fred8033

LOL. Like we haven't. Stop trying to chastise. Be part of a conversation. Like many hot topic Wikipedia pages, the page is littered with inflammatory, inaccurate statements. Quotes taken from news feeds over years without checking if the news feed was right. The first statement talking about abuse says 92,000 cases (CNN). PBS put the number at 80,000. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-upholds-boy-scouts-2-4-billion-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan#:~:text=More than 80%2C000 men have,the bankruptcy process was manipulated.) Missing is the late night infomercial

Sounds just like every Disney video from the 1950s talking about adults in town. The trusty grocery. The helpful police officer. The guiding teacher. And the ones we'd watch in elementary school with Mr. Science. Everyone taught kids to revere adults. The difference is BSA published a book with the words written down. Now, people hold it up as "evidence". IMHO, that's sad. It's just how people talked back then when marketing.

That's really not true. Teachers. Football coaches and coaches from pretty much every sport. Police. etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

This is where we differ. With so many cases reported to police and a consistent effort to stop the perpetrators, I just don't believe BSA had any more responsibility than the rest of society. Police (paid professionals that handle crime) and teachers (paid professionals that work with kids) also failed to advocate for change. Heck, we still see teachers arrested weekly for abuse and that's decades of CSA and mandatory reporting. It's not about blaming victims. It's about an accurate narrative.

The evolution of child protection laws is fascinating. AND, not easy to quickly learn. It's important to remember that the 1960s mandatory reporting targeted Battered Child Syndrome. Thus, physicians were required to report. Then, the fear became the 1970s / 1980s Stranger Danger. Then, pornography. Mandatory reporting slowly extended to teachers. Then, other child care professions. It's only the 1990s or even early 2000s when CSA was the main concern and that mandatory reporting was extended to everyone involved: coaches, scout leaders, etc. ... The point is CSA was really not on

It's not about dishonesty. It's about applying the standards, knowledge, laws, etc from the time when events occurred. It's about holding all involved parties involved equally liable. Instead, this is a deep pocket grab using legal interpretations that did not exist often until decades later where a large amount of the cash will be going to the legal system itself.

IMHO ... it's what scout camps do and many specially offered MB programs. Heck, that's how scout camps have 17 year old scouts teaching MBs. The only big danger is it could put much more control of the scout's advancement in the unit's hands. Not a good thing as the MB concept is not part of unit advancement program. It's supposed to be scout owned.

Create a new "General MBC" registration? Perhaps we need to rethink MBC registration. A "General MBC" acknowledges they will not be the subject expert, but rather commit to supporting the scout by finding knowledgeable people who can pass on knowledge; attend meetings to fulfill YPT and then be the signer that acknowledges the scout fulfilled the MBC requirement. IMHO, it's not a big change. We already have most troops with warm bodies teaching badges without any special connection to the topic. Many troops I knew could cover 30+ merit badges internally and always 100% of the Eagle

The most important real role of the CO was scouting advocacy. CO gets to boast they support scouting. Community sees scouting in that CO. CO feels like they should do something (space, money, consideration) for their scouting unit. IMHO, BSA created the chartering model as tool to get support for scouting more than to oversee the unit. It's more marketing than oversight. But it can also be a real youth program in the CO too.

It seems wrong only because so few units actually do it, but it's fully within the CO's right. Scouts really have two membership connections. One to BSA. One to the CO. BSA has membership criteria. The CO can also have their own separate membership criteria. No unit is forced to accept any specific leader or any specific scout. IMHO, this should not be surprising. The CO is chartering a unit and is accepting both responsibility to do well by the unit but also expecting to setup the unit to be compatible with their CO.

Nice thoughtful response. Thank you. Perhaps some thoughtful open discussion over coffee and a scone would be nice. Treat a few people to Caribou coffee. Or just stay late after a meeting and chat. It sounds like vision is different. You helped start the unit with one long-term view. Now, the CO wants to make the units more part of the CO religious purpose. Be open. If it's not your view, then ask (and ask nicely) will there be a place for you and your scouts in the future unit. Practice saying it nicely, but open conversation helps. Let them know that their actions could ca

I agree with previous leader who's name I can't copy because of special characters. #1 Email - My thought is it enables the term limits. Scouts and families get used to emailing scoutmaster@mycharter.net. When scoutmaster changes, the communication change is invisible to them. It's a good idea. #2 Banking - Lots of extra work for CO treasurer. "Account" can be interpreted many ways, but the CO agreement does strongly strongly infer a separate bank account. IMHO, if the funds can be cleanly tracked separately, then perhaps it's okay. I'd still strongly prefer a separate troo

You wrote "with". Did you mean "will" as the council WILL appoint the same individual? I'd get that fixed. This feels like a way for the existing COR to stay involved; essentially self-interest by the COR. Also, I am confused. It feels strange for the COR to provide negative feedback to the council when the COR is the person selecting the leaders and then staying at arms length. The COR should not be complaining about the unit to the council as the COR can replace the unit leadership and the COR should not be seeing day to day execution as the COR does not attend camp outs or weekly

The council leaders did right. COR is the head of the unit and should be who the council interacts thru. IMHO, this is an example of the danger leaving unhealthy situations unresolved. The only unit person above the COR is the chartered org leader (pastor, president, etc). You can ask the CO executive to talk to the council and help, but should you. Does it matter? Will the youth know a difference? The unit needs a place to meet. It is annoying to have others second guess decisions, but at least your unit can move forward. Also, this will shed the old COR and give your unit a c

How about limitations of now. I was just talking with a friend at a staffing agency about a candidate they had to pass on. No names were used. The candidate had a felony conviction. They searched newspaper clippings (last ten years??). Charged and convicted after multiple youth soccer clubs had him on paid staff and then banned him internally within their club without passing the information outward to protect other youth in other clubs. This allowed him for many years to go just from one club to the next looking for the next victim. Perhaps, one of the national youth socce

"representing a claimant" and excluding TCC are key words and perhaps a bit tricky. BSA has paid $300+ million in bankruptcy lawyer fees. We all watched the massive invoices that were court approved. It's disingenuous to pretend it's not been a cash cow for many firms.

This bankruptcy is one of the few reasons I still read this board. I'm extremely interested in the result though I think it's years before we can look in hindsight. @Eagle1993 ... I have the same thoughts. I want the plan intact to allow scouting to move on. I don't pretend there is any justice for the victims. The settlement offers a token, but not justice. BUT ... non-consensual non-debtor releases is wrong and produces bad justice. IMHO, this case really should be thousands of individual cases against councils, charters and insurance companies. BSA should proceed as best

Poppycock. The legal system found BSA with it's huge insurance and property assets liable. In the same context, the parents, police, schools and the rest of society covered up too. The issue is legally tying liability to all the other conspirators. This was looting for legal profit.

I agree on avoiding an external organization propping up scouting. The charters were far more about marketing and very, very little about oversight. The issue was the paperwork did not match the intentions or the execution. Thus, massive liability. I'm not sure the leaders of a troop are ever fully protected; no matter who charters. They should be insured and trained. Also, it seems right to me. Responsibility closer to the immediate people.

The sentence is misleading. Inferring a general rule. It is the far, far exception and the outlier that proves the rule. BSA had millions of registered adults. I've read many, many of the IVF files and did not see what is inferred here. The quote was "I have reviewed information that now makes clear to me that decades ago BSA did, in at least some instances, allow individuals to return to Scouting even after credible accusations of sexual abuse." ... It was not the policy or rule. Any organization of millions of people will have "some instances". It is interesting in the same 201

Undermining american institutions ... Agree BSA files were a good thing. ... Intelligible Volunteer Files were always a good idea and BSA took those files very seriously. Lots of effort was made to keep them complete and accurate. I wish BSA could keep such files still. BUT, it might be in BSA's legal interest to NOT be the gatekeeper of that information as it just creates future legal risk. Someone in the future could use those files as evidence of mistakes and liability. ... Business in the 1980s and 1990s started standardized record purging (emails, files, etc). The idea was to

Dang. I'm having trouble staying out. I'm trying to wean scouting out of my system. Scouting is supposed to be FUN; a bunch of friends getting together with a purpose. Yes, mtgs should prep for activities and camp outs. Making sure scouts have the needed skills. ... BUT ... It's like my wife's book club. They get together. Talk. Laugh. Eat. Choose the next book. Some talk about the book. Laugh. Talk about other things. ... A few of the ladies might read the book, but it's not really the purpose of the group. The group is fellowship and building relationships. Same for sco

Thank you and I wish everyone the best. I've been involved with scouting for 23+ years and I'm transitioning out for new adventures. Scouting will ALWAYS hold a special place in my heart. My wife says I can't walk into a store without buying scout popcorn, cookies or wreaths. Under the auspices of scouting, I've camped 300+ nights; often on scout properties. Sometimes in national, state or county parks. Sometimes on military bases. Sometimes in thunderstorms, floods, hurricanes and more than one blizzard. I've loved sharing these adventures with my sons and the other scouts. I'v

Great answer !!!!!

We want to succeed with most scouts. So, ... outside scout meetings / camping / activities ... expecting the scouts to coordinate too much with parents, off-line planning is not realistic. Schools and other orgs push communication to the parents and expect parents to push the scouts. IMHO, this is part of extended childhood / helicopter parenting / modern teaching. I wish this was 1950s where we'd expect the scout to follow thru and they would. IMHO, scout leaders should expect scout responsibility inside scouting (meetings, camps, activities). Responsible for cooking, particip