Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/06/21 in all areas

  1. From the forum Moderator Policy: "Members are reminded that topics are discussions to inform, reflect and not arguments to be won. "
    4 points
  2. I have, I seriously have. And it wasn't pretty.
    2 points
  3. It is funny since they are able to do a number of things that due to the national oversight of OA, the OA isn't allowed to do. Bare chests, face paint, AOL ceremonies, adults conducting ceremonies, etc. are not allowed in the OA. Mic-O-Say gets away with a lot.
    2 points
  4. Immunizations (Effective 6/1/2022) The BSA encourages all members of the Scouting community to utilize available vaccines that can provide protection in preventing infectious diseases. Based on the recommendations of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), it is the national policy of the BSA that all participants attending events, activities, programs, or camps requiring an Annual Health and Medical Record (AHMR) must be up to date on all the immunizations listed as required below: REQUIRED for everyone:
    1 point
  5. I understand your point and it is valid, but the failure is on the LCs. I actually don’t have an issue with Kosnoff in these articles. My issue is why did the LCs refuse to comment? The Seattle times reached out. That would have been a great opportunity to say look what we do for kids today and any further payment would severely hurt our ability to function. No comment allows articles to be one sided. BSA better have their LC PR groups better prepared in the future. Below was in the Times article The Chief Seattle Council, Pacific Harbors Council and Moun
    1 point
  6. Yes, most of the suggested payouts are accurate based on info we have seen. BUT, the main gist of the story is that LC's and others are not putting in as much as they can or should. And that is simply not accurate, other than if they were to liquidate. Of course, that would make Mr. K happy, as we already know. Still, I am properly chastised that I suggest his right to "free speech" should be restrained, and that is not corret. Though his free speech tends to be a lot misleading and maybe even a little fuzzy. He got what he wanted though, so he should be pleased, no matter how
    1 point
  7. What do you think the judge is supposed to do: issue an order prohibiting him from speaking? the first amendment kinda gets in the way of that. It is called prior restraint.
    1 point
  8. Some thoughts. The TCC, if/when it can present a plan needs to set a foundation for the future and not try to solve every problem that exists today with today's standards. A good risk management plan does that but also has built-in review and evaluation as an internal feedback loop to create an environment of change as laws, policies and best practices change. In teh case of teh BSA a CRITICAL part of any YP change MUST be a regular practice of transparency with the public. You want your sainted congressional charter? Prove to the public that you deserve it and allow the public representa
    1 point
  9. Kosnoff Law @SexAbuseAttys · Oct 5
    1 point
  10. Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Hearst owned media based on his Twitter updates.
    1 point
  11. Thus my "fear that being so wonky it would push us further from the outdoors and Scout skills." On the administrative and business side of the organization I certainly think we could use a good inward looking quality improvement intuitive. And if done correctly, I would think it would re-center the program side back toward the things that made it so great, like patrol method and scouting skills. My fear would be that it would be outward looking and the path would be towards doing things like other groups rather than embracing what the heart of this program used to be.
    1 point
  12. I am not sure if there are many posters that have disagreed and butted heads more than @David CO and I have over the years. Simply put, we just vehemently disagree on some fundamental issues. However heated we may have gotten it has always simmered down to being to at least an anodyne tone. We have manage to not let one disagreement carry over to other threads, and have even found ways to agree and even compliment each other on rare occasions. However, it is more than a little disappointing when I click on feed and see a string of red down vote arrows, all from one individual, all
    1 point
  13. I think you are only half correct. The forum has been used as a point for members to state their positions on the proposal from BSA (the RSA). If ones position or view changes a claimants view that is not actually a bad thing. My own personal views have been changed and that is due to facts that have been presented. A big portion of what has been posted is the easier to read recaps and legal views from @CynicalScouterand or @ThenNowand others. Yes their are posts that might influence the voting but in all honesty that is a great thing for victims (maybe not so much for non victims.
    1 point
  14. Yes, I am torn. I would love to see some six sigma applied to BSA. But I also fear that being so wonky it would push us further from the outdoors and Scout skills. That has been one benefit from my journey from the software side to the data side. "Get it right" is far more important than "get it out the door"
    1 point
  15. I miss the old Google search engine or even the old Alta Vista search engine when they were end-user effective, i.e., I could find stuff. Oh some transparency to mention, Antigone Davis is the Director, Global Head of Safety at Facebook but as Ms. Haugen's stated , "the buck stops with Zuckerberg"
    1 point
  16. From my understanding, Section 230 gives the liability protection as they are specifically defined as not being an editorial organization. So I am not surprised they have no statement about content responsibility. I think 230 was initially designed for ISP's and companies that literally, just hosted content (and really only provided the server software/hardware to host). I am not sure if it was general "scope creep" of that definition if there were legislative changes, but once the content started becoming the product it became a slippery slope. So now that Facebook, Twitter etc.
    1 point
  17. I have worked with Eagle scouts that had absolutely no business being an ASM or troop committee. They did NOT get it. I have also worked with people with zero connections to scouting who come in as the den-leader-parent and KNOW how to operate a troop (committee side) or work with scouts (ASM) in ways that amaze me each day. But there's an assumption, probably justified SOME times maybe even MOST times, that Eagle = knowing "how to scout". My committee chair was an Eagle. He's said over and over "As a scout, I had no idea any of this (committee stuff) even existed." Right, becau
    1 point
  18. We don't know because much of National's IP is protected not merely by copyright and trademark law but a specific act of Congress. 36 U.S. Code § 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words And that same Congressional statute says Boy Scouts of America is "perpetual" 36 U.S. Code § 30901. Organization So, we have NO idea what a bankruptcy court would do with that language since, as was pointed out several times by BSA at the start, we have NEVER had a congressionally charted organization go into Chapter 7.
    1 point
  19. The scout in my situation was part of a broken home. He was with his mother and his sister was with his father. On what ended up being his last night with the troop, the SM and CC confronted the mother because their signatures had been forge on some of the documents. others had been forged as well. As that was going on I had a discussion with the Scout, it wasn't even about what was going on, just chatting with him, my son and a few other scouts to distract him from what was happening. But he knew. He broke down in tears and said he didn't earn the MB and didn't do the work for his
    1 point
  20. TCC Town Hall Thursday 8 pm Eastern https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) or Phone number: 888- 788-0099(Toll Free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295. At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss: (1) Solicitation Materials and Voting Ballots and (2) the TCC’s recommendation on how to vote
    1 point
  21. What point diminishment? And wouldn’t the converse be true? If all a person can do is a point increment and nothing else, then that would not be contributing anything either. If it is true, shouldn’t you be aggressively asking someone to expound on why they might agree with you, if they haven’t taken the time to do so? Anyone who doesn’t see things the way I do, they are welcome to downvote. It means a lot to me. I won’t bully you for anything beyond that. I believe the only correct reply (if it didn’t clutter up the forum) would be, “Thank you for weighing in.” My apologies to anyon
    1 point
  22. TCC has announced a Town Hall Thursday at 8 EST. https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) or Phone number: 888- 788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295. At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss: (1) Solicitation Materials and Voting Ballots and (2) the TCC’s recommendation on how to vote
    1 point
  23. Yes it could. If that should happen, some new scout association would take over where BSA left off. WOSM is not going to just abandon the USA. Scouting will continue.
    1 point
  24. Hello all. I am a leader of a Cub Scout Pack and I have been following this for the past few months to try to anticipate the impact to our unit. As things stand now, it appears that short-term impact to our unit will be minor aside from increased dues and maybe one less camp in our area. Long term … well the headwinds associated with Cub Scouts certainly haven’t disappeared but that is a different topic from bankruptcy. But nevertheless we have volunteers who are committed locally to Do Their Best for the scouts regardless of what is happening at higher levels of the organization.
    1 point
  25. Correct, Meant DO NOT....
    1 point
  26. @Eagle94-A1 Did you mean DO NOT?
    1 point
  27. Yep. I have no problem with that. BSA has amply demonstrated it cannot be trusted. Therefore, it needs to be reformed and clearly that is not going to happen from the inside. But the TCC's not even mandating "direct control of BSA Youth Protection policies." The BEST this committee will be able to do is recommend and suggest. The Child Protection Committee (I am shortening to CPC) only has 5 powers. BSA must report within 6 months of the bankruptcy ending and every year for 3 years a report to the CPC "regarding the Youth Protection Program and any changes thereto". That's not
    -1 points
  28. I see nothing where they have the authority to "publish its own evaluation of changes ." Of course, I do not see anything that prohibits it, either. Moreover, and I suspect will happen, the TCC and other victims named to the CPC will go to the press and others if BSA stonewalls and drags its feet on making changes. Moreover, this isn't forever: it is 3 years post-bankruptcy.
    -1 points
  29. I would 100% guarantee the next time a child was abused the outside group's report would be introduced as an exhibit but whose? If BSA did NOT adopt, plaintiff lawyer runs with it: "BSA knew they had problems. They were told by outside expert/outside group the specific problems they had and how to fix them. BSA ignored them. My client was abused as the result of BSA's refusal to change its ways." If BSA DID adopt, BSA lawyer runs with it: "BSA knew we had problems. We were told by outside expert/outside group the specific problems we had and how to fix them. BSA did exactly
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...