T2Eagle

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Did I ask for information from the Ad Hoc Committee? What I did wonder out loud about is whether there are LC's that don't believe the AHC is representing their interests and if it has any real force or effect on the process.

Some may find this an interesting side note and others not. The chairman of the AHC is attorney Ricky Mason, also the President of the BSA's Greater New York Council. Mr. Mason's firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, happens to represent JP Morgan Chase, which may or may not have an interest of note in this matter.

Hm. Life is curious and follow the money. Write it down.

  If Mr. Mason is representing his council than his sworn duty is to represent his council, irrespective of what other clients his very, very large firm may represent.  I always find it unseemly to question the integrity of someone in our profession without evidence.

To your original question, in a group of hundreds of councils there's certainly going to be a wide variety of opinions.  My understanding in my own council is that we'll end up paying in order to put this all behind us, and there really isn't a good alternative.  I suspect that's the median position.  It's a very open question of law whether the councils are or are not so controlled by national that their assets have to be treated as if they're national's assets.  It would take years and at least an appellate court decision to settle that.  I doubt either side will see it as in their interest to roll the dice and go that far.

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The BSA had the YP standards in place before the CDC issued its guidance.

Yup, they were part of the committee that worked on the guidelines.  

18 hours ago, ThenNow said:

This is a question borne both out of curiosity and my interest in the health and safety of kids.

Are there "model" structures or relationships between the various entities that can be put forward as exemplars? I'm sure some of you have it dialed in to a science. This is how it's done in other context with great success. To borrow from the franchise discussion, this is why and how the good ones succeed wildly: strict adherence to replication. Even as I say that it dawns that as volunteer driven it lacks financial incentive, effectively downgrading the engine of the model. The V12 becomes a Volt. It was a thought. "Here is what works and this is how to do it, if you manage to pull it off."

The CDC has issued some guidelines.  As I stated in a previous post, most youth serving programs are providing pretty similar rules these days.  Broadly: no one on one contact, background checks, mandated reporting of violations, no corporal punishment, constructive discipline, no tolerance for humiliation or bullying, etc.

I have a problem both with overly restrictive rules from BSA and units that don't bother following them.  While realizing that not all slopes are slippery, when you have the view that I don't have to follow this rule about lazer tag it becomes a little easier for someone with less judgment to decide not to follow the two deep leadership rule "just this once." 

I don't think there's anything wrong or dangerous about lazer tag, but I also think there are 1000 other fun thigs you can do so why bother do the one that's prohibited.  Dodge ball seems sketchier to me.  As both a youth and adult I've seen it lead to bad outcomes: bigger, more skillful kids throwing an object at smaller, less skillful kids just makes it too easy for things to go wrong, through either negligence or malice.

BSA should be more careful about the restriction's they impose, and much much more transparent about why.  When their rules either are arbitrary, or seem arbitrary because they aren't well explained, they lead to the situation I described where it becomes easier to ignore both the dumb ones and the important ones.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf

19 hours ago, skeptic said:

It is good that someone here sees the verity in my concern regarding suggestions by legal people that "nothing" has really been done and the intimation that it is getting worse.  Now, if the courts might actually review the totality of the "facts", in this case YP and stats in the past two decades.  I just hope someone in the legal team for National is paying attention.  Better, maybe a few of the silent supporters that know this is slanted, actually might step in to balance the scale a little.  

 

It's worth remembering that how well YPT has worked or not worked, or whether the abuse levels are better or worse now than in the past isn't really a question before the court.  Both sides might make rhetorical claims about it, but there isn't going to be any evidence or arguments heard as to who is correct.  

A settlement might involve an agreement about changes to the YPT guidelines, in fact it probably will, if for no other reason than that the victims would demand some sort of change as a condition of settlement.  It's hard to see what that change would be because YPT practices are becoming somewhat standardized across youth activities.  In the last decade the training I've received as a rec league coach, scouter, and Catholic youth serving volunteer have all been pretty much the same.  At a guess I would say the change will be some structure independent of BSA that has to govern YPT and review all allegations of violations

20 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually BSA IS a victim. With very few exceptions, BSA did everything it could legally do at the time the bulk of the abuse took place. People are forgetting that mandatory reporting laws did not affect the BSA until the late 1980s/early 1990s, about the time Youth Protection Training came about. Prior to that time, if BSA accused anyone publicly of abuse, they could have been charged with libel. BSA encouraged parents to press charges, because their hands were tied.

This simply isn't true.  First and foremost libel has to involve a false statement.  If Johnny's father comes to a BSA official and says Scoutmaster X molested Johnny, BSA official can call the police and say, Johnny's father said Scoutmaster X molested Johnny.  There can be no falsity in that statement.  The BSA CANNOT be held liable for any defamation even if Johnny and/or his father were lying.  

Outside of reporting to the police, BSA never would have to publicly accuse anyone of anything.  If they had any belief that a person might be a molester they simply had to remove him from the organization, they never would have had to give any explanation to anyone publicly as to why they did that.

Much more importantly, none of these lawsuits are about whether BSA called police after the fact.  They are about whether BSA was negligent in the selection or control of their leaders such that but for that negligence the molestation would not have occurred.  If Johnny's father told BSA that Johnny was molested, and BSA did nothing, and Scoutmaster continued to molest Johnny or other scouts, that would be negligence. 

Do you have any examples you can cite from your research where the BSA/Council declined to act specifically because they were afraid of being sued?  More importantly are there many/any actual lawsuits that were filed that would make that fear of being sued even a reasonable fear?  Then, probably even more so than now, it would have been rare for an accused molester to have wanted to publicly fight that charge.  

I have to add parenthetically that declining to act because you might have to defend your actions is a coward's response in the case of stopping the rape of children.  If that was someone's level of being Brave than they shouldn't, in my opinion, have been involved in running the scouting program in the first place. 

Update to my own year old post.

Here is what my.scouting says on the home page:  

"You can now transfer and multiple between units using your My.Scouting account

National 11/16/2020

Now users are able to transfer from one Scout unit to another without having to take a new application into the Scout office. Unit leaders will be able to transfer youth by going to the new “Roster” feature in “Member Manager” and “Organization Manager” and select the youth who need to be transferred, then click the “Transfer” icon. This will create a transfer application which will be sent to the new unit with the ability to be approved in “Application Manager”.Transfers will take 48 hours to sync with the new unit."

Because of all the other efforts we've had to put forth, we never got around to formally registering our 2020 crossovers from the Pack to the Troop.  So when I saw the above note on my.scouting I thought great, that's easier than tracking down new apps from everyone.  So I transferred all the scouts that had crossed over and become active in the troop, plus a couple that had expressed interest but not really participated and committed.  I figured I would then go in to recharter, keep the ones staying and drop the couple not.

So, all the scouts I transferred now show up on the troop's active roster.  But when I went into the recharter program they’re not part of the troop roster (I deliberately waited until they showed up on our roster before I started recharter and  “Load Roster” within it. ) 

In recharter, there is a process for promoting from the Pack.  I used this last year, but it turned out it didn’t really function as a transfer mechanism (see my original post) and I had to get paper applications from everyone any way.  Since the newest scouts weren’t in recharter I figured I would at least do that promotion so that the numbers and check were right, and I would then just chase down the paperwork.  But, and here’s the best part, because those scouts are on the troop and not the pack roster anymore, they’re not there to promote. 

Again, not my biggest challenge as a scouter, but I really don't think you could set out to design IT systems as unhelpful as BSA's.

Get in touch with your troop right away.  There's a good chance that even if you weren't included in the recharter this can be rectified without new paperwork and with the troop just calling council.   Charters don't actually expire until the last day of the month, although councils want the units to get them done before that.

Even if you did happen to drop off the roster the fix is really simple, you just fill out a new app, which almost certainly can be done online. 

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

Another scenario has me wondering. I know Chapter 11 is not a criminal proceeding but given the number of claimants and their age range could we have a claim(s) where the alleged abuser is alive and possibly was never charged or otherwise been made to account?  

Possible?

There's certainly some perpetrators still alive.  A scout leader from the mid eighties would be in his late seventies or early eighties today.  If these cases weren't being brought as part of a bankruptcy claim but instead were going through the normal state court civil litigation system they would be named defendants.  They might yet, the same change in statute of limitations that allows for these claims against BSA allows them against individuals.  BSA might be indemnifying Chartered Orgs but they're certainly not indemnifying these individuals.  

I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure the criminal SOLs haven't changed enough for criminal charges to be filed.

Is there anyone on this board that has any any insight as to how or why the NY council was able to not sell?

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Does BSA get any protection for the scouts chartered to government organizations?  This is at least 10,400 units in 2004.

From my limited understanding, past liability was re-opened by recent law changes.  BUT, that liability was not re-opened for public schools and other governmental organizations. 

I'm trying to understand ... So BSA can be sued, but the charter organizations of many can't be sued even though they selected the leaders, provided the building, owned the materials and implemented the specifics ?  From what I read below, as of 2004,  400 units were sponsored by military bases and another 10,000 were sponsored by public schools.  

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Governmental_sponsorship_of_Scouting_units

Are there any claim limitations for people that were in the 10,000 public school chartered units and 400 military units?  It just doesn't make sense.  If the professional expertise of teachers and public school administrators failed to protect those scouting youth and were closer to the units, how can BSA that is a further step away be liable. 

Seriously.  NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE. 

 

Yes, the past abuse was outrageous.  But that was the past.  AND, much was done right.  The BSA files were an aggressive attempt to protect youth.  I doubt such files were kept by other groups.  BSA put YPT, rules and expectations in place years before other youth organizations.  BSA is in at least it's 20th year of YPT improvements.    This is just wrong.

In virtually any actual lawsuit about abuse BSA, from today, or 10 years ago, or 30 years ago, the CO, the local council, and the individual offender are all going to be sued.  Assuming the suit has merit, at the end of the trial a judgment is first rendered about each defendant: was that defendant responsible for the harm that occurred yes or no.  So if, as a matter of law BSA's programs were enough that they were not responsible for the harm than they're in the clear, same for  actions or lack of actions by council, same for CO, same for individual defendant.  After its determined who is responsible for the harm than you need to determine who is going to pay the damages.  This varies by state, some states say everyone is responsible for everything, and so everybody has to pay what they can until the victim is made whole, in some states blame is apportioned by level of responsibility, and so if a particular defendant is only 5% responsible than they only pay 5% even if that leaves the victim uncompensated.

Even under these old cases, even if the CO can't be made a defendant, the CO's actions are going to be part of the decision, either in deciding blame, or if there is apportioned liability, in deciding how much of the damage BSA is responsible for. 

The working assumption behind the bankruptcy and the desire to set up a universal victims' fund is that however meritorious BSA's YPT programs were, either they were according to the law insufficient, or they were not carried out well enough in an individual case to prevent that individual harm, and that the sum total of all those legitimate cases was and is greater than the liquid assets BSA would have available to pay them and still continue normal operations.

5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

That is now all ending due to litigation risk.  If the BSA, with all of their overhead in terms of background checks & training cannot prevent lawsuits and bankruptcy, what youth serving organization can?  Is it just a matter of time as lawyers work through the whales to find small and smaller prey until the suck the blood out of all youth serving organizations?  

 

I disagree that this is happening because of litigation risk.  This is happening because, by their own admission, they can't or won't take the steps necessary to prevent the rape and molestation of children by members of their organization.  And if they can't do that, than no they should not have a youth program.  If you can't afford to fix the brakes on your car than you shouldn't drive it, not because you're going to get sued for running someone over but because you shouldn't be willing to risk running someone over.

As for the analogy to BSA, BSA isn't in bankruptcy despite all its training and background checks, it's in bankruptcy because the law changed in some but not all states and a window for suits from past behaviors has opened.  To the extent that NMRA may have had past members who abused anyone than they're already at risk in those states.  If all we were dealing with was liability from the past six or ten years (the most common statutes of limitation) than we wouldn't be in trouble at all.

3 hours ago, robert12 said:

From the Baptist Press

Boy Scouts bankruptcy could leave churches liable in future sex abuse claims

"Churches who chartered or have ever hosted a Boy Scouts of America (BSA) troop should seek legal counsel now in case they are named in future sex abuse claims against the BSA, a Southern Baptist legal representative told Baptist Press."



https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-could-leave-churches-liable-in-future-sex-abuse-claims/

From the same article “If a church five years from now gets sued by a former Boy Scout who was molested or claims to have been molested in that church’s troop, normally the church would turn to the Boy Scouts and say, ‘You guys said you would hold us harmless and insure us, so do that,'” Jordan said. “And the Boy Scouts will say, ‘Sorry, we went through a bankruptcy reorganization and we no longer have any responsibility to do that.'” Churches can maintain their indemnification and gain access to the trust by filing a “placeholder” claim with the court by the Nov. 16 deadline, said Jordan, whose firm Guenther, Jordan & Price is outside general counsel to the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and the SBC."

On 10/7/2020 at 6:13 PM, CynicalScouter said:

But that's not as shocking as

90%? Seriously? I can easily see how the folks at Abused in Scouting will jam any settlement with that kind of a threshold. That means of in a 89-11% vote, the plan fails.

That's not good.

it's doubtful it will really be in anyone's interest to object to a settlement.  The alternative to a global settlement is that it becomes every man for himself.  That means everything comes out of bankruptcy court and each plaintiff alleging abuse will have to file an individual lawsuit against BSA, and if applicable against a local council.  Among other things that would mean BSA could spend down its all its own remaining assets fighting each claim individually.  For the plaintiffs that means having to prove each individual claim in court and absorb all the attendant attorney and other costs.

6 hours ago, Chisos said:

It's probably worth a discussion with the COR to see what they're really expecting.  Are they expecting all leaders to be practicing Catholics?  Or are they expecting that leaders won't go against church teaching in how they interact with youth?  It sounds like a similar expectation to teachers at Catholic schools...you (generally) don't have to be Catholic, but you agree to live/teach in a way the that reflects the beliefs of the church--or at least, not actively oppose them.

 

I am COR of a Pack and Troop sponsored by a Catholic parish.  We have several registered leaders who are not Catholic.  No one expects them to profess Catholic  faith or deny their own.  It's possible your CO has a different expectation but that would be pretty unusual.  

As to the training and document you're being asked to undertake, that is very very common in catholic units.  I'm surprised this is just coming up now, a version of YPT for adults working with kids in Catholic parishes has been as close to a mandate as the structure of the Church allows for almost twenty years now (you may have heard we have our own history of bad actors and actions that needs to be overcome).   What you're being asked to do is what every CYO coach, field trip volunteer, scout leader, etc. is asked to do.  The training is pretty similar to BSA's. 

Take the training, sign the form if it doesn't conflict with your conscience, you won't see any change in your relationship with the unit or CO, and you probably won't hear any more about it until it's time to renew in a few years.  

2000 scouts on the books is going to make operating two camps, a HA base, and a Cub camp really challenging.  

So Grand Teton went from 26,000 to 2,000, does anyone know the numbers for similar councils out west?

49 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Right now, I'm waiting for BSA to process my son's application, and apparently by extension, mine.  I'm not sure how that works.  I submitted his last week, but no action seems to have been taken.  Is this something the unit has to act on?  Once I have that done, then I can submit the lodge transfer.  They want my Ordeal date, but TAC doesn't have records going that far back - it was only 1993.  The HQ has been in 3 different countries since then.

The unit, in your case the pack, has to approve your son's application. The Cubmaster or a designee can approve the application.  If your pack is using online applications this is a matter of a few clicks, if you're using paper applications then it's signature from Cubmaster, then someone has to drive it to the local council office where an employee, the registrar, has to enter it into the computer.  all those steps could add up to some time.  Your adult application needs an additional couple steps, you have to also complete BSA's Youth Protection Training (YPT) before any thing can be processed, and your application has to be signed by the Chartering organization Rep (COR) who is often someone not nearly as involved in the unit and so that may add to the time.

As to joining the new Lodge.  Look at a calendar, use your best recollection of the date of your Ordeal and submit that to the new lodge.  My Ordeal was in like 1973 --- no records exist, my new Lodge was happy with the date I picked.  There are no records to transfer, it's just a date they have to enter in a database.

I'm not sure how long you've been at this game known as scouts, but hard earned experience is that if you do this: "One form (call it "Scout copy") is kept at the scouts house, by the scout, and one form is kept at the "Form Keepers" location ("master copy"). "  you will spend a lot of time every Friday before pulling out of the parking lot ensuring that each scout has a form, and then you'll spend some more time as one or two scramble because they forgot it.  If you're just going to have the scouts responsible for their form what is the point of having a master file that never gets used?

In our troop we keep a master file of all forms in a sturdy, water resistant, zippered binder.  That binder stays at our Chartered Organization with all our other equipment, and it goes on every outing.  One committee person is responsible for maintaining it and ensuring everybody's forms are up to date. 

We do not try to put together a folder that has just the forms for those attending an event,  we just take the "medical binder" with us everywhere.  On the rare occasion that we have to turn a physical copy in at check-in, which for us happens only at summer camp and one other camporee type event, we make a copy of those attending ahead of time, turn it in, and then when we get them back either shred them or give them to the parent.  

We urge everybody to make and keep a copy of their form before they turn it in, just in case something happens.  In practice that means the scout or parent brings it to the meeting and we make a copy for them.  Generally the big push for this is the run up to summer camp and so everyone is pretty much on the same renewal cycle.

The forms are important, but what is important about them is that they alert the leaders to any underlying conditions a scout might have.  I have been at this game a while now, and in many trips to the ER and one serious air medi-evac, no medical professional has ever asked to see a health form.  They do ask if we know of any conditions they should know about, but with rare exception folks don't wander this world with their own medical form in their back pocket, and every emergency protocol just assumes that dearth of information.

I have mixed feelings about the prohibition on digitizing forms.  It would make things easier, but it is also true that whenever you make a digital copy of something that copy lasts forever on every computer, server, phone, etc. that ever accesses it.  There is actually no such thing as deleting. 

Lastly, what you refer to as a loop hole isn't one.  If the unit leaders are deciding to have someone digitize the forms then the unit leaders are digitizing the forms, it doesn't matter who actually is running the scanner.

She built a bench.  Like oh so many Eagle scouts before her.  I would love to know how many benches have been built as Eagle scout projects over the years.  I see them in virtually every park I've been to over the years, and have had my share of my troop's scouts build them.  The number has to be in the tens of thousands.

ETA ... and the sore feet and tired legs of a nation,including yours truly, are grateful.

The BSA uses a commercial company to run background checks.  What they're going to pick up is things that are a public record, basically a credit report and a list of criminal convictions if any.  There is almost zero chance that what you're describing exists in any data base that anyone would be able to access.

Put in your application, don't worry,  and hope that this becomes a weird/funny story you tell in the coming years.

Unless they specify ahead of time, and it would probably have to be some sort of targeted audience course to do so, no one is expected to have backpacking level equipment for WB.  There are no fitness requirements for the course, and a lot of participants are going to be from the Cub level where they haven't yet invested in light weight gear.  Assuming that your tent isn't so big that it takes more than one person to move it anywhere you should be fine.

I like the idea that the requirements are deferred.  Our unit was running into trouble with this and were going to have a good group of scouts unable to advance at the pace they wanted.  Our "solution" is that we just did finally find someone who has a pond we can use, so we're scheduling a one time only swimming requirements afternoon.  I hate it, we never schedule advancement only or even advancement centric activities.  We schedule fun scouting activities and out of them arise opportunities to work on requirements if that's what the scout wants to do.

I'd rather the requirement be deferred until a real opportunity arises and let the scout continue to move forward.  

This dead horse isn't really worth beating, but, nothing here is out of the proper chain of command.

In scouts the ASMs report to the SM.  The SM reports to the committee.  The Committee , led by its chair, reports to the COR.  Part of the committee's responsibility is selecting the ASMs.  So if they're responsible for recruiting and selecting ASMs they would logically be involved in knowing why someone is no longer an ASM.

I've been on a couple of non profit boards, gifts like this are trickier than they appear at first glance.  

It seems great on its face, but dig a little deeper and it's more work for what might be only a marginal gain, at best, for fulfilling your mission.  

A launch point and then a separate parcel --- two new pieces of property, not connected to each other and not connected to any other scouting properties.  Someone has to maintain them, someone has to make sure they're always in compliance with all the various regulations that affect wetlands and waterfront, someone has to empty the port o pots necessary for each parcel. All that while not sure how many of your clients/members will actually use the facilities, and having no real indication that there was demand or need for these properties among your clients/members.  So if you accept the gift you instantly are accepting the costs that go with it, and so you have to plan for and process all that before accepting.

All of that is not to say that the gift shouldn't be made or accepted, just that it's often more complicated than at first blush it might seem.

Scouts are not the only organization that can make use of recreational land and opportunity, and especially today may not be the best recipient for this.  There are other conservation groups that have good experience managing nature lands, your friend would probably do well to explore some of those also.