SiouxRanger

I stand by my post. I could well be wrong. But my marker stands firm as I posted.

"When I wanted to understand what is happening today, I try to decide what will happen tomorrow; I look back, a page of history is worth a volume of logic." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice, New York Trust Co. v. Eisner (1921). Many cultures respect, if not revere their elders and the perspective that they have. Their perspective is considered "Wisdom." Barry, I listen to you.

Well, I am with you-never have heard of that before, internal pockets with interior poles. I'd think the doors must be large (wide) so as to accommodate inserting a pole into a corner pocket, then bending the balance of the pole through the door so as to be able to insert the other end of pole into the other pocket. Sounds very awkward. Two doors, or is this feat of contortionism conducted through a single door? Installing the second pole might be easier, until the last few inches of stretch to get the second pole end into the final pocket. I've had tents where the poles were inserted through sleeves on the outside of the tent chamber. Then, tents seemed to go to poles affixed at tent corners, with plastic clips drawing the tent outward. Pole sleeves were probably heavier than the clip system. Some tent poles were capped with a rubber cap and inserted into a pocket. Some tent poles were open ended and there was a metal pin at the corners that was inserted into the open-ended pole. Considering that I started scout camping about 1964 or so, my 14 pound, 2 person Explorer Tent, (not counting the wooden cross spar and two A-Frame pole spars-there was a metal T-pole alternative), has resolved to a Big Agnes Copper Spur Ultra Lite of about 2 pounds 8 ounces (but just one person), things have dramatically changed. My Big Agnes tent is a work of art. (I hope this does not offend some advertising restriction, but if so, just delete what offends.)

To All-- After 25 years of senior Troop leadership, having been the "go to" adult having 3 sons, all Eagles, and having been a senior adult during their Cub Scout years. I have seen my share of O/A elections in the troop. All of them. I am an OA member. Time and again, far, far too many times, I have seen crossover scouts voting on OA membership on older scouts' O/A membership where the older scouts had sports obligations and were only present to meet their Scouting requirement obligations.. The younger scouts may have never met the older scouts. Yet they could vote on the scouts' merits. So, I am in favor of the Scoutmaster of having authority of ADDING scouts to the list of those elected to the OA. And my unit has had many who earned Eagle but not elected to the OA. And each of those Eagles were denied OA because children had control of the vote had no idea whom they were voting for . Many times parents ask me about WHY their child was not elected to the OA. Same dad, 2 sons , one nominated to a US Academy class. "Not so good election rules, '""Eye'd would support.

And thanks to all who have persevered through my last two posts.

The things one remembers with clarity (maybe?) from one's childhood. In the 60's (19xx) when we decorated the family Christmas tree, we had spherical, glass ornaments. Nothing special. But beautiful to me-reds, blues, greens, ... Round balls. All carefully stored away in their boxes of 12, cushioned by cardboard baffles to protect them in the off-season. And then, at tree trimming, an ornament or two was entrusted to me (and my siblings) to hang on the tree, parents dutifully including us youngsters in the annual tradition. Entrusted to us for about 30 seconds or so, until safely on the tree. Even so, despite all reasonable care and parental guidance, an ornament or two would drop to the hardwood floor and shatter. And what I remember most is that the ornaments would shatter into vicious-looking shards, many of them sized about half the circumference of the ornament. Bi-wedge-shaped, with sharp, pointed ends-laying on their backs with the pointed ends upward, just inviting a foot. They looked wicked, and pieces went everywhere. My parents admonished, "Don't move your feet-we have to sweep up the pieces." (And, I, for one, did not want my feet to meet up with the long shards. My main concern, even as a youngster was whether ALL of the pieces were swept up, or that I might find one a month later.) (To this day, I NEVER go barefoot anywhere-maybe this is the reason???) All the pieces were there, just no longer the mesmerizing, sparking ornament of a moment earlier. And all the King's horses, and all the King's men… All the pieces of the ornament were there, just no longer the mesmerizing, sparking ornament of (much, much) earlier. And all the King's horses, and all the King's men… And maybe the shards can be formed into something resembling a prior National, but as a prior poster well pointed out in an excellent post (sorry for the non-atribution), a national organization provides significant benefits to "franchisee organizations." And as the prior poster listed, I am convinced of his her points. And a "collection of shards" the New National would be, and just what effort would it take for the New National Of Shards to extend its primacy over the "Movement USA Scouting" in areas where local councils went bankrupt? And thereby re-establish the National of yore? Well, numerous posters have noted National's stunning silence, (and corresponding local council silence) if not total abdication, of making any comment on the bankruptcy, and worse, offering any guidance to us volunteers, the folks who are supposed to be the folks actually running the program. We are touted as the "heroes of the movement," "guided by the professionals." Well, where are any of them? National, local, what are we to do to "carry on?" It has been two and a half years that volunteers have waited for guidance. A poster on another thread asked, "What is your unit looking forward to in the next year?" (Paraphrasing.) Last I looked, there were no replies. I have pondered flippantly posting, "Getting our units' 2022 Rechartering documents back from Council by 12-21-2023." (Note the year difference.) But that is outside what I consider a proper response under such desperate circumstances. (I have previously posted that my unit started the re-chartering inquiry process in October 2021, in anticipation of this mess. A Catholic Church sponsored units for 75 years or so.) We have found another CO, in May, 2022, and even after all the paperwork was submitted changing to the new CO, several months ago, not a word from the Council. Out Troop was allowed to attend summer camp which had been paid for, though warned "if not rechartered-you cannot attend." Not used to Scout Councils THREATENING Scout Youth. Kind. Friendly. Thrifty. Trustworthy (which embodies most or all of them.) And thanks, @fred8033.

I have no practice experience in mass tort bankruptcies. (As a percentage of lawyers in the country, it is a tiny percentage who do.) But, I have persuaded myself that I have a working, plausible hypothesis of the litigation dynamics of this case. I see legal issues in terms of "pressure." ("Dynamics.") Very little is absolute. It is like chess. A move is made. The new placement of the piece poses a threat. And threats are of different flavors, a clear and present threat of immediate chess board carnage, a potential threat, perhaps needing a move or two to raise the threat to clear and present status, suggestion of threat, and a veiled, foggy threat. (My opponent made that move-perhaps sees something I don't-should I be concerned, or is it a mistake by my opponent?) Threats, of whatever flavor draw attention, and have to be calculated into the player's plan. Pressure. A players next move is based on the player's evaluation of the summation of all of the threats on the board. Chess is the Art Of Threat. And so, litigation. It is war, pure and simple. I would think that the Judge is fully aware that BSA's diminishing cash reserves are an existential threat-delay alone could cause the destruction of BSA. It is not an acceptable legal result that an entity is rendered defunct, not on the merits of the case, but on account of mere delay. I find it difficult to accept the proposition that the Judge in the BSA case is awaiting a ruling on another case (unless the Judge is able to get inside information on the schedule of the release of that ruling). For the BSA Judge to await the ruling in another case, essentially ties the schedule of the BSA case to the schedule of the other case. And the BSA Judge has no control over the timing of the ruling on the other case. So, if the BSA Judge is waiting on a ruling in the other case, the BSA Judge has surrendered control of the timing of the BSA case AND surrendered control over the issue of BSA's diminishing funds. Judges don't like to surrender control-that is be "legally adrift." This is an excellent question. Judges do not like to be appealed, as it means that one side, or both, feel that the Judge has made a legal error. No one likes to be accused of making an error. Judges want to craft rulings/opinions that are devoid of allegations of legal error. However, I cannot envision a Judge holding a status conference and "explaining the reason for the delay." A status conference on that basis would smack of stating, "We are lost in this mess-any idea how I should rule?" Not only an admission of judicial chaos, but not would reopen and invite attorneys for the parties to rehash their respective positions once again-and we've heard all of that. (Judge is speaking from position of weakness.) I can envision the BSA Judge holding a status conference on the basis of, "We're narrowing our ruling-staff is working diligently-have any discussions amongst the parties moved to any significant changes in position that I should be aware of before my final ruling? (Meaning: "I've got my ducks in a row-anything you folks want me to incorporate into my ruling that will be more in accord with the parties' current positions?") (Judge is speaking from position of control.) "Finished faster" might be the hope of some survivors, but I do not believe that "BSA only" is National's hope. "BSA only" is death. I do not think that National Scouting will survive the "BSA only" path. And this is the reason that "BSA only" is death. If the local councils and chartering organizations are not given a discharge in bankruptcy, it appears that a flood of lawsuits will overwhelm them, and all will devolve into litigation chaos. And a huge number of councils will file bankruptcy. I still do not understand the role of the insurers in all of this-perhaps I am not thinking hard enough. Third party bankruptcy discharges are critical to National BSA's survival. Without them, I think all is lost. And THE VOTE? It will be interesting to see how that is worked into the ruling, if at all. Given the inherent dilution of the vote of Survivors with legally viable claims, The Vote seems meaningless to me. Well, other than to assure a positive vote for a BSA Plan that pays $3.500 to claimants with no demonstrable claim. The vote of Survivors being overwhelmed. Trustworthy.

Folks seem to be drawn to older/ancient traditions. And such, foreign to their own traditions. Something mystical. Scouting history is young and not well-promoted. Not having reviewed merit badge requirements across the board regarding ancestral skills (skill by skill), perhaps every merit badge requirement should have designation of "ancestral skills compliance." And survival skills added. Having designed a primitive skills course for Summer camp, having been demolished by COVID, and sadly never to happen (my only chance to step beyond handling Troop paperwork), any suggestions on skills to be taught would be welcome. I hope to pass on the program to others so that my work is not lost.

Thanks everyone. Great ideas. I have passed them on to the leadership.

So, 3 Omnibus hearings set through 10-27-2022. What does this mean? Perhaps no final ruling expected until or after 10-27-2022? My understanding of "omnibus" is that everything that any party wants to raise can be noticed up for hearing. Why would three omnibus hearings be set up front when perhaps all issues will be resolved at the first omnibus hearing? Perhaps the judge envisions an iterative process whee issues are raised at one hearing, followed by private negotiations, progress or lack thereof reported at the second hearing, and so on. Perhaps the Judge will announce a preliminary ruling, and seek comments from the parties, all perhaps to spur further negotiations amongst the parties. One would think that ONE omnibus hearing would be sufficient, or one omnibus hearing setting, being continued to other dates as needed, but to dates following close on the initial setting-not with evenly spaced month gaps. That there are three omnibus hearings spaced out over three months, considering the cash drain on National, seems rather strange to me.

Our current thought is to have a campout shakedown session at a troop meeting with every scout packing his pack for a tent campout. We'd give them a list of suggested equipment. Adults "in the know," regarding donated equipment, would be able to see who is most in need. All the scouts are unknowingly participating in the gear review for donated gear (so no one is overlooked). And the scouts would get a chance to experience a shakedown and gear review and pointers. Then parents would be approached with an offer of donated gear. This is the best we have been able to concoct so that all of the scouts have an equal chance.

Our unit has recently received very high quality personal gear, 3 pristine Osprey 65L packs, for example, and us adults are at a loss to come up with a method to gift such donations to individual scouts who could use it. Only a couple of senior adult leaders are aware of the donated gear at this point. More gear is likely to come. We are considering quietly investigating each scout's needs, and making the gifts privately. Probably on a leader to parent basis. Our hope is that this procedure would avoid a scout feeling like they have been overlooked or slighted. Has anyone suggestions? Thanks.

Ponil. (autocorrect!)

As in "impassable" to get to Point, or didn't want to send vehicles to Ponil? Do you know which? Interesting comment. As most packs aren't waterproof, the pack material will absorb water adding weight. I always took a portable sun shower. 2.4 oz, if I remember. About 2 adult showers. Took a shower every day. In any event, one always remembers the tough campouts moreso than the cake walk campouts.

We've had a few folks post that their SM refused to allow OA elections. I always thought it was the duty of the SM and assistant scout masters to make program opportunities available which comport with the program, the OA being among them. If the scouts decide not to participate, so be it, but at least they self-select not to participate. We've had the scouts decide not to attend district camporees, mainly because the theme was the same, year to year-cooking-sponsored by a unit which essentially had to fund the materials themselves and did so marginally. It was all lecture-scouts simply watched and did not get to participate. That played out for about 6 years. Our troop only attended the first year. We haven't had resistance to participating in OA, but I can see how the ceremony may not engage the imaginations of modern scouts. I do not know how uniform the OA ceremonies are from Lodge to Lodge. Some may be more engaging than others. In my several year NCAP team involvement, I've seen great variability in the quality of facilities, equipment, and supplies. Probably largely the result of budgetary constraints. It is a tough business putting on a respectable summer camp program. Only a strong cadre of returning staff make it work.

How does one indent a paragraph if that is even possible.

I certainly don't have any answers on this topic, but the information and questions I have from a number of sources, namely, testing and treating the drinking water supply system at my local camp, portable water treatment for Philmont crews, and treating and testing pools, has all been brought to mind by the discussion above. So I just have a few observations and questions. Drinking water system at camp. The ranger would describe turning on the water system and driving the buried water lines looking for leaks each Spring. When a leak was found, it had to be dug out and repaired. Once all leaks appeared to be identified and repaired, the water would be treated. Treatment involved loading up the entire system with a healthy dose of purifying chemical. Our camp has about a dozen separate dead end water line runs. Spigots need to be open to permit heavily treated water to flush out last year's remaining normally treated water. Once the heavily concentrated water was detected at each spigot, The spigot was closed and that line had to steep for a given time period. Longer lines take longer to replace the old water with heavily treated water. The ranger is testing for a given level of "chlorine" or whatever it is. Then, the heavily concentrated water in the lines has to be flushed with normally treated water, and that water tested to insure that it is not the heavily treated water. All of this is merely flushing the lines. There are al lot of steps, and I'd think a lot of record keeping involved. Then the normally treated water needs to be tested, and EACH line has to be tested. I suspect that there are several categories of things to test for (largest size to smallest): 1. Particulate matter like clay, sticks, leaf particles-all things introduced by digging down to a leak and repairing it. Presumably, digging a hole around a leak will create a mud hole in which the work is done. 2. Bacteria. 3. Viruses. 4. Heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and algicides. (Maybe viruses are smaller than molecules.) I suspect that some of these things can be tested in the field but others would require a lab. So how often do these things get tested for, are the testing chemicals, reagents, etc., current? Is the person testing trained to follow the protocols to avoid false negatives? Are records kept reliably? Are tests actually being conducted? Are positive tests run again? What procedures if there is a true positive test? Shut down the system, re-treat the water, etc. I really question if all these steps are followed and executed. Camp life for a ranger and staff can be a bit chaotic. Water quality control is a bit more complicated than I have previously thought. Backcountry Philmont Crew water treatment. These systems are obviously much simpler than a camp-wide system. I only note that these systems have no testing component. Water is treated with a chemical, or a filtering pump, or both, and consumed on the presumption that the treatment was effective. Presumed to be safe, not shown to be safe. There are also ultra violet light purifying systems. My take-away is that these treatments must be very effective to be presumed safe, but some do not protect against viruses, and none protect against heavy metals, pesticides, etc. Also, plant matter, such as algae, or cloudy water can reduce effectiveness. (One backcountry expert wrote somewhere that one had to be careful getting water from a stream as there might be a dead elk a hundred yards upstream...I can't get that idea out of my head.) Swimming pools. These are different from drinking water in two respects: pool water is not intended for drinking, but everyone swallows some once in awhile, and lots of people are actually swimming in your drinking water. Hmmm. I would expect that the level of chemical treatment for a pool is higher than for drinking water. But, as you are putting your eyes in the pool it cannot be too strong.

Generally, one cannot be grandfathered in with respect to health and safety matters.

My favorite legal doctrine. "Stare decisis" = "we've made this mistake before and feel compelled thereby to make it ever hence."

"Hair rising on back of neck." Probably the best explanation of it all. Not to prolong this discussion, but I DISTINCTLY recall that when I drew the boy from the lake, he was not gasping or choking. He could not have been underwater for more than some seconds, otherwise he would have been in some sort of distress. He was not. Under water long enough for the surface to settle but before he started gasping. I suspect he slipped off the boat ramp like I almost did a few minutes ago, and slipped into the lake nearly silently creating minimal surface distortion. Had I not experienced a near slip into the lake just minutes before, having then realized just how unexpectedly slippery it was, I doubt I would have jumped into the lake, and that boy would have died. After I jumped into the lake, I distinctly remember thrashing around in the lake with my left arm, my right arm stabilizing my jump into the lake-it all happened so quickly, and my panic that I had not found anything and then an instant later grasping a little arm. By such slender threads are lives held in safety. This is not a story about me. It is a lesson on how to give insight to others on just how such strange and sudden circumstances can happen, and the importance of quick reactions. All to get folks to think outside the box. Frankly, that that boy's life was saved was just a miracle. Multitudes of subtle things came together and the result was great. I am an inveterate educator. I puzzle through things, learn truths, and want to pass them on. My thought is that I need to pass on my observations and knowledge to folks who will likely need it but are not making any attempts to learn it. They can listen not, if they so desire, but some listen. And they can advance from there. And maybe I am wrong. And that is OK also. And so I post this. My personal motto is, "Not that I did it, but that it was done." I am result oriented not credit oriented. I do not seek credit for anything. I just want to spread sound knowledge. And to learn from those who correct me. One of the most important things I ever did was not witnessed by anyone (well some unspeaking children). And that is OK. But I know that I did my Scouting duty.

Our Diocese has decided not to recharter any BSA Troops. 77 years our Parish chartered our Troop and Pack. We found a new CO, but it took 5 months to do so. And so it goes. I am reminded of a M.A.S.H. episode where Hawkeye and BJ are sitting opposite a chess board, with a few chess pieces and checkers on the board, and holding about 8 playing cards each. Someone walks in, looks at the absurd concatenation of game pieces and asks "What are you playing and what are the rules?" "We're playing 'Double Cranko-' There are no rules." Welcome to Natonal's Bankruptcy. In my humble opinion, National is trying to make bankruptcy rules. And we shall see.

VERY nice to know there will be at least one more Town Hall. I hope Town Hall's continue through the entire course of the District Court review and any appeals. (The cave is shallow-thanks for your work.) The TCC is the only party to this proceeding that speaks (sincerely and plainly so) to issues of principle. Many of us were drawn to Scouting by the principles it espoused. Principles worthy of a life seeking to attain them and spent practicing them in an unprincipled world. That those principles appear to have been sacrificed historically on the altar of the Bottom Line is distressing enough, but even after that sacrifice having been exposed, it appears that the Bottom Line has prevailed over principle, judging from the elements of National's Plan(s), as National proposed before the advent of the TCC. Were it only so that that National had taken the initiative and proposed Plan(s) took the high ground and itself proposed meaningful Youth Protection reforms, and thereby commenced its effort to restore its reputation and instill confidence in its customers (parents), insurers, CO's, LC's, just everyone it deals with. So, what price to National to implement meaningful, independent Youth Protection measures? A billion dollars? National spent that already, in addition to its reputation. National put its very existence at risk historically on the altar of the Bottom Line-a version of "let's bet the farm." It is essentially a "what we have or nothing" bet. Being compelled to implement such measures and not offering such measures on its own accord, offends the principle that when a disaster happens on someone's watch, that someone steps up and explains to those affected that they understand the cause and have implemented measures that it will never happen again. And explain those preventative measures. All to reassure those affected and to restore reputation and confidence in that someone. That is the sincerest form of apology. Merely apologizing, but taking no meaningful remedial action, is no course to preventing similar future disasters and does nothing to instill confidence or restore reputation. But that is the course National has taken. National is a reluctant penitent. Just who will trust a reluctant penitent? National, being in the "people and principle business," appears not to understand either. I recall a line from the movie Bridge On The River Kwai: "Madness...madness." As an aside, I am of the impression that National's Plan, to be approved, has to demonstrate that National's Plan, as approved, will likely allow it to survive 5 years. To what extent, I wonder, will National's Plan(s) (or lack thereof) regarding Youth Protection measures to restore its reputation affect an evaluation of its business viability?

Being-- "More light-less heat." I think? So elegantly stated. Phrases are art. (Old and old-school scouter who can actually build a fire under any conditions.)

And these words foretell the end of BSA Scouting. No insurance for all the risks-no Scouting.

About 1966. Just me in the boat. All so long ago. And the lake was large enough that I could be out of eyesight for many hours. My parents trusted me. Not quite sure I would let my children wander off so as my parents let me do so. The whole incident happened in about 2 minutes. Being so young, I did not realize the significance of what I did for about 40 years. "Kid falls in lake, pull him out, start the grill, move on." Only many decades later, parent of 3, did it occur to me that what happened sent a child home to his family which may have had a much more tragic outcome. In the scheme of being a "hero" just not so much. But in the life of that boy and family, HUGE. And none of them know that they dodged a bullet. To them, it never happened. Training creates reflex. Things just didn't seem "right." I recall processing whether jumping in the lake made any sense considering (and looking like a sopping wet idiot fool) that there was no visible disturbance in the lake as opposed to the outcome if I was just totally wrong. And I jumped. I had never jumped in a lake before, and not in the 56 years after. Just once, but the right once. Scouting teaches skills, all which get checked off when completed. What is NOT measured is the value of learning those skills toward the development of JUDGMENT, by the process of trial and error of failed attempts and partial successes, all leading to achieve those skills checked off. WHY I jumped into the lake, I just do not know. But it was the right call, and for that, I do not know even know. I am certain that had I not a sense of "Helpful" I would have hesitated, and that would have led to disaster. It all so happened in seconds. Yet a child lived.