yknot

vol_scouter we have repeatedly on this forum debunked the numbers you are using. There is no correlary. There is no apples to apples. For example, any study of school children includes girls, who are abused at four times the rate as boys... in some studies. But the reality is we don't really know much about child sexual abuse. What we do know is that scouting has a problem. What we do know is that it is BSA that is facing bankruptcy. What we do know is that it is BSA that is facing 82,000 claims. Trying to deflect with completely unverifiable statistics elsewhere has no bearing on anything.

Why? Other than the Catholic Church, they are not subject to hundreds of lawsuits and a nationwide bankruptcy case. In the public arena, Boys Scouts is the organization with the problem. And I would argue there are unique risks in scouting. 1) It aggressively uses morality as part of its marketing to help entice membership and 2) there is no other organization where the main part of its program is having unrelated adults take children into remote locations out of the public view for multi night stays. It is a program designed to appeal to predators.

There is no waiver or disclosure however that discusses the unique risks in scouting. There is nothing that says despite the highly promoted scout oath and law we still have scouters who are not trustworthy, etc. Other organizations do not make any such promises or promote themselves as moral organizations.

As a follow up to my own post, I think one thing I've noticed is that some of us have been here for years following this issue. When new folks come, even if they've been lurking, it seems like we keep going down rabbit holes covering some of the same ground over and over as they get up to speed. I wonder if it would help if we developed a recap post that could not just welcome folks but lay out ground rules and hit the highlights of where we are at?

I don't think so. I think most of us are reading absolutely everything. What gets hard is trying to go back and find something buried pages and pages deep. But we have some folks who seem to have their fingers on that and are willing to help when someone needs it. I think the question to me is are the moderators finding this onerous? If so, how can we make your jobs easier?

That's my point. They won't be there.

It will be kind of moot because if these community organizations and churches have any exposure, there won't be any facilities to use. Most of them don't have any assets other than property.

The two sites are separate though, right? He could have seen the beta for the reorg and then it's possible people were filing claims elsewhere on some of the aforementioned attorney sites. I don't think it supports the conspiracy theory just how Gilwell could have some kind of legitimate memory about what he thinks happened.

I understand but they are often not built on the domain. Oftentimes you don't yet own the domain, so you canlt build it there. You build it elsewhere and then move it once you have the domain. Not trying to defend just pointing out it is very possible he could have seen SOMETHING in 2019 even if it wasn't actually live.

I can't comment on any of the rest of this, it seems farfetched, but what Gilwell describes regarding web site launches is pretty standard. Those sites are often built months ahead oftentimes by subcontractors who are directed by an IT department. Anyone could have been given the link to a beta site and if it looked official wouldn't have known the difference.

BSA operates like a cult, not like any kind of recognizable corporate entity. It has its own rules and seems to rely on blind discipleship. There are a lot of good people involved but the overall structure itself is a dysfunctional alternate reality.

Just received another update from local UMC state council with an even more strongly worded recommendation not to recharter. Any agreements, including facilities usage, should only lbe effective through Dec. 31. That last clarification seems to be new.

Let's hope it survives the next 100. Did you see this in Washington Post? In case there is a paywall, article basically outlines how the trail has been swamped during the pandemic. Unlike national parks that at least have paid rangers and can in some cases limit access to timed entry reservations, the AT cannot do that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/08/22/appalachian-trail-crowds-roller-coaster-hikers/ Units here have traditionally hiked parts of the AT every year but the number of oddballs on the trail recently in addition to sheer numbers is making it problematic. This is also occuring on other popular local trail systems and in parks and campgrounds that have traditionally been pretty accessible and safe. Great to see folks enjying the outdoors. Not so great to simply seeing the living room party mentality moved outdoors.

Most of the people signing agreements today wouldn't have access to those older documents. For anyone signing post 1976, most would just assume the same coverage had been in force. I don't think it's necessarily that they were morons or misunderstood. Isn't there some negligence, again, on the part of BSA if they knew they had an abuse problem and didn't keep COs informed before signing agreements so that they could make an informed decision on whether to recharter?

No worries I've seen your posts and I know how you feel. I'm just saying I think BSA seems like it is increasingly headed in this direction. I don't know what to think about it. Some scouting is better than no scouting but I do fear it might eventually be unrecognizable.

Great to see former scout camps still serving conservation and outdoors related experiences and education. My hope is that many of the camps that will be sold through the bankruptcy can still be preserved as much as possible as open space.

I have sometimes wondered if one of National's possible survival strategies is to mostly give up on local scouting and COs. Almost all of its liabiity problems have come from the CO and unit level. There is a reason why local scouters and national and council scouters don't seem to be speaking the same language: they have almost completely different goals and purposes. If BSA were concerned about local scouting, it would have given up at least one HA base and tried to find a strategy to help functional councils keep functional camps. Problems with Youth Protection implementation make it clear it can't effectively manage units and COs. It also can't effectively manage the social differences required by religious based COs. BSA has repeatedly emphasized family scouting, which is much more managable in every sense. BSA may simply be seeking to maintain a national profile with family destinations and programming at its four HA bases. If any Councils can manage to hang on post bankruptcy, that will be gravy. BSA may literally not care that much about whether COs participate or not.

I think some councils that are selling camp properties are loathe to spell that out until the last minute especially in councils where the camps are all well utilized. They will want to wait to reveal that after it is pretty much a fait accomplit.

What happens to the BSA restructuring plan if it starts to become clear in the next month that 700,000 scouts in 2021 will go far south of that in 2022? I think that's what you are alluding to?

Some COs are not even interested in the facilities use agreement.

Let's hope you are right. All I know from a business persepctive is that insurance is more of a problem and an expense every year no matter what your safety record or training credentials. You might be able to get insurance but what if it requires doubling fees. Fewer scouts means fewer paying. I think a lot also will depend on the status and importance of the CO relationship when this is done. BSA may be able to get insurance, but COs may not care.

I think a lot of people are doing what works for them. Covid and the fee increases have led many people to simply opt for a cheap pack or den t shirt or a neckerchief if that makes sense for their demographics. Yes, the cub uniform expense is ridiculous but it's based on marketing and revenue. BSA wants parents to buy the new rank color matched hat, kerchief, socks, and new belt loop and book every year. It would be wonderful if the uniform was streamlined. Not sure it will happen though.

I'm kind of with 1980Scouter on this. The safety thresholds that parents demand only go up over time, not down. I'm always bemused by scouters who will deflect present day abuse cases by saying they will always happen because they happen in society. That may be true, but I think the public and parental tolerance for more cases in scouting is about nil going forward. I think organizations willing to sponsor a unit will also have minimal tolerance for seeing more headlines. And I think insurance is going to be harder to get. Whether or not BSA is in an OK position to handle futurepay outs may not be the most relevant issue.

Thank you very much. Wow unknown and other are kinda large.

Is there any data on number/percent claims by CO denomination or category? I know we've seen it by LC sort of.