fred8033

Really nice. This is very special.

I can share my personal view of the fraud. Hoping it's appropriate here. If not appropriate, please feel free to delete. Victims - Intentional fraud I don't believe intentional victim fraud is significant. This is absolutely not a get-rich-quick scheme. This is not like whiplash or claiming a work injured bad back. This is injecting yourself into an ugly past; with life-changing implications and the case will take years to work thru. This means interviews, follow-on and years of waiting for cash. Perhaps there is some small number wishing to associate with a large legal case or be famous for some reason or chase future dollars. ... I just don't see it as significant. Victims - Unintentional fraud or imperfect cases I don't believe this is a significant impact. I believe some facts may be influenced to better the case. I believe some incidents are outside SOLs or outside other limitations. I believe some incidents are less connected to scouting. An example being someone who had strong connection to the abuser outside scouting. I believe some victims have incomplete or vague memories. Memories of 7 to 14 years old are rarely clear 40/50 years late. I believe some victims may not know the scouting relationships involved or if they were even in scouts. Perhaps it was Indian Guides, squires, church youth group or another similar youth organization. Legal process Intentional fraud to preserve victim's rights (or to get largest number of claims). Absolutely. This is where I believe there has been fraud. Period. Fraud with signatures, unfulfilled expectations, process, deadlines, paperwork, representation, etc. It's an ethical justification of fraud to argue "preserving the rights" of the victim. Leave that to an ethics course. "Officer, I'm running late for my appointment". Whatever. It's still fraud. The deadlines were clear. The court expectations were clear. Not fraud is providing a list of pending paperwork to the court before the deadline and then submitting correct paperwork the next week. I'd be surprised if the court rejected those additions. Instead, court expectations were intentionally ignored. I do believe there is still case duplication across firms. I'm not sure if it is a large, but with what I've seen I'm begging firms will be arguing with the trust on who represents who. I just don't see victim fraud as significant. ... Legal fraud? ... well ...

@mashmaster ... I'm sorry. It's hard when so much is invested and is lost soon after. I've seen it on both ends (packs and troops). It's just one of many strong indicators that the BSA scouting program needs significant re-engineering.

I've heard good things, but I cringe when my fellow adult leader used his bripe. It's like a coffee hookah. I know it has nothing to do with it, but it teases a drug culture. It's just something I want to avoid on a scout trip. I want scouts to think I'm as basic as possible.

Thanks. I fear I'm watching this more than I ever watched any single sporting event. ... I'm still wondering how all the insurance will wash out. ... I know it's been explained to me before, but it feels like it's a pressure game and seeing who flinches first. Not looking for an answer, but I read documents like this one ... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/17379ed6-8eb0-454b-bf0a-ed5187df49c1_BSA_Coverage_Charts_consolidated.pdf ... and wonder ... why would some of the insurance companies ever settle? Insurance is stacked. Many of the policies provided "excess" insurance to pay damanges after a first portion is paid. There are thresholds. If the first source of insurance settles for less than the "excess" threshold, I just don't get why the later insurance would be triggered, ever. In the 1990s, I benefited (a payout) from a class action against BCBS (Blue Cross Blue Shield). BCBS negotiated invoice discounts on their portion of the bill, but did not pass the discount to the insured. The insured was paying based on the raw invoice. So if the insured per contract was to pay 20%, the reality was the insured was often paying a far higher percent because BCBS had their privately negotiated discount. ... That seems analogous here. ... I don't get how some of the tiered insurance companies will be liable to pay when the primary insurance settles for less than the amount that triggers the excess.

This a previously discussed insurer concern. Months ago? Year+? Insurers saying they are being thrown under the bankruptcy bus without the policy holder helping triage / defend the claims. Instead, the policies will be held by a trust who's interest is to get the most possible from the insurer. Question: Is this really different than other huge insurance claims. Bankruptcy is like the insured going out of business. Further liability is passed up to the insurance company? Once the insured maxed out how much to pay, the insured stops defending the claim.

Question ... Is there an in-between? Approaching it from a bling perspective and an excitement to learn, if a youth is excited to pursue something ... or if a troop has a special resource that can add excitement for the scouts ... a professional pilot ... a physics professor who can teach really well ... a special research labratory ... why can't BSA have a mechanism to provide the bling as recognition they did something. With that said, the NOVA and STEM seemed yet another path for parents to learn when they were already trying to navigate their kids thru cubs and scouts. Couldn't the NOVA / STEM just be MBs with a collection of MBs leading to a recognition?

Mostly based on the application. It requires a unit leader signature. That is the chance for the unit to indicate whether unit accepts the scout. A key point to remember is we are all volunteers. We don't get paid to do this. Now, I will agree that units chartered to public organizations (city, school, etc) can't discriminate on race, creed, color, etc. But, they can discriminate based on the scout not living in the geography they serve or a similar criteria. ... I'm not saying it's a good idea. I'm saying units are not forced to accept scouts.

We'll have to differ here. Swimming MB - Swimming is explicitly called out in the Life Saving MB requirements. That's a BSA expectation, not your troop. Family Life / Personal Mgmt - I wholly disagree that Family Life and Personal Management are more meaningful at 16-17. In fact, I'd argue these could easily be viewed as much better to earn earlier. For example, Family Life #3 list your family duties / chores and do them for 90 days. I'm pretty sure most mothers would rather their sons start this requirement at 12 years old than at 17 right before they leave for college. Same for every family life requirement. Those are better to learn earlier to contribute and participate in the family better. ... I think same can be argued for personal mgmt. ... The only big difference is 50% of scouts have a job at 16/17 and thus have money to manage. ... BUT, I'd rather see them know in advance to think about saving and budging versus be about to age out. I respect your position. It's common and reasoned. My view is mainly coming from a tangent. I want unit to encourage advancement, but stop overly influencing the scout's journey. It's their journey; not the adults.

Nice to see it written there. Nicely worded too. I'd argue that it's not just limited to religious COs. Organizations that become COs can be selective in their membership. I'm not sure COs even need a clean policy though it definitely helps. For example, a Mayberry Citizens League CO could refuse a youth living in Mount Airy. ... I've not seen it happen, but I could.

My opinion is always "WHEN" is in the scout's control. Even suggesting "when" risks adults planning the scout's advancement too much. I even more fear troops that try to plan out the badge. As for MBC preparing thinking about when to do the badge, your comments could apply to most badges. A meal or camp fire setting is great for many badges. Great memories sitting against a tree talking about citizen of the nation. District / council level event is fine if the MBC is strong and can "MC" it. My least favorite is conference room / seminar setting as scouting should not look or smell like school. As alluded earlier, this is just another badge. Same methods to make other badges meaningful apply here ... with the exception that the MBC needs to tap dance around political issues and listen far more than speak or teach.

I have not, but I've listened to a feedback by a counselor. His feedback was it needs the right MBC and the badge can go south really quick. His experience was concurrently counseling multiple scouts. He was careful to not present his views, but other scouts felt very comfortable giving their own. He was less a MBC and more a mediator keeping the peace between scouts. It's why I'll never MBC this badge. I just could not help but to inject my thoughts (liberal or conservative). It's the whole purpose of being a MBC; to inject your skill and life experiences.

No. The clause protects the religious freedom of a scout already a unit member. It does not say COs need to take on scouts of other faiths. "In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denominations or faiths be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church." I'm actually more on the side that I find scouting best with mixed faiths and not tightly tied to a CO faith; aka the troop as a community service of the CO. But, if we ask the CO to sponsor and expose the CO to legal liabilities, then we should recognize the CO having the option to make the unit a true ministry of their organization. ... again ... the CO relationship needs complete redesign.

Where does it say a unit has to accept a scout? From everything I've read ... though rare ... units can limit youth membership to their own faith or charter organization (even a secular CO).

@GrammaScout @jcousino ... From what I'm reading you are both correctly answering the same thing but from different perspectives. Most COs don't inject to make it a true CO youth ministry, but the CO does have the right. Should COs inject themselves more? That's the big debate. It's also why the CO concept needs fundamental redesign.

Fair point. I've seen limited co-ed. I was hoping it improved as co-ed has improved many businesses.

Will do.

Good plan to do before you know about pending legal liabilities. Questionable at best once those liabilities are imminent.

Perhaps the council needs to do the bankruptcy route now to protect assets. It's a poor business plan to structure with massive debt or damage / sell key assets that make the business valuable.

Understood. I'm curious to see how this flushes out over time. These situations are legally extremely complex.

Disclosure ... I'm Catholic and love my church. The organization is far from perfect, but it's my family. Is this weird? ... Catholic groups getting protection seems like a questionable action. So then from a victim side, will I lose the right to sue if abuse was not via scouts but I once attended a scout meeting? Or will the "CO" be protected against abuse suits even if I was not a scout? ... Flip side ... will Catholic organizations be still liable as abuse can be shown mostly not from scouting, but only slightly from scouting? From what I've seen, many cases are not a clean light switch of in-scouting or out-of-scouting abuse. Many COs were schools and churches and other that had other connections to the youth. I'm wondering if some victims will be blocked that should not be or if Catholic organizations will not receive protection as intended because protection can be gone around.

Lenders don't sign contracts with the intent of fraud. Even then, I'm not sure it is fraud if the council meets their settlement agreement. For the loan, more likely the council can show consistent fundraising capabilities and a measurable revenue stream thru service fees (camps, etc). The 40% to 60% membership loss can be defended thru COVID analysis and controversys. Though I agree the loan is probably via someone who has confidence in scouting, I really, really doubt the loan is done with the intent to write off the loss. Plus, the council probably properties that can be used to underwrite the loan. As for the $4.5 loan amount... and it is interesting number ... if you look up the acreage value for Monroe county, PA, undeveloped land can be from $4000 per acre to $10000 per acre. 900 acres at $5000 per acre is $4.5 million. So, there might be every effort by scouters to preserve the land. If the settlement dollars are provided, there is nothing wrong with the council looking to keep going based on loans and future donations, etc. Scouting has a lot of good will and done great things. I wish this council the best.

We really don't need more ugly hatred during such sad times. This is very very hard for so so many that gave so so much.

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.