Jump to content

skeptic

Members
  • Content Count

    2548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Posts posted by skeptic

  1. Here again, from Troop 111 in Ventura, California is an apex of Scouting.  Thanks to Craig Carey, ASM and his dedicated parents, and thoroughly enthusiastic Scouts.  Locally, Scouting is showing its best face, and other units are sharing at times.  This is what dedicated leaders can make happen with patience and imagination.  And it is not just the trail work, exceptional at any level for novices, but also many other areas of service in our area.  Take a look.  Many of you reading this might find it a possible option for your own area with a little searching.  https://issuu.com/ojaivisitorsguide/docs/ojai_magazine_summer_2021/s/12852782?fbclid=IwAR2ezx1925qPBtzaGeywXcE7N6Wabra4QsWDvraCoP4arf9i-XNE2_sCWec

    • Upvote 2
  2. I came back last Saturday from our camp.  All staff had to be vaccinated.  All adult leaders had to be vaccinated.  Eligible youth were asked to be vaccinated.  We had to have proof of the vaccination as part of the paperwork.  

    Precamp troop checks were done with a BSA designed check list.  On the day we left, we again went through the checklist and had temps taken.  On arrival, we were interviewed and had temps taken.  At every meal we had to sanitize in front of a staff person and have temp taken.  All group activity required masks, and they enforced it firmly, but nicely, even with this grouchy old man who kept forgetting to put the mask up after water drinking and so on.   Areas were regularly wiped down, and dining was outside in tents or open air with little dining hall access except staff and leaders on occasion.  Drinks were on a porch, and pitchers had to be filled for meals by staff and given to servers.  California state protocols were all were followed strictly, and we had no COVID issues, though a couple of other problems standard to camp attendance.  Still, not sure that common sense and simple normal cleanliness and awareness would not suffice for much of it.  But of course, Common Sense is dead.

     

  3. Just the old guy response.  I have a number of Mentor pins on the pocket flap of my primary uniform under the knots.  Why?  Because  young person honored me with them, and I seems right to wear them.  I know one local that for whatever reason has a dozen or more.  He has a pocket device he made to hang from the right pocket nd keeps them on there.  Most are only worn at formal troop events, though my pins simply stay there except when the shirt goes to be cleaned..  Uniform police can be ignored.  It is your decision, and if they have purpose, or mean something, that is the only thing that matters.  So, there.  And harrumph!🤗

    • Upvote 1
  4. 1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

    I'm a COR, what the  verbiage in my previous post means in practice is that I attend the annual Council meeting.  At that meeting various proposals concerning the By Laws, Officer Appointments, council and board membership, etc. are voted on.  

    The real action however happens in the monthly Executive Board meetings.  So, I attended the annual meeting at the beginning of the year, where I was briefed on the then state of the bankruptcy, LC Ad Hoc Committee, etc.  Since that time the executive board has met monthly, but I and the other CORs are not part of that meeting; so I've received no direct information about how much my LC needs to pay into the trust, or how they plan to do that.

    To truly take control of the council, the CORs would need to get together at the annual meeting and force themselves or their desires onto the exec board.  This happened a decade or more ago at the Chicago area council, but I haven't heard of it at any other time or place.

    It happened decades ago now in the old Great Western Council.  A COR got miffed and spent a great amount of time gathering other COR's to attend in force.  They summarily booted the Executive and his assistant.  But it took him a long time to gather the troops, so to speak, and the mess had been brewing for a while.  I would need to check the state laws regarding banning voting members from the inner sanctum, so to speak.  Not sure that is legal, though it may be as long as a decision requiring a vote is not made without all voting members notified.  It is also mostly true that the CO seldom seems to care beyond his own group.

     

  5. 29 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

    In conversations with two different local Scout Executives (SE) many years apart, this is a misunderstood situation.  I believe that mrjohns2 is correct that Chartered Organization Representatives (COR) may ask and will be added to the District Committee.  Not certain about this though.

    As to the Local Council Executive Board (CEB), being the COR or Institutional Head (IH) which is the CEO of the Chartered Organization (CO) that for a church is usually the pastor, senior minister, priest, or other descriptive term for the chief religious officer and CEO of the church does not allow one to become a voting member of the CEB.  It does allow them to attend CEB meetings but not vote.  Being a COR or IH allows one to ask to be nominated for the CEB but does not guarantee that they will be nominated and confirmed.  However, if a CO wishes the IH or COR to be on the CEB, it is highly likely that they will be nominated and confirmed at the next election that is typically in January every year.

    There are very good reasons why just being an IH or COR does not grant CEB membership.  States have laws that govern non-profit organizations that usually require some sort of quorum to hold a meeting.  If all CO's could assign a voting member, it would be unlikely that the CEB would ever have a quorum to conduct business.

    The CEB has a smaller subgroup called the Council Executive Committee (CEC) that is the officers and standing committee chairs.  The CEC makes proposals to the CEB as to actions to be taken.  Usually, the recommendations of the CEC are passed by the CEB [since I first joined my council's CEB in 1994 there has never been a time that the CEC recommendations were not approved though there have been times where there was considerable discussion].  Being a IH or COR who wishes to serve on the CEB will likely be asked to do so but selection of the CEC is more difficult to secure as business leaders are often selected for many of the positions and active volunteers for roles that are best served by active volunteers (Camping committee as an example).  Ideally, the CEC reflects sound business decisions and seeks to best serve the council's youth.

    The National Executive Board (NEB) and National Executive Committee (NEC) reflects the local councils.  Typically, the NEB and NEC have representatives that also reflect the interests of the organizations with large numbers of CO's (United Methodist Church, Catholic Church, etc and formerly the LDS).  

    Like all systems, it does not always work as desired but it was devised to represent the volunteers, CO's, and community.  Most have a second hand story of it not working well and some have first hand experiences but I have generally witnessed it working rather well when I had all aspects of an issue.

    It seems that the relationship of the CO's, LC's, and BSA are evolving.  Remember that there were good reasons why things are done in the current manner.  Changing it may solve some problems but will likely introduce news ones.

    If the CO's were to take a large interest in the units whom they charter and seek membership on the CEB where they would attend all or nearly all CEB meetings, I feel that it would be to the benefit of all.  It remains to be seen that if the CO agreement is only to provide space as to whether it would be so easy to become a member of the CEB.

     

     

    Here is the applicable wording from the BSA directly.  https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/511-421(16)_WEB.pdf

     

    Note this specific statement: "In territory supervised by local councils, each chartered organization shall appoint a volunteer, other than the unit leader or assistant unit leader, as its chartered organization representative to represent it as a member of the district committee and as a voting member of the local council.”

     

    The following official description of a chartered organization representative is found in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America. Article VI., Local Councils, Section 3, Chartered Organization Representative, Clause 7. It reads: “In territory supervised by local councils, each chartered organization shall appoint a volunteer, other than the unit leader or assistant unit leader, as its chartered organization representative to represent it as a member of the district committee and as a voting member of the local council.” Following are additional requirements for service as a chartered organization representative: 1. The chartered organization representative’s primary responsibilities are to help units to be successful and to provide coordination between the chartered organization and Scouting. 2. The chartered organization representative is automatically a voting member of the council and the district upon selection or appointment by the chartered organization. The individual must be an adult, a U.S. citizen, and a registered member of the BSA during the period of time that the chartered organization designates this person as chartered organization representative. 3. The chartered organization representative is encouraged to become an active, participating member of one of the district’s committees.

  6. 39 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

    I am just trying clarify a bit... 

    Does this mean nothing is certain on Jan 1, 2022?

    4) It has been recommended that we charter up to Dec. 31, 2021 to allow for space to work together. We will have more answers and a stronger way forward before then. Do not throw out the children in the church (Scouts), this will harm them and the church. Two deep injustices do not make justice, even for a lawyer!

    I would hope not, but much depends on the next few months.  There was a schism in the church recently, and there likely is also a difference in those views more locally.  Our own congregation and pastors are strongly behind us, but they are still tied to the Conference decisions.  Hopefully that will be easier by year end.  Almost all the troops over 40 years old in our council are Methodists, and ours is 100 in December.  The big thing is to NOT be chicken little every time someone says something that may suggest a change in view.  At least in my experience, more rational voices rise to the top, and review and adjustments move it all forward.  Scouting is still local.

     

    • Upvote 1
  7. For some direct and less paranoiac info from the main Methodist group.  https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/576502677088897?notif_id=1626798180694932&notif_t=page_followed_contents_awareness&ref=notif

     

    I spoke with our local minister yesterday, and we are in So Cal, the heart of the liberal church, and she assured me that Methodists in most of the country are not pushing to throw us out.  But, she also said that there is a smaller segment, mostly in what we might call Red states, that make that noise.  Anyway, read the link above.

  8. On 7/18/2021 at 1:13 PM, MattR said:

    I like that last part. 

    You do realize that the COR has had the right to sit on the Executive board for decades do you not?  Just because few do, it has been in place a long time and on rare occasion has resulted in dismissal of a Council executive and major changes.  But, since few ever pay any attention, too many boards run amuck with power people who want recognition or to do things "their way" and to "their" benefit.  

    Going clear back to the original Dale quagmire, IF this had been done, it would have been left in the lap of the CO to make the decision.  But, somehow, those erudite "forward thinkers" decided it should become a public drama and political football.  The CO and the actual unit never had an issue with Mr. Dale, even after his trip into college politics and personal reflection.  He did not make the initial choice to become public with his personal life, it was forced by some idiot (yes, I know a strong or maybe insulting word) who saw his name in regard to the political football of the time and felt obligated to make it a big deal.  Even then, if National had simply put it back to the unit and CO, it might have played out far differently.

  9. Yesterday, trying to clean up "stuff" I found a group of printed out opinion pieces from around the BSA's centennial year.  Hard copies of various writers and public figures, as well as just old timers and silent, distanced supporters.  One of them is the shared explanation of Terry as to why he has chosen his particular course in relation to BSA.  It reminded me as to why I originally chose to join the group, and also that we all have our own views and ways of support and ways to change our compasses in relation to Scouting.  Perhaps this might be reshared?  I can scan it, but it would be easier and maybe even allow a current comment from Terry?  

  10. 42 minutes ago, rayezell_2000 said:

    Where was this camp located?

    Ventura County Council.  It was the first official camp after our founding in June, 2021, opening in 1923.  We lost it during the Depression to a project to put U.S. 399 over the mountains from Ventura to the Bakersfield area.  Most of what was then 399 stopped at the base of the mountains on the Bakerfield side.  Anyway, an agreement was reached for the camp property, including guaranteed lease for property in the Lockwood Valley area near Mount Pinos and Frazier Park.  The Lees who had a turkey ranch in Lockwood gave a small plot of land to the scouts, and leases were developed up canyon from there for what is today's camp, Three Falls, with some other additions over the years.   

    3FlsCook.jpg

    • Thanks 1
  11. 3 hours ago, gpurlee said:

    One of my concerns is that many councils may see this as a wonderful opportunity to rid themselves of the expense of inherited and unwanted camps under the guise of the bankruptcy.  Selling a beloved Scout camp is a sure way to stir up a firestorm among Scouters and donors. Now councils can say "the courts made us do it" and shift the blame. I am skeptical that every last dollar will go into the settlement trust.  

    While I cannot know the extent of truely unwanted camps, IF a council actually has unused and simply stagnant property it might be a good decision, even without the lawsuit.  Why would you sit on property that is not being used if you might have other viable options?  Also, IF property that is rarely used, but does get wilderness use on occasion, can the sale include contingencies to allow use of Scouts and other NP groups to use it?  Often, with effort, more acceptable arrangements might be made.  And going forward, include protection from overreaching lawsuits.  JMHO

     of course.

  12. We had one in Camp Gray, our first camp in the twenties, and he continued for a time to the second camp, 3-Falls, still in use, in the thirties.  the kids and staff loved him, and he was duly missed when he decided to chuck it in.  I think he may have been an army Army or Navy cook at one time.

     

    • Like 1
  13. On 6/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, CynicalScouter said:

    (deleted). I was under the impression the mods had said enough of this. In fact, I know for a fact they said this.

    People who are injured under the American (and indeed English common law from whence our jurisprudence came) system of civil justice have a right to seek tort damages compensated through the judicial process. They also have the right to seek out legal counsel to that end.

    (deleted)

    (deleted)

    No more comments, though maybe see if any actual new info shows up with actual solutions that are balanced.  To answer your other rude question, at least twice we turned someone in for possible abuse, and investigations were done.  It was not sexual abuse though.  We also contacted one family in regard to a teen scout that was abusing another youth.  The parents refused to accept, but the authorities were told in regard to his being in public schools.  We did our due diligence if we had information, but we cannot make authorities follow up, and too often, as in some of these cases has shown, it was not just the BSA that dropped the ball.  But government is protected it seems and are let off the hook.  I hope they come to a fair and rational outcome, and it includes little or no compensation for certain legal people.

     

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 2
  14. On 6/23/2021 at 1:29 PM, ThenNow said:

    In what way? We’re creditors and most have a defined amount on their invoices. We don’t, it must be gauged by comp’s and past BSA settlements/award and recent settlements/judgements on similar sexual abuse cases. BSA and the insurers refused a mutual estimation, so there you go. 

    Or, do you mean that it’s wrong to say someone’s injury, pain, suffering and financial other impacts can be reduced to a “valuation”?

    (deleted)  Sorry, but I am simply tired of the BS of somehow thinking money can cure everything.  (deleted).  Just my opinion, and I understand you suffered considerable based on what you have shred.  Not to be crude, but if someone said here is a billion dollars, now leave it alone, would that somehow cure you?  I doubt it, but you, and others with similar stories would have simply had a hand in causing harm to others through the unfeeling system of vengeance.  Again, just my perspective, and it applies not just to this unfortunate case.  Vengeance at the expense of others who had no hand in the original crime is wrong, almost as wrong as the original crimes.  Good luck, but enough with the denial that somehow it is okay to destroy BSA (deleted).  None of you will ever be healed, and I have no real solution, other than trying to make the systems work to protect others going forward and bringing predators to justice when the actual perpetrators are still around to be punished.  Again, just the way it seems to me.

     

    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 3
  15. I keep seeing individuals comment that BSA has to somehow guarantee this can never happen again.  That is not a likely possibility, as we live in the real world of humans, and they are prone to a wide range of less than positive actions and ideas.  There can never be an absolute, but the barriers and safeguards can be put in place and closer awareness should become a regular part of our program, both as adults and youth.  We have just had a local case in a private school that is held in high esteem.  Now, there is an investigation and digging from the past.  It never goes away, because perversions are a reality of the human race.

  16. 11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    This may actually throw a wrench in the whole process.  I’m not 100% convinced their objection will help abuse victims.  Perhaps, but it looks different than any of the others. 
     

      I did find it interesting that the DOJ lawyer pulled this quote from another case.   
     

    noting that “...third party releases are not a merit badge that somebody gets in return for making a positive contribution to a restructuring. They are not a participation trophy, and they are not a gold star for doing a good job. Doing positive things in a restructuring case— even important things— is not enough”

    Okay, what am I missing in regard to the Biden connection?  Did they file some kind of legal involvement?  I looked at the partners on the link given, and currently are no BSA groups that I saw, though I may have missed something.  Also did not see anything related to Scouting in general, or for that matter hardly any major youth serving group.  

  17. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Really? Where? I haven't seen them post on the boards here. Who are they?

    What I see are some people here who are aware that

    1. The states changed civil statutes of limitations, meaning that
    2. Claims against BSA National (and LCs and COs) for allowing thousands of scouts to be secually abused through the negligence have been filed and
    3. At least 900 lawsuits are already filed and pending against BSA/LCs/COs with more to follow, therefore
    4. There is literally no way BSA/LCs/COs are going to avoid having to pay out and that
    5. The only real debate is "How much and when" at this point.

    But like I said, if you've seen people posting that "simply want the BSA Corporate to somehow take total responsibility for a societal sickness for which nobody has a cure" please point them out in the future.

    Thanks.

     

    One, is you Cynical.  You have suggested that somehow BSA did not do enough to stop this from happening.  Reality is that no matter what BSA did  or does, it will never be able to stop abuse entirely, other than simply not have a program or interaction with youth of any kind.  Society, in the past, and still, looks the other way much of the time.  Why, because it is part of the seamier side of the human animal and the cultures in which we live.  You expect BSA, or The Catholic Church, or someone to guarantee that none of these terrible things can or will ever happen.  That is not possible, and surely you know that.  BSA is just the current easy target, and the "vultures" are already peering through their beady eyes at the other youth groups, once they finish with BSA.  And as someone else pointed out in the reparation comparison, you cannot change what happened in the past, nor can you legitimately hold the country, or the corporation, or the church accountable for things today in which they had no say or little or no influence.  The larger issue is rally this idea that somehow, by ruining someone or some corporation, or some church, or some group of mostly civic minded people for the black sheep that slipped in we make someone or society whole.  Not reality, nor is it ever going to fix it all.  A reasonable system that deals fairly and within rational limits deters the worst perpetrators and encourages better vigilance.  Perfection is impossible, and absolute deterrence of evil is also impossible in societies as we know them.  JMO of course.  But, please stop suggesting that I, or others with a bit more rational view do not care about the victims.  We simply do not feel that making current youth victims in a different manner is fixing the problem.  And, T & N, nor any of the other victims will ever be whole, no matter how much they may end up, after the vultures take theirs.

    One could ask where the saving and making whole of the lost souls of the porn industry is, especially those that prey on the youngest off the streets and so on.  What is being done about hose ruined lives?  I suspect that there are plenty of possible targets to blame and hold responsible, but they are backed by big power and dark money, and few will even consider taking that on.  What about the perpetrators of suggestive advertising aimed at the young?  We know pretty much who is responsible, but little is done to enforce those laws.  

    So now, I will attempt to simply watch from the sidelines as this no win argument ( it is no longer a discussion for the most part).  

  18. This whole back and forth is futile, as we have a few that simply want the BSA Corporate to somehow take total responsibility for a societal sickness for which nobody has a cure, and likely never will beyond simply no interaction between adults and children.  The reality that BSA often was acting at the time on the direction of outside authorities, and also families that chose to not chance the victim being publicly visible due to the legal circus, as well as misdirected fear of embarrassment.  Yes, in some instances it appears, though we often do not know for sure why, that someone in BSA may or did choose to not follow up properly.  But, in many cases they were apparently put off by local authorities and family decisions.  The actual victim then was left in the lurch to deal with their trauma with little or no help at the time, and later with emotional adult problems.  

    It seems to me that the only fair thing then, since in the larger sense it is a failure of human nature and society, then we should have a tax on everyone to defray the emotional costs of therapy and so on, since reality is that society is primarily at fault, even more so than the corporate BSA, right behind the actual predators.

    And that is where the reparations comparison falls.  Some how, society, in a different era, failed people, whether youth, slaves, or races, allowing obvious or at least noticeable emotional and physical damage to occur.  And, no amount of retroactive compensation for that damage will ever actually make those victims whole, nor will it stop similar aberrations  in the future.  Mankind is really not necessarily particularly kind, and there are always going to be those that try to take advantage in some way or another, no matter how many barriers are in place.  When the rules are not followed, or someone gets a pass because of connections or money, penalties should be harsh, but not ruinous.  

    Just a view that some here will never feel to be reasonable or even rational.  Most on here are not against some type of compensation and aid to victims, but they do not want it at the expense of the overall positive elements of the program or the opportunities for youth.  In the end, a few will NEVER be happy with the outcome.  

    • Upvote 1
  19. Okay, while I still feel that the tenor of the discussion from Cynical Scouter is not just cynical, but often vicious.  That is me though.  I might have a different opinion if I were to discuss with him directly.  I saw a sea change in the direction of National by NOT putting a professional into the Chief position.  I think that wherever possible, the volunteers should be more visible and have more sway.  On the other hand, I admit to having had a very poor interaction with some National level volunteers in 2010, gentlemen from the OA.  I had approached them in regard to my view on alternate adult requirements that allowed dedicated men who put their "whole" family first, but were key to their units, especially the outdoor program, but did not have the flexibility to spend a week in summer camp without shortchanging their whole family due to limited vacation time.  That opinion was based on a fine ASM who was thoroughly trained, including all the outdoor courses, including backpacking training with first aid.  He was the lead for over three years on many weekend and 3 day outings, but he had two younger daughter and only limited vacation.  So, he chose to spend that vacation with his whole family.  I put him up for adult membership when his son became eligible.  I wrote the reason why I felt they should induct him, making the point of his pushing 40 days and nights of camping and backpacking with the troop, and his advanced training, including Trail Boss and the noted first aid.  I suggested that the intent of membeship for adults was their demonstration of support of the outdoor program, which he did in spades.  I had seen men inducted with only one or two summer camp experiences and almost no weekend or short term camping and hiking.  To me, he was far a far better example.  Oh, I should note that twice, before this, he had gone to camp with his personal tools and done needed repairs, as he was a welder and steel worker.  Anyway, the portly high level OA men with whom I spoke talked me down and basically belittled the idea and said there could be no exceptions, period.  Well, that of course is not true in and of itself.  The ":Chief of the Fire", the council Executive, has the option to override that requirement, though ours at the time would not, refusing to even consider it.  So, his son was elected, but his dad could not go through the ordeal with  him.  The man finally worked out his schedule, with his wife's help, as well as earing more vacation time for longevity, and then he was accepted.  But that was almost three years later, and it left a very bad taste in his mouth and all of my unit adults, and even the youth that understood what happened.  And I have had to deal with a number of really bad district executives and at least two very poor Council exec's.  Thus, the skeptic part tag.  

    So, I will try to overlook my annoyance at the tone, and accept that most on this forum still are for the BSA's survival and finding a better path.  Please accept my apology for perhaps being a bit too judgemental.  Thanks for the time.

     

    • Upvote 1
  20. 16 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

    As someone who personally knows most of the upper management and executive board of the BSA, yes, I believe that they are honorable men and women who have hired the best attorneys to represent the BSA that they could find and are following the advice of counsel.

    The BSA is paying for the best attorneys available and follow their advice.  Why the course is not something that is clear.  The BSA would be foolish to not do as they are advised.

    You cannot provide where the money originated to purchase and prepare the Summit for the first National Jamboree.   My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA.

    " My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA. " 

    Surely, most that still follow this whole heavily skewed discussion understand that NOTHING that reflects anywhere positively on the BSA side will be believed or accepted by Cynical.  Yes, I purposely leave the second part of his tag off, as I cannot fathom him actually being a Scouter, and he shows no connections in his profile.  He may be, but he long ago appears to have lost the very basic precepts, based on his ongoing vendetta on here.  I could be wrong, and just not understand; but that is the impression I get.  

    I do though thank him for the difficult to find info he furnishes, even if it is always presented in a negative manner.  Other than the legal things he and T & N share, I personally feel this whole thread has pretty much become their field to plow.  At least T & N shares his reasoning and seems to want a survival in some manner.  JMO of course.  

     
  21. Trying to get some clarity.  First, now the number pending is under 1000; is that just stuff to be added, or did they do some major editing?

    On the docs included, most of the cases seem to be in New York, Arizona, Hawaii, and scattered otherwise.

    On the lists of debtors, I do not understand how it could/would include the Catholic Church AND LDS in the same claim.

    Is it standard legal practices to use this terminology; "Does 1-5
    whose identities are unknown to
    Plaintiff"

    That would seem they are saying we really do not know, so lets just put some empty spots to add people to later.  

×
×
  • Create New...