fred8033

This is what I believe 100%. Absolutely.

I've heard about that research, but not seen it. I question reaching the conclusion from the research. We may be losing opportunity with some families that become committed to other programs, but I think we lose far more from burn-out and from a too-early meaningless program. I see lots of families drop out of baseball, soccer and other activities after the first few years. I'd argue that when a child enters 3rd grade, those parents are looking for something new, fresh and the next bigger step. IMHO, that should be scouting with knives, fire, outdoors and shooting sports. Instead of waiting for the youth to be ready for the program, we've dumbed down the program to the point the program loses it's benefit and it's attraction.

That's my biggest fear. It starts to break the scout's commitment to scouting. The scout showed up. The scout did as instructed. The scout fulfilled their end. Now they don't get what was promised. It breaks the scout's commitment and kills their excitement. The specific badge just does not matter that much. The path to get the badge does though. IMHO, it's got to be pretty extreme for troops to say no. A scout or family knowing they did something wrong. A paperwork error the scout agrees with. This though is a MBC doing as planned and the scout fulfilling that. IMHO, in cases like these, the blue card is signed validly and it's a done badge.

IMHO ... I think this is the exact problem killing scouting. Kudos to @5thGenTexan. IMHO, Cubs starting so young is burning out the adults and burning out families. IMHO, the program should start in 3rd grade. 2nd grade is a gray area. K & 1st are just wrong and damages the program and burns out the adults. Scouting should start when the scouts can socialize and be responsible. Until then, let families have their time together. Let them try out soccer and baseball and the other activities. THEN, when they are ready, let them come to scouts. I think the biggest scouting killer is pushing scouting down to such young ages where parents treat scouting more like baby sitting and the benefits at that age are not that significant. By the scouts get to the key ages that make huge differences, the whole family is burnt out on the program.

From what I read so far ... the scout is not in question. The SM/CC is questioning the camp program. And I'm assuming ... you are not overly inserting yourself and that the SM/CC is not also correcting your being involved too much. #1 Using this understanding, I assert ... GTA 7.0.4.7 is about clearly failed situations. GTA 7.0.4.7 is not about differences of opinion where people don't think the camp staff are doing it right. ... Of course, I absolutely prefer scouts and camp staff work to draw while sitting in the dark and watching the sky. There is a special experience gained by doing that. ... But, it would be very arrogant to say I'll send my scout to your camp but not value the camp MB judgement. This battle between adults that know better and scout camps trying to provide meaningful experiences has been going on for decades and will continue to go on. IMHO, it's just not the purpose of GTA 7.0.4.7. I'd really also ask. Will your troop second-guess every MB done by the camp? Will the troop audit and pre-judge the MBs before sending the camp? If your troop doesn't respect the camp MB program, then the troop is doing the scouts a real dis-service sending the scouts there. It's really hypocritical to use a scout camp but not respect their MB program. If it's not good, go somewhere else. If it's your best option, show it some respect. Even further, what is being served ? Focus on the specific scout as we don't fight larger battles using specific scouts. I really question what we are teaching the scout by not awarding the MB. Of course we can argue about teaching some higher level value of doing it right. But then again, we're also teaching resentment and not trusting those who we respect. #2 So ... if the troop really wants to go this way ... please tell me that the SM sat down with the scout to have a nice, extended conversation. Like a unit leader conference. SM sharing their thoughts. Scout sharing their thoughts. ... first SM works with those involved (camp staff, MB counselor, etc) ... "After such a consultation, the unit leader, in a positive environment similar to that of a unit leader conference, discusses with the Scout the circumstances under which a merit badge in question was approved." Did the SM sit down with the scout and have a heart-to-heart about the MB? If that's not done, the troop is not using GTA 7.0.4.7 and is going rogue. #3 ... Most importantly ... how does the scout feel about this? Adults often gear up for battles that are just not that important to the scout. If your scout is willing to re-do the requirement, then maybe that is a good choice. There are lessons there about picking battles and placating those in power. ... OR ... maybe the scout is just willing to ditch the MB. I know some of my scouts would have just said screw it. The MB would not be awarded the scout never looks back. It becomes a grievance only to be brought up in slight snide ways.

Yeah. Sadly, I see this as a key issue. Sometimes people volunteer or step-up because they want to be there for their kids ... BUT it's their kids that are the issue ... and their (parent) behavior becomes then part of the issue too. Scouting is really a simple program. Scouting is about activities and learning to socialize. Bad behavior is not for scouting. ASMs/SM need to be there to stop it. When incidients happen, explicitly state what was wrong and what is expected. If the situation involved a group, do it together so they all know. If you need to call out a single person, do it privately (with another adult). ... old adage .. publicly praise ... privately correct. .... If the behavior continues, then the youth and/or adult needs to find somewhere else to spend their time. ... If the troop problems still continue, the troop will fail. Parents don't want their kids in a program that is not a good example.

Ahhh... Thank you. This was a new way of asking a previous question. Now I'm connecting it with a previous answer. THANK YOU !!!!

BSA should already be paying cash for new expenses. I thought up-front paying of new expenses was common for companies in bankruptcy proceedings. My question had to do with claims failed between the claim deadline and BSA emerging bankruptcy. Is it possible those victims will have less recourse for their damages? I'm hoping the newly established trust allow new victims to submit claims on equal footing with the submitted 80,000+ submitted claims. Otherwise, it feels like there is a gap that removes victim recourse.

Cub scouting is expensive comparatively. Easy $100 for a uniform and book. Add activities that each are priced individually. etc, etc, etc. Floor hockey in the gym is $30 or $40 for several months. Less work too. That itself causes an issue. Our unit did communicate that too (and I was part of it). It's not really a good choice either. Uniforming differences causes judgmental attitudes from all sides to other sides and affects the commitment (from all sides). Scout shop subverts the pack message. Asking parents to make the choice infers they don't have money or are less committed or don't care or etc, etc, etc. All bad choices. Seeing uniforming differences in the unit causes issues of judgement from all sides to all sides. In hindsight, I wish our pack/troop could make our own policy. But there are just too many mixed messages.

Wow. ... That's a massive hit. Sounds like archery could still happen? Slingshot? Really massive.

Nice. I come from a different school of thought. I'd prefer to not have that class and to not help the scout too much. Don't be an obstacle, but let's not create an overly structured scout experience. Rather, filling out blue cards is a great chance to have conversations with the scout and to give him things to look at and work on. It's a chance for the scout to improve and solve things. ... Another way to work it. If the scout brings you a blue card that is not cleanly filled at the start, give them a new blue card and walk them thru filling it out neatly.

I sympathize. I also have contempt for the legal process being used in this bankruptcy. Even before the victim infomercials, this has been a boon-doggle and a money grab. There is no way this bankruptcy will make victims whole. The awareness was raised years / decades ago. Nothing is gained except re-opening old wounds yet again for several more years. I'd rather see BSA go thru bankruptcy on their own. BUT, at this point, the money has been spent on the settlement with a gamble of huge payouts by insurance companies and co-defendants. ... BSA on it's own has little to give defendants in a chapter 11 or chapter 7 now. ... The whole process is disgusting. At this point, the best is for the process to reach a conclusion. I fear chapter 7 would mean another ten years of lawsuits, etc. ... victims getting little ... the legal process eating the assets.

Until something like the 1992 congressional debate (forgot about that) was passed as law, BSA ... even if liquidated and had no employees or records ... could be spun back up. We think of the Congressional Charter as honorific ... and it mostly is ... but it adds a nebulous legal state that can be used to re-hydrate a failed BSA. That is my point. Congress doesn't have to give another company a congressional charter. BSA has perpetual existence until the charter is withdrawn by congress passing another law. A patriotic president could effectively spin up BSA without a law or any action and continue to use the charter. I would. If BSA didn't exist for five years, it would be a huge political win for that President and gives that president the clout to talk about things being done for youth and for the outdoors.

If I played the game, what would happen if BSA went chapter 7 ... My big fear is that victims of the current settlement would get less and it would take much longer. Chapter 7 means no victim settlement and no funds anytime soon. Chapter 7 means hundreds of millions were spent trying to get a settlement, without success. A new set of lawsuits would start against the insurance companies. BSA chapter 11 bankruptcy pulls everyone together into a settlement. Without that, I could easily see every insurance company going on their own. The chapter 11 bankruptcy creates the opportunity for a collective liability shield. Without BSA needing that shield, I can't believe insurance companies would get a liability shield ... and thus I can't see insurance companies in a big settlement. New trials, negotiations, etc. Probably years down the road. Possibly outside bankruptcy courts? Company by company lawsuits? State by state? Insurance companies might save money by having it fought in many different venues over decades. What little could be collected from BSA in bankruptcy could go to higher priority debt owners. BSA retirement pension program would be in trouble ... especially now as I read some of that money was pulled in ... ??? ... I have been avoiding asking. Government owned pension guarantee company might be a debt owner at a higher priority level than victim lawsuits.

I don't think you can "declare" an act of congress ended. Laws can be found unconstitutional, but courts can't end laws. Congress would need to a pass a new bill ending the charter. ... And no President would want to have their name on the bill ending BSA. And few congressmen or senators would vote to end BSA. Until then, the current law states perpetual existence. Very much like laws. Laws have perpetual existence. Similar, BSA has perpetual existence. Even if BSA sold all assets, the company "BSA" has the right to continue. Time would wait for the next patriotic President of the United States to re-hydrate BSA. No act of Congress needed. The Congressional Charter exists until Congress (and the President) passes a new law voiding the Congressional Charter. ... It's one reason I don't think selling the intellectual property would raise any funds.

$1000 is for the youth scout who is very active. ... Add another $1000 for the very active parent ... or more as that active parent often introduces extra costs like neat gear, special extra foods, etc, etc. When I had four active kids in scouting where we did everything and sometimes in two or three different units, I'd bet we spent $5000 to $7000 a year. At least the cost of a major family vacation.

Thank you. I really appreciate the detail.

Ahhh ... that makes sense. Essentially, there is a transition time. To pay the settlement, an amount will be coming from new membership and scout shop sales. Such as parents paying dues for their seven-year-old to be a Tiger scout and then buying him a uniform and books. Or money from scouts attending national events and high adventure camps. ... The days of BSA having cash savings are in the past. The days of big donors won't exist while BSA is fundraising for a settlement. Money will be coming from the current and new kids and their parents.

"Standard" policies can be extended by special permission. In the past, units doing shooting sports training have worked with the camp, council and shooting sports credentialed leaders to bring unique or varied guns to camp. There were often limits such as the gun would not be shot; ammunition that fit the gun would not be brought; the gun would be secured when not being demonstrated; and, that the camp ranger and others would do a special check-in for the unit.

Agreed that future abuse after bankruptcy emergence is new liability. ... but is there some connection between the new liability / new financial awards and the settlement trust being created? Are future victims somehow pulled into this pending settlement? I just don't understand the details of @yknot saying "BSA is also on the hook to make some kind of continuing future contributions to the settlement"

"Looking backward, no" ... Yep. that's my understanding. "Forward, yes" ... I don't understand. Are you saying the post-bankruptcy BSA would pay into the bankruptcy trust for abuse that happened after the bankruptcy? ... I don't understand how that would work. Mixing trust dollars targeting past abuse with some type of money / protection for abuse yet to happen?

I've been following this from since it started. I'm amazed how much I still hear that I did not know and still can't understand. This is a bankruptcy. Old company legally stops existing and a legally new company exits bankruptcy. QUESTION - Would be the post-bankruptcy (successful bankruptcy) BSA be able to have any future liability ? I thought that violated the fundamentals of how bankruptcy works.

$100 plus monthly is a stopper. My ideal is the generic monthly camp out should (at that time) have been $20 or less. Now, $30 or less would be reasonable. Bigger adventures a few times a year are great, but few families can afford. Our "ideal" ... when I was in troop planning was that every patrol have every month an option for one camp out and one activity. Sometimes if at the troop level, then patrols often had the option of more than one camp out and more than one activity; such as patrol camp out and a troop camp out. Or a patrol game night and a troop swim night. or ... It's important to create opportunities for the scout as that's when lessons are learned and when a scout finds a reason to stay in scouts.

... Paid by BSA ... help me with my understanding. BSA is also paying costs for legal costs for those with claims and overhead. In addition, Omni, land appraisals. etc, etc. So, I'm reading it as BSA is not spending $13m per month defending itself or being oppositional. BSA is paying costs from many sides. ... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

$500k? Thousand or million? I originally heard BSA was bringing around $400m to the bankruptcy. I thought that was both proceedings and money that could be used to pay debts. ... reduces operating going forward ... I never understood that. It seems backwards. If money can be afforded to pay for the bankruptcy proceedings, then any unspent in that gray affordable money area that could be spent would be best sent to debtors ... or I thought I'd imagine. It goes to show that I really don't understand the ugly finances of a bankruptcy. I read the earlier list of who is billing what, but it really doesn't make sense to me still. QUESTION? ... $368m ... Can someone frame the court approved fee payments in a more basic primitive manor? administrative fees (appraisals, etc) versus BSA defense council fees versus victim advocate fees (TCC, etc) ? Or victim advocate fees routed through any of the BSA council invoices or are they completely separate?