skeptic

I spoke to our Minister again today, and he assured me that they want us there.  We are in our 101st year, and they are proud of their affiliation with us.  Three units, though only the troop is old.  Had cubs off and  on in the fifties, also a Sea Scout Patrol (not ship), Explorer posts, and a Venture Crew.  The sticking point for me is the ownership thing.  Ther rest is pretty much the same anyway.  They need to fix the concern about the LC being able to just take our stuff because they "own it".  The have the money separated it seems.  As I noted somewhre, maybe here, it would seem there could be a cluse that gives the units use of all the equipment and to have that use exclusively in impertuity or something.  It is not yet done I do not think.  Lots of concerns and confusion.

You could make similar comparisons to many others of the day, and even today.  In theory, the Y in its various states over more than a century would likely be held in similar esteem; Young Mens' Christian Association (and women's); or the various youth clubs that were common prior to organized youth sport, or any of the religiously connected groups, and of course the educational boards and schools with their members.  All of them had/have some kind of "expectation" of higher moral values.  Yet, all of them have examples of not meeting those expectations, and as noted in numerous past comments, many of them were far more likely to fall short based on what we know.  The main point is that society, in theory, has these expectations, but often the wolf leers and lurks waiting for the shepherd or the guard dog to lose their focus and even their protective nature.  BSA is really and always has been just another element of the larger society, and overall met that higher standard, though failing badly in some instances.  Those failures, though few statistically in relation to the membership, should not have happened or should have had better responses.  They have admitted these failures and also have over time made efforts to try to combat that societal weakness, often doing it with little support beyond themselves over the eras.  It is still the truth that the failures lie at the feet of not just BSA, but many elements of society, including too often family and close associations other than BSA.  And no amount of continued beating of the horse will change history.

Well, why are we in this mess now?  The less than straight forward lawyers did exactly what they do when given a chance.  The files were not witheld, just not open to the public.  Of course, we also still need to consider the eras as well, espcicially the libel laws of the past.  You will never find a perfect answer, and there is not doubt many mistakes and a great deal of poor judgement when seen in the light of the current society.  You cannot separate the realities of trying to remake history.  History should help avoid mistakes if viewed with logic and balance, but it cannot fix the past.

But, how much of this will see the broader media, if any?  A story that encompasses what Scouting really teaches and is will likely not bring their attention beyond noting some scouts were on the train.  But, we all should still be proud of the example.

Hopefully we will see adjustments to this.  For example; as part of the agreement for facility use, the BSA, LC will make an impertuity loan of all such equipment to the unit, charging them say $1 or something like that.  With a little imagination, the units can continue pretty much on course and not worry that the LC will suddenly step in and say we want all our equipment back to offer to another group, or whatever.  Or, can't the equipment simply be owned still by the church and they "loan" it to the unit in perpetuity?  

Trying to take a deep breath and see how it goes.  Our church has assured us they want us there; in fact we have more space than before for storage and such.  They have approved us turning the two main meeting rooms in the basement into partial museums, as we are in our 101st year.  My understanding is that other churches with longevit also are hoping to keep that tenure in place.  I need to check into it, but if we had to find a new CO, but kept the site, would the unit tenure transfer to the new CO?  That is the biggest concern if we needed to find another sponsor.  But, until we see how this works, and it will be a bit, just keep "doing our best".

I know we had issues once or twice with the county and maybe even the state.  We had to replace the well after it collapsed due to the drought issues and age.  Then it had all be recertified.  We use a local portapotty system for camp sites and outlying activity areas, and we have a relatively new system at the pool with individual stalls and a connect system to septic tank.  The other main part of camp has some challenges due to age, but is also septic connected but needs updating.  The county keeps a very close eye on us; do not know if they do that to other camps in the area, but would hope so.  

Say what you will, these people seem to not find their levels of billing usurious.  Who on here, of normal populace, ever made three digit hourly rates?  What is non working transportation hours?  I know, it is our system.  And that is half the problem, as it has become far too much of money pit than a legal equity and fairness instrument.  And since the wolves are in charge of the system, little will change unless we find a way to get rid of many of the wolves.  Just saying.  I am a peon, and this whole thing reeks, and worst of all is that the survivors/victims are also getting abuse again by this whole thing, along with the BSA and its conveyors of the programs.  

Maybe I am just too jaded and old to comprehend the new universal right of excess and greed.

Thank you for another perspective.  I agree we need to deal with our own issue in BSA.  I just wish the field would widen to deal with what seems a really larger concern, one that "nobody is watching".  Those places could even include some of the individuals NOT able to get involved with BSA due to their efforts to do some kind of prevention, and those prevention  methods improving.  It is a societal problem, as well as one related to the worst parts of humanity.  But we also do not want to see another disaster like the McMartin case.  

Let me try one more time.  The point is that the lack of safeguards in most of these camps is a far larger problem than the BSA due to the apparent lack of reasonable oversight.  So, and the article hints at it, abuse is one of the things that the camps are open to and in a far greater way due to the lack of oversight.  Note also the comment that no body wants to take that oversight responsibility.  IF BSA is held to the grindstone when it has verifiably some the safest camps around due to their program requirements and training, and it is still the target of public disdain and legal attacks, even though they are safer, then what is wrong with this picture.  Note also that while this is a California story, they note that few states have any real oversight of all these small camps and pseudo day care camps.  

10 minutes ago, Tron said:

Article doesn't apply to BSA. BSA requires that every camp have a Program Director and a Camp Director and both have to be NCAP certified. BSA requires that every every camp have a designated first aid provider who is current in CPR, AED, and First Aid. BSA requires all stations have at least 1 registered adult leader; with that there are the YPT and background check requirements. 

The whole point of sharing is that this is happening with no where near the turmoil as BSA has, even though they have far safer camps at far higher usage.  So, not sure why the down vote, as it does relate as you noted, in comparison.

This article is on point and also, in my view, suggests how skewed the BSA lawsuit and its fall is.  While BSA, that has huge levels of supervision and is in some states almost unable to meet all the restrictions, this is going on with little or no serious attention.  And, it is not new, nor is it only in California.  The article notes that few states have any real supervision over these types of programs, and that most government entities seem to NOT want to take responsibility.  It does not excuse the BSA mistakes, it only points out that BSA is not the likely worst player, just has become the whipping group.  Take a look.  https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/19/a-daughters-death-at-day-camp-spurs-drive-for-licensing-laws-in-california/  

This is simply sad and frightening, yet has been under our noses for decades.  The likely only reason there has not been the clamor that has overwhelmed BSA is that these operations are not National, nor do they have any deep pockets.  The black feathered legal opportunists do not see profit or they are so diverse that it would require serious effort to make their financial killing.  JMO of course.

Let us try to not jump the gun with our already biased opinions.  Until we see the entire agreement, and we also see how it comes together, or apart, we should move ahead.  As far as most gear is concerned, the LC will have no place to keep it, and I believe that is actually part of the larger agreement.  We will be very wary of how it works, but it is too early to panic completely or rebel.  Our local church is still supportive and I do not see that changing.  

12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

The day that insurance carriers compete for writing BSA liability coverage with no sex abuse exclusions, we will know they have done right.  Given my diminished faith in BSA and humanity as a whole, I'm not holding my breath.

"Humanity as a whole" is the key phrase here.  And BSA at any level cannot fix that, no matter how many lawsuits or dollars are offered.  That of course is the problem from day one.  People in BSA are part of the larger existence, "Humanity", or the human species.  And controling all of them is not possible, only watching as well as you can to keep the evil ones away.  And even then, as is shown, no manner of rules or methods are fool proof.  Meanwhile, society continues down the sump while it destroys many of the most overall positive options in its existence.  The panacea that somehow we all will be secure from the worst of the larger group is simply that, a panacea.  

With that in mind though, we also need to try and assure that the safeguards are never let down and that we follow up, even if we are almost positive the problem is not real or is overblown in some manner due to a personal vendetta or simply misunderstanding.  

20 minutes ago, yknot said:

Not sure if this belongs here but I think this will solve many of the "What to do with one or a few girls" issues: 

https://hovc.org/articles/2022/06/family-den-pilot-program/

 

A step, but we need it on the Scout level as well.  Really no reason to not have coed other than lack of enough women, and that today should really not be a problem.  JMO of course.  Meanwhile, we now have to deal with the NEW charter model as  Methodist units.

Thanks for the share.  It touches on a couple of my concerns as to the approach.  One for me is taking for gospel, or at least suggesting, that the 82000 number is accurate, even though few have been vetted even a little it seems, and we know the fact exists some likely were harvested.

Another part is the time differentials of much of it.  One of the primery survivors notes the abuse was also a teacher and much of the abuse was in school settings.  Also there is admission that some did not bring it up until years later when the ads went out.  That does not mean they are not victim/survivors, it just means we do not know if anybody might have been able to be charged at the time.  The fact the files existed at all is not examined, especially in the context of the time when they started.  They also appear to not note or be aware that in a few instances the files DID identify a problem that had moved, which should be part of the larger investigation in order to be balanced.  I also have read that not sharing the files had more to do with libel laws of the time than the Red Scare issue.  Finally, I really see little reason for noting the Dale issue and the Gay turmoil in relation to this, as one of the criticisms of that in the first place was and is that Gays seldom are also child abusers, so what is the reason for doing that?

It remains though that much was not handled well, and some was simply completely botched.  Trying to cover up may or may not have been the reason, but it likely played a part.  And, no matter what, we know that the unwillingness of the victim/survivor and or his family to expose it in some cases, along with the societal position on such things in most of the time frames involved certainly had and have an affect.  

Going forward we need to stay on top of the YP program, finding a way to try to guarantee the parents actually pay attention to the available information and updating the youth in some manner.  The tenets of Scouting are even more in need today, and we need to strengthen it , not get rid of it.  Also we need to see the broader communities become more involved in confronting the rest of the iceberg.  

And we need closure to happen with the lawsuit so those in it are finally compensated in some manner.

28 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

We will probably experience the same amount of neglect as do we currently 😜

Webinar this evening.  As noted, my main concern is the "ownership model".  As noted above, will we have to beg for funding from council, oris there some method that has been designed to circumvent that?  I do know that should council somehow think they are going to "take" equipment and other things from us they will not get a positive response.  Hope that will not come up.  Hoping for  a lot of clarification.

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Oh, my. This is a VERY troubling, angry, reactive and clearly prejudicial statement sans confirmed facts. “Book. Cover. Etc.”  Who are you speaking of regarding disgorging profits? I find that very close to the line of utterly absurd. Are you indicting those watch the film? Want some money from Ron Howard and Brian Glazer? They have gobs of money. You have NOT even watched it. Are you interested in the truth? Truth requires humbly receiving and assessing all data. I came to this forum because I’m interested in that precious outcome and in contributing to it. This is troubling. Is an effort to understand others’ views worthless? $15 is a piece of pie and cup-o joe. Yikes…

Sorry you cannot see beyond the lines apparently, or simply choose not to.  The fact that it is being advertised and that few make these types of things without expectation of profits, is my reason for comment.  The price of $15 is not the issue, it is the fact that they are charging for it in the first place.  As I said, if they were to guarantee those profits all went to your Trust, I would be less critical.  I am not indicting those that watch the film; that is their option.  You seem overly critical yourself, and that is not like you. 

Whatever; frankly this has carried on far too long and the continued appearance of people using the hype and controversy for profit is just as bad as trying to rewrite the past.  Think what you will, I have never suggested the issue is not real, only that the approach is unbalanced and too often egregious efforts to make profit off the survivors, either as lawyers or just these kinds of "films".  

I hope the case soon comes to an end and the survivors or victims can maybe get on with their lives the best they can.  This entire thing has just added more pain to most of you.

31 minutes ago, yknot said:

If you don't have Hulu you can sign up for a free trial (be sure to end it) or pay a month's fee. You can also pay to watch it on the Tribeca Film Festival site I believe for the next couple days. It's $15. That's where I saw it. It's playing in some theaters but those are mostly in major cities. 

Will review the Hulu option, but I will NOT pay for what appears from the intro to be a biased hit piece simply preying on people to make money.  IF they were to guarantee all their profits from this endeavor were to go to the Trust, I might have a different view.  But the cost should be offset by their backers and advertisers, not by average Joe that just want a clearer perspective on the subject.  JMHO of course.

As I stated before, I cannot make real comment unless I see the actual video.  Where can we actually see it?  I have seen no link as yet, only the intro?  Way too many questions without actually viewing it.  Glad to see your comment about "various levels", though I truly want to know how many others outside of CO or National chose to be part of the poor response or no response, as seems suggested?  Again, we are dealing with different periods of history and different societal responses to what today is noted as unacceptible, period.  Any lack of responsible actions is now seen as it should have been then, but often was not.  Who besides the CO or Natiopnal or LC also knew but made decisions at the time?  

Back to the balance and perspective thing.  The farther back in time we go, the more vague and skewed perspectives get.  

I am already signed up or have on my calendar the webinar for tomorrow.  I was sent a similar note from our local minister.  My main concern, before seeing the webinar is the definition of Ownership and transferring it to the local council.  That is a little bit of a concern for a century old unit with historical items and documents.  Also, how that affects any banking situations?  My nightmare would be the idea that somehow the Council could simply walk in and take our equipment and whatever else they chose.  Would hope that was addressed in the agreement, but have to wait to see.  

Related could be how this will affect other Sponsor arrangements?  IF this form is set in motion, will  it become the new method for all?  

It is truly a sad and upsetting scenario you present, though we still do not know why authorities chose to not pursue it.  Neither here nor there, somehow the banning, which apparently WAS filed in the IV files did not show as he moved, or locals had no clear reason to suspect so they simply did not check with the resources in use at the time.  And BSA has admitted that mistakes were made and poor decisions as well.  I certainly am not condoning or forgiving those mistakes, only pointing out that they are convoluted over time and are being viewed through more than one mirror.  IT should not have happened that way, just as so many similar incidents likely should not have occurred in other parts of the community over time.  That does NOT take away from the generally safer environment of BSA, especially in the window of the era.  Why someone beyond BSA did not follow through might be asked, but it does not make the wrong right, only less clear as to WHY.  

We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future better.  And, just as the medical profession has evolved and become safer and continues to do so, it has made many errors both in judgments and in practice.  That does not mean we should throw it away, only continue to monitor and work to use the tools at hand.  Similarly Law enforcement.  Few really think we should throw out the police, only find ways to make them better.  And both of these enitities have continued to make errors and poor decisions.  And today, they more often are held accountible in some manner.

Unless the video discusses the files as they were intended, and calls them IV files and not the perjorative of Mr. K and others, and also notes that most of the files were not abuse, and points out that that until fairly recently making the files open to others would have been a serious chance of libel issues, and notes the cases that are in the files that were not followed up on by authorities leaving BSA to just separate the individuals, and touches on the strong likelihood that many of the "82,000 claims are not vetted and resulted from legal manipulations, and notes the constant improvements in YP to the extent that BSA was looked at as a model not too long ago for modern YP plans, and points out that comparatively to know stats in other youth serving groups the incidences, even with the questionable ones is still low, and also notes that they have accepted responsibility and admit poor decisions in the past in some cases and are still working to improve protections even before the bankruptcy, or possibly puts forward known instances of BSA doing it right; then I will possibly see it as not a hatchet job.  Back to those words, balance and perspective.  Also, possibly note that we are making judgments in a different societal time and that in itself skews the picture.

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Can you provide a link where Kosnoff is quoted saying that?

Obviously not your champion but he is a champion to quite a few.

I simply quoted the OP.  Frankly, it is not worth my time to try to find it in the numerous pages of things on this forum.  Most on here over the last year or more have surely seen some of the indicators of exaggeration and possibly supposition by K, as well as some other "legal" line walkers.  Reality is that most of the legal people involved often make me pretty skeptical.