Unit refuses to hold elections

[David CO]

29 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

This is a red herring. Having looked at the files, which have been public for a while now, the vast majority, dare I say 99+% of cases of abuse involved unit leaders that we selected and approved by the CO. 

It is funny that you used the expression "red herring" in a post that completely distracts from the topic of unit non-participation in OA to an unrelated topic of CO approval of unit leaders.  

 

[HelpfulTracks]

I don't come to this forum as often as I used to, so I came to this post late. 

I have read much about what the OA is and is not here, some of it right and some wrong. 

First, the OA is not separate from the BSA, it is part of the BSA. And its mission is to support the BSA in achieving its mission.

No, the OA, or even BSA, cannot force a unit to hold elections. But I think it is a poor reflection on those units that do not hold elections when they have eligible scouts. 

In some cases I find that it's a unit leader that does not understand what the OA is or what it can do for a scout and what that scout can take back to their unit. 

In some cases I find it is a controlling unit leader who has created an adult led unit and either wants to control every aspect in a scouts "Scouting Experience" or worse is afraid the scout will see a real life example of youth led and come back with big ideas. 

And yes, some lodges, just like units and councils, do things better than others. 

Regardless, when a unit leader denies scouts the opportunity to join the OA, they are short changing the scouts twice. Once by not allowing them to take advantage of what the OA has to offer the scout and second by not allowing those same scouts to bring back what the OA teaches to the unit. 

[HelpfulTracks]

4 minutes ago, David CO said:

It is funny that you used the expression "red herring" in a post that completely distracts from the topic of unit non-participation in OA to an unrelated topic of CO approval of unit leaders.  

 

And yet, was completely applicable in addressing the post you made. 

[CynicalScouter]

22 minutes ago, yknot said:

You and others keep characterizing it as an abdication of responsibility.

Because it was. Those annual charter agreements were just that, legally binding agreements. And if the COs were too naive, too stupid, or too uncaring to figure out "gee, this might have legal consequences. Maybe I should read and think about what I am signing." then that's on them. The court's are NOT going to care. The Chartered Organization, by and through a person authorized to sign on behalf of the CO (the Chartered Organization Rep.) signed an agreement. Said agreement included provisions (since at least the 1920s) that the CO was vouching for the adult leaders, that they had reviewed the character of those leaders, and that the took responsibility for overseeing those units.

That they failed to do so is only going to demonstrate to a judge or jury that the CO was negligent in allowing the child sexual abuse to take place. "I don't know nothing, I just signed some papers that I never really read for people I never really met" is like the absolute textbook definition of "negligence supervision".

I would love to see a COR on a witness stand.

"Q: And is that your signature on this adult leader application?

Witness: Yes.

Q: And on that application you signed where it says "I have reviewed this application and the responses to any questions answered “Yes,” and have made any follow-up inquiries necessary to be satisfied that the applicant possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA. "

Witness: Yes

Q: And did you in fact sign this application for SEXUAL ABUSER?

Witness: Yes.

Q: And what inquiries did you make to satisfy you that this person "possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA.

Witness: I don't know, someone from the troop just told me to sign this application.

Q: And after signing the application, did you at any time at all ever engage in any effort to oversee or monitor what activities were taking place in the Troop?

Witness: No. They invited me to Courts of Honor 3 times a year, but I never interacted with them.

Q: And just to be clear, you signed the annual charter agreement every year that indicated you were in fact reaffirming you would exercise supervision?

Witness: Yes"

And that's the ball game. The CO can make the check payable to....

Edited September 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[David CO]

21 minutes ago, yknot said:

A lot of these people are elderly. Perhaps could even be proven to be mentally compromised.

Ouch.  

[CynicalScouter]

24 minutes ago, yknot said:

At some point it can start to look kind of like an elder abuse scam

That's going to be your defense to a lawsuit against a CO? "This poor COR is the real victim here Your Honor?"

That's not going to absolve the CO of legal liability.

[yknot]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because it was. Those annual charter agreements were just that, legally binding agreements. And if the COs were too naive, too stupid, or to uncaring to figure out "gee, this might have legal consequences. Maybe I should read and think about what I am signing." then that's on them. The court's are NOT going to care. The Chartered Organization, by and through a person authorized to sign on behalf of the CO (the Chartered Organization Rep.) signed an agreement. Said agreement included provisions (since at least the 1920s) that the CO was vouching for the adult leaders, that they had reviewed the character of those leaders, and that the took responsibility for overseeing those units.

That they failed to do so is only going to demonstrate to a judge or jury that the CO was negligent in allowing the child sexual abuse to take place. "I don't know nothing, I just signed some papers that I never really read for people I never really met" is like the absolutely textbook definition of "negligence supervision".

I would love to see a COR on a witness stand.

"Q: And is that your signature on this adult leader application?

Witness: Yes.

Q: And on that application you signed where it says "I have reviewed this application and the responses to any questions answered “Yes,” and have made any follow-up inquiries necessary to be satisfied that the applicant possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA. "

Witness: Yes

Q: And did you in fact sign this application for SEXUAL ABUSER?

Witness: Yes.

Q: And what inquiries did you make to satisfy you that this person "possesses the moral, educational, and emotional qualities to be an adult leader in the BSA.

Witness: I don't know, someone from the troop just told me to sign this application.

Q: And after signing the application, did you at any time at all ever engage in any effort to oversee or monitor what activities were taking place in the Troop?

Witness: No. They invited me to Courts of Honor 3 times a year, but I never interacted with them.

Q: And just to be clear, you signed the annual charter agreement every year that indicated you were in fact reaffirming you would exercise supervision?

Witness: Yes"

And that's the ball game. The CO can make the check payable to....

But what if the COR was not a member of the CO but of the unit, and says they were told to sign the form by the unit leader and the unit commissioner (who, in effect, are their "bosses")? And then were directed to wave forms under the IH and just get a signature. And were even directed to mark the signature lines with highlighter with the intention of getting the elderly IH to just focus on the signature and "not all that verbiage on the form"?

Edited September 16, 2021 by yknot

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

But what if the COR was not a member of the CO but of the unit...? And then were directed to wave forms under the IH and just get a signature.

The COR is approved by the IH to sign and act on behalf of the CO. So, that's not going to keep liability off the CO.

Also, I should be clear: in the early parts of BSA history, the COR and IH were the SAME PERSON. Therefore, the whole "The CO can't be responsible for what the unit did" collapses even more.

Signatures mean something. Agreements mean something. COs were as I said either too checked out, too stupid, or too naive. And now they are literally paying the price for their lack of due diligence.

I have to re-find it, but I found the old charter agreements going back to the 1920s. They were very, very clear: the units were vouching for the leaders and promising to have oversight. And now they are reaping the whirlwind.

 

[David CO]

41 minutes ago, yknot said:

You and others keep characterizing it as an abdication of responsibility. 

Some of the people who are criticizing the CO's for abdication their responsibilities in unit leader selection, will advocate for CO's to abdicate their responsibilities in other areas, like OA.  No consistency.  People sometimes just argue for what they want, and ignore the CO's need to have broader, more consistent policies that cover multiple programs and a variety of activities.

Edited September 16, 2021 by David CO

[CynicalScouter]

This was the circa 1953 one. Note the language here: the Institutional Head "approves the troop officials whose signatures appear below."

The COs "approved the troop officials". They own the problems.

 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Regardless, when a unit leader denies scouts the opportunity to join the OA, they are short changing the scouts twice. Once by not allowing them to take advantage of what the OA has to offer the scout and second by not allowing those same scouts to bring back what the OA teaches to the unit. 

That is exactly the same argument parents used when we disapproved our baseball players' participation on an all-star team whose coaches, schedules, transportation, housing, and other activities were outside of our supervision.

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by David CO

[MattR]

Getting back to the OP, my experience with the OA has been fairly neutral. It has helped a few scouts but most don't get much out of it. Unfortunately, it has become nothing but cheap labor for the camps and AOL ceremonies.

That said, I like the idea of a place for scouts to up their game and, more importantly,  bring that back to their troops. Done right that might really help smaller units and complement nylt.

[yknot]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

The COR is approved by the IH to sign and act on behalf of the CO. So, that's not going to keep liability off the CO.

Also, I should be clear: in the early parts of BSA history, the COR and IH were the SAME PERSON. Therefore, the whole "The CO can't be responsible for what the unit did" collapses even more.

Signatures mean something. Agreements mean something. COs were as I said either too checked out, too stupid, or too naive. And now they are literally paying the price for their lack of due diligence.

I have to re-find it, but I found the old charter agreements going back to the 1920s. They were very, very clear: the units were vouching for the leaders and promising to have oversight. And now they are reaping the whirlwind.

 

I'm not a lawyer but one of the areas I have been most involved with the law has been with elder care. The standards for a valid signature for a possibly compromised senior adult are very high. Virtually everything has to be notarized. So many of the people I have dealt with in COs seem to be of questionable cognition. Just my two cents. 

[CynicalScouter]

32 minutes ago, yknot said:

The standards for a valid signature for a possibly compromised senior adult are very high.

Awesome. You assume all CORs were elderly (they were not) and if you want to claim all charter agreements going back to at least 1920 were signed by senile old folks (therefore the COs are not liable) be my guest.

[yknot]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Awesome. You assume all CORs were elderly (they were not) and if you want to claim all charter agreements going back to at least 1920 were signed by senile old folks (therefore the COs are not liable) be my guest.

Not at all. I'm just saying some of them and maybe more than is realized.

I also think it's dishonest for BSA to try to offload all of this on COs when they intentionally did not manage or oversee the relationship.  Why did they renew charters for so many units that had dysfunctional COs?