fred8033

@MattR ... Your words are thoughtful and well written. My two comments. #1 Teasing ... Even teasing is a gray issue. Grey for those on the other side of the pond. ... Teasing can be fun, but can easily and very quickly turn into bad behavior too. Personally for me, this is my weakness. I have been consciously trying to minimize my teasing of others. Instead, I'm trying to focus on authentic, open discussion. #2 "if not done right" ... It's not about correctly or not correctly using such a scenario (smoke shifter, bacon stretcher, snipe hunts, etc). It's in the eyes of the receiver to decide. Some will handle it well. Some will not. ... I will agree that some people can more easily get away with it with little or no harm. When I was younger, they'd be called a Teflon person as nothing sticks to them. ... But it really doesn't matter. The simple fact is we don't use bad behavior as a teaching mechanism. And, we don't haze either.

This is an old argument. My apologies for raising it again, but I see the discussion and it's hard to not remind everyone that others have different opinions. Coddling? No. That's pretending to have an excuse for boorish bad behavior. I'm saying it's setting a bad example. We should not be teaching that it's okay to treat others badly; aka being a jerk. ... This specific situation is called hazing and against the rules.

One person's fun is another's misery. ... my apologies if I'm being blunt ... We don't need to be jerks to develop leadership.

Better give up everything from every institution you ever valued and every person you ever respected. Not much from the past withstands the scrutiny of the present. Ya know doctors used leeches and blood letting and celebrated healing when they say laudable pus (aka an infection). Choose almost any profession ... almost any institution ... and almost any individual and you can justify outrage. The past isn't perfect. It's just the past and how we got to where we are.

Yep. Brave is a great term for it. When I was young, it was having backbone or man-up or have a set of ####s. We had heros who taught us lessons about having to stand up for what is right and against what is wrong. Another more acceptable term, moral fiber. Or you could use the words "defend and protect" or "support and defend". ... or ... ... ... ... ... upstander, meh.

It seems "employee" is bring thrown about a bit too loosely. BSA may be responsible for it's volunteers, but ASMs are not employees. ASMs are worse off than unpaid volunteers. In fact, ASMs PAY to be members and volunteer. ASMs PAY to purchase training materials. ASMs PAY to get their uniform. ASMs PAY to camp. ASMs PAY to use BSA property. In reality, very little of BSA's treatment of volunteers looks like employees. It seems extremely shallow to summarize ASMs as employees. In fact, BSA looks more like a vender selling a product to the ASM voluinteers (and all scouting volunteers). Anyone ever used an employment checklist test to see if they are employees? I used to take one as a contractor at times. Or how about a volunteer test checklist. I'm not sure ASMs would even qualify as volunteers given the level of products bought from BSA. Laws have changed. This is not an area that has been clealy and consistently defined over time. Volunteer responsibility law has been evolving.

Training was generally fine. A few problems ... #1 "Everyone's opinions are valid". ... No. I value the person and make the effort to hear what they say. "Actively listen" without pre-judging. I'll bend over backwards to find truth and value in their statements. But we are still in a pandemic where people are upset because they claim their facts and asssert the other side was not using facts. ... My point is everyone's opinions are not valid. Everyone is to be valued and heard, but that does not mean all opinions are valid. #2 Weren't we already doing this stuff? Did I miss something? I'm confused. #3 Course is trying to address a hot button, current affairs issue, but the course removed the meat to make it acceptable to everyone. Simple fact is I'm still extremely upset from last summer with people calling police bastards. ... Just one example ... Bridges have been burnt. I can't see teaching / discussing DE&I without discussing 2020 and that means discussing what I believe happened. I can't see being a resource to talk about DE&I because of racial issues. As a middle aged white male I am a target that people will jump on and quickly label without knowing who I am or actively listening to me. So, if this is just about how to be a better more authentic leader, fine. If this is about teaching DE&I, then ... ummm ... we have a problem still. #4 Upstander seems like a pet-rock term. Meh. I thought we already had terms for that but perhaps the terms became too unpopular. #5 Feels like training just grabbed some good leadership stuff and has called it DE&I. Below are my notes from the training ... First sentence on the header for the training. "Diversity, equity, and inclusion work only if everyone is invited to participate and feels accepted for their uniqueness." ... Seems like a fairly innocous statement. So, everyone is invited to participate. ... Atheists and agnostics? ... begins to raise hair ... drug users? Those that drop the F bomb every fourth word? Those that learn how to socialize from South Park and Celebrity Death Match? ... Those that burn the flag? ... SWorse yet, those that pay $5+ for something that pretends to be coffee? ... I can quickly devolve this point, but "ONLY IF EVERYONE IS INVITED" and "ACCEPTED FOR THEIR UNIQUENESS" is a loaded statement. ... People do say scouting teaches values. ... Perhaps, we should just say scouting teaches canoeing and camping be done with it. Introduction ... Mosby ... Nice statement. I can accept that. Scouting has a problem recruiting from a wide pool of youth. Problems with groups by income or nationality or ethnic background. Introduction ... Chief Diversity Officer ... The role has always scared me a bit, but fine. Nice statement. Introduction ... Comittee on diversity. ... Nice introduction. I'm getting a bit scared about that will be pushed (definition of terms, etc), but okay. I'll do the training. Foundations ... Objectives ... upstander? ... Meh ... Foundations ... Defining identities ... okay Foundations ... Defining diversity ... okay ... BUT ... Units are comprised of many identities ... Yeah, I don't see that happening until the community containing the scout unit is diverse. Units reflect the community. ... In addition, scouting has a branding problem with different communities. Until it's successfully marketed, it's hard to recruit evenly. Until scouting is affordable, it's hard to be diverse. In may ways, scouting is now a rich suburb family activity. Foundations ... Defining diversity ... "everyone feels welcome in your unit" ... SO, units can't select their membership based on the charter org values? Is the DE&I superceding CO ownership of the unit? So, CO's can't represent what they value by selecting the leaders that represent the CO values? I can see bending over to accept people of all race, ethnic, income, disability, etc. BUT, I'd have a hard time accepting a leader that contradicts the values / wishes of the CO. Foundations ... diversity wheel. ... meh ... Foundations ... Defining equity ... examples ... We have that ingrained now. We bend over backwards to include. Examples of wheel chairs and money. Been there / done that. Foundations ... Defining inclusion ... "concerted efforts to bring" ... Okay. I can accept that within boundaries of not offending the CO. ... So, how much effort? ... I relate to helping children with special needs. We bend over backwards to help, but volunteer units can't provide the same level of support that a school with paid professionals can marshal day in and day out. We have done "concerted efforts" repeatedly, but we have limits of volunteer energy. Foundations ... "Authenticity" .... You hit my weak spot. I love that term as a tool to teach leadership. Foundations ... "Authenticity" ... Questions ... RED FLAG !!!! ... The questions raise red flags. The questions are meaningful and correct, but then need the skilled leadership using authenticity to create an effective program. ... This is a volunteer program ya know. Example: Page asks "are all leaders appropriately involved in decision making?" I'm not sure what that means. I've seen it happen in units where so many different voices were speaking that committee meetings took four hours and everyone was mad and it tore the unit appart. Scouters are passionate and often conflict. Sometimes the SM or CC needs to help chart a consistent path. Sometimes that strong lead can help create a good program. Foundations ... Dance party example is useful. Scouting values embrace ... Check your understanding ... Pretty basic. Not really special to DE&I Embracing Diversity in Scouting ... Active listening is part of DE&I? Embracing Diversity in Scouting ... "Treating others in the way they would like to be treated" ... Ya know, there was this guy in Hollywood that ran a restaurant in the 1930s who thought he was a Russian prince. ... Personally, I'd like to have my kids salute me each day and stand up when I enter the room. ... The quote begins to lose me. ... but within reason, it's an okay statement. Embracing Diversity in Scouting ... Love the Gandhi quote. Gandhi has been one of my heros for 40+ years. BUT, he's not perfect either. ... time for another discussion. ... Not sure Gandhi meant the same thing with diversity, but I can accept the use of the quote. Understanding equity ... Fine. not sure what the argument is. Creating a culture of Inclusion ... Fine Building the BSA of tomorrow ... What the ####? ... Well produced video. Very good message. But from a different course? ... A bit obvious message, but good. The issue I have is we just had all the earlier sections talk about what I'd call is basic good leadership and being a good person and authenticity as leadership. Now, the video is about blatant color of skin bigotry with explict presentations of effectively white supremist bigotry. It's a baiting video. It's like the video is from a different course. ... Worse ... though the mesage of the video is fine ... it's like the video is the direct output of the summer of 2020. The course earlier had examples of people in wheelchairs ... people who could not afford scouting ... language ... beliefs ... culture ... etc. The video is only about the color of skin. Earlier in the course, the examples were examples that any long-term experienced scouter has seen. Now, the video seems to be presenting a case that we all hope to never see. I'm saying ... either all the meat has been removed from earlier in the course or the video seems to be addressing a different course. Ummm ... what about the unconscious bias so prevelent in today's popular bigotry. That being that middle aged white men are poor examples and it's okay to silence and shame them. Building the BSA of tomorrow ... Upstander ... Feels like a pretend word, but the guts of it I can see directly in the type of actions I'd expect from my child hood heros of John Wayne, Jimmy Steward and Chuck Norris. Building th BSA of tomorrow ... quote Elie Wiesel " silence of the bystander" ... Great quote. I won't use the term upstander. The term sucks. But, it's about being a person of backbone for standing up for what is right and speaking out about what is wrong. ... Ya know, I really thought that was what we were supposed to be teaching from the beginning. I'm slightly confused as this training seems to be pointing out basics that perhaps BSA did not include earlier. ... In a way ... I cringe at this being called DE&I as it's fundamental leadership. DE&I introduces too much current day political crap and controversy. "being curious and asking authentic" ... Just listened to NPR in last few days where the speaker was saying it's impolite to ask questions about nationality, origin, etc. Another friend shared a cartoon of a spoons and forks and the message was implying it's wrong to ask basic questions about orientation. ... ... I'm not sure those educated really agree on what can be discussed and what can't be discussed.

@ThenNow ... I'm not sure whether to ask these questions as it is part of a very painful experience for you and because it continues to haunt your life. Please accept my apologies for asking. In #4, the "they" is law enforcement right? Here is what I'm uncomfortable asking. ... Obviously, the chain of events is ugly and painful. My apologies, but I want to ask. It sounds like either the parents or the SE or someone in the chain of events called the police. That is what we want to happen. That's the right thing to do. Question ... If the police had the case and things were being reported and credible, etc, was the abuser charged with a crime? It sounds like he wasn't. Why? Question ... Once the police were notified, what additional actions should be expected from the SE? The abuser was removed and attempts were made to document his case in the ineligble volunteer files. It sounds like significant effort was made to record that the abuser should not be allowed into scouting again. My apologies. I am seriously asking. From the outside, this case seems to be handled reasonably well. BUT, it's also being used as an example of a case handled poorly. Considering the year and the standards at the time, it seems like the right actions happened. Today, I would question what happened as the first adult should have called the police. Any delay notifying police these days raises the question of trying to hide or obfiscate the abuse. The first scouter hearing about this should have called police first. This should have quickly left the scouting hands and gone to complete police control. BUT, that's today's standard. For 1973, this case seems to be handled reasonably well. That is why I'm asking. I know you have stated the exact reasons. I'm having trouble connected the dots. So, I'm seriously asking for clarification. Please accept my gratitude for your detailed writing of what happened. I appreciate that.

Grooming occurs. I fully believe that. There are predators preparing victims. I'm less comfortable with the statement trying to tell the difference between abusers and the healthy. Or the "truly kind". "I believe" (and I'm not an expert) that there is a justification process going on in the head of the abuser and an evolving process in the head of the abuser that helps the abuser live with their own evil acts. ... "I believe" the abuser must also go thru some type of natural evolution from helping and developing a connection with those they help to then change the relationship into an abuser / victim relationship. Though there are evil individuals that consciously hunt for victims, it must be more complex than that. Borderline personalities. Justification. "Oh I'm really helping and that's why I'm here" and then "I can't believe I did that". I just think it's unproductive to think of this simplisitically as an evil predator on the hunt. I'm sure that happens, but I'm betting it's far more complex with many mixed situations. We have the YPT rules not just because we can't identify abusers, but YPT rules exist to remove opportunity that attracts or creates abusers. ANALOGY: Drugs. Please forgive this analogy. It may fall far short. ... Addicts hunt, steal, commit crimes, etc to get their fix. BUT, there are also those that may not be addicts but given the opportunity they may take the drugs or make mistakes. Some might become addicts. Others will take the drugs over a period of time. Some may justify the drug as not bad or okay given all the good they do. ... YPT is like the approach on drugs. We try to remove the opportunity. I just think it's unhealthy to overly focus a discussion the "truly good" versus the abusers. ... I just don't think it's that simple. Grooming happens, but I'm not sure "intent" is that clean or if the abusers even knows in advance what their intent really is.

MB program screams for change. Personally, I would love seeing the Citz MBs merged into Civics. Now the big challenge is keeping the politics out of the changes. Anything hinting at picking a side or leaning one direction or another will blow up. 100% guarantee it.

Venue shopping though isn't just an issue for big companies. Even in these threads, we've heard lots of discussions for victims to justify pulling in their claims. Example I've seen is the CO and scout who are in SOL blocked states, but their once a year camp was located in an open state. Should victims be required to file where the majority of the relationship was? Or where they live? or where the majority of the incidents were? I don't like venue shopping either, but selective focus is wrong too. I'd like to see a consistent approach across all levels.

Evolve them beyond a brand new provisional patrol. Do activities to get them to know each other and to connect. Games. Activities. Work. Discussions. Anything. The more the better. Get them socializing together. Get them comfortable interacting together.

Are they safer without camp? After-the-fact individual case-by-case basis, yes. If you know in advance that a specific person will be abused, they are better off at home and not at camp. If you look at total numbers? Would the total number be less? I'm not sure. Most common abuser is a direct relative. After that, the abuser usually knows the victim in some context (neighbor, co-worker, coach, teacher, etc). In addition, other dangers exist as youth look for ways to spend their time. I'm aware of too many youth our city has buried because they made fatal mistakes in their spare time. Related, camp teaches youth about their own mortality. Survive a big thunderstorm. Bang your head on a tree. etc, etc. It seems experienced scouts, tend to push the limits less. (but that could be my biased view) I just don't accept the argument that youth would be safer without camp.

It sounds right. Now old arguments. I'm sure some victims will get some funds, but I cringe at the the damage and the cost and the ugliness and the injustice in the whole process. I see the web sites of the advocates proclaiming their aggressive history and it's often listing those who have deep pockets. It smells. Side comment ... I'm not sure I'd want my lawyers propagandizing on twitter. We just got done with the mad twitter. Haven't we learned anything? ... What was that political guys name? I can't remember.

System didn't work if it keeps happening? You expect perfection in life? No crime? No evil? ... The system was not about eliminating all evil / crime ever. ... That is an impossibility that would not even be achieved by shutting down scouting as I'm not sure youth would be safer at home or safer in other activities that would fill the scouting vacuum. .... The YP system was to strongly discourage by making it very difficult and then to property handle when it happened while still allowing the scouting program continue. meaningless and irrelevant in the face of the visceral emotional response. ... You can't defend against a visceral emotional response. You can only focus on being kind, considerate and as graceful as possible ... I remember a graduate course in handling such incidents. A strong memory of a press conference video where a CEO was barraged for a failed oil storage tank that polluted the local water supply. The guy stood up there and took a beating. I remember one reporter pointing out that no one in the city could shower and wondered if the CEO was going to go home and take a shower. The CEO's job was to stand up there and take the beating of the emotional response.

Yes. The irony, symbolism and explicit imagery is bad. Then again, the internet is filled with bad imagery from almost every type of profession, country, etc. ... The system worked. It got reported. The guy is in jail. That is what was supposed to happen. Sometimes doing right is hard when the image looks bad. The image is bad marketing. The actual bad is working to hide the imagery. Also Yes. BSA's YP is good, but evil and crimes still happens. It's how we discourage crimes and how handle incidents after they happen. Background checks. Training for awareness. Explicit practices (no one-on-one contact, etc). Mandatory reporting. Sadly funny story ... When my first son was wolf, we attended a weekend cub camp. ... Staff took cubs into the field for games. Camp ranger gave orientation to the dads / moms. Camp ranger joked that he'd prefer if all the dads minimize late night trips out of the camp, but if we needed to leave don't wear anything saying scouts at the near by bars / adult businesses. ... Apparently it happened more than once and he didn't like the imagery.

If the correct thing is to shut down, then public swimming pools and youth locker rooms are in question too. Shopping center fitting rooms and public bathrooms should close too. Evil exists. It's how we react to it that is important. It went to police. Charges pending. Not hidden, etc. I'm just not sure creating more fear is right either.

Hard to comment without violating the guidance to avoid commenting on lawyers, their motivations and their ethics. Perhaps the best path is to fail bankruptcy. Period. Pay the existing personal injury awards that have been blocked by bankruptcy. Then, partner with insurance companies in court on a case by case basis. Each of these cases could have their day court. Liquidation is not an answer either. Too many huge questions. Are LCs legally separate? Restricted assets? Pensions / benefits / PBGC / etc. I really question whether liquidation would ever result in more funds to the end victims. I'm not even sure if it would be more or less costly to administer. My only real desire is to see Philmont and The Summit become something like national parks preserved and dedicated for the youth of this country to challenge themselves with adventure and wilderness. ... Imagine Yellowstone trying to host even a fraction of the 10 person crews hosted by Philmont? Bigger events like at The Summit? ... I'm not sure I care if it's via BSA or a special new national park category. I just hope they get preserved for the youth to do youth oriented adventures. Sea Base (my favorite) and Northern Tier are special, but similar adventure opportunities exist with private parties on the ocean, the golf and the BWCA. It's just that Philmont (west) and The Summit (east) have very special roles being able to target adventure for higher numbers of youth. Perhaps every state should have a national park dedicated for youth to experience outdoor adventure.

Years.

I'm not sure of legalistics. I'm just suspecting that some will change to "Parents Of" instead of establishing "Facility Use" agreements and a council charter.

Yep. BSA is highly motivated. BSA's good in bankruptcy is moving on ASAP.

Great summary statement. So fundamental. I swear this smells very much like a person I knew from years ago. His profit was tied to delays and difficulty. A certain percent of companies gave up chasing small amounts they had a right to just because of delays or cost chasing the funds. It was tens of thousands at a time. It was unethical to me, but it was just business to him. It smells like this case. Way too many open questions, but rushing to a settlement that might not be legal. It feels like people want to get funds distributed even though it might later be found not legal or conveying protection. BUT then try to get those funds back to pay the correct rightful order of debtors. It feels like it would quickly be too late to pull funds back as the funds would be covering costs to execute the legal case. It smells like a quick push to accept a settlement because there are long questions whether it's legal that could take a much longer time. People want to pull some funds out.

... OR ... we end up having many "Parents Of" COs.

Absolutely agree. Fixing the agreements will have little to no impact on the the units. This is about correcting misleading agreements. Words matter. Written agreements matter. For most charters, no one expected the words to be 100% followed thru. Not the unit leaders. Not the council. Not the charter org. Parents were oblivious to the words. ... The old charter agreement was more about soliciting discussion and making everyone feel good. Now in hind sight, these words are being used to infer more responsibility than ever existed. Words matter. It's time to make the charter org agreements reflect reality. Perhaps, we should not have a choice between charter org agreement and facility use. Rather it should be a selected list of needs with check-boxes on who will fulfill the role. [council] [charter] * Select unit leadership. [council] [charter] * Oversee training requirements. Encourage unit leaders to be trained. [charter] * Provide storage space for unit materials [charter] * Provide space for meetings [council] [charter] * Review unit program planning (camping, activities, etc) Each agreement could be personalized to the charter. It would also be clear who is expected to do what.

Thank you for the extremely helpful summaries. I've always wondered about these issues. Insurance prejudicial. No significant relief. Duplicative services. Conflicts of interest. Are we getting to where LCs will need to find a path to continue scouting for years or even forever without BSA? I'm surprised this is not a new standard.