yknot

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.

Just FYI on the Methodist side, they appear to be pretty well organized nationally and especially in my state. Every weekly email from the state conference has had a directive not to recharter until the bankruptcy is resolved. I can't envision a scenario where individual churches would defy that.

That's because other than increased fees, it hasn't had much effect unless you are in a council that is selling camps. Most councils, at least by me, are still saying business as usual. If BSA survives bankruptcy by leaving COs vulnerable, that's going to change quickly. BSA has support because it's seen as a moral force for good in the community by certain groups. If COs that have been sponsoring units in good faith start getting sued, that won't be the case. Also, I think scouting can be a bit of an echo chamber. We hear what we want to hear and dismiss what we don't. What I hear outside my scouting/community/church circles when talking to people who don't know I'm involved in scouting is different. The world is not on fire because scouting has abused tens of thousands of little boys, but there are huge demographics of parents who might smile and tuck a buck in your popcorn jar because they know your kid from little league but will never let their own kids within 100 miles of a scout unit.

Yes, it's just incomprehensible. But so much about present day life is. I don't know whether BSA is damning themselves by behaving this way, or if they've just learned to play by survive at all cost rules like everyone else. There is so much commentary about how the woke world has destroyed scouting and yet I see it as a slow collapse from within.

Two thoughts. It sounds like common horsesense, which has often been lacking. It also sounds a teensy bit like a threat. It's one thing if COs don't want to sign the traditional CO agreement. While it's yet to be worked out how councils would be able to handle that responsibility en masse, it still keeps traditional relationships in place to some degree. It's another thing if the relationship turns chilly or even hostile and a facility use agreement might be problematic. The difficulty for these COs is that many have only dealt with their local unit or maybe council level, which often operates based on warm personal relationships at the unit level and somewhat sensibly at the council level. They are just now being exposed to how national operates and it must be eye opening, especially for some of the intra denominational factions that have been so supportive so far. That might change.