PeterHopkins

No disagreement about how wide the door was open. That's why we're here. Nevertheless, those who perpetrated these crimes were anomalous. That's a hard thing to say, when there are 82,000 survivors who have become claimants, and we know the true number is larger than that. Given the number of youth that went through the program and may still be living, the percentage of instances of abuse is very small. Anomolous does not equate to acceptable. One instance of abuse that could have been prevented is unacceptable. But folks like Mr. Kosnoff fail to see that there is a huge baby that has done so

@IWasAbusedinScoutingI'm sorry for what happened to you and your troopmates. I hope you find this forum welcoming and compassionate. The situation the BSA currently faces is particularly difficult for me. As a child, I was severely abused and neglected at home. Scouting was my safe place. I hope that's what it will be in the future for any youth who wants to participate.

Interesting. On the last page of the PDF titled General Information, we see this question and answer: 9. What part does the head of the institution take in the work of the troop? Inspirational

My daughter attended a six-night Cub resident camp in 2019. At departure, we got a list of adventure requirements she completed. When I tried to enter the data into Scoutbook, some of the requirement numbers on the list did not exist. I realized they were still using the 2015 requirements, and I had to map them to the 2016 requirements to figure out what to sign off.

I'll be watching my words. I think Kosnoff is primarily interested in seeing this converted to a Chapter 7 case. The youth of today deserve the opportunity to have a safe, high quality Scouting experience, regardless of what happened in the past. Today's children had nothing to do with it. Kosnoff isn't on board with that. I decided not to post what I originally had here. I'm unwilling to provide Kosnoff with any bullets.

@Eagle1993 - So, we're feeding the beast here.

Not at all. I understood your use of the term "financial statements" as a technical term of art. As I said, financial statements would not include the level of detail you wanted to see. From your last post, it appears you meant this to be understood in a much broader sense. Not at all. Instead, I said: Serving on a non-for-profit organization's board carries a responsibility that is often underappreciated by board members. I think it is absurd that the professional staff would deny requests from the council executive board to seee detailed internal management reports. It is sim

Summaries of the "net income or loss" (not terms used in the not-for-profit context) would not be included in the audited financial statements. The objective of an audit is to express an opinion about whether the financial statements reflect the entity's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Drilling down to individual programs is not necessary to for that opinion. The cost associated with having the auditors express such an opinion would outweigh any individual benefits. If some programs operate in the black and others operate in the red, it matters little to users of

@ThenNow I was raised Catholic as well. Pubic school for kindergarten and then 12 years of Catholic school. Undergraduate and graduate degrees were from the same state instituttion. I was an altar server for nine years and quite serious about the faith as a child. I began questioning as a senior in high school. I was quite fond of the priest who signed the religious letter of endorsement attached to my Eagle application. We had lots of time alone together. I was shocked to see is name on the list of abusers for my childhood diocese. He was listed as having offenses in three different pari

@ThenNow I agree. Boneheaded would be a good way to describe it. Again, I was speculating as to what the calculus might have been. I compared the BSA's bankruptcy with cases in which I have been involved professionally. I've never had one that had creditors other than employees, vendors, lenders and tax collectors. The character and objectives of the creditors here is vastly different, and that is the first thing that sticks out for me. I've seen lots of creditors take something less than they otherwise might have gotten just to bring the matter to a swift conclusion. Were there BSA peopl

The Key 3 Fireside Chat conducted by my council last week was somber in tone at the start. They were clear on the point that the abuse which took place can never be undone and no amount of money can erase it. Nevertheless, my impression was that there was a total number the National Council wanted to hit to make a splash and encourage the survivors to support the plan. They plugged in a total contribution for all local councils in order to get there and then used a multi-factor formula to allocate it among them. They did mention that the financial health of the council was one of the fact

I actually think there may have been some thought that this outcome was achievable. I think it's unlikely the messaging was intentionally misleading. What would have been the point of doing that? If they knew all along that this would affect local councils, kicking the can down the road and not saying so from the start only sets them up for what came later, which hasn't been well received, and that was completely predictable. It's not possible to know what was inside anyone's head, but one factor is the number of claims, as @CynicalScouter mentioned. Underestimating that number could have

That's right. When the BSA entered bankruptcy, there were posts indicating that local councils were not in harm's way financially and that Scouting, for the most part, would continue as normal but with higher registrations fees. FAQs released indicated none of the local council camps or other assets were at risk. We were led to believe that the BSA's bankruptcy filing would consolidate all claims using only assets of the National Council and its insurers, and that the restructuring plan would release local councils and chartered organizations from liability for claims. That isn't exactly

Their intention was to give reassurance that none of the camps would need to be sold and to praise those who had made good financial decisions on behalf of the council in the past, which put the council in a position to meet its obligations. At the time of the call, they were not permitted to disclose their share of the amount in the RSA.

My council conducted a Key 3 Fireside Chat over Zoom last week. The council reported that it has the ability to pay its share under the RSA without selling any camp properties. They said they could not tell us the number, but we should be prepared to hear a very large amount reported in the media in the near term.

Agreed. The USCCB could suggest a strategy or plan regarding rechartering, but each bishop or archbishop will make his own decision (or do nothing).

Although the United States Conference fo Catholic Bishops doesn't appear to have any authority to bind any individual diocese regarding chartering BSA units, it's possible it or one of its committees could consider the matter. https://www.usccb.org/about

The wearing of the Explorer Award knot for the Young American Award is mentioned in the 1995 but not the 1996 Insignia Guide. The 1996 Insignia Guide also no longer mentioned that the knot can be worn to represent the Explorer Scout Ranger (1950-1951) and Air Scout Ace (1950-1954) awards after these awards first appeared on the list in 1995. So, the fact that the Young American Award was dropped should not mean that it cannot be represented by the knot. Since the Ranger and Ace knots have not been available from the BSA for many years, should Scouters who earned those highest ranks/awards in t