mds3d

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Except, if we consider one angle that might become a necessity for National going forward: putting some sizable increase to the franchise fee Councils pay to put $ back into the National coffers, which for some Councils might mean having to liquidate at least some of their underutilized camp properties.

But that isn't the situation that Eagle1993 is talking about.   Once the bankruptcy proceedings are done, new assets can't be targeted.  National won't be looking for more money to pay lawsuits.  This is all about if the lawyers are able to convince a judge that the Councils assets should be included in the proceedings.  If they aren't then the lawyers will have to go after councils individually. 

@Eagle1993 Unless the bankruptcy court brings the councils into the process (which no one has ever provided precedent for).  Council properties will only be in danger from lawsuits/judgement against individual councils, not against national.  So if no one sues my council, it doesn't matter how much the payouts are against national or another council, our council property is not at risk. 

I am still doubtful that the lawyers will be able to target the unaffected councils.  Certainly CO's are safe unless they are named in a lawsuit.  

9 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Mds3d:  I do not suggest an immediate timeline.  But, it is not going to take more than a year or so to understand where the BSA is.  There is no advantage to delay discussions until then.  

My sense is that with fewer and more-targeted services being performed at the council level, getting to the central office is not going to be as important as before.  Small satellite scout shops where DEs might also have work spaces is where we might be headed.  

Area boundaries are not drawn for volunteer convenience, as these are purely configured for national supervisory convenience.  With the Regions likely being dropped, areas will probably double in size.  That is just going to be too big for a council.  Better to combine geographies in a way that makes cultural and organization sense — like the consolidated Chicagoland/NW Indiana Council I have suggested.

I think it is entirely possible that the bankruptcy proceedings will take more than a year.  I doubt that the 80 days the BSA has requested for victims to come forward will be granted. As long as we are waiting for lawsuits to be filed, there is the chance that they will go after councils.  Merging councils puts assets at risk. I am not saying we shouldn't do it but I think we have to be careful about the timing.   

I really don't know how I feel about this.  We have more than 15 districts in our council as it is.   There are no small bordering councils.  I think this just doesn't apply here.   I don't live that far from the central office and it already seems far away.  I can't imagine what the farther districts think. 

Seems like a thing to tackle after everything settles down so that no new problems arise.    Maybe we should just merge all the councils up to the area.

On 2/23/2020 at 11:32 PM, qwazse said:

How is it different? What activities did that LDS crew do? Did they elect officers according to the leadership manual? If so did their president attend venturing officers associations? Or did they have a modified leadership manual? Did they adhere to that?

I'm sorry, but just because a CO has a peculiar interest in the program, they don't get a pass on being part of the problem that made a program seem to be booming when in fact getting crews that venturers were proud to be in was no slam dunk at all!

Every paper crew existed at some point. Some club filled out paperwork for their youth members to get them in on BSA's insurance. They did one or two activities of whatever they did, and they kept up appearances without ever actually promoting venturing. No district official attempted to make them contribute any more than that. Then the chickens came home to roost in about '08 as those of us who wanted our officers to really know how great scouting was had lists that were 50-percent irrelevant. Then, when membership costed real money and real time to complete position specific training, those units dropped like flies.

I think that TLS has explained how they were different.  His explanation is consistent with my limited experience with LDS Crews. 

One of the things that is often explained is that we do not punish boys for the mistakes of adults.  Just because he is an adult now, that doesn't change.  He was involved and registered as a venturer from 16-18 so he is entitled to those years of service.  If he really wants to represent those years correctly, I don't think anyone would fault him for including his years in his Boy Scout star.  I think this situation is perfect for combining everything under light blue, but that is my preference anyway.  

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

More specifics on service stars: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/04/02/service-stars-for-scouts-and-scouters-pins-with-a-point/

I'm going to go the opposite direction.  Paper venturers were the mechanism of choice for false inflation of program growth for DE's wanting an easy pat on the back. I wish you really were a venturer like the kids in my crew -- whose applications I would not accept if there was any hint that the parent filled out anything other than his/her signature. You would have made a great one! Do you really want a star because your good name was used to help some pro- get props on their evaluation for starting a unit? Your leaders were clueless because the pro- who approved them could have cared less if they were going to do anything for the program.

Just something to think about from the perspective of the guy who sat in the room calling a DE on the carpet for giving me a list of crews whose contact info didn't even work.

I think everyone was aware that LDS Crews weren't the same thing as a traditional crew.  It's not quite the same thing as a paper crew that didn't really exist.

I think if you are going to wear stars, they should actually add up to your years of service.   I am a combined under the scouter blue man myself, but that's mostly laziness. 

24 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

It would appear the attorneys plan on going after Council resources as well regardless of their involvement,  

https://news.yahoo.com/boy-scouts-files-chapter-11-054911909.html

 

"Assets are separate — they’re going to make that argument, and we’re going to contest it," said Kosnoff, the attorney. "Under the bylaws of the Boy Scouts they have absolute control over the assets that may be titled to the council."

That quote is news to me.   The bylaws state that council property is transferred to national on dissolution of the council but there isn't anything about national having any direct control over the assets of the council (only that they be used for furthering scouting).  

19 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

In Ohio, it is illegal for insurance to cover intentional wrong-doing. That seems to be the rules in most states, if not all.

I think there is a big question on if the BSA national organization was involved in any "intentional wrong-doing" or was simply not doing enough.  

3 minutes ago, Jackdaws said:

Do we know if insurance covers the past victims?  

From Wikipedia:

The annual report states that the BSA may have "to pay damages out of its own funds to the extent the claims are not covered by insurance or if the insurance carriers are unable or unwilling to honor the claims.

Accordingly, the BSA hired a law firm in December 2018 to investigate filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Such a bankruptcy could stop litigation of at least 140 lawsuits and prevent further lawsuits. In October 2019, a substantial membership rate increase was announced related to increased operational expenses, especially substantial increases in insurance costs.

 

If not, then why the rate increase?   They claimed rising insurance costs.   And if bankruptcy can possibly prevent further lawsuits, then the lawyers will have no choice but to go for the local councils, who will in turn also file for bankruptcy protection. 

Even if the insurance doesn't have to pay out for that specific incident, more lawsuits mean that the BSA is a greater liability for continuing litigation.  

1 hour ago, tnmule20 said:

This from the Washington Post today:

A key question will be whether the Boy Scouts of America will be able to protect the assets of the local councils, which own camps and properties in prime real estate throughout the country. The local councils are incorporated separately but hold 70 percent of the Boy Scouts’ wealth, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

Pfau and other lawyers bringing abuse lawsuits against the Boy Scouts said they were skeptical the organization would be able to shield the local councils.

“That is wishful thinking, because in every Boy Scout case we file, the local councils are named,” along with the local sponsoring organizations, such as churches or schools, Pfau said. Many of these institutions could be implicated in the claims, making for an even more complicated bankruptcy case, said Pfau, who specializes in representing victims in abuse cases against institutions such as the Boy Scouts and Catholic dioceses.

This doesn't really address the reason that it is important that councils and national are separate.   Yes, the lawyers can add the council and even the unit (CO) to the lawsuit.   However, my council cannot be added to a lawsuit that happened in your council.  This means a couple of things.  First, the property owned by my council should not be included in the bankruptcy  settlement.  I believe the BSA that enough has been done to keep these two entities separate.  If you believe otherwise then find precedent where a bankruptcy court included the assets of a legally separate organization.  I haven't been able too.  

It also means that unless a suit is filed against my council the lawyers can't go after this council's assets.   That doesn't mean we are safe from suits that include us, but that we can't be hurt by those other suits.  I think this will help many councils' assets stay safe.  Since summer camp locations are owned by councils it means we aren't about to loose all those.  

35 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I can understand the sentiment though it's really just looking at the problem through rose-colored glasses.  Here's how I understand it:

1. The BSA hasn't been compensating victims - insurance companies have.  The BSA & lawyers are involved in lawsuits, but eventually it's the insurance companies that pay.  The insurance companies turn around and charge the BSA premiums for this coverage.  That coverage is becoming prohibitively expensive now.
2. It's wonderful to think that the BSA is sitting on a large pot of money which can be used to compensate victims - but it's not the case.  What happens is that the lawsuits result in insurance increases that are then passed along to new members through increased fees to the kids of today.

Today's bankruptcy filing is the BSA saying that this system is no longer supportable.  

To me the real moral question is:

Should the youth of today pay higher fees to Scouting to compensate victims of abuse that happened many years ago?

 

 

The problem with insurance isn't the increasing premiums.  It is that they have limits.  They are great as long as you stay under the limits but don't help much if the lawsuits start to add up past them.   I think the limits on insurance payments is probably more of the problem than are the increasing premiums.  

6 minutes ago, prof said:

But another question needs to be asked: Are local councils liable for abuse cases that take place in the council? If so, they and their assets might be at risk regardless of nationals bankruptcy.

They might be.   I imagine that they haven't been targeted as much because of the larger pockets of national.   It may be that the affected councils insurance has covered their suits so far.  Remember that councils are only dealing with a small number instead of everyone nationally.  

1 minute ago, an_old_DC said:

Are chartered orgs liable for abuse cases that took place in their unit? They appointed the leaders and sponsored the unit.

This makes me nervous as I am the COR for three units.

I think CO's could definitely be held liable.  It will depend a lot on the situation and whether you are worth going after or not.  

There is a lot of US History on the Citizenship test.  I am not sure that is the aim of Citizenship in the Nation. I would be interested in the non-history questions. 

I also wonder about the methodology of this survey as there doesn't seem to be any information on how the questions were selected.  The actual test randomly selects 10 questions from a bank of 100.  For example, the actual test only asks you to name 3 of the original 13 colonies.  There is also is a significant difference between someone who studies for that test and one who doesn't.  I wonder what the pass rate would be if you allowed people to review the 100 questions for only 1 hr then asked them the same questions.  

If you are interested, here is the current list of 100 questions the test comes from - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/100q.pdf

The questions do not change without notice though the answers might (who is president for example). 

Predictions are often wrong.  They are also often predicated on nothing changing from current environment (not the case over the last 30 years).   The news does all these things a disservice by always reporting on the extreme of whatever was said by the scientific community.  

Academia is rarely in agreement so well as it is on climate change, and that should tell you something.  

Richard Mueller might not be disingenuous but I think he is at least taking his stance in the way that will make him the most notable.   

@DuctTape I didn't really mean to defend it.  I was trying to give my thoughts after some others had responded without putting them all at the beginning.  I help my units through JTE every year and don't get a lot of pushback so I don't have personal experience with the problems with it. 

@walk in the woodsI do wish that it was easier to track these things without a separate worksheet.  Most of this stuff should be automatic. I like your idea for tracking camping and service hours. 

@ParkManTheoretically, Unit Commissioners are supposed to be the people working collaboratively with units to set goals and help them meet them.  The Commissioner Corps is struggling at best in many districts however. 

The truth is that I should have the opportunity to talk with someone influential over JTE after the first of the year.  I doubt my voice will mean much in that context but I wanted to see what issues people were having and realized I could ask here. 

23 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It's the targets.  

In short - JTE in is present form is too quantitative.  Recruit N new scouts, send Y scouts to summer camp.  It almost entirely ignore methods like Scout led & patrol method.  This in turn creates a perception that adult led troops that are focused on numbers and metrics are more important than the quality of the program in those troops.

This all creates a perception of what a quality troop is that runs contrary to why most people became volunteers.  Most of us didn't become volunteers to worry about growth charts and retention rates.  We became volunteers to focus on delivering outstanding programs to youth.  That relatively little in JTE reinforces that (save retention rate and camping rate), it's become somewhat of a joke to many.  Very few units use JTE in a meaningful way.  Most gold troops achieve gold because they are great troops already.

That's the idea! Again, I don't think already great troops are the target for JTE.  I think that the idea with the numbers is to put a measurable (because it is supposed to be consistent) score on good practices.  

Here is how I think these goals are supposed to be read:

1. Planning and Budget: Good troops will make a plan, involve the youth, and have an active committee to support that plan.
2. Building Scouting: Good troops will grow. 
3. Retention:  Scouts will stay in a good troop (and age out).
4. Webelos-to-Scout: Good troops will provide the next step for graduating cub scouts (I'll admit, I think the specific goals are off here).
5.  Advancement: A good scout program provides most of its scouts the opportunity (which they will take) to advance each year.  
6. Short-term camping: A Good scout program camps frequently
7. Long term camping: Long term camping provides a great opportunity for scouts and they should be encouraged to participate.
8. Service projects: A Good troop serves its community
9. Patrol Method: A good troop has patrols, leadership that is trained, and an active PLC
10:  Leadership and family engagement:  Good troops involve those outside the minimum required adults. (I actually don't agree with the numbers here either). 
11: Trained leadership: Troop leadership should be trained and seeking higher training. 

I don't know how you assess "scout led" objectively.  The problem with non-objective measures is who assess them.  There is no way to be consistent with subjective things across the nation.  

How would you change JTE to help it assess the things you think it falls short on?

 

I am curious.  I see people here complain about JTE, but it is rarely about specific things.  What are your complaints about the program?   Is it the targets themselves? Is gold too easy or too hard? Are you still bitter it isn't silver at the top 😉? 

As one who has worn silver loops for most of the time I have been a scouter, let me say that I both understand and am saddened by your frustration. Many of us at the district level are trying to help units provide a good, safe, consistent scouting program to as many young people as possible.  This means that our priorities are sometimes different but they should not be at odds.  I was a Roundtable commissioner for a little while and I tried to make sure that the program was useful to the unit leaders that came.  Maybe they were just nice, and maybe the ones who didn't approve just didn't come but I never got any bad feedback.   If you have a problem with Roundtable, then maybe no one has expressed to the district that there is a problem. 

I get that JTE is frustrating to many, but like the Quality Unit award, it isn't meant to differentiate between the great and the excellent troops.  It is meant to give struggling units goals to improve their program.  After all, a gold award only requires 55% of the possible points. 

I haven't done wood badge, but I don't think it is a bad program.   I think the problem with wood badge is more about the "cult of wood badge" than it is the program.  In my experience, the problem woodbadgers are unit leaders not at the district or council level

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

I'm neither condoning the behavior nor condemning the BSA's actions.  I'm just saying for the rest of us "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

This is a significant misapplication of that verse. Jesus is not telling us that social judgement cannot be applied by the sinful.  The verse is in context of a situation manufactured to trap Jesus in conflict with either Jewish or Roman law (because the laws themselves conflicted).  

We can certainly discuss if this man should continue to be a BSA leader or how we believe the justice system should act.  We are not the ones administering judgement here so no one is actually casting stones. Don't water down that analogy.  Jesus didn't mean figurative stones.  The men in that story were trying to get Jesus to say that the woman should be stoned to death.  

1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

nk

No.  I think he is innocent until proven guilty.  Until then he is "accused."   That was once a societal norm. - "ethical."   But societal norms change.  

The justice system assumes innocence in the absence of contrary evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt.  That does not mean that we act as if the accused was actually innocent.  After all, they are accused of a crime and if we acted as if they were innocent no trial would be held.  

Society can make whatever judgement they feel is reasonable about this guy as we are not a jury of his peers or a judge dispensing justice.  

2 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 

I suppose that a pat on the back could subjectively be an "offensive contact," but that's not the headline: "BSA Leader Slaps Backside of Reporter on Live TV."    That headline is supported by one person's words and denied by the accused's words.  Unless you have another video that supports the headline, it is not shown "on live TV.."  I realize that "innocent until proven guilty" is no longer PC in some quarters, but even here?

I watched the video.  If you pause it as he goes by, I don't think there is any way his hand is at the level of her lower back.  She isn't that much shorter than him.  Her back should be mostly within the frame of the video and his hand is clearly below it.  We have no reason not to believe her.  We have several reasons to believe him (he is facing a year in jail for one).  We can discuss his guilt/innocence until we are blue in the face but that is for a court to decide. 

As for the BSA, they don't have to wait until he is proven guilty or not.  They can look at the video and decide.  They may also decide it doesn't matter as this guy clearly thought in the moment that there wasn't something wrong with unwanted contact with a stranger.  That would be enough for me if I was in charge.  

Now, lets reflect on how we are discussing this topic.  Would you react differently if this was your wife or your daughter? How would you react if this was one of your son's/daughter's leaders and they saw the video? 

5 hours ago, le Voyageur said:

plain as day ....  upon conviction he will have to register as a sex offender, thus his days in the Scouting program ends regardless of the position he holds...

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-6/16-6-22-1/

Sexual battery is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction for sexual battery or a conviction for sexual battery against a child under the age of 16 is punishable by one to five years’ imprisonment.

(Ga. Code Ann. § § 16-6-1, 16-6-2, 16-6-22.1, 16-6-2.22.)

People in Georgia who are convicted of rape, sodomy, or aggravated sexual battery are required to register as sex offenders, as are people are convicted a second or subsequent time of sexual battery.

(Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-12.)

You have misinterpreted this law.  Only a second "sexual battery" offense requires offender registration.   Aggravated sexual battery is a different charge. 

4 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

If we kick every leader out for a momentary lapse in judgement there won't be any leaders.

This wasn't a "lapse in judgement." This is Sexual Battery under Georgia law.  Kick him out. Send him to a judge.

@qwazse : I dont think this is an impertinent moment.  It was a crime. I also don't think she was slow to react.  She was attempting to continue to perform her job without making a scene. She understood that she wasn't in immediate danger and this doofus was on TV.  

If I were the IH of his church he would be fired immediately from both scouts and his job.  Men who think it is appropriate to touch a woman's butt without permission don't have any business in the BSA or being youth ministers. 

The only break the BSA is getting here is that most of the news stories are focusing on him being a youth minister. 

1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

So BP "avowed" - said in so many words - that he was a "fascist."  Where?  When?  A monarchist fascist, one must assume as he was a notable monarchist.

Since you base your argument, some of which I "get," on history, you should know that,  while El Duce was the model fascist, Hitler, whom you cite, was not a "fascist." He was a "National Socialist," the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party.  He, like socialists in general, favored state control of the economy and the news media, which he imposed, and massive benefits for the workers, which somehow did not offset getting millions of them dead and Germany bombed flat.  As you know, Germany is fairly negative  since 1945 on statutes of The Leader, who at least never promised to cure cancer.

As for the rest, imperfect clay forms imperfect men, but those causing  the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens may, in due course, become unacceptable to the public, historical import or not.  Lenses, after all, not only focus light but also bend it.  

Very few, sadly, have much interest in history.

Your comments on Hitler seem to be colored by a desire to consider socialism wrong.  

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

31 minutes ago, rayezell_2000 said:

It looks like there is a bit of straying from the discussion of the now defunct SJAC. I've appended a 1927 newspaper article (Staunton, Va--SJAC headquarters) which provides some needed context for this discussion.

The_News_Leader__Staunton__Virginia_12_Jan_1927__WedPage_6.pdf

This article assigns the quality of "purity" and "loyalty" to a man who betrayed his country to fight to defend the institution of slavery.  This is surely not an unbiased article.  

3 hours ago, yknot said:

Off the top of my head, some of the most famous would likely revolve around Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden. He was a spectacular failure and a traitor but still revered by some. Napoleon Bonaparte. Chief Tecumseh, who was a traitor to the US but not his people. Anywhere where there have been regional conflicts and civil war, like many parts of Europe, there are monuments to local heroes who were in fact considered traitors at one point or another. Interestingly, one of the most famous statues to survive a hostile regime is the statue of Nicholas I in St. Petersberg. We all know how much the Soviets hated the tsars but thankfully they saved that one. It's one of the most famous equestrian statues in the world because of an innovation in its design, which is how I got into this whole fit over statues being torn down. My interest in old Stonewall and Lee is driven by interest not so much in them but in the horses they rode. Lee's horse, Traveller, is generally considered to be one of the greatest war horses of all time, up there with Napoleon's Marengo. Napoleon is another general whose statues and memorials were also torn down after Waterloo and his banishment, although a few survive. 

I am really sorry, though, if my personal interests got this board off on an tangent. I realize this has nothing much to do with scouting and the original post and I'm going to stop now on this topic.  

I'm sorry... Your interest is about the horses they rode? That's fine, be interested.  There is still no reason for us to celebrate these men.  These statues, monuments, parks, schools, buildings, etc are not legacies of these men's great horses.  They are not celebrating these men's great military prowess or their leadership of people. They are monuments created by people who refuse to accept the idea that all men are created equal decades after we fought a war about it. They celebrate a time when certain people were considered property and others felt the need to kill fellow Americans to try to keep it that way.  There is nothing to celebrate in that idea.  There is nothing to honor in that idea.  

Prince Charles Stewart and Culloden represent Scottish independence and individual identity (an idea that is not gone and not foul). Napoleon, while controversial, still represents a part of history where France was great and powerful.

Change every name and tear all the statues down.  If the DCV or the KKK wants to pay to have the statues on their property, so be it but it shouldn't be on anything my tax dollars pay for.