fred8033

Your statement is so true in so many ways. The legal process adds damage for everyone. It's hard to watch. Worse, many attorneys and their firms have already been paid tens of millions in this case. Now, it could start over. Bankruptcy cost so far well over $100 million ??? Wishing you the best thru all this.

So, 8,400 voted no and are being forced into a settlement that releases all 3rd party liability. ... It's always a few that protect the rights of many. So, it may be only two lawyers, but it's not that clear cut. ... There is always the question of whether the 60,000 voters are real or part of the massive infomercial victim expansion. It's best for BSA if this moves forward and the bankruptcy is done. On the flip side, 3rd party releases is questionable. I'd personally rather not see it exist. It allows for these massive cases that pervert the courts.

Does that include the previous invoiced and paid expenses thru the bankruptcy court proceedings over the last several years that is probably outside the 2.4 billion settlement? Other administrative costs of the settlement administrators? 1 billion of 2.4 billion is about 42%. I'm betting if everything is factored in, it is really significantly higher.

Just a note ... The SM would be the quality controller for the overall process used by the unit, but the specific facts for an individual scout. For an individual scout, the SM would only see the completed advancement records during the SMC. SMC is not pass / fail. Just acknowledgement the SMC happened. So, all requirements are signed. It would be inappropriate for a SM to block a specific scout or for the SM to say a signature is invalid. Perhaps, the BOR could inject and say a requirement was not really completed; i.e. a PLC signature is invalid. But, it's not the place of a SM d

I could support the scout's signing off on scout spirit, active in your troop and serve actively. Also, you can minimize BORs. Just because it says three adult committee members doesn't mean it needs to be 30+ minutes. It could be five minutes of three committee members. ... The one I would strongly suggest never to dilute is the scoutmaster conference. The scoutmaster needs to know the scouts and hear what they say. Period.

I tend to agree. Lower rank BORs should be done by the youth leadership in the troop. I do wish BSA would re-design to the old world concept.

Policy? No. It's just very, very different than how almost all other troops work. It will raise dozens of questions that can escalate. #1 Make sure you don't call it a Court of Honor or a Board of Review (BOR). ... Scouts still need to sit in front of a BOR comprised of three to six adults that confirms requirements are met. ... Your troop is just creating a PLC meeting agenda item where they review scout spirit. ... #2 All scouts don't sit in the PLCs; just the SPL, PLs and a few others. So the scouts needing advancement won't be there for the PLCs. So, how do you handle th

Agreed and extended. #1 It's also to encourage scouting and discourage claiming family vacations to complete requirements. This is a continual battle in scouting ... often with the parents chasing requirements. ... Also, proper supervision? Proper execution? (scouts leading, not adults, etc). So for your example, yes it's okay to have two or three dads with their sons doing a special campout to complete the requirements as long as the scouts talk to their merit badge counselor and/or scoutmaster to make it a designated scouting activity; with a strong preference to get the appro

Dead on right.

Correct. Resentment might be workable (even though it's very, very real and alive). The real issue is BSA and GSA are only similar in name; not much else. Might as well say BSA should merge with 4H or Civil Air Patrol or Boys and Girl Clubs or etc, etc, etc.

Yep. Almost always lame. Good maybe for 1st year troop scouts. Otherwise only good is getting together and seeing other scouts / adults. The actual event itself is almost always has zero or often less than zero value. Love that answer. IMHO, adventure makes scouting fun and valuable.

Our critiques were done at the annual planning event. Key to that was to keep the other adults out of it ... ideally well away. ... Scouts will shut down giving way to adults. ... IMHO ... it's not just an issue during critiques. It's for how the whole troop runs. The scouts need confidence that they own and run the troop; with friendly safe guidance by their SM. Scouts that don't speak up is often a reflection of other issues. Best thing to do is only have the scoutmaster involved during the planning and reviews. The challenge is getting the other adults to trust the SM and stay o

Don't see this as bad. See if there is an option to provide a great experience for the few remaining scouts for the time they have left. See if there are any options like being a patrol under another troop. A key is don't take this as a big negative statement for you and yours. There is a magical mix in scouts. People. Recruiting. Experiences. When things shift, it can kill troops. The key is you and your troop provide great experiences for the scouts you have. Then, when they are gone, they are gone. It's okay to close down. You have not failed.

Are the scouts in the patrol strong friends? Patrol communication happens naturally when it's friends. They find solutions and make it work. Even if there are just four or five that are good friends, they find ways to communicate and bring the new members in. Scouts that are not friends can't be forced to communicate. In those cases, one or two scouts get frustrated trying to communicate and might give up. Then, the parents drive involvement. ... so ... Are these scouts friends? Do they naturally reach out to each other? OR, are they assigned to their patrol and only chat during

Let your scouts decide. ... Trust your scouts ... and don't think you can control them. They will communicate how they want. Plus, their choosing how to communicate is part of their team forming and storming. It's what we really want out of our scouts: their solving and owning their activities. As unit leaders, the question is how much do we communicate to the parents. A troop schedule with mtgs, events and activities? Costs? Other?

That's the key phrase. I'm a stickler for YP and G2SS. Fundraising? Much less so. In my 15+ years as a unit leader, we never filled out the fundraiser application for our unit sales (not popcorn).

Apologist? Yes for our parents, police, schools, churches, society, and many, many youth organizations that repeatedly failed children for decades. Uniquely calling BSA out on this is wrong.

Not reasonable. #1 When I need to advise someone to do something really hard, it's a direct discussion. I don't write a memo to them advising them. #2 The IVF files are documentation WHY the person should not be registered; not a step by step process record of everything that happened. #3 The fact that so so so many of the files do have police records are strong evidence that the right thing did happen. ***** After I posted yesterday ... I another few files. ... again alphabetical starting from Z. ... Just a few ... I found this one 1978-04-19 ... File had cou

LA Times shows timeline of BSA starting at least in 1972 screening leaders. More over the next decades. Specific files .... Clicking in alphabetical order ... did not notice until later reverse alphabetical ... using LA Times DB ... search started reverse alphabetical on it's own ... probably from when I was reading the files years ago. This is not picking and choosing. This is in sequence without skipping entries. I am not posting the names involved. 1987-06-16 - Documents convicted felonies 1966-09-13 - Arrested 7/27/66 1987-11-15 - Indicted 11/10/87 on 3 coun

You just indicted pretty much all of society. Mandatory reporting is discussed as it defines if there was a legal shortcoming to how things were handled; defining an explicit negligence; not just a idealistic negligence. Mandatory reporting laws have drastically changed over the years. Often decade by decade. Offense by offense.

Yep. And I strongly suspect the first officials notified were either the principal or the psychologist. The teacher would have been in big trouble if a police car showed up at school without the administration knowing first.

People are selectively choosing facts and interpretations. Even the earlier posted 1981 letter shows valid concerns about where record are kept and privacy. Embarrassment is not labeled as whose. Victims? The family? The community? This is how all of society viewed CSA in the 1980s. Criticizing for emphasizing centralization of records? Would the preference instead be 400+ building offices keeping the files in some random person's desk drawer or book shelf? That would have been highly unprofessional and not taking it seriously ... but at least it would have avoided the lootin

Then you have not read many or your are being disingenuous. The files contain many including police reports and court proceedings.

That is an overly simplistic statement. About what? Child Abuse in 1970s was about Battered Child Syndrome; CSA was not the focus until 1990s. Teachers were looking for bruises and physical signs of abuse. To whom? School administration is a government entity hired and paid for by the tax payer. Half the states.

That was the standard of practice across all organizations I knew. I'm sure teachers even in the 1990s were told to first talk to the principal before calling authorities to report abuse.