elitts

Oh, I'm certain an advisory group is important to the TCC and the establishment of one is a central part of what the TCC wants out of the bankruptcy. Though what the TCC is looking for isn't so much an advisory group as a watchdog. (which I don't find fault with either) What I was trying to get across is that even if we were looking at a working group that was everything the TCC desired, once that group is created, the bankruptcy and the acrimony involved, the struggles of the people who pushed for it... none of that should be relevant to operation of what is intended to be an independent ad

They were selected to represent survivors as one side of a fairly contentious bankruptcy proceeding. But nothing about the "Survivor Advisory working group" is directly related to bankruptcy other than the fact that something of it's nature was desired by the TCC. Knowledge of the workings and machinations of the case isn't relevant to what the group should be working on and shouldn't really be viewed as an asset in my mind. Now I'll grant you that their knowledge of BSA Youth Protection probably IS a benefit, but if it were me, even if the coalition didn't exist, when it came time to f

LOL! You aren't kidding! I remember my first awards night as Asst. Cubmaster. We had one new Tiger getting awarded like 22 belt-loops, 3 months after joining; with the average for every other scout being about 3. Cubmaster's comment after handing them to the scout was "Wow, mom and dad you sure did a great job of signing his book!" The next meeting we had a conversation with all the parents while the scouts were out playing a game about what it means to complete requirements. In particular about how "Oh, we all did this once as a family 3 years ago" is not the same as completing the

I initiated the last action against CynicalScouter because he had become abusive towards others, was posting replies that were entirely irrelevant to the comments he was replying to and was doing so in such volume that it was functionally the same as spamming the forum. I'm not certain what triggered the change in his posting from the fairly cool and concise analysis that he had been offering but no forum moderator can allow someone to behave that way and retain any legitimacy as being impartial. I even reached out to him via direct message when the 1 week pre-approval began and explaine

If the group starts talking about the case in any way, I'd become skeptical really fast, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to be putting people into a working group that are openly antagonistic to the BSA (for whatever reason).

Why disappointed? The TCC isn't even technically an independent organization it's just a temporary collection of people involved in a bankruptcy with a sole focus on the bankruptcy; I wouldn't expect any activities occurring outside the bankruptcy to include such a non-entity until such time as there is a likely agreement and the group becomes likely to have ongoing authority based upon the discharge. As far as the group size goes, I don't think you are seeing everything that is being said there. The group size is 15-20 with 8-12 survivors. So survivors will compose 40%-60% of t

Except that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the Statutes of Limitations in Child Abuse cases in state courts. Even if this passes, it would only be relevant to cases that could be filed in federal court.

The portion of the article I amended I did so because the author is evidently making a misstatement. He says ["no one on one" specifically states that adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult"] The term "specifically states" is used to indicate a direct quote. However, there is no portion of the G2SS that says what he claims to be quoting; therefore I looked for the closest possible piece of text and found a very near match, one that is in keeping with the rest of the author's points. The only other explanation that makes sense is that the author was referring to ru

Try reading all of the article instead of ignoring the parts that don't support your position. You are currently arguing that a lone adult is breaking the rules even though the author references THIS EXACT SITUATION by saying: What about if there are only two adults present on a campout of eight Scouts, and one group wants to go hiking while the other stays at camp to fish? While Youth Protection policies don’t expressly forbid it, it’s not the recommended approach because of health and safety concerns. That's either poor phrasing or a typo. I inserted the missing text for

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't understand the rules and some places that have decided to implement stricter versions of the rules, but that doesn't change the fact that what you've described here isn't how the BSA rules are meant to be applied. You say this blog post is how you interpret things. Here is a notable passage: The article makes it clear the BSA would PREFER to always have 2 adults present whenever there is adult:scout interactions, but it isn't a requirement. And if the option is available, I'd agree with keeping adults paired as much as possib

"No one-on-one contact" has NEVER required two adults be present for anything. Here's the Scouting.com article that explicitly describes the purposes of the two rules and states clearly that you do not need 2 adults supervising at all times, as long as they are present at the event. It even explicitly states that while sending one adult off to hike with a group of scouts isn't the preferred option, it's not a violation of the rules. Just wanna be clear, being the only adult with multiple scouts satisfies "No one-on-one contact" not "Two Deep Leadership".

That's not a loophole, that's the designed purpose of the rule. Two-Deep leadership is about emergency response, not protecting kids from the adults. You regularly conflate these even though they serve separate purposes. Most critically, Two-Deep Leadership does NOT require that the 2 adults be within sight of each other. If one is sleeping and one is awake, Two-Deep is maintained. If one is running to grab a soda at the trading post (a minute or three away) and one is in camp, Two-Deep Leadership is maintained. If one runs to the store 20 minutes away, Two-Deep has not been maintained b

With my old pack we ended up finding that being flexible on how things got paid helped a lot. We ended up allowing Paypal (they pay the fee) or Venmo or Cash App (I think the treasurer just collected payment and then transferred it to the troop). Once we did that, it helped a ton. There's a lot of people for whom just remembering to bring the checkbook or cash is the biggest issue. Also, think about a better fundraiser. My pack used to sell christmas wreaths. We bought them for $11, sold them for $20. And we sold about 1100 per year. I did put together a prize package for the kids

Do you allow a single adult to go anywhere with groups of scouts? Or is camp your concern because there are private places (tents) where someone could attempt to get a scout alone? A troop requiring 2 adults in camp is a more achievable goal than requiring adults always be paired for everything. We always have 4 adults at summer camp, and try desperately to have 6, but sometimes 4 is the best we can do for some days; and only being able to accomplish 2 things at once because the adults need to remain paired would be a problem. I know the way we (or I at least) handle a single scout str

It's a nice dream, but simply isn't feasible in a Scout level program. My troop has oodles of adult volunteers compared to many troops and even we would find our operations severely curtailed if 2 adults were required to be in pairs at all times. Particularly at summer camp. Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I couldn't function for a full week without being able to take a nap or go to bed early occasionally. (which would leave my buddy stuck in their tent too) I would imagine you'd need to go back through existing case files and try and determine retroactively whether h

I apologize because I'm sure I could go back and dig up this info, but I dread the amount of time it would take. What was the estimate of time-barred vs non-barred claims and what does the averaged $/victim look like if all the time barred claims are figured at the "quick-pay" amount?

Personally, I don't think bullying should be included with the CSA training anyway. If you give people two different areas to think about, they'll default to thinking the most about the one they view as "most likely" or most common and give much less attention to the other one.

Absolutely. Where I get hesitant with zero tolerance is in areas where they violated the letter of the policy but not the spirit. For example, I'm the equipment coordinator for our troop. I said to the QM and Asst. "Hey, lets go out to the trailer to do something" then we headed off with me in the lead. But on the way, the Asst. (unbeknownst to me) decided to go to the bathroom and I didn't notice cause I was lost in my own thoughts about what we were about to organize. I was out there alone, in the dusk, with just one scout for a good 5-10 minutes before I realized there wasn't enough no

That's actually a brilliant idea. and it's definitely happening next summer at our camp. Maybe on Tuesday and Friday (for the car ride home).

You are talking about something different. Zero Tolerance Youth Protection policies refer to requirements that any and all infractions be handled officially and penalized fully, regardless of circumstances. The problem with policies of that nature is that you pretty much always end up with innocent people getting caught up in formal actions over unintentional mistakes. Examples abound but include things like school suspensions or expulsions for forgetting you have a jackknife in your coat pocket after a weekend camping or kids being penalized for using "finger guns" when playing on the play

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, CynicalScouter is NOT banned from the forum, or even blocked from posting. He merely received a 1 week penalty that requires his posts be approved by a moderator before they are visible as a result of posting behavior that was un-scoutlike and very near abusive/spamming.

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, CynicalScouter is NOT banned from the forum, or even blocked from posting. He merely received a 1 week penalty that requires his posts be approved by a moderator before they are visible as a result of posting behavior that was un-scoutlike and very near abusive/spamming.

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, CynicalScouter is NOT banned from the forum, or even blocked from posting. He merely received a 1 week penalty that requires his posts be approved by a moderator before they are visible as a result of posting behavior that was un-scoutlike and very near abusive/spamming.

Alright folks, I know the issues get emotional but we need to stay focused on the conversation specific to this thread. If someone says something in this thread, reply in the context of this thread, please do not turn a comment here into a generic response to a user's previous postings or the conversations happening in other threads. I've hidden a bunch of posts, and I'll be going back and hiding a few more. If you think I've hidden something unfairly, please email the moderator staff and other eyes can review my decision.

In a world where a large chunk of the US population still doesn't think kids should be taught anything about sex other than "Don't do it" I am certain there's parents who would assume the ONLY way such a conversation could happen would be if their "precious innocent child" was having knowledge of sex forced upon them by another youth. This is how we get prosecutions for rape when 13-15 year olds are having consensual sex.