrest are public record, it so I would lean towards including them. But there may be some negative ramification to which I am not aware,

Yes, if you look at the violation code, those people have been arrested and/or convicted of a crime. Even searching the first few that did not have a violation listed, it was easy to find they had been convicted or pled to crime. I am definitely in favor of doing what US Gymnastics is doing. But the IVF also contains people who have not even had criminal complaints filed against them. Do you think that people who have not had any criminal complaint should be included in what is put out publicly?

As someone who wants to see Scouting preserved, I would like to hear more of your thoughts on how we can achieve this. I agree 100% Can you expound on what he has done and how we can incorporate it in Scouting? I am not familiar with what he has done. I am glad to hear you say that. I hope we get the chance.

One of the concerns I have is the specific names in the IVF be distributed, which was called for in the press conference. I have been tangentially involved in that process for a few names placed on the list. None we for sexual abuse or physical abuse to a scout. They were for things, like white collar crime, fraud, incomplete of misleading information on BSA app, assault against an adult outside of scouting, even the use of fowl language/gestures etc. Of those that had criminal consequences, only one had gone through the justice system. The thing is there is not a typical due process function, at least since I have been involved, I cannot speak to past years. Someone gets accused, a review is held, national gets notified and they are put on the list (some are permanent some can appeal for reinstatement,). In some cases they can appeal for reinstatement at a future date. I have not seen the appeal process, but I can say even though some have said they would, that I have seen only one reinstated, but with conditions. That person never attended another event. The only case of sexual about I know of personally (as pertains to my Scouting position), is a case where a Scoutmaster was accused of offering to have sex with two scouts on separate occasions. The Scouts declined and nothing physical occurred. The Scoutmaster denied the allegations. The scouts and their parents did not press charges. The Scoutmaster was placed on permanent ineligible in the IVF. My concern is two fold. 1. If the IVF is routinely made public, then it is possible, even likely, that innocent people will be labeled as child predators. And without any due process required. Which has a whole set or legal and moral ramifications. 2. If the bar is raised to place someone on the IVF then we will likely still have child predators running free in Scouting. I think the names should be placed with authorities, but not released publicly but still maintained as ineligible by Scouting. If the authorities find cause to press charges then they will become known publicly.

I am curious how his current comments relate to what he said in court while defending BSA and its policies. It would be interesting to see some of those transcripts

Is that not an answer? Or is it just not an answer you like. And if care about the current and future scouts precludes one from caring for victims, then the inverse is true. SO I take it you don't care about the current youth at all. Can't have it both ways.

First, you and your partner have posted 5 times since this question was posted, and of course come up with your own answer. So there really is not reason for me to reply, clearly MY real answer is not of great importance. First, my question of pennies on what Dollar has never been answered there is a far cry between pennies on $22T and $2B. Second, pennies on the dollar is really a false argument in a bankruptcy for this type of situation. These are not secured creditors that have a specific amount of money owed, these are not even judgement creditors that have won a verdict in a law suit. So any dollars that you are basing pennies offered on $xxx, is an estimate of what might occur of every case could go to trial and won. So is whatever dollar amount averaged out over 82K fair? For some? Absolutely not. For others? Probably more than fair based on what they could get through the legal system. In the end the "fair" does not really have any bearing on this. An amount will be proposed. It will pass or fail. If it passes does that make it fair? I can't imagine it will. If it fails, the a few might be able to get fair compensation in the state courts, but many will get nothing.

Before you asked any question you told me how I would have reacted if it had happened to me. I quote "if it happened to you at the age of 13 you would have been confused, ashamed, and most likely in denial." I told you that I did not think that would be how things went. And it was not a rhetorical answer. I had to defend myself physically from attack. So I do know. But somehow you know me better than myself, to quote you "You don’t know how you would have reacted because it didn’t happen to you." There are a lot of hypothetical questions that come before yours if someone had tried to molest me at 13. SO how about we avoid hypotheticals, particularly when you want to both ask and answer the question. Your logical gymnastics you have to do to come up with your conclusions is as amazing as it is faulty. A hypothetical question about how I would feel, that does not get a response you deem valid, do not mean I don't think the victims deserve compensation. So, even though I have said it numerous times (and I am sure it won't sink through to you this time either). I believe victims SHOULD be compensated I believe victims SHOULD get just compensation I also believe that scouting is a program that SHOULD continue because it does good for youth It would be marvelous if ALL of those SHOULDs could come true, but I don't know anyone that thinks that is possible. So I will continue to advocate to keep the Scouting program going And I will advocate for victims that get the best possible compensation possible, that also keeps the scouting program going.

Thank you.

It might not be what you want to hear, but no I would not have felt that way. At 13 I had already had to stand my ground against physical threats from adults. But, I also realize I was not a typical 13 year old. Moderators, can you just close this thread. The original topic is just being ignored and the the current post belong in one of the many threads already started. We are just fragmenting those threads by continuing this one, besides now this one belongs in Issues and Politics not Open Discussion

You not liking the answer does not negate the fact I did answer.

If it had been me or my children, I would likely have a very different legal issue to deal with.

Since the thread has gone down this path and off topic of the OP, I will continue on. I am not a lawyer, and I have not seen what is being offered to whom, but my guess would be there are differences in the claims standing. I don't think there are any judgement claims included in the 82K and they are not secured creditors. So unless some type of agreement was made to give the victims a special claims status, much of the determination is part of law. The secured creditors will have first/best claims. And, I don't imagine there are any lump sum payouts to secured creditors, more like an alteration of terms of the debt; longer time to pay, lower rates, delay or remove of balloon payments, possibly some debt forgiveness. Which brings me to this question about valuation. I saw a chart in another post that was listing levels of claims, 1-6 if I remember correctly. It had a valuation for each level and all 82K claims where put against it to come up with a figure. Secured debt is pretty straight forward to calculate. How is victim debt being calculated? Pennies on the dollar of what? Because some of the numbers I saw would be impossible to achieve if every asset was liquidated for BSA, the local councils and the insurance companies combined. Which begs the question pennies on the dollar for whom? From the councils perspective, each council is probably looking at a different level of risk if the lawsuits come back at them alone. Because of the 82K I would think that: Some are outside the SOL (depending on the state) Some lack enough evidence to go to trial Some will make it to trial and fail Some will make it to trail and win small amounts Some will make it to trial and win large amounts

First, my comment was regarding CynicalScouter hyperbole that BSA "simply refusing to compensate victims" Second, it seem odd, even a bit grotesque, to compare compensation for sexual abuse to a free market transaction. And finally, that is exactly how bankruptcy court works. Claimants enter bankruptcy owing more than they can pay. In your example, the likely outcome would be the court settling that of something less than $99k would be how I would be compensated. Or if Ch7, the property would be liquidated and I would be paid based on standing.

Your typical hyperbole. BSA is not refusing to compensate victims - there is a compensation plan on the table They are not claiming EVERY camp is necessary - some have already been sold EVERYTHING has to be off the table - EVERYTHING Is not off the table, and BSA/Councils are not claiming it should be - though you are claiming EVERYTHING should be.

Not sure why you decided to break this sentence into two part reply, as the second part reference the first. In short, we agree. As I said, what's in the interest of the current scouts is not the TCC's job. And since what is in the currents scouts best interest is NOT the TCC's job, then I don't care what operational, personnel, program etc. changes they wish to see. The TCC determining what camps are needed in order to best serve the current scouts is NOT their job, any more than determining what personnel are needed or who stays employed or not. If the TCC believes a council is not putting in all they can, then I have no problem with them challenging the amount and letting a judge decide. But I do care once they begin trying to make decisions on how that money is found, because that is a change the effects the current scouts. Maybe it is hard to comprehend because you are conflating two things. It is entirely possible to care about survivors, while disagreeing that the TCC should be determining what IS and IS NOT needed for the current scouts. Or is it that you believe one cannot care for the survivors and advocate for what is best for the Scouts at the same time?

Many camps from the days of higher membership have already be sold. Some have been highlighted and discussed on this site. My primary concern is that camps be brought up to the standards BSA uses to make the camps the best possible for the current youth. As for ALL agreeing. All agree on nothing. If what I have read here about the TCC's standards, they want to close camps all the camps in some councils and force scouts to travel out of council. The TCC's mission is have concern is for the victims and zero concern for current or future scouts so I don't care what TCC says in terms of utilization or the needs of our current/future scouts. I welcome their input on YP, but not their input on how many camps are needed. If a council needs to sell a camp to meet its financial obligations to the bankruptcy, then that is sad but necessary.

Ahh, the efficiency of the BSA. I still have not received anything and I am listed as the contingent lead for our council, signed up for the email list via the site above and I attended the last NSJ as a SM. You would think I would make a list for one of those.

Precisely

I have not seen an official announcement yet, but I have been hearing through the grapevine that there will be a National Scout Jamboree in 2023, held July 19-28. There is a site up, but it has little information. just the promise of more information to come. https://jamboree.scouting.org/ I am not surprised, I felt like there would be an effort to have it in 2023 and some agreed. Not having it in 2023 would mean 8 years between 2017 and 2025, so some scouts would enter the program and age out without ever having had the change to attend. The next question I have is does the 2025 NSJ happen. Having it in 2025 would get us back on track for having it every 4 years (opposite WSJ). Not having it in 2025 would mean another 6 year hiatus. But planning for 25 would require starting before 23 even happened. Of course, the bankruptcy could throw all of this into a tail spin. I think the idea is plan as if we will come out of bankruptcy as Ch7 rather and Ch11.

I have seen numerous post scattered throughout various threads about council scout camps loosing money and thus not being viable and should be sold. Scout camps are an important part of BSA's mission. For many long-term camping would be much more difficult if not impossible. Enring merit badges would be more difficult. Learning to swim also (as it is usually a multi day process and difficult to achieve on a weekend campout) More time would need to be spent on week end trips teaching fundamentals of some activities like canoeing. In the process of fulfilling their mission, non-profits often have program elements that are not self sustaining, yet they are important, even critical. Scout camps cover hundreds, sometimes thousands of acres. They require facilities and infrastructure maintenance as well as grounds keeping. The fees charged to scouts for the use of the camp could never cover that in most cases. Summer Camp fees are almost entirely dedicated to the event cost (food, activities, staff) and very little, if any, goes to the camp budget. The net operating budget for a Scout camp is almost guaranteed to be in the red if it were not for donations. To even have a chance of being self sustaining the camps would have to fundamentally change in ways that would make them undesirable or even unusable as scout camps. We had a second camp (since sold as contribution to bankruptcy) that was our original Summer Camp. It was out grown and replaced by a New Summer camp. For years both were used until a fire in the original made it unusable as a Summer Camp. It was then used by units for weekends and for programs ( I often taught IOLS there), but over time it fell into disrepair. Usage dropped off. Eventually, some scouters wanted to revive the old camp. A new Ranger was hired, the OA jumped in, service days were held, and money was allocated by the council. The camp was fixed up and began to be used again. In fact utilization went up so far that you the OA and training programs had to reserve dates far in advance. Even then there were some utilization conflicts where multiple groups would be on site at the same time. As good as utilization became, there was no way to cover the cost of keeping the camp up. We had to rely on donations, which worked fine. When I see camps being sold off it appears to be more of an issue of more fiscal management by the council, or lack of fundraising. As for utilization, every camp can be listed as under utilized depending on how you determine utilization. Not every camp site is full on most weekends, some weekends have no utilization, depending the weather, what else is going on, the season and other factors. Not to mention one of the great benefits to using Scout camp for unit camping is that you have the camp almost entirely to yourself and a few other units at worst. Camps are vital to BSA to achieve its mission. They are not self sustaining in most cases. And over utilization is not a factor that helps in either case.

TO start with, this reply is not to debate how it should be done, but more to describe how we do it, and how all the material I had on ScoutReach it is supposed to be done. ------------------------------------------- No, these are ScoutReach units, and have not segmented off to some separate pseudo district. They run the Socuting programs (Cub, BSA, Venturing), although some run a more limited version of a "ScoutReach program", regardless they are part of the district. The district boundaries are actually defined using Economic Empowerment Zones. The district has a gerrymandered look, but it is contiguous. The idea with ScoutReach is to serve communities that might not otherwise get served. The biggest differences are in the adult leadership (paid program specialist) and funding (donor contributions). The goal is to run the Scouting program, which is done unless it needs to be modified for various reasons. Even still, I am not following how ScoutReach could be considered segregated. Our ScoutReach units are racially diverse. They are socioeconomically similar, though not homogenous. But, that could be said about our suburban and rural units as well. We do have School Night for Scouting at these schools. Parents and youth can see both programs and decide which is best for them. And while our ScoutReach programs have some things they do differently, they still try to use as much of the Cubs program as possible. The biggest differences the parents and youth see is meeting time and location (usually at the school, sponsoring club and immediately before or after school). They do see that some units are more traditional, and have a wider range of things they can do, but it will also take more time commitment from the parents. Like every district I have ever seen, there are more cub units than Scouts or Venturing combined. So we are able to have Cub Day Camps, Cub-o-rees, Cub night evets etc. We have fewer Scouts or Venturing units, so we have found it works best to have them join the neighboring districts for camporees and such. As for OA. The districts meet together but are separate chapters with separate officers (or were before reorganization). The reason for OA meeting together is we do not have program specialist for OA - I have never questioned the reason for that, because we have it working and since it does work, the idea of find adult OA leaders is way way down the list of priorities. Based on my understanding of the program, which is through BSA material, we were running the program as prescribed, meaning we were not doing anything special or reinventing the wheel. If we were, then I guess it was just because what we saw in ScoutReach seemed to fit with our regular programing, just a different way of delivering it, and we just stumbled backwards into it. As for OA, which I am still very involved with, you can see how we handled the district in my previous paragraph. The Lodge does do some things to reach out to all types of inactive (OA wise) units. We don't call it OA ScoutReach, we just roll it up with our normal unit visitation program. Though I will say we are not were we want to be, we have way too few visits outside of elections, but we are working on it. It was certainly a tough job. It was easier to raise money (wealthy donors will write a check of underserved kids in a heart beat). But getting volunteers was way way more of a challenge than other districts, which made programming harder too. Many of the youth were coming from broken homes, parents were working 2-3 jobs, and sadly some had absentee parents who did not know or care where their kids were. So it was not uncommon for larger or district wide events to have volunteers cancel at the last minute. So we had to over plan for events and sometimes realize in advance we could not do some things. Volunteer cancelations was also we used program specialist as the primary unit leader. I was a Scoutmaster for NSJ in '17, several of these kids went with us. It is pretty awesome to watch a kid that has never been more than a few miles from his front door have the experience of the NSJ or high adventure.

Indeed. But had BSA not started allowing girls in to troops, this wouldn't be an issue. The fight over the name is particularly interesting considering Girl Scouts USA initially had push back from BSA and GSA over the use of the term Girl Scout. Given that, it seem a little disingenuous to sue of the name, but I am not a lawyer so. We had the same issue with units and the name usage, but we were able to get the word out quickly and the message seems to have stuck.

I can happily say I have met this scout, on more than one occasion.