SiouxRanger

Formerly (3 years ago) a budget 5 times larger than now, and staff cut in half to about 8. Seems grim to me.

You do understand me precisely and stated it much better than I. No offense was intended. My intent was that "no matter what award survivors receive, YP reform has to improve/bolster/enhance/ensure that such abuse never happens again." (I'd note that I sometimes use non-legal terms in my posts because readers may not be versed in the nuances of legal terms-of-art. I used "compensation" to connote a money judgment/payment. "Award" is technically more appropriate, but more generic and to a non-lawyer, connotes things much more akin to a medal or ribbon-clearly not my intent. To a lawyer, "award" is a money judgment. So, perhaps, "settlement payment" or even something else would have been better. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.) Words are our joy, and our burden-and sometimes, downfall. And I also meant that it is my impression that Survivors see YP enhancement as a co-equal and essential element of any resolution of this, equal with any monetary award. And, I understand that regardless of any monetary award, YP reform is its own issue and to be resolved as its own issue. Clearly, BSA's proposal of ONE Survivor on any YP Board moving forward is a clear statement that BSA cares not one whit about meaningful YP reform. Survivor presence should be a majority. I stand firmly with the Survivors. BSA has to make good on the damage it has caused. Funds accumulated in National's and Councils' war chests (long-term investments) over the past many decades should be used to redress the damage done over those past many decades. Borrowing NOW to pay for the damage of past decades is shifting the burden of that damage to current Scouts and their families. And is not their bill. But is leaves Councils flush with old money to fund salaries. Yesterday, I learned that our scout executive's salary plus retirement fund contribution, for last year was just shy of 50% of the Council's budget. (The retirement contribution was HALF of salary.) Sack cloth and ashes at the ready @ThenNow.

??? ALWAYS behind the circumstances human minds can concoct. Statutes always have gaps in their coverage, and that is why we have courts which try to fill those gaps

Oh, well, yes.. I have long made the observation that the law is totally unable to conceive of the infinite varieties of situations the human mind can create. The law is ALWAYS

From a different point of view, I was only addressing a number of posts and did not want to get bogged down in answering each at length, repeating myself, losing whatever audience I have (maybe only you, faithful friend). I wasn't addressing legitimate solutions to sheltering assets. They exist, are legal, and maybe even acceptable to National.

Yep, agreed. I have always held the position that the law (legislation) is inherently incapable of imagining all of the possible combinations and permutations of human behavior, and so laws never "comprehensive'," that is, covering everything. And THAT is why we have courts-to apply laws (inherently insufficient) to situations the laws just don't quite cover. (Trust me, NOBODY likes to pay legal costs. For any reason or any purpose. (smile))

Your's is a good point. The American system of jurisprudence is based on the idea that opposing parties in a case, present their opposing positions and arguments in support of them in open court or documents, and then the judge "adjudicates" by making a judgment and rendering a decision. The judge's decision will tell you about the judge's thinking. You'll have the decision before you'll have insight into the judge's thinking. Not so helpful, but it is our law. A judge rarely just pontificates from the bench (during a hearing) about how the judge is thinking. But people being people, there are ways a judge "signals" their leaning on an issue, or whether they think a party's position is shakey. (They rarely signal that they think a party's position is strong.) They ask pointed questions or make comments on the evidence offered or arguments being made during a hearing. And the tone of that will be a big clue of the judge's thinking. Or, they will suggest an in camera conference in the judge's chambers, where the judge can be a bit heavier in the judge's comments (not wanting to make the same comments in open court and perhaps embarrass an attorney in the presence of their client-if the client feels that the attorney has lost the confidence of the judge, that attorney may not be able to persuade the client to compromise, and the judge is not in the business of crippling legal counsel so that pending matters cannot be resolved.) It is complicated. And subtle. Reading tea leaves is easy, and just as about as reliable.

Your comment just strikes me. The "flip side" is that there are some survivors who are not interested in "burning it all down." And why would that be? (I'd understand if 100% of survivors wanted to burn it all down.) I suspect because one of the goals of the TCC-that "YPT be enhanced and upgraded so that abuse never happens again." Essentially, a tacit recognition that there is not enough money to adequately compensate us, but we can demand ONE THING that compensates us for the pain in our souls-that it never happens again to other children.

Omni is merely in the business of doing "ministerial' acts. It posts documents, indexes, tallies votes. It is a clerk. It is not making policy. Judges make policy, sometimes consistent with other judges and sometimes not.. It sounds as if the only % on the books and contained in bankruptcy law is 66%. Omni is merely reporting that the vote it tallied exceeds the stated statutory requirement. We've heard of judges using anywhere from 75% to 95%. Omni, as a clerk, is not in the position to "pick a percentage." Judges do that. Omni's representation of "approved" is irrelevant.

All of the comments about various arrangements to transfer camps out of local council ownership, essentially for free, to protect them from creditors have not mentioned the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, updated in 2014, and renamed the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act. It has been enacted in about 45 states. The purpose of the Act is to render transactions voidable if done to shelter assets from present or future creditors (by transferring valuable assets, in our case a local council, without receiving comparable value in return which comparable value could be used to pay claimants). Almost certainly, any such transfer after the Oregon case verdict in 2010 would be suspect as that case was the proverbial handwriting on the wall. Were it to be shown that Scout Executives had knowledge of substantial settlements, not in the public eye, that date could even be earlier. By the time you know you have a problem, your knowledge is the problem, as any action you take to shelter assets once you know they are at risk makes the sheltering suspect and perhaps voidable (that is can be reversed). Catch 22. Were a council to transfer camp(s), then manage to stave off filing bankruptcy for the requisite period, one gets into legal discussions of the interplay between bankruptcy law and state law. I don't have any current knowledge on that topic. And then there is the problem of the Scout Law, Rule 1: Trustworthy. Not seemly for scout councils to connive to conceal assets to avoid a financial reckoning for its activities. Then there's the embarrassment of council board members who might take exception to being a co-conspirator in such machinations.

That is an excellent question. The answer should be posted here if someone knows, and hopefully, either the TCC has that info posted somewhere and makes it known at its Town Halls, or the need to post it is brought to the TCC's attention. And THEN, there needs to be some mechanism to flag those disparities to OMNI so they can be tallied.

In response to a question during a TCC town hall meeting about a month or two ago, Doug Kennedy referenced a video of one of the earliest TCC town hall meetings where he gave a brief biography of all of the TCC members.

I was treated poorly by a high school football coach during my high school career, as were a number of my classmates. My children attended the same high school. I advised them of the coach's "proclivities" and that they were to report to me any ill-treatment by that coach, as I would have their back, and would take care of it. Nothing ever developed. On another account, a soccer coach screamed and threatened my oldest son, a soccer referee. It frightened him. He was a child. I secured the removal of the coach from the program. Please tell me WHEN did we, you, society, decide to provide no or limited protection to children?

But I do think it is "that simple." IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE! When, EVER, was it acceptable to sexually abuse children? CHILDREN. Ancient Greece? Would YOU, YOU calmly accept your children having been so abused? The U.S. has had "age of consent" laws, I would think for a long time. It is not even a question of statutory "r.....e." (A systematic survey of those laws, and when enacted and such is a piece of legal research work and not needed for this discussion). National has NO EXCUSE. It knew children were being abused, damaged, and systematically concealed the problem from parents and insurers. And thereby protected the "glorious careers" of Nationally commissioned guardians of the purity of the male youth of America. And total ruin followed.

I don't fully understand your post. My suspicion is that my troop's situation is the same as all the Catholic troop's situations in the entire Diocese. I don't know just how many Catholic chartered troops there are in our Diocese, but maybe 20 or 30. Maybe half that or twice that. My point here is that however many troops (and packs) that are Catholic sponsored, all are in limbo (so-to-speak). And that is not a good thing as we are now in a new scout year. I agree that "signed words should match intent and reality," but we have a bankruptcy proceeding of National in which the "signed words" of National does NOT match intent and reality. National wants to abandon its responsibility to the Settlement Fund folks, and in the words of Winston Churchill, Vol VI, Triumph And Tragedy, his Nobel Prize winning history of WW II, in his Theme of the Volume: How the Great Democracies (National BSA) Triumphed, (Passing off the details of settling abuse claims to the Settlement Fund folks and walking away from the mess) and so Were able to Resume (running BSA Scouting National on the same failed model that got National into this hideous mess) the Follies (without any meaningful Youth Protection going forward) Which Had so Nearly Cost Them Their (but for a stressed interpretation of just what the bankruptcy law is intended to protect which might drag them from the fire) Life (Continued operation of National by the professional culture at National that got the concept of "Scouting" into the scandalous mess.) BSA sold its "bona fides" with a friendly smile for decades, generations, and America bought it, but that "friendly smile" was false and has damaged thousands of children and created hundreds of millions of potential liability. National KNEW of the abuse claims and concealed the problem for about a century. And thousands were abused during a good part of that century-and they could have been spared. And it does not appear that National took any measures effective to spare children. All, please correct me if I am wrong. I have posted before that I am not a claimant. I am a best friend of a claimant entitled who elected not to file a claim. I have known him for over 50 years and only in the last 3 or 4 years did he reveal to me his abuse. I was shocked by his revelation. My profile describes my scouting history. It is extensive. Another poster has posted that only Claimants/Survivors should have a say in National's plan going forward, but I do not agree. Not being a claimant, but someone heavily involved in my troop and local council, and clearly concerned in the balancing act of allocating assets between Survivors/Claimants and local councils (and affecting those Councils;' ability to continue to provide the Scouting), my position is that the Claimants/Survivors should be PRIMARY. And if that costs us Council camps, and even Philmont (where half my heart lies), how can Scouting as a principled organization continue if it denies the shame and damage of its history. BSA cannot move forward until it has remediated and assuaged the past damage it has done. And if that price is costly, so be it. How can an organization based on the principle of "Trustworthy" cripple and damage children and call itself "Trustworthy?"

There is a provision in the Congressional Charter of the BSA prohibiting military drill, I believe, and that may prompt National's aversion to camo as just skirting too close to the "military" prohibition. But others here may have deeper insight. I have generally been opposed to camo on that basis that it is too far from the scout uniform that I think youth don't see themselves as scouts. And I could be wrong. Camo shorts are not so distracting, but a camo shirt undercuts the scouting personna, in my feeble opinion.

No longer sure where to post this, but an update on my Catholic Diocese and rechartering our troop. 1. The parish priest signed a traditional rechartering agreement. Then, soon thereafter requested the original be returned to him. That was done. 2. District Executive asked that all data be uploaded as if rechartering was progressing normally, even though the DE knew that the parish was not willing to sign any rechartering agreement, at that point. That was done. 3. Chartered Organization Representative asked DE to provide written confirmation, before Janary 1, 2022, that the unit would be "officially rechartered" without a rechartering agreement from the parish., AND that BSA insurance would cover troop activities after 12-31-2022. No response. 4. Our troop has not paid for rechartering as we figure we don't know what we are getting for the money. We have a concern that BSA won't be able to provide a year's worth of services for a year's worth of fees. The DE has not asked for payment. 5. We have no further word from the parish regarding whether or not the parish will recharter at all, or if it will recharter on the traditional basis, facilities use only basis, or something else. So, another 30 days, more or less, have passed, and passed the start of another scout year, and no meaningful guidance from the parish or council. We are not sure if we have a BSA authorized unit, insurance coverage, or whether we have authority to conduct typical troop operations. Personally, I don't think these questions are likely to be answered with any authority or certainty until after the BSA Plan is approved, or some successor plan is proposed and approved, or there is an agreed resolution. Perhaps we will have a definitive answer and known path before summer camp? That is my most optimistic estimate.

I can't recall whether I've said it directly or only by implication. I recall at least 2 references of mine to George Peppard about loving "when a plan comes together." Well, the plan seems to be rotting. Litigation is a huge and complex legal process. Outcome uncertain. As we have all seen in National's bankruptcy. "When the waves turn the minutes to hours." Gordon Lightfoot. National seems to have hoped to do a "quick hit" and exit bankruptcy leaving all its legal problems behind with the Settlement Trust to pick, up the pieces. And the "quick hit" has turned into hours. And months. At the end of this National will likely walk away with a barrel of goo. And from that, National will have to fashion a national movement based on the principles of Scouting. And who will follow?

Well, with only the recent addition of girls to Scouting, how many moms have "Boy Scouting Experience?" Likely few. Girl Scouting experience-likely some. So, I have no in depth of knowledge of mother/Girl Scout camping knowledge. Maybe mom's just haven't put scouting on the radar. I would not give up on encouraging moms to go camping. We have had several stay an entire week at summer camp. As an aside, I have noticed that scouts at camp, weekend camps and summer camp, will look over to where the adults are hanging out from time to time. I've wondered whether they are looking to be reassured that their parent is present, (or whether the "window is open" to get away with something). I think they were looking for reassurance.

I'd note that my mom has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from a land grant university and my 2 sisters have 3 degrees between them, and I worked at Philmont when the first two women Rangers were employed there, and then a year later when 5 women were Rangers. And then on my 4 Philmont treks as an advisor, two of our Rangers were female. And they did a better job than the male Rangers. And one year at Philmont, my responsibility was to train and evaluate everyone on the Ranger Staff but the Chief Ranger and Assistant Chief Rangers. The women set a high standard.

No, not awful. Just two few willing to be involved. And if they don't have a son (and now daughter), involved they are unlikely to just show up "just as part of their civic duty." Many parents don't show up even when their child is participating. As an aside, not being from the West, I have noted that women in the West seem to have much more interest in outdoor (backcountry) activities (from my personal observation).

Seems to me it is easier to make rules for others than oneself.

Just seems like madness to me, that "BSA" ( whatever that means, national, local council, and chartering organization, or all of them) would be liable in such circumstances without some direct and CAUSAL connection between scouting and the abuse. The application of YPT to activities outside of scouting activities makes YPT totally unworkable from a practical standpoint. For example, how is a chartered organization representative to have any idea whatsoever of the activities of an abusive assistant scoutmaster at soccer matches? And BSA (etc.) is liable. That is a VERY HARD CASE TO MAKE. And as to the John Wayne mentality comment, rigidity and thereby certainty, is convenient and comfortable, but reality is complex and fuzzy.. And the defense that "someone dictated my sense of morals and I adhered to them" has not found legal traction.

Thanks. This helps to establish in my mind a tad bit of independence of local councils from National. The mechanism of discussions among the Council representatives remains a mystery to me unless of the 250 or so councils, they selected a small number to form an executive group to formulate the formula. As to the mystery of the origin of the formula, I recall it was kept confidential, and perhaps the prior poster did not have it right, or I read it wrong.

I was under the perhaps mis-impression that National dictated the amount each council would contribute. "Representatives of local councils determining the amount each council would pay" seems a recipe for chaos. "Fine with my council that YOUR council pays "$XXX." (And this scenario plays out with 250+/- councils?) My mind flashes to the scene in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies where the council of the pirate kings all vote for themselves and the deadlock perpetuates. Somewhere along all the posts on the many threads, I believe I recall a mention that no one knew how he amount of each council's contribution was derived other than that National set the amount and was unwilling to reveal the algorithm for its determinations. If you have details, in depth information on the details, I'd be interested.