elitts

https://loyoladunesrestoration.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/our-native-tumbleweed/

No, if BSA abandoned the LCs without doing absolutely everything they could to get them covered I suspect it would fundamentally destroy the relationships. So while going independent might be smart in one sense, in the long run I don't think it would be the best option. I think any attorney who is thinking in these terms is either an idiot or is dissembling. Yes, before all the claims got filed an attorney might have been able to get a multi-million dollar settlement out of a Council. But now that everyone knows there are hundreds or thousands of claims just waiting to be litigated? Nope. Paying 3 million for a settlement to get an issue to go away so you can move on is one thing. Paying 3 million to the first person in a line of a thousand is an entirely different story. At that point, if the LC sees that the number of people indicates a bankruptcy is in the future, there's no longer any point in paying anyone at full value. That's a nice thought, but for anyone who actually needs the money, I don't think it's a realistic one. Something like 40% of Americans are 1 paycheck away from being insolvent and for half of the country that 15k is more than 25% of their annual income. I'm sure there are plenty who would rather wait and hope for more, but I don't think it'll be a landslide by any means.

Well, I'm glad that portion was kept, at a bare minimum, the BSA needs serious reforms on it's reporting. I just worry we'll end up with a bunch of stupid new rules because the committee feels like it needs to change something, but can't come up with any good new rules.

I'm sorry but that's not a "Plan", it's a general idea on how they'd do things. Developing workable details on that "plan" aren't going to be any simpler than what we've already be doing for the last 2 years. You can't compare accidents with deliberate acts. It's far far simpler to prevent accidents than to stop someone from doing something deliberately. As far as your belief that "We're not doing everything we can"; well no, obviously we aren't doing everything we can. But "everything we can" isn't the standard we want to hit it's "everything we reasonably can". I mean, we could require that every scout be accompanied by a guardian at all times. Or we could require that no adult every be in the presence of a scout without 2 other adults present and observing. Or we could require that every scout and adult wear a body camera that's running at all times. But none of those ideas are reasonable or functional with the goals of the organization. I've seen any number of people who seem to share your belief that "more can be done" and yet I've not heard any of those people come up with an actual idea that could be implemented; so I'm left thinking that what people really mean is "I wish there was something more we could do".

I didn't read anything about Israel having any different information than we do here. Basically "They aren't nearly as effective against preventing Delta, protection ebbs over time, even if you do develop an infection you are drastically less likely to have serious complications." Was there something I missed?

That's when you just register a few moms as merit badge councilors, and when a backup is needed just say "Hey, either a mom comes along or we can't go".

Yes, the "replace a pane of glass" is definitely aimed at older homes. But even in newer ones you'll still find single panes sometimes in garage service doors. Or interior "french doors". Waterproof Basement: I suspect they are talking about the more minimalist "paint-on" waterproofing products. All you do for those is caulk holes and cracks, then paint on the waterproof barrier. Yep, pull cords on blinds are definitely wear items for people with expensive blinds. With cheap blinds, they may well be integrated and intended to just replace the whole unit. And yes, window sash cords are definitely replaceable since they were typically just cotton fiber rope. It's just that people almost never do replace them because as soon as they run into a window that doesn't open, they just replace the whole unit. But that will vary by geographic area. The payback on replacing with double hung windows is only a sure thing in Northern climates where winter will suck the heat out of your house. In a more Southern climate, if you don't have A/C, there's not really any reason to have more than a single pane of glass. The kinds of picture frames that need reinforcing are going to be the kind housing pictures in sizes upwards of 10"x12". When you start talking about 50 year old 12"x18" family portraits and the like with reasonably ornate wood frames, eventually they'll need to be either reinforced or taken apart and re-glued and reassembled. This could also be done on the more expensive wood poster frames or other artwork frames.

I think the logistics of that make it pretty much impossible at this point. If the COs were nationwide or even councilwide organizations it might be different, but you are talking about thousands (tens of thousands?) of COs. I can't fathom how you could organize the lot of them into some kind of a coherent coalition in less than another 12 months. As I've said before, there isn't any functional mechanism for the BSA to simply seize council assets. Even for those councils that wrote the "everything goes to BSA upon shut-down" into the bylaws, the answer is a simple vote to change bylaws by the LC. Attempting to seize the assets by force (legally speaking) would result in multiple lawsuits all across the country and the BSA can not afford either the legal fees or the bad PR that would entail. And I highly doubt we'll see COs pull out of the BSA completely. Most COs that have troops are generally happy to have them (even if you do get the occasional staff member peeved about messes). If we do actually end up with COs getting sued into bankruptcy all over the country, I could see many of them being unwilling to charter, but they'll still host the troops/packs as lessors. Though I'm sure we'll hear more stories about COs that decide to throw a tantrum and refuse to re-charter while also confiscating all of a troop's equipment and re-purposing it.

My CO has linked troops. We have one Committee Chair and all Committee positions are joint except for Treasurer. (it was simply too much work for 1 person with 100ish scouts and scouters) The only thing that I think you need to watch out for is meeting bloat like qwazse mentioned. But that is fairly easy to keep a lid on if your CC can actually RUN the meeting. Sometimes this might mean cutting off discussion of a contentious or unrelated issue and tabling the matter, or ending a discussion that has become repetitive.

It's also where adults that were previously happy to run nice clean indoor programs start to cringe at the idea of actually camping and hiking.

For a Non-profit that intends to solicit funds, requiring some level of contribution from board members is reasonable and can be critical for the receiving of grants. MANY of the grants available to non-profits of all shapes and sizes require (or at least weigh heavily) 100% financial participation by board members. So even the smallish arts organization I'm a member of requires a minimum contribution of $100 per year. So, in the case you presented above, I didn't blink at the requirement for $200/yr for FoS, but another $5000 over the 3 year term is definitely going to be restrictive.

Oh, I'm not arguing that the sale isn't worthwhile. Clearly it is for many troops. My primary hatred for it stems from the fact that (in violation of the BSA's own rules on fundraisers) the pricing is so radically out of line with the value of the product it is functionally just a mass beg for donations with a consolation prize for donating. I feel dirty even asking someone to pay $20 for a $4 bag of White Cheddar Popcorn. (There are few items that are only about double the retail cost, which is tolerable, but 5 times the cost!!) While I'm not arguing that 70 isn't too many, you should note that further down the article mentions: While the BSA isn't really an arts or cultural organization, it is certainly a "fund development drive board". Yep, that was my read on it too. There was likely discussion and argument and as soon as they figured out that the "No" votes weren't going to win, they went with the whole "We really need to show unanimous support for this for PR reasons".

Don't get me wrong here, I agree with the general sentiment that you are conveying, but it's important to keep the feelings from overwhelming the truth. I HATE the popcorn sale with every fiber of my being, but the Troop/pack portion of popcorn sales isn't "Small", it's either 30% or 35% of sales depending on if you opt for prizes. And I don't know what LC you are in, but mine sends a check to the unit. I think leaving it as a "troop credit" is an option with the council, but all you have to do is ask for the check and you get it. As someone else mentioned, I know the councils "suggests" a 30% donation back to the council would be a good idea, but I've never heard of them insisting on it. And even if they did, all you do is say "this is a CO fundraiser and they contribute the funds to our program". For fundraisers that don't require insurance coverage, (kids selling to friends and family) I don't even think this flirts with "dishonest". Yeah, my Cub pack had the council getting more and more demanding for a few years because we skipped popcorn entirely and funded our entire program off of a Wreath Sale. There were a couple visits where they suggested "a 2500-3000 check would be appropriate" out of our 9k profit. We didn't have much problem simply responding with "No.". Though eventually we did end up building up enough of a "safety net" that we had extra funds and started sending a small check to the council. Personally, I wanted to get a hold of the local camp director and let them know we needed a shopping list with $2000 worth of camp equipment they wanted and we'd drop it off in May.

Those are really two different issues. Farming out the responsibility of delivering of bad news to a subordinate (volunteer or otherwise) is just plain poor leadership and a dereliction of duty as far as I'm concerned. Hiring someone specifically to lead through a re-organization or bankruptcy or other major change with the understanding (whether implicit or explicit) that it's going to be a temporary gig is pretty much standard practice in large organizations. You don't want the people in charge who "created" the problem to remain and you want someone who can evaluate the situation without existing relationships clouding their judgement. But at the same time, you know that whoever is responsible for drastic changes within an organization is likely going to have to generate a whole lot of hard feelings among the existing staff. So the best option is to hire someone to come in and re-tool, then replace them with a 3rd person who can move forward without all the animosity.

Every parking lot everywhere is going to have tripping/slipping and falling hazards at some point; those in areas of snow even more so. That's a foreseeable risk with prevention steps that can be taken to mitigate the risk. And yes, I'd imagine that any given Walmart sees a significant number of fall complaints every single year; most businesses with high customer traffic get those claims with some regularity. Most scout troops don't have pedophiles in them. Regardless of the large number over the years nationwide, there's simply no evidence of it occurring frequently enough at this point that anyone could consider it a likely problem on the individual troop basis.

Yeah, a finding of liability for negligent security in a church would be one hell of a stretch if you were trying to base it solely on "The BSA has a history of CSA." I mean, if insurance availability was based upon public opinion, you might be right; but insurance companies run on numbers, not publicity.

The best solution I could see to this issue would be to extend "Youth" registration status to anyone that doesn't qualify as an "Adult". In other words, anyone under 21. Not that I expect the BSA to take that approach. __________________________________________________________________________ Honestly, the only way I see any sort of rational adjustment to this policy happening would be to start taking the policy really, really literally and start reporting every single infraction to the BSA's official hotline. "Hello BSA? I was at a meeting and I saw a 16 year old Venturer get left alone in a room with an 18 year old venturer because everyone else left the room and they were slow packing up their stuff. They were alone for at least a minute or two." "Hello BSA? One of my 18 year old venturers was assigned a school project with a 17 year old venturer classmate and they spoke on the phone alone together." Hello BSA? One of my 19 year old venturers was on a family trip and was required by their parents to room with their 15 year old brother." Hello BSA?... You get the picture. Either that, or start entrapping the BSA officials and then reporting it. I could have my 17 year old son call up the local SE to ask a question (assuming they could get through), then at the end follow up with "Oh, by the way, I'm a Youth Scout member of the BSA so you've just violated YPT by speaking to me on the phone without my parent or another registered adult listening. Were you going to report this is or should I?" When they start having to dedicate serious resources to investigating reports arising from the more inane aspects of their policy, they might think an adjustment is worthwhile.

Yeah, that's not quite how it worked in the asbestos claims. Bankruptcy is a federal action and the bankruptcies for that were nationwide just like this one; and any claims as of the discharge were wiped away, regardless of SOL. Those companies that went back for second or third bankruptcies did it because new claims, resulting from illnesses that began after the discharge would start accumulating. Anyone who isn't aware that child abuse is a risk anywhere at this point is never going to learn no matter how prolific you make the warnings. The belief that "It won't happen to my kid" is the only way parents make it through the day and unfortunately there are some people whose minds simply can't plan for the worst while hoping for the best, so they ignore risks completely. What you are describing isn't a disclosure statement, it's effectively self-flagellation. I can't help feeling like your fixation on the BSA having "advertised itself as a bastion of morality" is bleeding through here. To use your own analogy, yes, a drug label includes the risks and side effects. However, that certainly doesn't mean that say, Roche pharmaceuticals includes a detailed explanation of the horrific injuries and lawsuit history of Accutane when it sells a prescription of it.

I have a comment and a question. You are an attorney, and as such, arguably, are in the top few percent of the US public when it comes to education and critical thinking skills. You are also well versed in the nuance of language and the importance of using exactly the right terminology when making statements. Thus, when you read the words "equitably compensate", it has a fairly specific meaning to you. That said, do you really think most of the victims out there would really have distinguished between a statement that the BSA wanted to "Equitably compensate victims" and one where they simply said they wanted to "compensate victims"? Given the public's average (5th grade) reading comprehension level, was there really any reasonable way they could have phrased it that wouldn't have led to basically the same disappointment we are seeing now? After all, for most people the only exposure they have to either jury awards or settlements is going to be from either fictional TV or the news and neither one spends much time talking about all the settlements that happen in the <$20,000 range, I mean, I send out a tax assessment notice each year to taxpayers that says in bold , red, 28pt font at the top of the page. THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL and even then I get a dozen phone calls every year upset about the new tax bill they just got.

Just to state the rule in total for new parents or scouters that may read this: Any adult using "private" online or phone communications with a scout needs to make sure either another registered adult or a parent is included cc'd in the email; not both. So any email, social media post or phone call needs to include: Scout, MBC, and then a parent or registered adult.

When you spend a significant portion of your life involved in the more dark and horrible aspects of humanity, even on the side of angels (so to speak), there's just no way you don't come out of it a changed person. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if someone like Kosnoff suffered from secondary exposure PTSD himself after that much time being exposed to trauma.

The course clearly would give an inexperienced adult the basic skills required to lead a canoe trip and it's surely useful for folks that are new to canoeing. The only reason I'm even concerned about it is that I have some adults that think we can't go on a canoe trip because no one has a current certificate and we can't find the class being offered anywhere. On the other hand, I think if it's not actually required and we have adults who possess the skills and knowledge, if not the piece of paper, there's no reason to pass up a canoe trip. On a related note. Anyone else think these two paragraphs in the text may have gotten written out of order?:

I wouldn't actually object to it being required, as long as it was permanent and offered all summer long at summer camps. But there's absolutely no reason to make a basic skills class on canoeing need to be retaken ever 2-3 years. I mean, it's essentially just the requirements of the Canoeing Merit Badge, plus a test over Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat.

Thank you for pointing it out. The section further down that discusses it was rather incoherent and looks like someone dropped the text in accidentally, but at least it's very clearly not a requirement.

I've got people in my troop making noise about how Paddle Craft Safety is required for an adult to take scouts canoeing. When I look at the language I can find on the course, it seems to indicate that a adultvis required to have the certificate, but I don't see anything in the G2SS requiring anything besides Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat. Now, obviously those two classes don't actually teach you how to canoe, so I can see the Paddle Craft class being a good skills course for inexperienced paddlers in order to be sure they are providing Qualified Supervision, but if you already have skilled adult paddlers on the trip, is a patch/card actually required?