fred8033

That sounds correct. Controversies have been the biggest hit. After that, I would say program perception by youth. ... excluding losing the Mormon church. But I include that under the controversies and not under COs. Controversies have plagued BSA for 30+ years. BSA v Dale started in 1992 and concluded in 2000 by US Supreme Court. It's a good example of how society has changed and how it impacted BSA. In 1980, BSA vs Dale debate would have been an obvious not in scouting. Now, it's an absolutely accepted normal in society and in BSA. BSA took a huge hit. Whether you think BSA was right or wrong, when the case started BSA was aligned with the vast majority of Americans. By the end of the case, BSA was in the news weekly / monthly ... as out of step ... as morally wrong ... as forcing their personal beliefs on society ... probably for a decade plus of news articles. All for something that was not directly relevant for day-to-day scouting or taught one way or another in the program. The case got us kicked out of school recruiting and alienated lots of people. Lots of other related results. Such as losing LDS as a CO. Next biggest was further membership issue was youth perceptions of the program. Geekly. Not fun. etc. Same old debate. I really don't see COs or volunteering as big impacts plus or minus on membership numbers. Absolutely needed for membership and to drive the program, but the ebbs and wanes of COs and volunteers don't massively affect the youth recruitment. ... well ... except losing the Mormon church.

LOL ... brings back good memories. Our troops elections were always chaotic. It often drove some adults crazy. They'd want forms and processes of submitting your name in advance weeks in advance. Ours was our SPL asking who wants to run for a position. The SPL would ask why do you want to be the new SPL. Each would get their turn to speak. Then scouts would write on whatever paper they have who they wanted. ... It looked chaotic, but it was fun. ... and it was less work for the adults.

I agree. There has always been a mismatch between perceptions and what works; a mismatch in many directions. It's important to also remember that scouting has always a very structured program. I'm very much of the school that scouts often learn the most in scouting during their free time or the less-structured program time. Scouts loses it's value when it looks or smells like a classroom. Perhaps, much of this is in the eye of the beholder. I don't mind structure and program. IMHO, it gets over the top when it's all-about working a legalistic checklist of requirements. At some point, it moves from fun to nausea.

Repeating previous discussion in other threads .... Your concerns are valid. My view is from the aspect of cost. Staff. Building. Utilities. Technical support. The smallest council needs at least 5 staffers. The largest probably need 50+. Even with 5 staffers that earn an average of $60k a year, the cost would be at least $500k a year to run the council; conservatively. Probably way more approaching $1m. Then, spread that cost over the scouts. $500k spread over 2000 scouts is $250 each. 5000 scouts is $100 each. 15000 scouts is $33. Somewhere in there is the magic number balancing cost and the number of scouts.

Speaking from the 10,000 foot view ... council mergers were needed for a long time, but even 80 sounds high. While California should be at least two councils ... or more, other states might be less than one. I was thinking around 50 was approximately right.

I doubt it puts the argument to rest. ... but we've been thru that discussion repeatedly and the discussion only gets ugly. ... but then again, this agreement case is so complex I'd prefer a BSA only bankruptcy.

... Assuming future pensions. Past and current pensions are an owed debt.

... not to interrupt ... I find it hard to believe. Almost everyone as needed (especially including lawyers) will be taking screen shots or recording as needed. It's the best way to take notes or to fix incorrect notes. Now, I would bet strongly that few to zero would ever publish them publicly in contempt of court orders. Few would even keep them in their official records.

That is my perception too. Co-ed reduces boorish, uncouth behavior.

Where did BSA say BSA only bankruptcy is not viable? ... actually interested ... I'd like to read BSA's position. ... yeah, I'm not a lawyer. I just enjoy reading this stuff.

I agree it flies in the face of the program; the brotherhood of scouting; the fellowship of scouting. It's against the vision. My challenge is G2SS is not a cafeteria plan anymore than YP is a cafeteria plan. You can't pick what you like and don't like. If you ignore the no camping with units from other COs, what else do you ignore? What liabilities do you open? Do you ignore two deep because you don't have abusers in your troop? ... Work to find a solution or a currently used method. I would hesitate to escalate too far or too loud, but I would pursue to the level of an honest answer. A scout is trustworthy. With that said, an all Lutheran scouting event does smell / sound like a council / district event. You need to work with council leadership to get it cleared. I can't believe the council would say no unless there are other issues going on (people, conflict, turf, etc)

One troop runs a campout and invites scouts. Other troop attends but as individual scouts under the other troop. No different than what is often done now. Just instead of one, two or three scouts. It's 8, 12, 15.

IMHO, it's a lawyer / legal liability issue. It came out of the same generation as other G2SS changes and YP improvements and insurance changes, etc. If you have multiple units from different COs camping together, there is no clear single answerable CO being responsible / owning the event. So then, it's automatically a council event. Seriously, if three groups camp together, how does CO #1 know that CO #2 has vetted their leaders and being responsible. It creates a legal mess. Who is making sure each piece-part fulfills G2SS ?

What you wrote is what to tell your DE. Your unit is too small and "event"ing together will help build the troop. With COVID becoming the norm, I can't see them saying no. If anything, I can see them saying ... you have standing permission to work together unless you hear different.

Guide to Safe Scouting, page 21. ... III Camping ... 2nd major bullet https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/ With that said, there are "grey areas" and a "continuum of progressively" camping together. Send the district DE an email saying: Our troop #1 and troop #2 will be camping at ****** and may plan to interact / work together during the camp out. Let us know if this is an issue. I'll assume all is okay unless I hear back. If you use a council property, I'm not sure I'd even ask as camping at a council camp is inherently camping with other troops. The council camps expect your scouts to interact with the scouts of other troops. High adventures ... troops often partner with other troops to fill slots ... I've never seen permission asked if that was okay. Grey areas Shared camp site or each troop reserves it's own? Shared food and resources or each troop on it's own? ... Middle ... troop #1 cooks breakfast and troop #2 cooks dinner Shared schedule / activity plan or each troop has it's own with overlap? ... Middle ... a one or two scheduled / coordinated activities ... a hike ... a game Offered to individual scouts instead of the whole troop ... Troops often bring scouts from other troops and/or potential scouts with on adventure trips / campouts. I've never seen permission requested from the local council. I've never seen the council broadcast that units are failing to do this and it's expected. Continuum of progression One end ... same place same date, but independently setup/scheduled... each troop reserves it's own site ... prepares / plans on it's own ... arrives and leaves on it's own ... pays it's own bills Other end ... looks and smells like a district event ... advertising ... Single plan/schedule/reservation ... One troop pays another troop

A good example ... sleeping bags. If this was 1920s scouting, few would have sleeping bags. You'd use a wool blanket ... or what you had around the house. A sleeping bag is really a zipped bed comforter. ... And lately when camping, I do sort of use my excess equipment to make a real bed with a fitted sheet around my air mattress. Sometimes I use my sleeping bag more as a comforter. ... but then again I'm getting older and like extra ground padding.

Ahhh ... I think I get it now. This is about moving rights to sue from the victim to the trust. If the case is well proven in an open state, the victim can give their legal rights to sue to the trust and the trust then pays the victim. The trust then goes after the non-settled insurers.

Look at page ii. First three bills had zero withheld. Forth bill was a transition and had 20% withheld. All subsequent bills averaged twice the original average. Withholding payment actually increased the bills. This is what I'd expect. ... What? You're withholding part of my invoice? Fine. I'll increase my hourly rate and/or bill more hours.

Me too ... need explanation ... Is the victim really giving up rights to sue those not in the settlement? It almost sounds like a poison pill to further action against non-settlers. Pay $20k. Lose first $1m of award. Settlement Trust empowered to demand/collect from non-settlers? So if jury awards $2m ... and assuming victim has their own lawyer (30% - 40% cut) helping fund the $20k needed ... and victim only gets that awarded above $1m ... then the victim ends up with how much ? Is it possible the victim would only get a small fraction of the award? IR smells like a big negative reworded to be a feature. I also just want an interpretation of the document title. "... THIRD MODIFIED FIFTH AMENDED PLAN" ... so is it the 5th amended of the 3rd modified ... or the 3rd modified of the 5th amended of the ???

Perhaps this should be spun into another thread. ... or perhaps it shouldn't be debated in the forum. @DJ72 ... Thank you for the post. Most of the numbers look reasonable. 94% were based on one-on-one contact. Makes sense as abuse needs privacy to happen. I question how it would not be nearly 100%. 82% were abused by a scout leader. Makes sense as abuse would not be tied to scouting if not done by a leader. 35.0% report that somebody else knew ... I'm sad as I can believe this number because there is knowing and there is suspecting and there is knowing there is possible abuse. ... In the past, a main failure mechanism that enabled abuse was the hesitation to accuse someone with a good reputation ... and accuse them of an inconceivable evil act. ... That hesitation was a main failure mechanism. .. The 35% makes sense because I could see the past where people were hesitant to report something they did not fully know or understand... and something that for most people is inconceivable. ... I pray people recognize now that they need to raise questions when they see G2SS violations and possible crimes. I have questions. 94% were based on one-on-one contact with children, then points out that this is inspite of prohibition on one-on-one contact. ... BSA did not always have the G2SS (Guide To Safe Scouting) requirements for no one-on-one contact. I think it was added sometime before I started. not sure when. late 1990s ?? ... I'd expect old scouters would be hard to change their ways. ... QUESTION - Has there been a statisical shift seen after G2SS explicitly said no one-on-one contact? Or is it too soon as it's only been in the last 25 years. 63.9% stayed in abusers stayed in scouting after scouting was informed. ... I read the footnote and it acknowledges a small sampling population and questionable methodology. ... Fine ... I only have knowledge via IVF where those scouters were removed. My gut feeling is that this number is wildly off. Perhaps, I'm just hoping. I don't know. From what I've seen, those who abuse are gone from scouting. Those who did not abuse but mishandled or weakly handled the abuse cases may still still be in scouting, but they were not the abusers. ... QUESTION ... Does this 63.9% sound right? ... 63.9% were still in scouting after scouting was informed? ... That does not match my understanding. But then again, I have not seen these exact cases. I have seen scouters removed and both the leader and their troop were notified that the person was not welcome anymore. But different circumstances.

Well understood. I'm just not read-up on mass torts where the lawyers are paid up front by the defendant before the award. I'm sure it happens as bankruptcy is used to address unresolved liabilities. ... It just feels weird ... or a great business to be in.

What is definition of "future victims"? With bankruptcy as a point of time... Is FCR for victims of future crimes? I'm assuming no because their damages would be paid for the future company (aka the new BSA) and future insurance ... or what replaces them. Is FCR for victims of past crimes that submit claims after the bankruptcy deadline? Complexity in mix of bankruptcy debt settlement versus class action like handling. Say the generic "Erin Brockovich" idea or the Mesothelioma idea. The award is made. Some victims are up front and others identified and supported later thru the trust. The representation didn't really start getting paid until award was made. With this, millions are paid to legal representation in-advance for work toward a damages settlement before victims get an award. This is a dark grey area of work that advances the settlement. I fear many of those victims would still want representation to submit their request to the trust. So then, fees are pulled by current FCR representation and contingent award fees pulled by a future representation. I'd really like to know if work (aka cost) is being worked on an hourly basis that really should be part of earning a contingent fee. Feels like a real mess that enables billing and fees without a balanced consideration for the victim.

Who are the "future claimants"? This is a bankruptcy proceeding and a CSA settlement. Is it businesses owed money that have not yet submitted a claim? Or is it CSA victims that have yet to submit? I understand work must be done, but this smells strange. It would be interesting to know if there is any crossover / connection between firms billing now and firms that also represent victims on a contingent basis.

Government can purchase land for many reasons. Happens all the time. Parks. Preserves. Some of the scout camps are well located to become future parks. It may be a very good opportunity to improve public lands. The only legal risk I see (not a lawyer) is if the sale is significantly below the appraised value ... even then an appraisal does not equal cash.

... same guys that came in to sell the solid gold class rings ...