Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/16/20 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    I feel that to some degree we are discussing things that are wishful thinking and not reality. Yes, it would be helpful if some higher power swooped in and absolved BSA of responsibility for questionable or unprovable claims from 60 years ago. However, in the current environment where we literally have states and some national voices considering how to assess reparations for events that happened 200 to 400 years ago, I would not hold my breath over expecting anyone on the federal level to get involved in reducing statutes of limitations. Or, in legislating some good will measure that exonerates a group like BSA because it performs some beneficial role in society. As I also outlined earlier, we really can't claim to perform an essential service for the nation's youth. We serve a diminishingly small slice of it and have had to deal with some explosive social issues while doing so and are now facing a raft of bad publicity with the bankruptcy case. I can't picture the champion for that fight so I'm not sure what we are really trying to hash out here. Should the BSA shoulder its responsibility to victims? Yes. Is it fair for the current scouting community to shoulder that burden? No. Will it likely happen anyway? I fear that, yes, it will.
  2. 2 points
    Request respected and appreciated. We're all passionate about Scouting and this most certainly is a very difficult issue for all of us.
  3. 2 points
    This whole topic is about the bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America. What high adventure bases will be sold, which councils will go bankrupt, which local camps will close, and now which chartered organizations will pay. We've already seen the impact of insurance companies paying in the form of higher insurance premiums to kids. There is no scenario under which the BSA does not pay money. With that in mind, just what is the third option that does not result in the choice: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? Please articulate a third option that does not mean we choose between these two.
  4. 2 points
    But we all got signed off on all the requirements when we took IOLS. My understanding is that it was supposed to be enough for an adult to teach a scout the skills. After having swung the axe half a dozen times before teaching someone else how to swing it this sounds like guaranteed frustration for everyone involved - the new leader, the IOLS instructor and the scout. This thread is all about online training being a mistake. My only point is that solving this problem won't solve the bigger issue of accepting that all of the skills take time to learn. Online training could be part of the solution, I wouldn't rule it out. But in person training isn't sufficient.
  5. 1 point
    Except that, and this is important, Kosnoff is not the lead lawyer in the bankruptcy proceeding. On the contrary, the actual lead attorneys (the tort claimants' committee) want him OUT of the proceedings.
  6. 1 point
    Folks, Would it be possible to take a pause for a little bit? I know this is a very challenging issue that is extremely multifaceted. I see all sides of the arguments. I know folks who were molested, I know someone falsely accused (criminal investigation conducted and evidence supported her story), and I had to keep Cubs occupied while police intervened (that was not a good night at camp). Let's remember the #1 goal of the lead lawyer as stated in the Diane Rheem interview linked in a previous post and in another interview I heard him in : the complete dissolution of the Boy Scouts of America and IF (emphasis in interview) an organization like the Boy Scouts is still needed, it start from scratch.
  7. 1 point
    We had a claim where the plaintiff supplies copious details. We could find no information within the Telephone Company that the plaintiff existed, much less that one of our trucks hit him in a Cleveland street then left the alleged scene. It was late on the night of a storm, and we had nearly twenty trucks out working, some in that area. All the trucks were carefully inspected - by us and the CPD, with no indication of an impact. He also had a medical reports attesting to his injuries - a fractured pelvis and broken arm included. Fortunately, we could prove he was in jail in Toledo that night, following an automobile accident If his claim was allowed fifty years later, it would have likely gone to a jury.
  8. 1 point
    That's the whole point of statue of limitations. As other posters have noted, there are claimants who cannot remember basic details about the alleged abuse: when, where, who? I hate being in a position where I'm casting doubt on abuse claims, but how can the BSA or any organization defend itself against 30, 40, 50 year old claims, particularly when the victim cannot remember any of the details either?
  9. 1 point
    Another question that has come to mind is are these "lawyers" investigating cases where the actual perpetrator is known? If so, did they go beyond their participation in BSA? Were they possibly employed by some kind of youth related group or agency? Did they also work with youth sports or the Y, or Boys and Girls club? If so, were there possible similar complaints there? Finally, it is odd, at least to me, that there are claims that are saying they do not remember who, or what unit, or where they met, and so on. IF it traumatized them from that long ago period, you would think they might remember some of the details, and not just that some "ambulance chasing legal group" suggests that they may make a vague claim with little or no need for documentation. Not suggesting there is no validity to some of the claimants, only that the openly vague option is just that, open and vague. But what would I know. I keep thinking that we should maybe look beyond the accusation and require at least a modicum of validation. And I also feel that the comparative stats related to other groups should be in play as far as the claims that nothing was done. We have already noted that nobody else kept records, or at least none of which we are aware. That in itself is more effort to root the worst out, than most.
  10. 1 point
    Exactly, the same logic would have gotten the Catholic Church off scot free on abuse cases. After all, we run hospitals, schools, universities, clinics, food pantries. That doesn't matter. An agent of the Church or the BSA committed a tort, the organization is liable for the behavior of its agents. The only question is, how much does the organization owe for the torts in question? There are most certainly compelling reasons to not entirely liquidate the BSA, the Catholic Church, or the LA Public School district after sex abuse torts, but if those organizations aren't responsible for the harm they caused, then who would be?
  11. 1 point
    I expect BSA and local Councils will pay. But your doom scenario (HA camps sold, council camps closed, etc.) is not automatically a given. As for the "penalize the children", this same argument can be made to shield/shelter/protect any not-for-profit that commits a tort. Can't sue Feeding America for any tort, after all that would "punish" those who do not get enough food. What you are proposing is that any not-for-profit or charity becomes lawsuit proof because any claim against the not-for-profit or charity "penalizes the hungry people today" or "penalizes the homeless people today".
  12. 1 point
    Meanwhile, back at the ranch: The perpetrators, the ones actually responsible are long gone for the most part. The local authorities and political or power brokers that protected the actual perpetrators are basically ignored, since they are either some civilly protected entity or are conveniently untraceable. Most of the claimants likely are not in the so called Perversion files, as they were shielded by those connected entities or their family's chose, at the time, to NOT put the claim into the public eye. And, if the claim is actually in the Ineligible Volunteer File, there are notes as to what was done outside the BSA that resulted in no charges or minor charges. After fifty plus years, most of it is really like the charges lodged against political people that date back decades. Yet we do not see them being held accountable. Why? Because there is power and money that is willing to sweep it away, and the lawyers do not see a pay day.
  13. 1 point
    Well we started the week with a cougar attack and now we have another cat fight. BTW, the BSA selected BOTH options The Debtors commenced these chapter 11 cases to achieve the dual objectives of (a) timely and equitably compensating survivors of abuse in Scouting and (b) ensuring that the BSA emerges from bankruptcy with the ability to continue its vital charitable mission. These objectives remain unchanged. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/855387_1519.pdf ...and now back to our show.
  14. 1 point
    Nope - that may happen, but that's a side question. That's the "we'll stick it to the system concept and no-one is hurt." That's conflating the issue by suggesting that someone else is harmed that is not victims or kids of today. Really this comes down to the hard question: let abuse victims sue in perpetuity so that we do not deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on limit the timeframe of suits so that we do not penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening What's your choice?
  15. 1 point
    Your comment raises an interesting question. Any work I've ever done for federal or state government has had to meet all sorts of standards for non discrimination. Even though it's pretty much unlikely, If Congress were to actually examine the charter, how would BSA fair? Until recently, the organization has not exactly been welcoming to large and politically important categories of the nation's youth. And while girls are now allowed, they are still segregated into separate dens/troops,. There is also the problem of church involvement and the fact that atheists are not welcome. There have been a few recent reports about historic churches having trouble with National Historic Trust applications because they are churches, and the HT is another Congressional Charter so you can kind of see where the pendulum is swinging. Instead of Congress helping BSA, I'm wondering in today's environment if we should instead be worried about them possibly revoking it?
  16. 1 point
    The old animal trainer I worked for trained the MGM lions and he taught them to snarl and roar on cue. Here's a fun commercial with the Mercury kitty.
  17. 1 point
    So, if you make it to the century mark, you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? So, if the tort/abuse is more than a year ago (vs. "years"), you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? So, if the CURRENT volunteers are squeaky clean, then all prior bad acts (and liability) for the incorporated entity's officers and agents get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? There literally are no owners of the BSA (36 USC 30906(b) "The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend."). So, if your organization is here today, all prior bad acts are hereby waived and you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? "We do good works today" does NOT absolve the entity itself from having to pay for its malfeasance, misfeasance and, nonfeasance. Congressionally chartered organizations. Which, as I noted, simply is not appropriate. Why should a Congressional charter give you a get-out-of-tort-liability card? Again, I used the example of breach of contract and the National Ski Patrol (also Congressional charter, 36 USC 1527). The National Ski Patrol enters into a contract with a local Colorado IT vendor for their website. The IT vendor delivers and National Ski Patrol fails to make payment on delivery. IT vendor sues in Colorado state court and National Ski Patrol moves for dismissal; as a Congressional Chartered Organization they are immune from suit. Under your theory, this is perfectly acceptable because the PAST National Ski Patrol leadership breached the contract, so therefore the CURRENT National Ski Patrol shouldn't have to pay for their tort (breach of contract). All because they have a Congressional Charter? This makes no sense. At all.
  18. 1 point
    I remember that cat. I would have loved to have met him. He had a fabulous snarl.
  19. 1 point
    That sounds great, and that may have been a 19th century view of things, but as a legal matter, it matters not a whit. All "Congressional charter" means is "I got pull in Congress". And BSA did. 100 years ago. Now, to try and use the fact that it has a congressional charter as some sort of shield from abuse claims? "Sorry you got molested and all, but we have a Congressional Charter, so too bad." And I'm sorry, but if I'm a lawfirm and you write a law that allows for absolute waivers of liability as long as I can somehow register as a charity? I'm all over that. Sorry you were molested kid and our organizations leaders knew, but you can't sue us because we are a charity? A not-for-profit? And how "prominent" do you have to be? If your gross income is over $100 million a year you get a "molest all the kids, stay out of legal liability" pass? What about $10 million? $1 million? BSA (the organizational leaders thereof) did this to itself. Their poor choices means there are two generations of victims: those who were abused and those who now suffer due to the decline in the program. I will never, ever, EVER blame the victim or seek protection for an organization that KNEW what was happening and failed to act sufficiently or to exercise due diligence. EDIT: One final note. Part of being an incorporated entity, one of the benefits, is being able to avoid personal legal liability. There's no talk of seizing the PERSONAL assets of the former Scout CEOs and other leaders who knew, should have known, and did nothing. So under this theory, so long as you run a not-for-profit staffed with pedophile volunteer leaders: 1) You can't hold the not-for-profit that trained and oversaw the pedophile volunteer accountable because it is a not-for-profit 2) You can't hold personally liable the paid officers of the organization ("pierce the corporate veil") because it is an incorporated entity Therefore, out of the two sets of wrongdoers (the not-for-profit and its officers PLUS the pedophile) one gets to skate? No, thank you.
  20. 1 point
    I would like to see legislation that limits extensions of statue of limitations for federally chartered organizations. Here we have a nationally chartered corporation whose ability to fulfill it's legislated charter is now in doubt because states have extended the statute of limitations to levels beyond what is practical for what is largely a volunteer organization. Congress should recognize that this action by the states is causing harm to the ability of these kind of organizations to meet their charters. Having a reasonable duration on the statute of limitations for a congressionally chartered corporation (say 10 years) would still allow the states to ensure that the corporation is following current law and that volunteers and employees of the current organization are held correctly responsible for their actions. Limiting the duration of the statute of limitations to something reasonable would enable the federal corporation to predict it's ability to meet it's congressional charter and not be continually responding to actions by people involved with the corporation years ago. Congressionally chartered organizations like this have a unique ability to have a long corporate lifetime which makes it unusually susceptible to problems like this. It's in the best interest of the people of the United States to enable these corporations to fulfill their congressional obligation while still being reasonably held accountable for the actions of it's contemporary volunteers and employees.
  21. 1 point
    I know, but I still hope.
  22. 1 point
    Momma was not happy lol. Back in the days when parents were less concerned about childhood death and dismemberment, I worked for a guy who had exotic animals for the movies, including big cats. I definitely learned some interesting things that are not in G2SS.
  23. 1 point
    I agree, wood tools needs more time in training AND information in the SHB. When I reviewed the last time I did IOLS, the section on wood tools in the BSHB was missing so much info compared to older BSHBs, that I handed out sections from my 1960s FB and some other sources. Mixed emotions on this one. While I agree the older Scouts should be able to teach the younger Scouts and new adults these skills, I've seen a few things that make me question the idea. First the idea of "One and Done" is so prevalent, I am seeing fewer and fewer Scouts that actually have the skills to do the teaching. Sad but true. Best example is the 17 year old Life Scout who could not do basic T-2-1 first aid skills because " i took it my first year at summer camp, I don't remember them." The second concern is adults intimidating Scouts. I have seen and heard about adults intimidate Scouts, sometimes to disastrous effects. I have seen adults trying to change OA elections get "upset" to the point that I had to intervene and defend the youth. And one of the reasons my sons and I left a troop was because 2 adults intimidated the Scouts to the point that the SPL walked away. What was supposed to be a good trip and recruiting opportunity was a total charley foxtrot. Not only did none of the Webelos who were suppose to camp with us join the troop, we left the troop because of the yahoos and their actions that weekend. I wish I was there with the troop to put a stop to them. I have had older Scouts staff my IOLS, just like they do WB now. It works.
  24. 1 point
    In other words scouters should work their way through the advancement program to 1st class ... getting signed off by an SPL or JASM as they obtain skill mastery.
  25. 1 point
    My single favorite moment from Cub Scouts was when my son''s Bear den leader taught knife skills. He spent three whole meetings on it. Week 1 - he brought in the largest selection of knives I've ever seen. Hunting knives, cooking knives, utility knives, you name it. He explained blade construction. He explained handles design. The scouts got to handle everything and see how they worked. He then taught the boys how to sharpen a blade. He had more sharpening stones than I've ever seen. He explained how to remove gauges and how to progress through different stones to get the best edge. He explained why you need oil on a stone. He had every Scout try it. Week 2 - he taught the scouts how to handle and cut with a knife. I learned things in that meeting as the asst. den leader that I use in my kitchen every day. How to hold food with the tips of my fingers pointing down. He explained how different knives were better for different applications - how a scalpel is good for cutting skin, how an kitchen knife is good for food, how a hunting knife good for splitting bones. Week 3 - the scouts worked on carving different substances. There were no games those weeks, no other advancement. It was a serious discussion with a bunch of 9 year olds on how to use knives. You know what - they loved it. To this day, the depth of knowledge he shared was amazing. If I had my way, that's what we'd do with adults too - not try to condense learning to use an axe to an hour or do it online.
  26. 1 point
    Concur, but that is why they call it the "Introduction to..." Is there a BSA course for adults to learn these skills in any depth? Not in my experience...even went to National Camp School twice for Scoutcraft (back in the day). It was better, but still didn't hit the mark. It wasn't until I started reading my Scout Handbook and the merit badge pamphlets, putting together the materials and skills so I could teach them at Scout camp...(served on 15 camp staffs in various disciplines.) I have taught many IOLS classes...and too many people are looking for the "easy" answer or some magic pill for skills. They are only won by study, diligence, and practice. (Same as for Scouts ) Now, when a Scout or adult asks me a skills question, my first response is usually, "Let's see what the Scout Handbook says?" And then we sit down and read through the section together. It's really amazing what you find. Over 112 years of knowledge distilled in there...
  27. 1 point
    Shortage of adult volunteers has been an increasingly severe problem over decades, and BSA has done little or nothing about it. As a District Chairman, tired of telling kids and want-to-be Co's that there could be no unit without X adults registered as Scouters, I contacted Eagle Scouts not currently registered. I got a 13% "take rate," including eight new Scoutmasters - well worth the effort. I received a letter of reprimand from Region for violating the BSA policy that prohibited direct recruiting of adults: "Adults must come with the boys." Well, that was not working well in Orange County in 1965 and is working far less well this century. OK in Canada, Australia, UK, Philippines, India, and Kenya. Not OK in the BSA. I read today that it's time to recruit "boys, girls [and]... families...." Hanlon's Razor illustrated.
  28. 1 point
    In this situation there were only 3 things the cat was thinking about. Are my babies food, are you food and am I food? I didn't see the babies but if they were there then that was the cat's first thought, kill was the second, but we don't know. A cat going after a person in the middle of the day is really unusual. The other options are who is the food here? Rule one, don't look at the cat. That makes the cat feel like food and that is a problem. But this guy was just trying to figure things out. Rule two is don't run away. While backing up and looking at the cat this guy was projecting that he's an all you can eat buffet. If there were babies near by then this is kind of a no win situation. So, at least for a bit, backing up was okay. But he was clearly afraid, and I can't blame him, but he kept backing up hoping the cat would lose interest. The cat kept a constant distance nearly the whole time. When the guy would crouch down trying to get a rock the cat did a weird thing waving his claws around. I think the cat might have been trying to convince this guy to turn and run. He would have been an easy kill if he had. At that point, facing the cat was likely the right thing to do. Rule 3 is look big. This guy knew that. He kept saying that between the beeped out comments. Rule 4 is, if attacked, fight back. Cats know they can't afford to get hurt in a fight, and that's why it never got too close. As soon as the guy could pick up a rock and throw it the cat changed from you're food to I'm food and took off. The cat realized this guy was not going to go down without a fight. Other than going out by himself I think he did a good job. As for the original question, if there had been a group of scouts then I think the cat would not have gotten close. But all the rules still apply. Don't run. Don't challenge or look at the cat. Look big. Fight if attacked. It sure gives me a better appreciation for having a hiking pole. I went backpacking with a guy that had a .44 with him in a holster. Nothing was going to bother him.
  29. 0 points
    Interesting ...BSA representation followed to our lawyers new firm? For the Boy Scouts: Jessica Boelter, Thomas Labuda, Michael Andolina, Matthew Linder and Blair Warner of Sidley Austin and Derek Abbott, Andrew Remming, Eric Moats and Paige Topper of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell from Reuters The Boy Scouts of America is represented by Derek C. Abbott, Andrew R. Remming, Eric W. Moats and Paige N. Topper of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, and Jessica C. K. Boelter, Michael C. Andolina and Matthew E. Linder of White & Case LLP. from Law360 (October 14, 2020, 9:43 PM EDT)
  30. 0 points
    That's not at all what Tahawk was saying. His example was only to illustrate the effect lapsing time can have on claims. Giving feedback, and I mean it with respect. This is the second thread in about a week where you are jumping down people's throats and assuming the worst about what other people say. You're clearly very smart, and specifically on this topic, very well informed. I appreciate the knowledge you bring to these topics. Just relax a little bit. You are ending up arguing against positions that people don't actually hold.
  31. 0 points
    Does raising costs penalize kids? Does closing camps penalize kids? I struggle with the logic of your argument. You have this notion that extract damages without their being an impact on the youth of today. How does one extract large settlements for each abuse victim without there being a negative impact on the kids today? I don't know the specifics of the lawsuits that you reference here. I looked, but have not found them yet. Give me some data and I'm sure I can provide an answer. Let's recall that my proposal was not blanket immunity, but instead a cap on the length of the statute of limitations: I am not, and have not, suggested blanket immunity for federally chartered organizations. But at some point I do believe there is a point upon which the federal government says enough. Maybe it's not 10 years, but 20 or 25. But at some point, the original leadership is gone. The abusers are gone. The volunteers have all changed. The professionals have all changed. There are no stock holders and so you can't assess them. All you can do is charge a completely different group of people a bunch of money because someone else 20, 30, or 40 years ago did something reprehensible. It's a lovely notion to say that "the BSA should be held responsible", but doing that has a cost. It's entirely a matter of public policy for us to ask "do we want, as a nation and a people, want to incur the cost of endless litigation for our nationally charter non-profits?". You want to hold there organizations responsible forever it seems. That it's OK because insurance companies will pay or that kids really won't feel the impact of it. Is that correct?
  32. 0 points
    Yep. And one last thing you keep skipping over and over. What will insurance be forced to cover. You simply skip over it so you can offer a false choice between two false premises. If the total liability/claims is = insurance coverage, BSA will NOT have to sell local camps, sell HA bases, etc. Insurance premiums will rise, but that is all. We don't know what claims valued at how much we are even talking about here yet.
  33. -1 points
    Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote - which was about the public policy question from a federally created organization being impacted by statute of limitations changes in individual state laws. You're trying to turn my comment into something very different. No thanks.
  34. -1 points
    So you do expect the BSA will pay. The choice below doesn't say anything about how much. So we're back to the same choice: deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening? So you're in favor of providing abuse victims compensation and penalizing the kids of today because you believe that the penalty won't be too bad. Is that correct?
  35. -1 points
    The lawsuits against BSA are not "penalizing" the kids of today any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued. Nice use of loaded language. I reject your premise and charaterization.
  36. -1 points
    I never claimed that. I simply said that at some point there should be a limit on how long we let lawsuits continue to linger. There comes a point in time where history is history.
  37. -1 points
    This is what led me to say that perhaps it's time for Congress to say - enough on continual and perhaps even open ended extensions to the statute of limitations. Somewhere in there is a reasonable length for how long an entity should be liable. perhaps for a person liability extends to their whole lifetime perhaps for a for-profit corporation that liability is longer because of the gain in profits and the ability to assess stock holders perhaps for non-profits the statute of limitations is shorter because there is no ownership group.
  38. -1 points
    One person lied, therefore all the victims claiming abuse against the BSA are liars. Got it.
×
×
  • Create New...