Eagle1993

8 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

This is in fact a serious question.  If Non Binary is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍; identities that are outside the gender binary, how could they also be gay as they do not identify as male of female?

Just curious as I would think they would identify as one (gay) or the other (non-binary).

 

I'm not sure.   Mixing sex orientation and gender fluidity makes this very confusing.  

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

The Metro was the single institutional defendant, I take it? The case clearly didn’t get the benefit of the automatic stay, so that’s my assumption. If true, how/why would the insurer be constrained? I know little or nothing, so I’m just spitballing, while simultaneously herniating my gray matter, striving to avoid dark humor and words with obtuse meaning. I’ve been boning up on language drift and conversational dilution so I know what to do. This will be my modest contribution to the systematic extinction of dictionaries everywhere.

The story states the BSA insurance company would pay $3M of the settlement.  If it is really an insurance coverage for National BSA (not the LC) then it should be going through the bankruptcy court.  Other settlements that included insurance payouts had to be approved the Judge Silverstein.  

Maine just opened an SOL lookback window.

https://www.wabi.tv/2021/10/18/maines-statute-limitations-cases-childhood-sexual-abuse-lifted-monday/

Revival Law: In 2021, Maine opened a permanent revival window for all previously expired child sex abuse claims against perpetrators, other individuals, private organizations and the government. The window opened on October 18, 2021 and never closes. All previously expired claims in Maine are permanently revived without limitation. For a guide to help survivors understand their rights during the legal process of filing a civil lawsuit under Maine’s revival window, click the survivor tool kit below.

The SOL area is dynamic.  Now Maine is considered an open state in the plan so not many changes there.

FYI ..

https://www.wlky.com/article/dollar365-million-settlement-reached-in-lmpd-youth-explorer-sex-abuse-scandal/38126069#

How is a BSA insurer agreeing to cover this.  Wouldn't this go through the bankruptcy court?

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

This kind of turns different scouts, as it does with disabled scouts, into unwitting and perhaps in some cases unwilling "specimens" for investigation to get a badge.

I have a gay non binary scout in my Troop.  I was just thinking they are going to be busy talking with a lot of other scouts if I'm not careful.  I'll need to talk with them to see how they would want to handle this.  (I'm still getting comfortable with using the proper pronouns).

John Humphrey (member of the TCC) tweeted out late last night the following…”A no vote is a slight delay. We are making progress behind the scenes.”

This is the only Tweet I’ve seen from him about the BSA case.  I don’t expect this first plan to pass with enough votes; however, perhaps a glimmer of hope that parties realize what might happen and are prepared for an alternate path.

The article is great.  Is clearly stated the minimum and the highly recommended.    It seems very clear to me, I don’t understand this back and forth. 
 

Our Troop is looking at the recommendations to try and meet those when possible.  
 

The one area where our troop doesn’t agree with the recommendations is allowing one adult to take a single scout to the med center.  We discussed this and do not allow this even if in view of others as we believe it is too much risk.  The the risk we see is either potential grooming or a scout claiming grooming.  

What is the deal with AVA?  They aren’t talking to the media, I haven’t seen them in court speaking, they have nothing on their website about scouts that is recent (but it looks like they are still recruiting clients) and it sounds like their current clients haven’t heard from them.   I believe they are 1/3 of AIS so a bit surprised.   

It will be interesting on how they show this as the video update said this will be the first merit badge with no pamphlet.

Dates are now official.

November 2021 launch

Eagle Required if board of review after July 1, 2022.

20 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Well, at least we speak the same language.

 

FYI ... I had to google it as well ... this is not an internal acronym 

YGBSM = You've gotta be s$&**ing me 

When we had girls in our Pack, we combined boys & girls in Scoutbook.  You are correct, recording attendance, advancement and calendars are much easier if you have all of the kids of 1 grade in 1 den.  The bulk updates work well.

Just for a comparison, if the documents originated about 10-points, now at 4 per page, they are 2 point font.  The SEC requires all printed prospectuses to go out at 10-point with some allowances to go as low as 8 point.  I question how this was allowed.  Again, if you are going to print and mail a document, make it readable.  Printing 2 point font and sending it out is nearly worthless.  I expect most will probably either ignore and just vote or go to the webpage.  However, there are many that do want to read paper.  The judge swung and missed.  I wonder if the US Trustee is fuming...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/230.420#:~:text=(a) The body of all,as 10-point modern type.

Many claimants are reporting to have received the packet.  I have seen some complaints that the print out is 4 pages per page.  Some are stating that it is nearly impossible to actually read the documents that went out.

Edit:

Note that the reports I have seen are from Twitter so those individuals are probably tech savy enough to find the documents online.  I think the concern is that those who are not tech savy may to be able to actually read the documents.  I wonder who approved printing 4 pages on a single page.  At some point, why even send out paper?

1 minute ago, elitts said:

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 think that is why we have only, so far, limited our adult buddy rule to in camp.  It is difficult to manage throughout camp and it seems like it is definitely lower risk out of the campsite.

Depending on the year, we typically have at least 6 adults and sometimes as many as 8-10 at camp.  I prefer 6 as I feel 8-10 are too many and I spend too much time dealing with the adults.  I think with 6 it could work, less it would be difficult to have adult buddies.

9 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Gotcha. Thst is where the no one on one rule kicks in.

Correct.  However, at summer camp, if you are an adult alone, no one on one happens randomly ... many times it is unavoidable.  Why?  Because of summer camp programing, it is difficult to ensure every kid has a buddy with them 100% of the time.  That can then be used by pedos as an excuse (hey, I was just by myself sleeping at camp and a scout came into camp).

The point is the only way to ensure no one on one at summer camp is to have adult buddies.  I know our Troop (and it sounds like others) already do this at the campsite (no adult at the campsite by themselves).  It sounds like yknot's Troop does this across camp and I can see why.  We are looking into it for our Troop, but haven't decided yet.

5 minutes ago, elitts said:

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)

We actually already don't allow single adults at our campsite.  If you are at our campsite, you need a 2nd adult present.  We identified that years ago as a potential risk (many years before I became SM).  We also tell scouts that they need to find a buddy when coming back to camp.

46 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Maybe background checks for everyone is a right and necessary idea, but it's not as self evident or without significant costs and unwanted and unexpected consequences as some folks seem to think.  If it's a good idea than it should be able to be shown as a good idea by evidence and analysis, not just by facile assertion.

How do you determine this?  Kids don't report issues for possibly decades.  Do you wait until 20 years from now, see that a large number of girls were sexually abused in our program and realize we let a someone in due to the 72 hour rule?  

I  think we need to look at outside experts and they are indicating this is an issue/concern.  I would rather not wait to find out this was an issue and we did nothing.

To me, we need different rules for Cub Scouts & Scouts BSA.  Most CSA reports are coming from Boy Scouts (now Scouts BSA).  I agree with @Eagle94-A1 that requiring every adult to register for overnights in Cub Scouts is burdensome, won't make it safer and could kill the program.  Most Cub Scout overnights, that I held, had each parent attend.  Parents watch their kids and that seems to work. 

From my understanding of the reports, most abuse occurs is in Scouts BSA.  I have no issue with BSA saying any adult who wants to spend overnights in Scouts BSA must be a registered leader.  The cost can be paid by fundraising (we don't charge our adults to register as leaders).  For the most part, only registered leaders attend overnights at our outings.   The only outing where I have non registered adults attend overnights is summer camp.  I believe my Troop could manage if this was a requirement and I expect most parents would understand.  It would address a concern raised by non BSA CSA experts and I think the program could absorb it with minimal negative impacts.

9 minutes ago, malraux said:

I do like the Canadian approach. In short, parents have a cheaper/faster path to get clearance to attend events like campout, but that clearance is only good for 5 events. After those 5 events, they must register and have a more detailed check. That seems to balance the two competing concerns. 
 

more parents at events is good for helping address youth on youth abuse/bullying/etc. 

One issue is that the 72 hour rule is not limited to parents (and to be fair, parents can and have abused; however, there is a bit of a balance).

I had a kid's uncle want to go to summer camp with us for 2-3 nights.  He didn't want to register.  I asked him for a medical form and he refused to fill it out and said he would refuse to attend if asked for that info .. very odd and glad he didn't attend.

Looking at recent reports of CSA, many, many seem to occur at summer camps.  The potential 1:1 is high there.  There is a large collection of non parent adults present.  What I found, is that in many cases, kids DO NOT report the incidents.  Eventually, one victim is found and then many more come out of the woodwork.  So, we need to be careful thinking everything is fine just due to lack of reports.

One major area of concern I have is about girls.  We have added girls.  This is not a debate about adding girls, but girls aged 16 - 19 are the #1 demographic for being sexually abused.  Men are by far the greatest perps of CSA.  By report, it is nearly 99%; however, many agree cases of women sexually abusing children are higher than reported so some researchers have said that men "only" commit 80% of CSA.  Still, we have mostly male leaders (highest offenders of CSA) around teenage girls (highest rate of being sexually abused).  This mix is a big concern at summer camps. 

Any SM knows it is VERY difficult to ensure kids have buddies at all times.  Merit badge schedules vary a lot making it difficult for many scouts to ensure they have buddies.  I can tell you, nearly every day at camp, I see 10-20 kids walking by themselves throughout camp.  

Also, when scouts/kids see adults, many will run up to talk.  I have had a few times where one of my scouts, walking alone, saw me walking alone and ran up to talk.  It is not common, but it has happened.  I typically ask them where there buddy is and tell them to go get one.  However, there are too many opportunities for this to occur at camp and it concerns me, especially now that we have added girls.

Requiring all adults to register does not seem like a major hurdle.  I expect that while background checks are not perfect, just asking for the info may scare away potential abusers.  We require health forms, so just add the registration to that process.

Our Troop is also talking about other possible changes.  How do we ensure every kid has a buddy within the merit badge program?  Should we ensure adults are never alone (adult buddy system)?  The issue I have is that as a Troop, we can work on improvements but we also have to count on everyone else ... and in some cases, based on recent history, that has failed. 

I spun off the 72 hour rule discussion here:

36 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

This is often debated, but it has been clarified. The national policy is that the event itself has to be >72 hours. The "consecutive" they mean the time the adult is at the event. They can't leave and comeback to reset the clock. It is not cumulative over time, though, so 48 hour campouts each month do not trigger this 72 hours. Those events, though, must have at least 2 registered adults over 21.

True.  For example, at summer camp, we have many adults that come for portions of the week who are not registered adult leaders.  

To be honest, I think summer camps need to tighten up a lot.  I have many concerns how they operate today.  

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

What policy is it that "allows unscreened adults to be in charge on overnight trips"??

You only need to be a registered adult if you spend 72 hours with youth.   Exact policy below;

All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive.

I break this up into two separate issues.  One is what they plan to do for their employees and the other for scouts & scouters.

Most larger companies have affinity groups.  From what I have been told, they help those who may feel out of place in large organizations with a clear majority of primarily one group (typically white males).  My wife worked in the fossil fuel industry out of college.  The vast majority of the workers were white older males.  There were times where meetings were held at Hooters and she told them she wasn't comfortable meeting at that location.  Their response - no issue, you don't need to come.  The affinity groups helped make her feel welcome.

The baby boomers are retiring in droves.  I'm currently working on hiring over 100 employees (primarily engineers & technicians) across three global locations.  Demand for labor is high everywhere and competition is tough.  There are simply not enough workers coming in right now to replacing those who are leaving the workforce.  If you want to compete for labor, you better be willing to pay and offer a welcoming workplace.  Plus, you simply cannot just recruit one gender/race.  If affinity groups help make your workplace more inviting to a more diverse group, I don't see a major downside.  

Ideally, over time, they can go away as your workforce and leadership becomes more diverse.   However, based on the experience of some of my friends (various non majority races/religions), wife, and recruiting efforts - they have been useful.

Now, in terms of the DEI training & merit badge ... I tend to agree it could and should have been integrated in existing merit badges.  I would also like to avoid another cyber chip type situation.  For the most part, DEI is applying the oath & law to all groups.  Personally, I think the bigger issue is that BSA's membership does not reflect the diversity of the youth in the USA.  I'm not sure if DEI will help address that, but I think it is more important to understand why we fail to appeal to a broader base of youth/parents is more important than DEI training/merit badges.

One topic I thought I would mention from the TCC's townhall is what they expect to happen if the plan is rejected.  There are really three options for the BSA.

• Exit bankruptcy with no deal.  I think at least one church threated that recently (and didn't follow through with that threat).  Basically, BSA can exit with no deal and then the individual claims would be pursued in state courts.  BSA would have to pay millions in legal fees to defend these lawsuits.  TCC doubts BSA will pursue this path and I tend to agree.  
• Declare Chapter 7.  BSA has this choice.  If they choose this path, a bankruptcy trustee takes over the BSA and the BSA no longer exists going forward.  The trustee would take over all HA bases and plan to maximize the return for the creditors.  No HA bases, no IP, etc.  TCC doubts BSA will purse this path as they don't think BSA would want to turn over Philmont to the trustee.  I also agree until BSA really does run out of $ which I think is much later than March next year based on their financial disclosures.
• Negotiate a new plan.  TCC believes this is the most likely path.