Leaderboard

Sorry if someone has mentioned it but TCC Town Hall tonight. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) or by telephone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295

One of the saddest things I have ever read, particularly considering it is written in the context of a "principled" youth organization's failure to protect children. Particularly with respect to an organization that has a mandatory religious declaration component. "That which you do the least of mine, you do to me." --Jesus. For me, BSA has no answer to that.

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $65,000 or $80,000 or whatever, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

Yeah, big difference between two 12 year olds sharing a SI swimsuit issue and a SM showing graphic stuff on his phone. Both require a response, but it doesn't sit well with me to say that the 12 yo should get kicked out of scouts and reported to police for that action vs guided in appropriateness.

I think I’m know to be a person faithful to acknowledge and recognize statements, like yours, that are (to use a terribly diluted word that needs to be reclaimed) precious. This is one of the huge missing components of BSA’s approach to this matter and us. I know. I know. I’ve yammered as much as anyone about imaging and wordsmithing before making statements, but a tear or three wouldn’t have done anyone additional “damage” to reputation or exacerbated already obvious culpability and liability. That is one reason we wept during Mr. Johnson’s statement. A tough, battle-tested former police offi

Without having quoted the previous post, I am not sure who you are referencing, But I did estimate the 80%. I got that number from several places. Initially when the IVF files were made public by the press this list contained more than CSA. The one originally saw (I think it was the LA Times, but I could be wrong) was much broader than the one I have found recently (it is in the LA Times).. Looks like they cleaned with file up to only include CSA as well as adding some additional PDF elements for the CSA case they list. It makes sense they would clean it up as the point of the article wa

I agree. My experience is that older scouts most of the time feel camping is relief from the stress of romantic relationships.. It's more often the younger scouts who have these discussions of curiosity and discovery. My wife had the same experience with younger girls. I belief the discussions are innocent and normal. But, they are alerting to parents, of which most leaders are. Anyone ever wonder how scouts think that tents are sound proof. Not that older scouts don't have the discussions. Even though older scouts have admitted to me personally of the relief of not thinking about girls,

Gee, not just me. Whew. I don't remember any, as a youth, nor as a parent involved for 25 years, attending nearly every troop meeting and campout. Internet the culprit? This opens a whole new world of concern for me as a leader.

TCC letter recommending voting to reject plan on tccbsa.com http://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA TCC letter re plan.pdf

Interesting website. "This site is dedicated to recording this various "Senior Scouting" Programs (for those 13/14 and older) of the Boy Scouts of America. Since its establishment in 1910, many such programs have come and gone. Here we try to give a history of these programs, what they were about, and their insignia, uniforms, literature, and more. " "Topics covered: Senior Scouts, Seascouts/Sea Scouts/Sea Explorers/Sea Scouts, Rover Scouts, Air Scouts/Air Explorers/Aviation Exploring, Explorer Scouts, Explorers, Exploring, Senior Scouts/Explorers in Troops, Senior Degree Honor S

@ThenNow Remember, people can be removed for many actions. Perhaps a volunteer cursed at a Scout or showed very poor judgment or invited a few boys to his pool. Those people could be kicked out but would not have done something to involve the police. There are reporting guidelines for involving child protective services and the police where a child as made an accusation, where a volunteer has witnessed an action, and a long list of similar things. Mandatory reporting requirements for professionals and volunteers began, if my memory is working, in the 1990's. States began requiring non-pr

The answer is yes. Also, the person may never be allowed back in Scouting even if the case had little evidence and was not pursued by authorities. A close friend served on a committee reviewing appeals by people who felt that they were wrongly removed from Scouting. He told me that the process required the Scout Executive in the council to make a recommendation to reinstate along with a volunteer committee from the council also making that recommendation. The appeal is reviewed at the national council and if they think that it is reasonable, it goes to a regional committee. The regional c

In one case i am familiar with, the accused was found innocent by the law enforcement investigators, but still remained in the IVF. So even if innocent, your nsme can still be in it.

It is important to remember that in the Ineligible volunteer files were actions taken by Scouting without the person having much input. If someone was accused of a bad act, in whatever category, the person could be ejected. There is no right to be a volunteer in Scouting and it is a private organization so it can decide who is a registered member. So there are people who have been removed from Scouting for various reasons who did nothing wrong. They had no hearing, no review of evidence, no fairness in the proceedings. The people may have fought it or appealed without success. Their name

I don’t read a settlement number from another sexual abuse case as telling anyone “it’ll be like” that amount. I understand you’re (likely) saying it will be misinterpreted. Perhaps. Perhaps people are not as dense as assumed. (Not saying that you are.) If my son was selling his baseball cards and I know one is worth $20, and we could trade it for $18, if another boy offered him $4, I’d say “You know, Jimmy got $24 for his in worse shape, with the right buyer on a good day. I recommend you reject and counter offer.” I think that is all brother John is saying. “Look at that value (as perceived

That is not what I say. And if someone does not want to use the wording that I have they can use their own. The point is to get the TCC view out to those who may not have another oppurtunity to see it

Just have to say, with today's marvelous word processors, that can be said in 72 point font!

The current offer is low. The councils haven't chipped as much as what they probably can, Hartford got a sweet deal. National likely has more assets it can part with. The victims should vote down the plan on that basis. The MSU settlement has little bearing on the BSA settlements. They are two distinctly different cases, with different facts, assets and ability to pay. The BSA is shrinking, and the longer the bankruptcy goes on, the more bad press is out, it's assets will likely continue to dwindle, leaving less for the victims to recover. MSU is a thriving and growing publicly fun

I can say anecdotally, I have heard people make the assumption if someone is made ineligible that it is because of CSA, even in cases where there is public knowledge of some other crime, like assault. I think that is mainly because most people had no idea the IVF existed prior to the CSA stories broke, so that is their only knowledge/perception of what IVF is, So it is not surprising if someone finds out that an individual is made ineligible they make that assumption, unless they are directly familiar with that particular case. What is more alarming, I have seen people leave scouti

Copied From @CynicalScouter Post I posted about this in June. There is still some confusion. The official name was the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF). A person could be added to the IVF for a variety of reasons, https://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/ There were six categories Perversion Morals Financial Leadership Theft Criminal Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset

Pretty major development in a different Judge Silverstein case. She just tossed out 16,000 votes out of the talc injury bankruptcy as the law firm failed to do any diligence to determine if claimants who they submitted ballots for had been exposed to talc products produced by Imerys. https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1430779/judge-tosses-16k-talc-claimant-votes-in-imerys-ch-11 This is where we may run into issues with the claim aggregators. If discovery shows that claims are coming into question into certain lawfirms and those lawfirms do not confirm the claims are valid

If a new RSA were to be proposed that requested a larger contribution from the councils, the Ad Hoc committee would have a meeting with representatives of all the councils where they would present analysis of the new RSA. At that point, it could be rejected or taken to the individual local council executive committees. If the executive committees pass it, then it goes to the full board for approval. There are minimal time requirements to call a executive committee meeting that are usually a few days. Then minimal notification time requirements to call a full board meeting. So the pr

No, “jaded” is the correct word. What we need to desperately know is relative risk. In other words, it’s not enough to know what are the odds of an insult (and consequently, injury) from a given activity. But we need to know — especially when it comes to securing the safety of our youth — if that is more or less dangerous than any other activity. For example, removal of scout camps will certainly put more youth and adults at increased risk of auto accidents (and concomitant injury/death). What we don’t know, however, is if substituting that activity for drives to soccer games and sp

I hit that point 25 years ago. Cult. Yep. "Toxic culture." The operation will not change until all the senior leadership is trashed. They MUST go. Another poster waxed eloquent about how he relies heavily on council staff and how they perform wonderfully. I do not doubt his experiences. In my council, we only need the camp Ranger and a full-time Assistant camp Ranger, and someone in the Scout office to handle recharters. The rest are worthless to my Unit. Only in the last 10 years did lower level Council folks asked me to re-engage. I did at functional

There are two issues here: 1. Ex Post Facto is changing the definition of a law TODAY to make actions prior to TODAY, criminal. So a year ago, I cut my grass to 2 inches in height-perfectly legal, then. Now, a year later, cutting my grass to 2" a year ago is a crime! I had no way to avoid being guilty as I cannot predict what the legislature will make illegal, years after the event. The Constitutional issue is that citizens are entitled to know at the time they take action whether or not it is criminal. This is completely different from: 2. "Years ago, I committed

For example, recall the "zero tolerance" case of Eagle Scout who was suspended for 20 days for keeping a 2-inch utility knife locked in his car parked on school property. https://www.foxnews.com/story/school-chief-sticks-by-zero-tolerance-ruling-for-eagle-scout

Well, the knot is a BSA award that represents a non-BSA award.

That SE is only doing what you are demanding here on the forum. Can you imagine the harm she could have created because of her Zero tolerance position. More often than not, Zero tolerance allows folks who don't want to deal with individual incidents because they don't have the skills and it scares them. Barry

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, CynicalScouter is NOT banned from the forum, or even blocked from posting. He merely received a 1 week penalty that requires his posts be approved by a moderator before they are visible as a result of posting behavior that was un-scoutlike and very near abusive/spamming.

When emotional reason doesn't fix minds, resort to denigrating. Shesh. Barry

You need to slow down and take a few breaths between reading and typing, you aren't even responding to the right point of outrage here. Eagledad was talking about the Scouting program and the patrol method being a "proven program" NOT the Youth Protections.

By the by, if you want to see just how much in the tank some of the folks in BSA are, checkout the r/BSA subreddit post about the Johnson press conference. The mods over there are all former or current BSA staff and one in particular is just trashing Johnson. The other posters are doing the same implying Johnson lied, he's doing it for money (?), this is all a plot by Anderson/the lawyers, the BSA YP program is just perfection, etc. You want to know why nothing changes? Because you have professionals (and many volunteers) convinced BSA is perfect as is and maybe should even revert BA

This is a very, very, dark road that this frame of mind proposes to send the nation's youth down. All one needs to do is substitute "patrol method" for "nuclear family" and we've sanctioned the state's removal of children from parents to "prevent" whatever ill-effects some classes of parents may have on their offspring. The fundamental problem: no matter how one dredges for cases in one sector, one fails to prove anything. Mainly because one hasn't dredged other institutions, including nuclear families, in the same way. So what if cases are reduced by 1/2 or 3/4? If the trend nationw

... Mr. J. Maurice Hopkins and Mr. William Roane each joined the Ebenezer program as Cub Scouts in the mid-1950s. Together, they soared through the ranks. By the time the two reached high school, they were covered in merit badges — more than 50 between them — all earned under Mr. Ross, and far more than the 21 badges needed to qualify for a shot at the pinnacle of scouting. ... Yet the era, the segregated South of the 1950s and ’60s, held them back. As Eagle Scout candidates, the young men were required to clear one last critical hurdle — earning their life-saving swimming merit

Couple of youz here already know my home LC. Just received a donation solicitation with a very large “up to” match cap. It begins. “Our contribution commitments have been made and locked in (or so we think), now let the donations resume!” None too subtle, says I.

""" When suppertime came, the old cook came on deck sayin'"Fellas, it's too rough to feed ya"At seven PM, a main hatchway caved in, he said"Fellas, it's been good to know ya""""""""""""