SiouxRanger

This post simply says it all. Sadly. I find I have little sympathy for the BSA, or the future of the program. And my life, and that of my 3 sons has been Scouting. My Scouting resume is 4 pages long, single spaced. And most positions I have held for over 20 years. Scouting is what I do, and I am disgusted. (And if Scouting survives this in some form, what survives? A program managed by the same people who got us into this mess, and they, then, only compelled to "fess up?") (I tried to sign off on this site, but I don't think I can let this go. It is simply too important. I still hold several council and troop positions. And too many Scouting friends are damaged. And they need a kind word.)

I want to thank all of you for your patient answers to my questions. I shall pass on what I have learned to my scouting friends. I have decided to pull the plug on my 50+ years in the program with the possible exception of camp maintenance work (for so long as that might last.) Adios.

Well, I thought your post sought insight into his resort to safety into the BSA program to perhaps give insight into your situation. And as I work through the timeline of his life relative to mine, I may have been his only friend of any significance during all that time. And so little did I know that was the case. I am so new to this forum that I have not had a chance to work backward into prior comments, nor your specific history, though I shall do so.

Just caught this on a re-read of posts and should respond.. I truly recognize that these posts are "highly one-sided." My take is lightly one-sided. Mostly, they are extraordinarily polite and balanced and not one has given me pause to consider the poster as ranting or raving. (I guess "flaming" is the web term. but I am pretty old school, feeling myself pretty successful in get a few posts sent up successfully on this site.) I have read many files posted on account of the Oregon Case. they are replete with newspaper clippings of criminal cases, letters from Council Executives, and council volunteers to National, and letters from National to the Council. That all being said, my experience in my council tells me that the council follows the lead of National. A council executive is NOT making policy contrary to National's policy, particularly with respect to an issue of national significance. Council policy, in my opinion, was policy directed by National. "Demonizing the BSA is not clear-cut." I agree. The Oregon case produced "perversion files" show many communications between councils and national. They were trying to manage an embarrassing and difficult problem for the times . The files I have read, largely dealing with my council were at a time when social norms were different. Not to say this diminishes the damage done to innocent children, but how adults tried to deal with it. I know many of the adults mentioned in the perversion files (not offenders but scouters responding to allegations). In defense of the BSA. An allegation of abuse against an adult is a very serious matter. Under the American system everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty. We all know this and grade school children repeat nearly as a rhyme. But "nearly as a rhyme" does not diminish its significance in our legal significance. Many times in legal analysis it is of value to discuss the opposite. "EVERYONE IS PRESUMED GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT." Well, you might think that this simplifies everything. Well, sort of, but a crime was just committed in New Orleans, and under the "presumed guilty" proposition above, YOU, sitting in Oregon, or New Mexico, or Maine, are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence. And is this presumption workable? No. So, a complaint is filed with a council executive of alleged abuse against scouter X. What is a council to do? That is the question to the council executive. Social workers tend to attribute credibility to abuse claims if the abused describes activities that a child of that age is unlikely (or never) to be able to describe unless is happened. ("I couldn't know to tell you unless it happened, and since I am telling you about it you must know that it happened.") That is pretty persuasive. So, the Council has an alleged abuser, probably married, probably with children, and likely employed. A public charge by the council might cost the alleged abuser his job (seems mostly males are alleged). And, what if the alleged abused loses his job, pension benefits, etc. over the allegations? And then the allegations are unsubstantiated? A career destroyed, a family disrupted or destroyed. We sit in a marginally enlightened time. Now, in retrospect, we have many advantages to evaluate this history. I know two very close friends who only recently disclosed to me their abuse or near abuse. One I have known for over 50 years and only learned about 4 years ago. Not sure I responded to all your comments. If I missed anything and you'd like my further comment on, let me know. Thanks.

This post is of particular interest. I can understand the prohibition on making general derogatory comments about lawyers generally, so as to discourage the proliferation of meaningless posts ranting and raving against lawyers. Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not? Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be." (I believe a quote from Al Franklin, brother of Ben.) So at the risk of offending the forum rules, and if so, moderators wield the ax, though believing to be within the parameters of ThenNow, attorneys who practice this manner of law: (Content deleted without prejudice as not allowable under thread rules)

After 8 or 10 hours of research the other day, (read most of the 3rd amended plan and the critical parts of 4th amended plan and other stuff, including this forum) I told a friend that the ONLY number of importance was the LC contribution our council. And that was not available. Which raises the question why are those numbers not of record? National's determination of the amount each council should donate is not dependent on the LC's agreement to pay it, yet they are not available.. This entire process is a master case of selective revealment. "Just what we want to show, just when we want to show it." Just-in-time data delivery. And so I sense the Judas Goat is at the head of this line.

"A non-binding letter of intent." And just to what purpose is that? Meaning something like "we've reviewed it, not screaming yet, just might do it, but we want to see more?"

To my way of thinking, "long-term investments" is an artificial designation or determination by the owner of those funds, essentially meaning, "We don't want to spend those but to rely on the interest generated by them." But the owner retains control of the funds. In a bankruptcy, by a council, any funds the council has signature authority over is an assets of the bankruptcy estate. "Endowment funds," to my way of thinking, are funds donated by third parties, and subject to some measure of restrictions on use. A council is not likely to have signature authority over the principal, but only the interest generated. Even the interest may be subject to restrictions. In my experience, my council prefers donations to be made to the general fund and not subject to any restrictions. Why the donor of a significant donation would do that is beyond me. Far more protective of the donor's gift is a separate entity that is not controlled by the council, which disburses funds as determined by that separate entity to the Council to fulfill the donor's intent. This gets me to the issue of the proper role of a not for profit. Is its goal to amass a war chest and, hopefully, remain forever untouched? I understand the need for a rainy day fund, but to what degree? At some point, when a sufficient war chest is amassed, the not for profit should get back into the business of improving its program offerings. (I was particularly struck by the net worth attributed to my council in the bankruptcy filings-millions more than ever appeared possible, camp being a mere fraction of the total, yet camp is always scrapping for minuscule amounts (less than $1,000) to replenish dog-eared camp expendables. Why would this be? The issue is partly one of matching a donation to a likely intended beneficiary. When grandpa donates $50 to Friends of Scouting he is expecting those funds to have some effect which his grandchild will see. At council level, the attitude seems to be that all donations benefit the scouts, as they benefit "Scouting." Even if the entire donation is consumed by salaries, or goes into a long-term investment. If councils were truly seeking to benefit youth by providing program, donations would be used to provide those programs to more youth. But I don't see that happening. After some years on the council executive board, I do not recall one second's discussion of budget issues-how much to spend on program as opposed to salaries, or long-term investments. Those issues disappear into a black hole.

So, from 1% to 75% of non-legally enforceable claims are on tap to be compensated. What is the basis of the "Gray" system of classifying states (and thereby the claims arising in that state)?

So, if a camp is sacrificed, and cash retained, for what purpose is that cash retained? To buy another camp, perhaps smaller and less expensive to maintain? To pay staff salaries? (Isn't that largely what it is for anyway?) In years past, in my council, all of the United Way monies, popcorn sale profit, and Friends of Scouting contributions were not enough to cover payroll. That is, all of the major sources of revenue were not enough. Part of the fees scouts paid to attend events also were used to pay salaries. Appallingly top heavy, in my estimation. How much of a "sell the camp" decision is driven by a "preserve management prerogatives" motive?

So, as I understand this, the settlement will compensate the "Unique and Timely" abuse claims even though not legally enforceable?

I have never found labels to be useful or explanatory. Liberal, conservative, well, they mean nothing to me. I am much more interested in the opinion of A on issue X. That I can meaningful respond to.

30 years. It is how it ends that counts.

I have never been terribly impressed with the level of training offered by BSA-at every level. The concept is sound: "Let Boys Lead." But there is no level of guidance/instruction to the boys who are to lead. (Just spent last Sunday reading an Eagle Court of Honor ceremony script, translating on the fly, "he" to "the scout" to adjust for female scouts.) How does one "lead?" Well, there are skills and techniques, establish your role as leader, gain the attention of the audience, control the agenda/meeting schedule stick to the schedule, delegate, encourage others, etc. That is taught at NYLT, formerly JLT (in my day), but that is taught only to senior scouts. Until a scout attends NYLT, they are on their own. A huge time gap between patrol leader and an NYLT trained scout. I know of no leadership materials available to scouts before that unless in some manual, which I have not seen nor seen in my Troop. If available, not commonly available, as I have not seen it since 1995 when my youngest started in Boy Scouts. I recently completed Wood Badge, and though interesting, had little leadership substance. The Ticket Items I completed had value to the targeted audience. I just have to say that I see a huge disconnect between "training" and its usefulness as implemented in the BSA. And as a life-long scout, camp staffer, scout parent, scouter, cub pack chairperson, troop chairperson, council executive board member, and many other positions, I'd really like to Scouting be successful.

Where would I find the BSA review process rules or BSA patch design requirements? I've designed about half a dozen patches over the years, all through my council, and professional staff never made mention of rules, other than the flour-de-lis had to appear on an official patch. Thanks.

A few procedural questions-perhaps someone can enlighten me: 1. Does a council have to accept the amount National has set for that council's contribution or can that amount be negotiated? That is, is it a "take it or leave it" proposition? 2. Do real estate assets need to be liquidated by October, 2021, or is there some other date (i.e., are they to be sold at a "fire sale?" Distress sales always yield low prices.) 3. Is there any mechanism for a council's volunteers to attempt to raise the funds for the contribution amount and save a camp or scout office? 4. Are restricted asset camps entirely protected, or is protected only on a case-by-case basis? 5. Is the amount of a council's contribution based on the enforceable claims attributed to that council, or on its ability to pay, and if so, does the ability to pay equation include the value of restricted assets. Thanks you. (I suspect these are answered throughout the various threads, but a current summary collected at this point might be helpful to others.)

Regarding your comment that "the councils are voting" just who in the council governing structure is voting? You don't think the SE makes a unilateral decision, so that leaves the Council Key Three, the Council Executive Committee (perhaps 4 or 5 folks), the entire Executive Board, and then, I guess, would be the Chartering Organization Representatives. I have not heard a word in my council about the bankruptcy. Its seems like the questions put to the councils are "Does the council participate in contributing to the settlement?" and if so, "What assets are used-cash and/or liquidate real estate?"

Been mulling your comment looking for a response. I met him when he was old enough to work on camp staff and we worked together for several years. He was no longer affiliated with a troop, but only the Council camp, and was clear of the abuse he experienced at the unit level. He fit in well with staff, had an engaging personality, and nothing seemed amiss. He worked tirelessly at camp, preferring commissary work requiring physical exertion to counseling merit badges and such. He had earned Eagle, and was a top student. He preferred being outdoors and camp work put him in his element. It also gave him a break from parents who I'd characterize as "not having a clue" and thereby incapable of being meaningful support, though they were aware at some point and attempted help which only compounded the damage.

Thanks for the Welcome. I doubt any measure of rebranding will improve the status of BSA. This whole situation is a horrible hit.

Thanks to everyone who has welcomed me to this forum. I'd really rather never need to be here. My life has been Scouting. Worked at the local camp and Philmont a number of years. Three Eagle Scout sons. Multiple Philmont Treks. I care not about awards and knots and such. I've qualified for many knots, but won't apply. I care about what scouts see and do and what they learn. Other than earning Eagle, and my Philmont staff years, I have been blessed with 7 Mentor Pins (and perhaps another tomorrow, so I have been informed) and making a positive difference in the life of a boy (scout-and now girls, too) is what is important. And that is what Scouting is all about.

He has tangentially unpacked the abuse he was subjected to. It is more than I care to discuss, not feeling at liberty to do so, even concealing identifying details, and don't even care to contemplate, except to help me wrap my own mind around the degree and depths of the damage done. I believe that children remember most negative comments directed their way for life and those comments have some hanging presence or at least ghost-like shadows that surface from time to time and haunt them.. Inappropriate sexual activities-well, I cannot imagine the depths to which one who has been subjected to them have sunk emotionally at times during their life. I would think that suicide ideation is high on the list. This is serious. We are talking about mere, innocent children being subjected to an event or events of intense, unwanted, and unacceptable intrusion into their entitlement to their own personal emotional integrity. It is emotional rape if not also physical rape. Everyone is entitled to feel safe wherever they are. Physically and emotionally. My friend reports to me he has had weekly therapy session since I knew him as a teenager. Now being nearly 50 years later, me only being brought into the loop about 3 years ago. I was stunned when I learned. But I understand. Who wants to tell anyone of being subjected to such actions? "How can he be such a good friend if you only learn XXX years later?" He lives more than 1,000 miles away-left after college. We've communicated by emails and such, and when I learned, I flew out to meet with him. He is tough, but hurting and it has now, late in life, turned debilitating. I did not enjoy high school, and won't be attending perhaps my senior class' last reunion. I wasn't treated well by many in my class. I was a nerd, did well in mathematics, poorly in sports, chess champion, and was a Boy Scout. My experiences in high school, frankly, really hurt me. And to this day. However, with the public advent of sexual abuse in Boy Scouting, I now understand that however I feel about how I was treated in high school, it is NOTHING compared to the damage done to those who were sexually abused in the scouting program. I have two further comments. First, that those abused did nothing wrong. They did not fail. They are not weak. They clearly did not deserve what happened to them. They were targeted by predatory adults driven by their own impulses and motives, having superior age and knowledge, who planned their attacks. Lying-in-wait has virtually no defense. Children have no defense against such advantages. Second, those abused should have no shame. Cast off the emotional burden placed on you by the adult who targeted you. You just happened along and they attacked when the opportunity presented itself. If you had not happened along, they would have awaited another victim-you would have been spared, but another would be the victim in your place. You are merely the victim by accident. You are NOT responsible for the criminal intent or activities of adults. I am always struck by the wisdom and admonition of the Biblical quote: "That which you do to least of mine, you do to Me." I guess I do not understand how an organization which requires a religious component...

Hello All. New here-first post. I read these forums for hours and hours, and signed up to post this. So, as I understand the upshot of it all: 1. That National initially indicated that Local Councils would pay nothing and be protected but now the Local Councils are expected to pay $600 million which will result in the sale of hundreds of Local Council Camps and Council offices, though the National High Adventure Camps will be protected and survive. 2. That National initially indicated that Chartering Organizations would pay nothing and be protected but now Chartering Organizations are expected to contribute to the Settlement Fund in some amount (unknown to me) in order to be protected from all past claims. 3. That Chartering Organizations now see themselves, or soon will, that they are passengers on the liability train to Haydes courtesy of the BSA, thereby destroying the "Chartering Organization as sponsor of a scout unit" model. 4. That National's pension plan which pays pensions to retired Scouting Professionals, and will pay pensions to current Professionals, the single class of persons most benefited by National's decades-long concealment of the abuse problem, will be fully protected by the Bankruptcy Plan. (That is, the second most culpable group, after the perpetrators, will be fully protected whereas current scouts and future scouts will be prejudiced.) 5. That Local Council camps which serve the vast majority of scouts will be sold whereas the National High Adventure Bases which serve a small percentage of scouts will be preserved. And the National employees who work for those camps will retain their jobs and earn their pensions. 6. That after the dust settles, parents, volunteers, and dedicated Scouters will "pick up the slack" and help cover this catastrophe, the professionals suffering financially only if lay folks don't make good on the losses. 7. That current Council Executives have a choice of following National's directive that their Council pay the amount expected by National to the Settlement Fund (thereby hopefully sparing the council executive from the corporate ax and preserving their chances of the lucrative BSA pension, OR, bucking National by refusing to subject their council to paying what National demands, and sacrificing their career and their family's future.). And, won't all of them acquiesce to National's demands and thereby the camps be sold? As an aside- My very best friend only 2 years ago advised me that a Scoutmaster had abused him. That he has been in weekly counseling ever since. My friend holds a Phd. My friend has NOT filed a claim in respect of the program which my friend believes saved is life. I have another friend who credits Scouting as saving his life-and I am sure he is right. I am an Eagle and father of 3 Eagles. My Scouting resume is 4 pages long. I am deeply saddened by the damage done to innocent children, and to the dream that once was Camelot. Were I making the decision, first I'd liquidate National's pension plan, and then the High Adventure Bases. National policies got the Councils into this mess, and it should be the first to pay the price. The notion that Councils are "independent" of National is nonsense.