Sentinel947

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Scroll down. Thoughts?
 

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/05/03/scouters-to-receive-2022-silver-buffalo-silver-antelope-awards-scoutings-top-national-and-territorial-volunteer-honors/?utm_source=scoutingwire&utm_campaign=swvolunteer05042022&utm_medium=email&utm_content=

Honoring survivors with an outstanding service award is perverse. They are worthy of honor for their courage and bravery, but they didn't volunteer to be abused, and were basically forced to come forward by the BSA going bankrupt. Honoring the folks who helped push the BSA through bankruptcy in the same press relief is utterly tone deaf. I'd expect nothing else from National.  Who's giving them PR advice? Survivors should ask the BSA for a Silver Buffalo Medal. 🙄

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

But for children, finding their way in life? Finding their personality, their sense of who they are?  No.  I have seen many young scouts mature over their years in Scouting. They changed dramatically.

And that is what the movement is all about.

One of my Scouts was the stereotypical ADHD child. We had to plead with his parents not to take him off his meds when we went to summer camp. A few years later, when one of our ASM's told me he was selected by the NYLT staff from his participant course as Honor Scout, I thought I was getting my chain pulled. He grew up into a very fine and thoughtful young man, and part of that was he was frequently challenged in Scouting and sports to step up and take responsibility, or "step up" as you put it. 

There's definitely a line of bad behavior from a Scout that might preclude them from opportunities like OA or NYLT, but like @SiouxRanger I tend to err on the side of giving them opportunities to grow. I forget the quote or who said it but it goes something like this: "Your best leaders are in the front of the group leading, or sitting in the back chunking wrenches into everything."  When those wrench throwers feel valued, are given a structure to operate in,  have clear but firm boundaries, and have objectives they understand and have passion for, they might achieve extraordinary things. 

29 minutes ago, yknot said:

The town ought to start talking about how they want to rezone the area for lower density. Our town underwent a down zoning to manage some speculative interests and it worked. 

All's fair in love and war. 

47 minutes ago, MattR said:

I think I might hijack this thread again. The topic of trailers is a type of hot button issue for me. It's not the trailer so much as the mindset it creates. I'm fine with a trailer to make it easier for more scouts to get in fewer cars. What I dislike is the attitude of "we have a trailer, just bring all the gear we could possibly need." I'd talk about Thrifty and it just never resonated with anyone. What people want vs what they need. When I did a lot of backpacking I got really good at knowing the difference.

I forced the troop to dump the huge patrol boxes that did take four adults to move. We replaced those with a patrol tote on wheels that two scouts could easily deal with. I wanted to go one step further and do similar to what I did as a scout; divy up all the needed patrol gear at the meeting before we went camping and leave the rest behind. Nobody understood. I'd point out the cooking requirements that included making a list of gear needed and, again, it just never connected.

Now, I just feel like I'm getting in the way. I don't participate anymore, because of things just like this.

There's an element of people doing what they've always done. It's comfortable. 

54 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

fixed that for him...

Context matters. Selling the camp in order to keep financing a bloated council bureaucracy? Yes. Selling the camp because of the council's financial obligations for abuse victims? No. They have an obligation to the folks they owe money to get as much money as possible. Bad actions have consequences. 

I'm not familiar with Wood Badge staff structure, but on the NYLT side we have Troop Guides who are typically first year staff, and the other Troop positions (QM, ASPL, SPL) are called senior staff. A normal Troop might do that too.. "Older" Scouts vs "Younger or "New" Scouts" 

What makes you say it's a cultish thing? 

On 12/23/2021 at 8:37 AM, RememberSchiff said:

I don't understand why create another scout leadership council when you have the Order of the Arrow?

https://oa-bsa.org/about/mission-purpose

Because in plenty of Councils' the OA is on life support and tons of very talented youth leaders are not actively involved with it, even if they've gone through their ordeals. 

As @skeptic pointed out, my local OA chapter does some service, mostly for council camps, and does social events. It's not necessarily producing any better or worse youth leaders than NYLT, Summer camp staff or a strong unit might be. 

A different grouping of youth, that samples across the various programs and aspects of Scouting, would be ideal. That being said, there is a almost zero chance that in most councils or nationally, that the feedback and opinions of youth members are actually heard or considered. 

On 11/7/2021 at 10:40 AM, Navybone said:

I don’t think posting a very biased attack on the MB from some very conservative website is very helpful to the conversation, especially when most of the article is based on supposition about MB could and how it could be manipulated rather than how it is actually written.  

The internet is a funny thing, I interpreted the article as a complete joke. The author was trying to be serious, buts a such a wild stretch of an argument. 

1 hour ago, MikeS72 said:

What visible assets do you think the average pack/troop has, that they would 'hide in an instant'?

Our pack assets really only consist of a pack flag and an American flag.  The troop has the same by way of flags, along with 8 or 9 tents and several patrol boxes filled with yard sale cooking gear.  Most of what we camp with is provided by the individual scouts.  While I know that there are troops with a lot of high end gear, I feel safe in the thought that the average pack or troop could not raise more than a few hundred dollars, if that, even if they liquidated everything they own.

Pretty much. Troops might have a significant amount of money in their accounts, but that's normally accounts payables type money... Ie: collected fees for Summer camp before cutting the check to the camp. It's not idle, available cash. My Troop has about 1k in cash that we keep for supporting families with financial needs. Other than that, the Troops "assets" are trailers and used camping gear. 

I think the concept of the group is great. Where I'm skeptical is the number of survivors from the Coalition. Who are they and how will they be picked? How long will their terms be? How long is a seat on this group? Says open to all survivors.. so how does our guy @ThenNow get on it? 

10 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Mods, I’m mad. You killed the brightest star in this forum’s constellation. I don’t care what you have to do. Groveling is a start. Get him back. Or maybe it was your intention all along to snuff out his voice. 
No disrespect to the other posters but I think I speak for everyone. 

He can come back whenever he wants. The moderators shouldn't have to beg somebody to participate after they were post limited for abusing other members. 

So no, you don't speak for everyone. 

9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

 

Similar can be argued for elementary school chartered packs.   Or even for schools that allowed recruitment in the elementary school classes.  They endorsed scouting without any oversight.

Yes for packs chartered by a school, probably not that we're not charters but allowed access for recruiting. 

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Um, read my post in light of the post to which I am responding. I think you’re swatting a phantom gnat. 

Mea maxima culpa. 

3 hours ago, yknot said:

 

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

I can't read! Edited. 

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Whenever I ask for financials, I always get the "Why do you want to know?"  To me, that is the first sign someone is hiding something.  I even got this when I asked for IRS 990s.

At least for the IRS 990s, I wrote back, "Because the law says you have to provide them."  

Lucky they didn't ban you. Amazing for an organization with ideals like Scouting, that so many corners of the org are ran so unethically and secretively. Not just the child abuse, but regarding finances and local politics as well. 

3 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

My observation is the moderators on this site are half crazy.

I've never seen so much editing and censorship. Some attorneys are lions and some are vultures. Let people speak their mind.

Placing CS in some kind of delayed post prison is silly. Nobody would understand 1/2 of this case without his posts. We sure don’t need his posts censored and whitewashed. Are the moderators simply jealous of his posts?

If BSA fails, what will the moderators do? Sit around in green shorts and red jackets trading old antique patches?  

CynicalScouter needed a timeout. His behavior was abusive, even if I agree with his points more often than not. 

The moderators have a thankless job, so thankless I stopped doing that job years ago, because it was killing my enjoyment of the site. If they chose they could have restricted all discussion of the bankruptcy at the beginning and practically one of the only places for BSA CSA survivors to get information would have never have happened. 

This is basically the only place to discuss this topic on the internet, but there are still rules and standards of conduct and if folks don't like em, they're welcome to go start their own website somewhere. 

@ThenNow perhaps I'm dense, I'd read it like a potential comp if I was on the plaintiff side. Maybe it's because my job involves writing policies and making sure there isn't a way to misinterpret them, that I instinctively look for "How can this be misunderstood?" 

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

As was fair and equitable in the beginning.  All I am saying is if MSU settlement is 1M why settle for 57K.  What is on the table is definitely more dissappointing.

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $80,000, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

The current offer is low. The councils haven't chipped as much as what they probably can, Hartford got a sweet deal. National likely has more assets it can part with. The victims should vote down the plan on that basis. 

The MSU settlement has little bearing on the BSA settlements. They are two distinctly different cases, with different facts, assets and ability to pay. 

The BSA is shrinking, and the longer the bankruptcy goes on, the more bad press is out, it's assets will likely continue to dwindle, leaving less for the victims to recover. MSU is a thriving and growing publicly funded university. 

I want to see victims get the most compensation possible, while the BSA survives and becomes a safer and more transparent program. I worry about scenarios where either the BSA's unwillingness to make deeper significant sacrifices or victims not recognizing a realistic return causes a worst case outcome for both: the BSA effectively collapses and the victims get less than they could've if they take a deal. We're not there yet, so the victims would be smart to continue pushing for more. 

There's a point in this bankruptcy case where the victims can maximize their returns that hasn't been hit yet, but telling folks it'll be like the MSU settlement when it mathematically cannot makes the victims more likely to reject a deal when "the best deal possible" is on the table. 

I don't have any issue with you telling other victims to reject the current plan, but I think there's a danger to over optimistic numbers than just disappointment.

11 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My intent is to get the word out there to reject.  Facebook and other social media was used to gather claimants and I am hoping that maybe some of the same who might not otherwise see the letter from TCC will read it.  I only used the MSU as a reference.

I get it. Just understand that the typical claimant is not as informed as you. They'll see that 1 million per and think that's what they can get. It's setting them up to be disappointed. 

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I posted the following on Facebook please feel free to copy and post on your own Facebook, Twitter or any social media you may use.  

 

If everyone could please do me a favor and share this file

BSA TCC Rejects BSA's proposed settlement plan.

https://www.pszjlaw.com/.../BSA%20TCC%20letter%20re...

As many of you may or not know the Boy Scouts of America are in Bankruptcy. They have proposed to give the Child Sexual Victims which are victims of their programs just pennies on the dollar for the value of the claims. While it may seem like a lot of money there are over 82,000 victims who have come forward. If you had been raped as a child, gone thru a life of mental torture under this plan you would only receive $57,000. Victims of Larry Nasser and USA Gymnastics received $1,000,000. The BSA Torts Claimant Committee (TCC) is made up of victims of Child Sexual Abuse while with the BSA by BSA volunteers, professionals and older scouts. Unfortunately this story has not gotten the press coverage that it deserves.

PSZJLAW.COM

www.pszjlaw.com

As @CynicalScouterhas pointed out, there's no way each of the 87k are getting 1 million each. The BSA doesn't have the assets and ability to pay that MSU has. In my opinion, the victims should reject this plan, I would if I was a victim. The BSA and partners can be made to cough up more than the current plan but to expect anything close to the MSU settlement is wishful thinking, even if the BSA and the councils liquidate entirely.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, having slept on it...

Does Johnson's presser yesterday affect anyone's thoughts on remaining affiliated with BSA until more of these changes are manifested?

Over the years, I have become more aware of how the BSA "professional" side operates, and have grown more and more uncomfortable with their modus operandi.  Johnson's revelations yesterday only confirmed my interpretations of negative experiences accumulated.

I think my frog may be boiled, and, as we are nearing recharter time, I'm wondering if the thing to do is to decline renewing my BSA membership...

Anyone else struggling with this?

Yes. I am. I have commitments I've made to people locally for various things, but my natural instinct is to say "Screw this, I'm done with the BSA." 

17 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

QUIT ATTRIBUTING WORDS TO ME THAT I DID NOT SAY!!!

He did a fine job with Youth Protection and was a champion.  In my discussions with him, he did not understand that the experiences in the Scouts BSA program were to build character so he had difficulty in understanding what elements needed to be retained with a new way to protect youth rather than cutting it.  It is not an excuse.  I was the one advocating external academic researchers to continuously study the program.  I agree with outside observers and did not say otherwise.  You do not have the only valid viewpoint.

That's his MO. He doesn't fully read other people's comments, and jumps to the absolute worst interpretation of what other people write. It truly is bullying behavior, and he does it to darn near everybody on this forum. It's a shame, because otherwise CynicalScouter makes great contributions to this forum, particularly around the bankruptcy. 
 

17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Oh, and he wasn't fired. It was layoffs due to budget cuts.

Let that sink in a second.

So, to be clear, that REALLY does seem to indicate he NEVER got replaced as YP director.

Further support for your position that the BSA does not take YPT seriously. They LAID OFF the director of YPT, during a bankruptcy caused by inability to protect Youth, and then never backfilled the job. That's absolute negligence. It would be better if he was terminated for some sort of cause. 

3 hours ago, livitup said:

Something occurs to me...

If a person agrees with a post they can:

• Upvote the post, which adds value because after enough upvotes, a post is highlighted - making it easier for future thread readers to quickly identify the posts that the community has agreed are of highest value.
• Or they can reply with a "I agree" type post which doesn't add to the conversation, or highlight the high-quality posts.

If a person disagrees with a post they can:

• Downvote the post, which is in effect a low value "I disagree." post without an explanation. I can't discern any additional "consequences" of a downvote.
• Reply to the post with their thoughts which might change someone else's perspective, reframe the topic in a new way, etc.

Thus, I posit:

• The upvote button adds value to the forums.
• The downvote button does not, and should be disabled.

And please, to those who are currently debating the virtue of the current spate of downvotes, remember that a scout(er) is friendly and kind.

If you read earlier in this thread, from when it was originally made, there was some discussion about the voting feature, back when it was new. It's a fairly stock version of forum software, and the moderators cannot turn it off without contacting the developer. I'm not sure if that's a worthwhile spend of money, since this forum is already paid for by @SCOUTER-Terry's generosity. 

A certain number of upvotes triggers a label on a persons post. We tested down to 12 downvotes, and it had no effect on the post in question. Your thought process was the general consensus at the time. Downvotes do have a small value in identifying spam, off topic or factually incorrect posts, in my opinion. 

There isn't much merit in keeping downvotes, the cost to remove it probably isn't worth it, and the feature is only now becoming an issue after 3 years... which would imply it's less a inherent disfunction of the forum, and more of a disagreement between forum member as to what the feature means and the feelings involved in that. 

Maybe a few mods @RememberSchiff@MattR @desertrat77 can mediate some of the issues folks are having?

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff got hit with a subpoena!

 

I do love his sense of humor. Any idea what they actually asked him to produce? 

10 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

No Mic-O-Say is not associated or recognized by BSA or the OA. They are somehow affiliated with that camp, just like other organizations are affiliated with other Scout Camps, like ROTC units, Boys & Girls clubs etc. 

While what they do my be annoying or even offensive to some, as long as they don't break rules or policies, I am not sure what BSA can do without getting into more legal issues.

What folks are telling you, is they are violating BSA rules. Further, Mic O Say is not like ROTC. It's a BSA affiliated organization unique to Camp Bartle. The council that runs that camp could do away with it whenever they please. Or BSA national could force them to. 

While a scattered claim with no evidence should be viewed skeptically, this is not the first time on this forum or elsewhere where people have talked about the violations or odd practices of Mic O Say.