CynicalScouter

But see here's what I don't know and we'll never know. 1) We have National not being entirely forthcoming about this bankruptcy and its impact on LCs. At the start it was "LCs's are fine, National will take care of this." Now, it is blatantly clear LCs will have to pay something and National is still, IN WRITING no less, talking about "ask" and "voluntary" contributions from LCs to the settlement fund. 2) LCs still blowing happiness and sunshine at people. They too are either accepting National's version of events (the LCs will skate) or know that's a bunch of BS and are lying to themselves and/or their local units that all local fundraising will remain local and they camps won't be touched, etc. 3) A combination of the two that varies from council to council As I said, my council from the start has been very upfront and honest: the LC is going to have to pay SOMETHING, they just don't know what. And I believe them when they say they don't know the number yet. But there are a LOT of people who are going to be angry when the bill comes due and their local camp and XX% of other assets/cash on hand in the Council account have to get sold off after being told for 1+ years that wasn't going to happen. THE MOST CHARITABLE interpretation would be that National in Spring 2020 believed #1 (the bankruptcy will have no impact on LCs) based on a few thousand claims coming in. Something under 10,000 claims. Maybe even under 5,000 claims. Up to that point, the Catholic Dioceses COMBINED for something under 5,000 claims. Then the 90,000 number came in. Even reduced down to 80,000 that's a lot. And let's be RIDICULOUSLY cynical here (heh) and say 75% of those 80,000 are either fraudulent, duplicate, or so ambiguous they cannot be the basis of a valid claim. That leaves 20,000 claims. And yet LCs are still running around insisting that they can skate on this. No problem. All this is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think at this stage National's the holdup. I think it is LCs who are now realizing exactly how screwed they are and are trying to play hide the assets (hi Middle Tennessee Council) or simply not cooperating in hopes dragging their feet will make this all go away or something?

Yep. And the real question is which set? 1) Discovery requests as to claimants. The insurers were (I say were) asking for an order a) allowing them to serve document discovery on 1400 abuse claimants that they have already randomly selected, and b) to depose up to 100 claimants from that group seeking more information. 2) Discovery requests as to the lawyers. They want to crawl into Kosnoff, AIS, and the Coalition regarding a) what is the real relationship here between these entities and funders and b) the process where certain counsel were "machine-gun style" signing hundreds of claims. 3) Both?

THANKS! I thought it was "no embedded videos". Its "no IRRELEVANT embedded videos".

Yep. And this is the same Scott Berger who, earlier in that Zoom meeting, was pushing that the DEI merit badge was being reviewed but was definitely a go. I guess stereotypical/sexist jokes about overbearing wives remain OK in the new diverse, inclusive, and equitable BSA.

Totally unrelated, I thought there was a "no embedded video" rule?

Scott Berger's day job: Associate Director - CBS News

During the February 2021 Scouts, BSA Office Hours, Scott Berger (a Scouts, BSA National Leader) was asked why no coed Troops. This was his response video from 28:30-31:00 That [coed troops] is not in the plan. Nobody supports that [coed troops]. And there's good reason for it. The reason that the program is laid out the way it is currently is because we realized that in many respects girls mature quicker than boys. And having a coed program would disadvantage the boys. And we don't want that. I'm making a joke now. Lot of married people out there. You understand. You know why. Females take over sometimes. That was a joke. But what I really want to say is that we looked at the experience not only in Venturing, where young women will often assume leadership roles, but we also looked at other countries where they went towards coed troops and a coed way of doing things and it really hurt the young men to the point that the young men quit scouting by about 50%. We don't want that to happen here in the BSA. So there is no plan. Whenever anybody asks about it, we say very firmly, that's not happening. So, take it to the bank as best you can. But that [coed troops] is not happening.

If it is an official BSA troop function, oodles. As for the shut down, I'm hoping I am wrong, but I don't think I am on this one.

"Are you saying our scouts shouldn't have AT LEAST the same protections as workers in a workplace? What kind of monster are you!" /sarcasm off

You don't have one. Units chartered with the Council have no COR, instead a Scout Professional (S.E., D.E.) signs anything the COR would have to. Your unit has no seat on the Council Board (as a COR would). It makes your unit an appendage of the Council. This rolled out for the first time last fall. SO FAR the units I've heard have to use it have tried to use it as a temporary measure, something to do to get through recharter until they can find a CO. But it could, depending on the circumstances, turn into a long term "solution" for units that just cannot find a CO anywhere.

Yes, Yes David, but as was pointed out to you over and over, that does not mean you get to run BSA as Catholic Scouts of America or whatever. It does not mean your parish gets to take/drag scouts to anti-abortion events.

This is their offered solution - rent a room from SOMEONE and your Council is now your CO. Short Form Facility Use Agreement Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement

LDS did this well, perhaps a little TOO well, where the distinction between the church and the unit was effectively non-existent. That said, what is going to wake up, and has woken up, a lot of these religious/church chartered COs was the bankruptcy and lawsuits. The entire Diocese of Dallas threw Scouting out of their parishes. If they are allowed back at all, it is as a room-and-facilities rental only. Literally THOUSANDS of Methodist churches filed claims against BSA for fear they'd be stuck with abuse lawsuits/bills. That's in addition to a ton of local, individual churches that simply refused to recharter units. "We thought we were just letting them use our space." Yeah, well, oops. That's not going to stop the abuse lawsuit. Your COR signed it, that means you are on the hook.

Every change always results in some people walking away. Allowing homosexual scouts. Allowing homosexual scout leaders. Allowing girls into Scouts, BSA and Cubs. The question is how many? What I suspect is: not that many, especially if the requirements are so mealy mouthed and vague that a MBC can twist them to avoid things they don't want to talk about or in a way they do want to talk about. I'm getting the feeling that what made them hit the pause button was NOT issues related to race/Black Lives Matter/critical race theory that made them push the pause button. Look what Berger talked about/defended: "sexuality or sexual orientation" "religious values""religious beliefs". THAT is what has them in a panic.

Yep. You are "low level". Den Leader? ASM? Committee chair? The people on the ground, day in, day out, who are actually delivering the program? "Low level". This is the mindset. This is the attitude. EDIT: I know I've suggest this for BSA paid staff and it probably is illegal condition for employment, but we can absolutely enforce for volunteer leaders. No one is eligible for a position above the district level unless they have been a registered UNIT leader in the last X years. 1 is too short, 5 is to much. 3? Point is, before they look their noses down at us "low level" volunteers, they best step up. Oh, you were a den leader in 1988? Great. Cute. You have no idea what you are doing.

Yep. I'm willing to take whatever heat they want to drop on me. But you and I and a lot of us know how those Eagle BoRs suddenly can get stacked with unfriendly faces. Or how the Eagle paperwork, doesn't get outright shredded, but just never seems to get out from the bottom of the stack of papers. Etc.

Let me be blunt: There's a reason I post anonymously. I have sons in the Scouts, BSA program. They'd like to make Eagle and I'd like to see that happen. I am not about to give National, or my Council a SINGLE reason to threaten their advancement because their dad stuck his head up and spoke out about something. I believe BSA's likely dead. But in the off chance it isn't, I am NOT going to see them come after me or my kids for speaking up. The risk is too great.

Here's the problem. 1) By that point it is too late. There isn't going to be a public comment period. 2) I agree, this is going to be driven by the MBC's personal beliefs. For example, when this came up last fall I know some people talked about "Sure, I'll take about systematic racism (which was in the leaked drafts). I'm going to use videos from Prager Univ. and Ben Shapiro to show how it doesn't exist."

Not worth the effort. National does what National wants.

This was something that I saw came up in the Office Hours video and in FB. The only people who have been allowed access to even a DRAFT of these are 1) Scout Executives 2) Handpicked volunteers/yes men and women who are simply going to nod their heads up and down and do what National tells them When people asked during the video (via Zoom chat I would guess) if they could be part of the review team or even see a copy, they were told no.

Check again. https://www.scouting.org/program-updates/scouts-bsa-office-hours-session-february-25-2021/ That pages leads to the video (mod policy is no direct link to videos, but the link is on that page). You'll want to watch 19:00 to 22:00

First, most of the damage done was for abuse done years/decades ago. Those board members are long since gone and/or dead. Second, just looking at National, almost the entire board has changed since 2012. Of the board members listed in National's 2012 IRS filing, almost NONE are in the 2019 filing. So, what exactly is it you want done to the the board-members, MOST of whom just joined in the last 2-3 years and therefore inherited this mess. Third, what exactly do you mean "held accountable"? Do you think they should be part of a civil suit? Bankruptcy? Criminally prosecuted? EDIT: On second thought, I forgot who was posting this. Yes, you've said in the past you want all former BSA board members arrested and forced to pay billions. Tempting as that may be it isn't going to happen. A key aspect of incorporation is that the owners, shareholders, or members (such as board members) of a corporation or LLC can NOT be held personally liable for corporate debts. Yes, there are exceptions that allow a court to "pierce the corporate veil", but they are few and far between. Not even Kosnoff in his press to liquidate BSA has suggested making any board member, current or prior, personally liable for BSA's debts. I know you hate BSA and wish that they would leave your diocese and other Roman Catholics alone (again, no one is MAKING you participate in scouting, FYI), but you hate doesn't translate into an actionable civil claim.

Ok, that also makes sense given how often OSHA standards are cited.

Even if they read it, I doubt it changed a single mind.

6 foot max, per OSHA. Fall Protection Requirements According to OSHA Standards 29 CFR–Subpart M, 1926.500, 1926.501, 1926.502, and 1926.50 5 foot was a typo.