Jump to content

T2Eagle

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

T2Eagle last won the day on March 5

T2Eagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

590 Excellent

About T2Eagle

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Northwest Ohio

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's hard to know where to start, but I I want to look at two ideas that I see as somewhat related. 1) that today's scouts are being punished and 2) that somehow these crimes are being judged too harshly because things were different then. My council owns two camps, one is over 100 years old and the other is over 50. Neither I nor my scouts are entitled to those camps by virtue of anything I or they have done. I've invested some time, treasure, and talent towards them in the last 20 years, but that's certainly only a small part of them. If I and my scouts are going to benefit from those
  2. Can anyone describe for me what the BSA says is the relationship between Arrow, JPM, the Foundation loan et al, and/or how that ownership structure makes the Summit a restricted asset? Alternatively, in the event that no one can explain it, or it cannot be explained, if you could point me to a document that purports to lay it out, and I'll try to dig through it myself.
  3. Don't get too caught up in the idea that you need to "stay in your lane". Your lane is at least as broad as your troop. Think of a good way to help your troop, what do they need that you could dedicate some extra time and energy towards, recruiting, advancement, planning, finance, adult training --- that's your ticket.
  4. Interesting procedural arguments. Doesn't move the ball down the field at all.
  5. As my first official act as a moderator, I welcome you to the forums.
  6. Conceding up front that I don't know what kind of profits HA bases currently throw off, it seems unlikely that they're exceptionally lucrative. Nothing in BSA's past 20 years of finances would suggest that they were reaping millions let alone billions from those operations. No sale has to be so quick that they wouldn't get fair market value for the properties, and either paying out or having those monies invested by and on behalf of the trust seems like a better bet than hoping an organization that's adverse to your interests, is steadily shrinking in membership, and has not demonstrated
  7. I think these are the "Key 3". IIRC, an early estimate of the claims was in the 8500 range. If that was an accurate number we would be looking at $60,000 per claimant plus all the insurance. Maybe that's a number that would get somewhere. I think BSA started this process thinking they could control it. Pay up about 1/3 of their assets, pass the benefits and challenges of collecting insurance onto the claimants, and come out the other side more or less intact. I suspect that the idea of losing a HA base just never occurred to anyone, and they are now facing the probability of losing e
  8. Public opinion regarding the Catholic Church being sued for past abuse has resulted in a lot of outrage --- towards the church. That has been the primary driver behind the changes in SOL laws that brought us where we are today.
  9. the current lawsuits and bankruptcy have nothing to do with BSA's internal database. The suits are based on the fact that a lot of abuse occurred and changes in the law have made it possible for men who probably would not have been able to articulate what happened to them before are being given another shot at it. The existence or non existence of the IV files is irrelevant. The 84,000 claimants aren't staking their claims to a list that was first published almost ten years ago now.
  10. Since it's been mentioned twice, my understanding of the rule about texts and emails is that any communication from an adult to a scot must include another adult. Although it's good practice for scouts to also include another adult in their communications, it's not clear that a scout has violated YPT if they send an email or text to just one adult, it's the response that must include a second adult. The burden is on us not them.
  11. I don't have any specific ideas at this point. I do think that similar to the various safety agencies there should be specific published reviews that show where things went wrong. We have a fair number of rules in place, and while none of them are unimportant surely some of them are much more critical than others. Looking at Faithful Scouters examples, all are good rules, but how critical are they? Eagle projects with no adults. Easy to argue that adults make the activity safer, but how directly would an Eagle project run by scouts lead to the abuse of a scout by an adult?
  12. I agree with her about the trade off between compensating victims vs HA bases. A small percentage of our scouts go to a HA base, but virtually everyone of our scouts, Cub and Scouts BSA spends some time at our local camps. There are plenty of ways to do HA for the number of scouts who do it, reproducing summer camps and Cub day camp is much harder.
  13. I was specifically referring to the Ineligible Volunteer files that were made public by court order back in 2012. I'm sure they keep records on members against whom they've taken some action since then. I'm just not sure how or whether they would keep allegations about someone that they received years after that person was no longer a part of the organization. If I understand correctly, you were a scout in the 70s. Although it's possible, it's unlikely that your abuser remained in the organization for much past that time. I'm not sure they would have any computerized record of his me
  14. Out of curiosity, was your abuser still in scouting then? I'm not sure what anyone could have done with that letter if he wasn't. The ineligible files, as I understand them, were lists of people BSA or councils had taken some action against. And I believe they stopped maintaining the lists as such prior to 2008.
  15. I think it's really important to distinguish between the two types of LCs, those in the revival states and those not. Those in the revival states know that at a minimum their non restricted assets are gone. A settlement that involves monies from the other LCs might save some camps and allow the downsizing to be rational. For those in the non revival states it's a lot more complicated. There are several hundred claims attributable to my council (I forget the exact number), but my understanding is none of them are current, and for what may be within the current SOL we're insured and ha
×
×
  • Create New...