fred8033

20 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

...  I had built a big wall around my abuse and I allowed it to be shattered for the sake of the justice I was absolutely assured would occur.  I wish I had never put myself through this.  Not much of a surprise that in the end, the only ones having a good day are the attorneys on salary and, of course, the insurance companies.  

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. 

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

86% of the almost 60,000 voting Survivors approved the BSA plan and the TWO attorneys who filed for the Stay represent .2% (that's one/fifth of ONE percent) of all Survivors.  

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.  

16 hours ago, Ojoman said:

1 billion of the 2.4 billion million going to 'legal expenses' already. 

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.  

On 2/7/2024 at 7:15 PM, Eagledad said:

The Scoutmaster will be the quality controller because they look at the Scout's book during the SM Conference.

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 during SMC to quality control an individual scout.  

13 minutes ago, George said:

Most of you are describing precisely the sort of emphasis on the PLs and PLC that I also support. Authorizing PLs to sign off on S-T-2-1 skill requirements is straightforward enough, but I would like to go further. I realize that, under current policies, I can't permit the PLs to sign off on requirements that expressly reference the Scoutmaster or "other adult leader" or let the PLC take the place of the Scoutmaster conference or the board of review. But it seemed to me that the PLC could handle the "Scout spirit" requirements (and maybe also the "[b]e active in your troop" and "serve actively in your troop" Star, Life, and Eagle requirements, subject to the Guide to Advancement's requirements to have reasonable expectations in place on those issues).

Anyway, I appreciate all of the comments so far! Please keep them coming!

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 that?  Is it just a list of scouts that need scout spirit signed off?  An agenda item to be voted on?

#3  Troops should not put time-delay-like-hoops in front of the scout.  It should be as easy as the scout asking the SM to sign off on scout spirit.  Now if SM is not there, I can understand days or a week delay until the scout and SM are in the same place.  ...  Anything that causes a month plus delay (such as a non-PLC scout attending a PLC) is strongly against the spirit of advancement and the explicit rules  ... but you could have impromptu PLCs at each and ever troop meeting / activity / event.  ... Scout could walk up to SPL and ask SPL to sign.  SPL grabs a few PLs and has the discussion then and there.  Ideally, immediately signing off on scout spirit.

#4  Scout spirit exists as a catch all for the SM to address issues and as a discussion framework for the SM conference.  If the PLC signs off, then the SM can't block / delay / use that requirement as a focus point for discussion and improvement.   No testing completed requirements.  Essentially, the SM will lose their catch-all flexibility to address concerns.  ...   Example, scout has a requirement to have a SM conference; not to "pass" the conference.  Any discussion can be used.  And the discussion having happened is completing the requirement to have a SMC. 

#5  The 1954 reference is way, way out of date; 70 years out of date.  
       * Court of Honor is a award ceremony; not a test.  The correct term now is a Board of Review.  
       * Boards of review is different now.
                * an administrative review that the requirements are completed (not re-evaluating completed requirements)
                * a discussion about the scout's experience.  Goal is to get feedback for troop and encourage the scout; NOT judge the scout.
                * a celebration also.  Wow.  Look how far you got.  Nice work. Congratulations. 
                * not a pass/fail.  Though BORs can refuse (should be extremely rarely) to advance a scout, don't expect BSA support. 
                * In my 15 plus years, it only happened once or twice with hundreds of scouts.
                * PLC does NOT sit in BORs. 
 

10 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

My theory on the why of the tied requirements is that it’s designed to do what it demands —- encourage a troop or patrol to seek a variety of adventures, not just go out and plop at the same park or scout reservation every month.  And since it’s the scouts not the adults who should be planning their activities, they all have some incentive, beyond the obvious quest for adventure, to build consensus and get out and do enough of a variety that everyone can satisfy both the requirements and their own particular wanderlust.

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 approval before the event.  IMHO, the merit badge counselor would be primary as the MBC signs off on the requirement / expectations.  If I was the MBC, it would be the that the scouts make the plans and are the driving force in the event; that the activity was more scout-like and less vacation / resort like.  ... On the flip side, the scoutmaster can approve it as a "scouting activity".  It just gets muddied then as the scout confirmed with the scoutmaster, but the MBC might not accept the event as completing the requirement for some other reason.

#2  One final note ... BSA requirements are legalistic because everyone is always gaming the system, but our working with scouts is NOT to be legalistic.  We help the scouts.  We encourage, guide and inspire the scouts.  We do have lots of flexibility so that we can encourage, guide and inspire.  ...  In this case, the scoutmaster / MBC can wave their magic wand and say it's a designated scout activity.  ... In this case, it's a kind heart that would be talking with the scout to see if a different path exists to complete the requirements.  

5 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

... 30 nights camping per year ... cut Cubs to 3 years ...  focus on adventure ... stop trying to be the swiss army knife of youth organizations ... youth having many experiences ... We do outdoors good, that is the laboratory, stick with that.

Dead on right.  

16 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Trust me, even after hell freezes over the BSA and GSA will not merge. There are just too many differences from program structure to philosophical and frankly some 'resentment' built up over the years. It would make sense for a merger but just won't ever happen. 

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.  

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

...  During planning many years ago they asked if we had to attend the district camporee, we advised their choice, so we have not done that lately.  Mostly they found it (and I quote) lame.

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.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

Try to focus on activities and adventure.  Last year, 2023, we did Trip to beach and national seashore island, backpacking in mountain, wide game, putt putt tourney, lock-in, summer camp, trip to State Park and gorge and waterfalls, boating and tubing, kayaking, fishing weekend at mt lake, hiking and exploring mountains with AOL visit.  All requested and run by Scouts

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 out of it.

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.

16 hours ago, Maboot38 said:

Yes, I am 100% let him choose and he chose to create this text group. However, none of the other scouts like it or use it so I’m trying to give him more guidance and new ideas that he might be able to decide to implement.

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 scheduled patrol activities.  

IMHO, solve the communication by growing the patrol connections.

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?  

16 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Again, if you want to follow the rules.

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).

17 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

PLEASE POST COPIES OF LETTERS FROM THE BSA IV FILES DIRECTING ANYONE TO CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Or admit you are just an apologist for a failed program that damaged children.

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.

9 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Nor a single letter from National BSA or a council to anyone advising them to contact local law enforcement.

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 court transcript ... Volunteer pleaded guilty.  Judge interviewed man's wife who said he was a good man.  Judge had letters from man's company that said he was well employed and a good employee.  Judge recognized man was financially supporting his young kids and wife.  Based on good character testimony, the man was sentenced to probation and suspension of a ten year jail term.  He did have to pay a $180 dollar court cost fine.  ... That was the society at this time.  

55 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Can you post them or provide any documentation like @SiouxRangersuggested?

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 counts

1986-12-19 - Entered guity plea - Newspaper documentation

1991-02-25 - Teacher indicted 

1991-10-03 - Registration refused after documentation of previous abuse

1979-02-05 ... Documents parents decided to not pursue charge.  ... BSA records removing and blocking future registration   

The one that really reflects the attitude at the time. 

1989-02-08 ... Memo from county DA documents parents decided to not pursue charges as long as the scout leader resigns and enters counseling.   Perpetrator was interviewed in the county district attorney's offices.  Police special investigators involved and had evidence.  Person confessed he was guilty.  District attorney decided to not pursue charges.  

If I keep going thru more than the eight, I suspect a similar pattern will be shown.  

 

13 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Fail to raise the alarm, well, abuse.

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. 

14 hours ago, yknot said:

My aunt was the child psychologist involved with the court system and delivered expert testimony in the case.

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. 

10 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

PS Not sure which side has been beating the deans horse. You obviously choose to ignore any facts placed before you. 

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 looting of BSA.  

When people criticize BSA on CSA, I really don't think they are being intellectually honest.  

21 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Haven' read any indication of law enforcement notification of abuse incidents by local councils or NATIONAL BSA in National's Illegible Volunteer files I've read.

Please post all such records from National's Ineligible Volunteer files of which you are aware.

Thanks so much.

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

22 hours ago, yknot said:

In about half of states, teachers were mandatory reporters by the mid 1970s, so... no.

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.  

21 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

If they were transparent and addressed the issues openly as they occurred we would have known of issues and been much more on the lookout.

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.