mrjohns2

I bet you were at CFL? I was on staff ‘92-‘95. It is so very hard to see it go and for so little. My current council camp is Bear Paw. We have only done the dinning hall. The director is great. He was just hired as a DE, so chances are he will be the director for many years ahead. It is a good camp. My heart will always be at CFL, but my girls will know Bear Paw as their camp. my dad’s ashes will stay at CFL after the sale. So, it will always be a sacred space for me no matter what it becomes. Through coming to terms with the loss of CFL, I have learned a camp is mostly the program and rhe staff. The land may just be a memory.

This is helpful. As I have been changing my mind on lawyer fees, partly it is due to hearing these types of details. All of the staff and professionals come out of those fees. It isn’t one person having to get paid. It is many that SOMEONE is paying upfront.

For a long time I was very much mad at the lawyers. I don’t know why, but through the discussion I am ambivalent towards them. The victims hired them, understand their fees, and are ok with it. I am now ok with it too. Go back and see some my old posts, I have changed my opinion.

I agree. I don't think they would ever go for it.

This was one of the thought processes when the Vietnam Wall was built. List the dead, but provide a place for the living to visit. It took many 20-30 years to visit due to the hurt. I agree it shouldn't just be for BSA, but in the larger community. I know of no other type of monument. The memorial could be to the loss.

I never even thought about CO insurance being a worthwhile target. I keep thinking our CO, the PTO. But most of the religious institutions would have some decently deep pockets as well.

As long as your tent mate is in your patrol, for sure. That was one of the best things about troop camping growing up. The SPL decides where the different patrols setup.

Our lodge has 1500 members that come from many troops, maybe 300+ troops.

We are in Wisconsin and we were told a couple of months back that all four of our camps that have supper camp programs will likely survive. I thought that was a bold statement.

What is the point? Not everything in Scouts revolves around the unit. Not a unit activity, not the responsibility of the unit.

It isn’t. The OA has adults that provide the 2 deep leadership.

I’ll tell you this - the troop leader handbook, wood badge, IOLS, BALOO, online trainings galore, and round table haven’t thought me much. I got back in 2.5 years ago with my girls. I draw some of the most upon my experience on camp staff nearly 30 years ago and my troop growing up nearly 35 years ago. Ask Andy is pretty darn good too.

I read a blog about management and becoming a better manager. She does a great job with advice as she almost always provides advice and then often a script. She said she includes words to say as it is a hard jump for many from advice and then “how do I DO that”.

The CO doesn’t follow Scouts everywhere the go, nor are they responsible for them everywhere is unfounded. To think they should is crazy and very controlling. NYLT, provisional troops at camp, provisional troops at Philmont, Jamboree, Mom and Scout, Camp Staff, and the OA. The CO has no authority, responsibility, or influence on these non unit Scout activities.

It isn’t a unit activity, though.

Still does. Even firmer language not super long ago stipulated that only one lodge is chartered per council. So if a council merged, so do the lodges.

Since I am naïve, I am not sure, but this does seem to be the first plant that really cuts to the bone for national itself. Thus there is less to nit-pick. But who knows what is in the 387 pages until one reads them. @ThenNow They used such poor words about promising those harmed being "equitably compensated". They should have said "equitable distribution of agreed to liquated funds". Doesn't quite have the same honor behind it.

I do feel for you and everyone who is a "stake holder" in the outcome. You guys especially, but it doesn't seem to really stop the turmoil for anyone, just a portion of it, no? It is not clear where insurance stands. It is not clear which LCs are in or out. If they are in, what if they can't come up with the funds? They declare bankruptcy? What about any key CO's. It seems like step 1 in a 5 step process or so. Gotta finish step 1 before step 2, but we are not yet at the final step. I guess the other part is that it is clear it is a multistep process. The BSA seemed to promote "this will be a 1 and done type of thing". It is now "this is step 1 of a many step, many year thing".

That is where a Scout and buddy call up a MBC. A lot of the items you list, except for service projects, are a challenge many Scouts aren’t interested in. “Challenge by Choice” is what should drive completion of many of these MBs.

For me, especially retroactive. I could see them saying “from here on out, this is the vision”.

This is why my feelings are still mixed on Summer Camp First Year Programs. It is very unnatural vs. a year of campouts and most items will be done. There might be some minor requirements to cover, but for the most part, nearly all would be covered in a good program.

I’m heartened. I would be ok selling Sea Base and Northern Tier. Both could be done pretty well without ownership. Since I loved Jamborees in the past, I’m pretty happy that the Summit has survived. I think Philmont was good to keep too, but I am skeptical of the re-enactment practices at Philmont. So, maybe national turns into a “mail order” badge, uniform, and book supplier for a generation. If it wouldn’t cost so much, I would say they should move national to the Summit or Philmont and sell the national offices. The huge debt will be hard.

Another question - was this done at recharter or out of the blue? Yeah, but de-select out of the blue is out of the normal.

Maybe we all have such stories? The volley ball head coach who was brought up on charges, but never convicted. Banned from the sport, though. He did, out of the kindness of his heart, adopt the baby of a 17 year teammate as his own child. Just a kind heart, I guess?

I can “flow” with the the policies listed above. Unless the OP has done something recently that made big waves, I would feel that putting one’s foot down out of the blue (even if new President or priest of the parish) is unkind and heartless. Organizations I have been a part of may say “in the future, we will do it differently”. Again, maybe they could, but should they, after already agreeing that they were ok? Again, maybe there is more to it that caused them to put their foot down. It may not even be clear to the OP of who said what behind closed doors. In any event, it sucks.