Jump to content

ParkMan

Members
  • Content Count

    2293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Posts posted by ParkMan

  1. The age could be extended, but we would need to redefine the program a bit.

    There's no great reason for a program to run from 11 to 21 - that's too large an age range for people to be in the same sets of activities.  I would find it unusual to send my 11 year old child off with a bunch of 19 year olds for the weekend.

    I would support a young adult program if we learned the lessons of the UK and had better age separation.  Something like:

    • 5-8: Cub Scouts (Lions, Tigers, Wolves)
    • 9-11: Webelos (Bears, Webelos/AOL)
    • 11-14: Scouts aka "middle school scouting" (Scout through First Class)
    • 15-18: Venturing aka "high school scouting" (Star through Eagle)
    • 18-22: Rover Scouts "college scouting"

    I do agree with @David CO - as people mature, focus them on more "grown up" things.  The limit for Eagle is 18 and should remain 18.  How many kids do we lose during the high school years because they get bored of doing the same stuff since they were 11...

    • Upvote 1
  2. 41 minutes ago, David CO said:

    I don't think so.  The problem isn't that BSA is getting bad press.  The problem is that many thousands of scouts were sexually molested in scouting.  There is no faux outrage here.  The outrage is real.

    I retract my comments and the "faux" part.  That was categorically wrong of me to state that and I did so solely out of frustration.  There is no excuse for what I wrote and you are right to call me on it.  Sexual abuse is wrong.  The BSA was wrong.  Anything and everything should be done to protect the kids we serve.  Everyone who was abused deserves compensation and to be made whole.

    I am just frustrated by the lack of constructive ideas to preserve the program itself.  I wrongly thought the Washington Post should have made a more constructive suggestion here.  I let my frustration at the situation get the better of me.

    • Upvote 2
  3. 30 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

    I was being facetious. Since commenters on the Wapo article were calling for the BSA to be abolished. If every organization that failed to handle sexual abuse of minors historically was abolished, there would be no youth serving organizations left. 

    The sad thing is that these sort of faux outrage opinion pieces is why the BSA has the problem is does.  It's far too easy for someone to come out and take a hard line against an obvious target.  It's another to actually have actually really thought through the issues behind them and have a real solution.  It's why I have zero respect for these kind of hand wringing articles and statements.

  4. 6 hours ago, BQZip said:

    You are (intentionally?) conflating two separate things.

    My comments were about the "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion philosophy" and the issues I see with it, not diversity or inclusion as standalone terms. Wanting to have a wide-spanning, cross-cultural American organization is not bad. Wanting to be inclusive of people from every walk of life is fine a fine and laudable goal as well. I think we should invest time and effort and resources in recruiting in areas beyond traditional Scouting havens like the inner cities and rural America. 

    Great - thanks for the clarification.  Then I did misread the intent behind your statements.  Yes - all I'm really talking about is having Scouting be a place where everyone is welcome and made to feel comfortable.  Glad you are on board with that.  And yes, given that you are, I am sorry I suggested otherwise.

    6 hours ago, BQZip said:

    While the language used by another prior poster was not the best, why is a troop of 40 white and Hispanic scouts not as "good" as one of 25 white and Hispanic scouts and 15 black scouts? You cannot judge the quality of a troop based on diversity. Individuals and their choices matter. Perhaps they all just live in the same area!

    All I can ask is that everyone is truly welcoming to all who want to join, truly goes out of their way to understand what makes everyone comfortable, and embraces all their neighbors.  I would hope that every Scout, adult volunteer, and unit looks at themself and asks "am I truly welcoming my fellow person?"

    6 hours ago, BQZip said:

    It is the methods by which this is attempted to be achieved that are problematic: quotas, affirmative action, etc; all methods that have failed for quality in the past beyond anything other than checking boxes (example: in academics, underqualified students were admitted and later dropped out because they didn't have the requisite academic skills). "Diversity and inclusion" are indeed being used as cover in Academia to push radical leftist agendas and it is creeping into Corporate America.

    [...]

    This is similar to the semantic overload of "Black Lives Matter". It has 3 meanings:

    1. Like every life, the lives of black people matter. This is uncontroversial.
    2. The movement of BLM which ranges from mostly peaceful protests to vandalism to assaults to riots
    3. The BLM organization which is run by self-proclaimed Marxists

    Pretending opposition to one of these (or even part of one of these) is the same as opposition to all of them is absurd, but the term is designed with this in mind.

    Another example is Antifa or Anti-Fascists (who are ironically engaging in acts of fascism). If you oppose them, they will accuse you of being anti-anti-fascist and, therefore, a fascist.

    I'm not going to delve in here because I really don't have any interest in making this political.  If anything, I would only suggest that we all really listen to those we oppose and work to understand what their real beliefs are.  Because America has such a strong two party system, we often get lined up behind one group or the other.  Just as I suggest that we have diversity in race, gender, and culture - so too do I encourage diversity in opinion.  And so, to that end I really don't want to engage in a progressive vs. conservative battle about the politics of race myself.  If others want to, the are welcome to.  I just hope that we can do it without hurtful labels and speech.

    • Upvote 2
  5. 1 hour ago, BQZip said:

     

    Sorry that I mis-interpreted what you wrote.  I saw this post:  

    22 hours ago, BQZip said:

    Over 2 years ago, PragerU posted a video which warned of the dangers of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion philosophy.
    https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/


    In short:
    "Diversity" doesn't mean "a wide ranging group of ideas". It means "increased influence by people more generally aligned with leftist ideals" (usually from groups that deem themselves "oppressed")
    "Equity" doesn't mean equal opportunity (a laudable goal!), but is instead a focus on equal outcomes, something NO society has EVER come close to achieving. Anything short of it is "evidence" of discriminatory bias; the choices that people make that cause most of these inequities (not all) are merely byproducts of more discrimination.
    "Inclusion" doesn't mean "be open to others joining your group". Instead it generally focuses on identity based quotas in order to achieve the aforementioned malformed concept of equity.

    Recently (yesterday?), BSA released a video regarding a new Merit Badge: the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Merit badge...if that doesn't raise a red flag, I'm not sure what does.

    https://vimeo.com/476454128?fbclid=IwAR2EfbOR-YLmhoDdKVztS0SpP73fJuEK49iua3_xiPJ7ps_VDDxcCDO4vYI

    I will grant you, they have NOT released the requirements for the MB, but the title and video content alone should be alarming. The video does nothing to dispel such alarm.

    This is an attempt to appease the leftists in our society. Appeasement NEVER works. They will only demand more. Despite claiming the material will be taught in an "apolitical manner", its title alone makes me question that assertion. Making such a hyperpolitical concept a REQUIREMENT for Eagle Scout Rank is more than absurd, it's pushing a political agenda.
    Unless this is a poorly phrased title and the video doesn't match the content of the Merit Badge (which doesn't appear likely), I call on all friends of Scouting to speak up and say "no" at your next Roundtable. This top-down directed Merit Badge is an attempt to usurp Councils/Units without input from the scouting community at large and dictate political correctness.

    and this:

    22 hours ago, BQZip said:

    Over 2 years ago, PragerU posted a video which warned of the dangers of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion philosophy.
    https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/


    In short:
    "Diversity" doesn't mean "a wide ranging group of ideas". It means "increased influence by people more generally aligned with leftist ideals" (usually from groups that deem themselves "oppressed")
    "Equity" doesn't mean equal opportunity (a laudable goal!), but is instead a focus on equal outcomes, something NO society has EVER come close to achieving. Anything short of it is "evidence" of discriminatory bias; the choices that people make that cause most of these inequities (not all) are merely byproducts of more discrimination.
    "Inclusion" doesn't mean "be open to others joining your group". Instead it generally focuses on identity based quotas in order to achieve the aforementioned malformed concept of equity.

    Recently (yesterday?), BSA released a video regarding a new Merit Badge: the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Merit badge...if that doesn't raise a red flag, I'm not sure what does.

    https://vimeo.com/476454128?fbclid=IwAR2EfbOR-YLmhoDdKVztS0SpP73fJuEK49iua3_xiPJ7ps_VDDxcCDO4vYI

    I will grant you, they have NOT released the requirements for the MB, but the title and video content alone should be alarming. The video does nothing to dispel such alarm.

    This is an attempt to appease the leftists in our society. Appeasement NEVER works. They will only demand more. Despite claiming the material will be taught in an "apolitical manner", its title alone makes me question that assertion. Making such a hyperpolitical concept a REQUIREMENT for Eagle Scout Rank is more than absurd, it's pushing a political agenda.
    Unless this is a poorly phrased title and the video doesn't match the content of the Merit Badge (which doesn't appear likely), I call on all friends of Scouting to speak up and say "no" at your next Roundtable. This top-down directed Merit Badge is an attempt to usurp Councils/Units without input from the scouting community at large and dictate political correctness.

    and others and misunderstood.  I took what you wrote as believing that diversity and inclusion was some sort of leftist political agenda.  I didn't think diversity was even controversial in 2020.

    But - since you're pointed out that you are in fact in favor of diversity and inclusion, clearly I've misread what you wrote.  My deepest apologies for misinterpreting all of that and am happy to stipulate that I was wrong.  I am happy that you're on board with having a diverse, inclusive Scouting community and helping encourage our Scouts to be welcoming of all backgrounds.  Thank you for clarifying!

  6. 44 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

    You need to be more specific. What hurtful/offensive language?  If I hurt your feelings because I challenged your world view, you need to grow up.

    Using racial slurs like "black sister" or "male cracker" in reference to degrading the comradeship of seven white boys is what I am referring to.

    You have in no way, shape, form or fashion hurt my feelings.  You have not challenged my world view at all and I am simply talking about basic human decency.  I speak out because it is the correct thing to speak out when people start using racial slurs in the name of Scouting.  Scouting is about "to help other people at all times" and "Friend, Courteous, Kind, Cheerful".  Knock it off.

    47 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

    Hah!  It will get better if we don't talk about it?  The debate is over?  I reject your basic premise and what's more, with that line of persuasion; so do the boys.  

    By making this merit badge Eagle required, BSA is elevating 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' to the level of the 12 Scout Law tenets.  For 100 years, the Scout Law was inviolate to the troops.  Now the political winds change and suddenly we're adding virtues?  Maybe those first 12 were not so important, after all.  Oh wait; hasn't 'Reverent" been blown away, too?

    You want to debate this merit badge - that's fine.  But, do not do it by using racial slurs and claiming to do so in the name of Scouting.

    • Upvote 3
  7. 1 hour ago, JoeBob said:

    And furthermore...

    If you try to degrade the quality of comradeship of seven white boys on a patrol campout, because they have no blacks or females; you are lost.  Would you try to argue that seven black sisters would improve their esprit de corps by adding a male cracker to their campfire? 

     

     

    We really need move past this kind of talk.  The kind of racial terms now being thrown about are simply not acceptable in 2020 and need to stop now.

    It's not about degrading the experience for one particular group, race, creed, sex, whatever.  In 2020, this is about kids being in Scouting.  It's really time to move on from race & gender arguments and just focus on having an open table that anyone can join.  I frankly don't care if purple, blue, or whatever kids join our troop - all kids are welcome and we want kids of all backgrounds to feel welcomed and comfortable.

    To me, the whole point of diversity and inclusion is asking ourselves the question - am I really setting a table that anyone can join?  Do I really understand how those who join us feel when they show up?  Talk like this only excludes people from Scouting and is exactly why the BSA is starting programs like this merit badge.

    You want to debate this merit badge - fine.  Do it without hurtful and offensive language.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  8. I'm just amazed that on a forum about Scouting we are really having some sort of debate on whether diversity and inclusion is a good thing.  This isn't a discussion about some political belief or taking sides, it's just a discussion about whether we want to encourage everyone to come Scout with us.  Isn't that kind of the whole point of the Oath and Law?  I'm utterly confused.

    • Upvote 1
  9. 29 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

    I think diversity and inclusion is important, but I don't think this should be a standalone badge. It should be rolled into a combined citizenship badge. There are now effectively 4 Eagle required badges on the topic of citizenship. Scouts by their nature as young people don't take a whole lot away from classroom style badges. 

    I'd be up for that.  Modernize the Citizenship badges a bit and convert 4 to 3.  I'd even be game to go from 4 to 2.  One focused on citizenship in the nation, one focused on how to be a good citizen in your community.

    • Upvote 2
  10. I put this MB in the same category as the Citizenship ones.  This provides concepts that helps prepare scouts to be effective members of society.  While I'd wouldn't complain if all the Citizenship MBs went away, I also won't complain about this one given our nation's history.

    While I an sure that we can find examples where diversity and inclusion do not work as intended, this is one of those areas where we need to stay positive and keep trying.  Our kids will all benefit from living in am increasingly diverse country and will thank is for that at least.

  11. 16 minutes ago, BQZip said:

    Because, instead of talking to me one-on-one, he reported the action to the Military Equal Opportunity office as an act of racism (FWIW, they found no ill intent on my part). The intent of such an action isn't to create a dialogue, but use such power as a cudgel to beat down opposition to their control over your lives.

    I shouldn't have needed a lawyer, my commander, and character witnesses over a ****ing piece of fruit.

    Understood, and what happened to you is indeed awful, but I don't think it should be a reason to not continue to build bridges.  It's all too easy in our country today to label whole groups by the actions of a few.  

    The core issues here are still the same - our country has a history of slavery that turned into a long legacy of racism.  I think it's still in the best interest of healing in our country to be proactive in trying to remove the vestiages of racsim.  I think that requires us all to be as proactive as possible.  I would rather be on the side of understanding and forgiveness than on the side of mistrust myself.

  12. 2 hours ago, BQZip said:

    While I want to be inoffensive, there are some people who are looking to be offended and will go so far outside what is reasonable that their demands to be inoffensive are themselves offensive. Example: while in the military, I had a complaint filed about me because I had an apple on my desk. Apparently calling a Native American an "apple" is an insult...red on the outside, white on the inside. The member felt the daily fruit from my lunch was personally directed at him despite the fact he was NOT in my flight and NOT even in my unit (he just happened to regularly go through our unit). So, no, I'm not going to go THAT far out of my way to be inoffensive. Intent matters. Context matters. Things that are offensive to some are inoffensive to others. In our melting pot, we should talk about it and understand each others' intent OVER how offended someone may be.

    I get what you're saying - but why make an issue out of it?  If someone wants me to stop leaving apples on my desk because they are sensitive to the implication of it, I'll be happy to take the apple off my desk.  Yep, occasionally good people get inadvertently blamed - but it has a way or sorting itself out when others then can speak to your character on your behalf.  I'm sure in your case others stood up and said that you were a great guy and had no ill intent at all.

    To me, it's about putting myself in other people's shoes.  For a very long time in our country's history minorities had it very tough.  Many would say that minorities still do.  I'm happy to make some changes in my world and put in the effort to try and ameliorate that feeling.  Further, if people who are feeling persecuted see others going out of their way to avoid that, then maybe, just maybe it will build some bridges. Seems like a pretty neighborly thing to do to me. To me, this is a good level of awareness for our scouts to obtain.

    • Upvote 2
  13. 7 hours ago, BQZip said:

    I see ZERO evidence of "supremacy"

     

    50 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

    Just because you don't get out enough to see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 

    I've come to look at this as an area where awareness is a good thing.  Our country is has a deep and long history of racism and went through many reprehensible periods in our past.  Maybe someone looks around today and sees no racism where someone else sees lots of racism.  Regardless, it helps us all to grow by being acutely aware of the feelings of others on topics of racism, diversity, and equality.  We're all people who relate to other people.  I'd rather understand better the feelings of those who might feel oppressed so that I can avoid contributing to that.  Since I'm not trying to discriminate to start with, I'd much rather know how I am perceived and then be able to take actions to avoid inadvertently adding to the problem.  I find this is why it is useful for youth to go through the same.  Most youth I know really are pretty open minded and a little awareness is a good thing.  So with that in mind, I'm all for taking little steps like this

    Now - there's another whole topic of whether there is too much "school" in Scouting.  Yes, there clearly is too much school in Scouting.  So that puts me on the fence on this MB. Yes, I think it's good for youth to learn about this topic and increase awareness.  Yet I think we need more doing, less talking.

    • Upvote 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    It's about money.  Pure and simple.

    Probably you're right.  What @vol_scouter makes a lot of sense to me too.  

    I won't belabour the point any more.  I find myself in this whole thing being sort of asked to take sides on this with little knowledge of the past.  That's why I'd love one of those 20 minute news pieces about this whole thing - perhaps even an hour.  Forget the posturing and taking sides - just let's discuss what happened and why.  If the BSA was trying to cover itself - just be honest.  If the BSA was simply trying to follow the law but made mistakes - let's be honest about that too.  I'm really not trying to get some opinion piece in support of the BSA or against it.  But alas, that's well beyond the power of anyone here to see a news team, journalist, or documentary film maker put something like that together.  

    @yknot & @scoutldr - I'm sorry to hear that you are stepping down soon.  I still believe the unit & district programs themselves are sound, so when great volunteers leave, it's always a sad day.

  15. 2 hours ago, yknot said:

    I know. I'd like a better sense myself of what exactly happened but I think the numbers -- and the stories that each new report recounts --  are telling the tale to a large degree.  It's tragic. BSA is story of both dark and bright angels it seems. 

    I think this is where I've been for a long time - that the sheer volume of these must be telling us something.  

    To me, this is more a question is more of - should I be reacting more strongly than I am?  Should I be disassociating myself with the BSA?  If the BSA did all this awful stuff, why am I continuing to be a volunteer?  I presume that all of this has been rectified with the current YPT rules - but really, I just don't know that much about what happened to even make an informed decision.  I trust, and I really do desperately want to trust - but I'm feeling like I'm missing something in what I know. 

    The Catholic church I understood - the church covered up and transferred priests in an attempt to avoid embarrassment for the church and punishment for those priests.  But in the case of the BSA, I don't think they were hiding abuse.  I don't think they were protecting leaders from punishment.  But, given the ferocity of all of this, I'm starting to presume that they must have been.  So, maybe there's something I just don't know here.

    Clearly smart people want to destroy the BSA for a reason.  What do I not know?

  16. 1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    There is info out there. SCOUT'S HONOR by Patrick Boyle is one book. It is from 1994. so it is "old," but it covers the time period the lawsuit is coming from. That is the one I remember of the top of my head. I wish I had all my stuff from undergrad, cause I did a paper on this topic. Sadly the stuff I kept got thrown away after Katrina.

    Thank you so very much for the pointer.  I'll take a look.

  17. 21 minutes ago, yknot said:

    I understand where you are coming from but you have to turn around and look at what you are saying. Replace "slavery" or "segregation" with "pedophilia" and I think you'll see what I mean. There is no way to examine this retroactively with any view to trying to put what happened in any kind of context no matter how valid. Trying to engage in any kind of moral relativism can only backfire. Scouting is up against a wall. While the leadership has missed a lot of opportunities to communicate where I think they could have tried to defend themselves or clarify, there are too many things they simply cannot try to explain or defend without making things worse in both a legal and public relations sense. The other issue is that while BSA may have done more than anyone else, however flawed, to prevent abuse, it was still slow to recognize it (they've been aware they were a pedophile magnet since the 1920s) and also failed to comprehend the unique circumstances in which it combined adults with youth, as did the Catholic church to their own great sorrow. Both the scouts and the church had warning bells many decades before they took effective steps. In my opinion it's because the organizational structures and, in a way, cultures, of the two organizations had similar flaws. Both allowed potentially predatory adults unparalleled access to children; both put forward adult leaders -- scoutmasters and priests -- as persons above parental scrutiny and reproach;  both created inadequately supervised franchise- like entities, whether COs/units or parishes, where predators could operate; both put youth in remote and opaque environments with adults, whether on camp outs or for altar duty.  

    I'm really OK if the BSA is excoriated in some bit of journalism. 

    Myself I'm not looking to excuse away the history anymore - I just frankly don't know what the BSA did or didn't do.  I can't even make a judgement at this point because I've got only generalities.  I get the sense that "Scouting really messed up", but details are so vague it's impossible for me to determine what it all actually means.  As a person, I really would be interested to know.

    • Upvote 2
  18. 1 hour ago, SSScout said:

    All Scouting is local ... except when it isn't.  National BSA  did not deal with the predators well way back when and the results are now coming to fore.  The morality and ethics are the same, now and back then. The way it was dealt with back then was unfortunately correct for the time (maybe) but was ultimately wrong, period.  Could the CO's have done a better job dealing with the predator that they sponsored and approved?  Yep. Could BSA have done a better job with the predator ?  Yep.  Could society in general?  Yep. 

    I'd really love to see an honest accounting for what happened back then.  I've heard everything ranging from the "BSA had a list that was used to exclude people and was ahead of the curve" to "the BSA tried to cover up abuse that was happening."  I really, honestly don't know what happened back then.  I would welcome a 60 Minutes (or similar) news in-depth story on what happened and when.

    I don't request this in order to try to save the BSA - I figure the BSA is probably done.  The sheer enormity of the number of claims and the veracity of the lawyers involved will mean that the BSA brand is tarnished and 100 years of resources the program has assembled will be lost to pay the bill.  Serves us right as a country too - it is our penance for not doing enough as a country to protect kids then too.  

  19. 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

    If councils go down, will this change come into play?  Would all Troops/Packs/Crews essentially go "bankrupt" and their funds go over to the council (unless proof exists that it was raised by registered members of the CO)?

    https://www.scouter.com/topic/32361-troop-assets/?tab=comments#comment-518054

     

    I cannot fathom that the BSA nor councils will ever attempt to seize unit funds as part of what happens.  This whole business about what happens to unit funds when a unit folds is so nebulous that no-one in any kind of official capacity should ever consider them as anything tangible.

    • Upvote 3
  20. 34 minutes ago, yknot said:

    His son Beau Biden prosecuted one of the most egregious cases of pedophilia in Delaware and there is a foundation in his son's name -- The Beau Biden Foundation -- dedicated to the protection of children. Who knows how Biden's own scout experiences will square against honoring the legacy of his dead son and what was apparently his life's interest. 

    I stand corrected.  That's very interesting.

    Kind of reminds me why I've given up all hope on their being any future for the BSA in all of this.  I never expected Biden to help the BSA, but I didn't expect that he had such a family connection. 

  21. 19 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

    Once again, overestimating how long ago the 80s were. ;)  I was in Cub Scouts 1981-1984 or so.  My dad was CM and he is only 69 this year.  Not 80s.  :)  

    A 21 year old Scoutmaster in 1989 would be 52 today. :)

    EDIT: Sorry - I see someone already made the exact same point.   Sorry for the double post.  Wishing there was a delete post right now.

  22. 1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

    What do you think he could do?  

    I mostly just meant that I think it's unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration is going to try and make an example of the BSA.  President-elect Biden, being a Scout himself, I think is less likely to turn both barrels at the BSA in an attempt to make a point simply because he can.  I don't think that institutional excesses leading to child abuse is something on his list of standard issues.

    I doubt very much that he'll do anything to intervene and try to stop the bankruptcy or lawsuits.  Perhaps he'll get asked at some point and throw some moral support towards the concept and benefit of the program, but I cannot imagine it going much further.

  23. 32 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Agreed, but no one is going to back the BSA now.  Expect the exact opposite.  I think everyone (lawyers, politicians, etc ) will extract their pound of flesh.  I wonder if our national charter survives.

    I suspect the charter will as no-one really cares about it.  I suspect it's really an "inside baseball" kind of thing.

    You're right though that no-one will back the BSA.  There are just too many people - including many who post here - who have bought into the concept that the BSA needs to be held accountable for what happened those many years ago.  This is as much about punishing the BSA as anything for many people.  

    58 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

    Under a Biden-Harris administration, I doubt it.  The BSA is too easy of a target not to make an example out of at this point. They won't be able to resist. 

    Though, I wonder if this would be the only saving grace.  Biden, as a former Scout himself, has more familiarity than many.  Also, Biden strikes me as more of a pragmatist than an idealist.  I have a feeling that he's more likely than many to look at this and say - this is going a bit too far.  Penalize the BSA sure - but destroy it over events of 30+ years ago is a bit much.

  24. 10 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    If memory serves, some time in the 1970s, National agreed to take responsibility for councils liability insurance in exchange for councils paying into the insurance fund. Just as national promised to protect COs, they also promised to protect councils.

    That makes sense.  If the theory is that claimants will go after the local councils, then that seems very similar to the CO idea where they all submitted claims.  

  25. 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I was talking with several ASMs recently.  We were attempting to think of a youth organization, today, that has a better youth protection policy than BSA.  We couldn't think of one.  Sports teams, schools, churches, etc. typically have less restrictive policies than BSA.  We remarked the number of times we saw 1 on 1 contact, no 2 deep leadership, no YPT training, etc.  So, the lawyers, are essentially destroying the organization that probably has one of the best youth protection polices in place today due to sins of 20+ years ago.

    Yes, that's the unintended consequence in all of this.

    But, I know there is a vocal percentage that feels the BSA must be held accountable for what happened in the past - including a number of people regularly posting on this topic.  What we are beginning to see is that the cost to the BSA is very likely the liquidation of the assets of national and the local councils.  It was always an unrealistic expectation that the BSA would have to pay but find a way for insurance to cover most of the bill.  

×
×
  • Create New...