SiouxRanger

I too have zero tolerance for role playing, games, and such. I really don't need that to motivate me. But, nearing the end of my scouting career, the wife of a great, life-long scouting friend of mine-both of them are strong Wood Badge folks, (4 leaders:) looked at me at a scouting dinner and asked, "Why haven't you taken Wood Badge?" Well, I have a lot of Scouting experience and just didn't think it would help me or that I would fit in. I said, "I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DISAPPOINTING MRS. XXX, (her) I SAID I'D GO." And, I just resolved to go along with the 2 weekends and then the Ticket. The weekends were a bit corny, definitely very high energy, and tolerable to fun. Made some great contacts. But the critical value was the Ticket. I have posted earlier, that the purpose of the Ticket was not made very clear but I finally figured it out. You need to complete 5 Ticket Items. Put 8 or 10 in your Ticket. If one or more becomes impossible, and they can, you have others you can do. Your Ticket items should be things you'd love to see implemented in the level of Scouting where you volunteer. I am largely at Troop level, so I had Ticket Items regarding improving Troop Meeting agendas, and campfire programs.. The kids loved it. The Big Question is "What Can I FIX?" Then make those items Ticket Items. And on the other side of the equation, most of my adult career has dealt with ugly, so 6 days of "corny," well a break. I had a good time. And trying a Wood Badge course in a different Council is also a viable idea.

I find Mr. Johnson's appearance on the stage of this situation to be a bit problematic. I posted early on asking if anyone had any idea what was his motivation. I don't recall any replies. I can see the arguments on both sides. That he was laid off or fired, is not very persuasive to me. Organizations tend to lay off or fire senior, knowledgeable managers who come to conclusions contrary to the company's preferred line. "Hire an expert for expert advice, and when the expert contradicts the company's, the amateurs look for another expert." "We can't let AAA continue as head of BBB, as AAA's conclusions will embarrass the company." And heads roll. I also have mixed emotions about whether the typical laid off/fired employee is likely to take to the national stage to vent. Frankly, most people are cowards. And not unjustifiably so. Most live closely tied to their paycheck and benefits and pension and are highly reluctant to take any action that would jeopardize their employment and income. They have families to support and careers to nourish. And, most folks are not inclined to make a sacraficial example of themselves for a cause that will not feed them or their family. Surely, it has crossed Mr. Johnson's mind that if he comes forward about the BSA scandal, his prospects for employment with other employers is dramatically diminished as employers are not looking for trouble makers or whistleblowers, but compliant, silent employees who do as they are told. And yet Mr. Johnson came forward and spoke. Why? He might be financially stable for retirement, not looking for another job, and can afford to speak his mind. Very few people are in that position. Many posters here, as one suggested are "old" and probably retired, and with the anonymity afforded by this forum have two levels of insulation from the brutal social media retaliation seen so often in the news. Mr. Johnson, however, stood up, put his name and face on the stage. I just can't summon the path for Mr. Johnson to convert his forthrightness into profit. Will anyone escape from National's bankruptcy with financial gain? Well, the claimants' attorneys at 40%, the TCC attorneys who I think are compensated on an hourly basis, with a voluntary contribution to the settlement, Claimants-something, but how much is unclear. But Mr. Johnson? Surely no big movie deal about this mess. Can't think that a few minutes of interview in a documentary about the collapse of BSA National pays well. A book? Who would read it? That Mr. Johnson reportedly declined to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is significant in my book. Essential an NDA is an agreement offered to a laid off/fired employee wherein the employee is agreeing to accept a sum of money, continuation of benefits, whatever, for their agreement not to disclose information about the employer, the employer's business, or the employee's work for the employer. It is a bribe. "You shut up, we pay." And a threat: "You don't sign and take the bribe, we may sue you-oh, and you won't have the bribe money to pay your lawyer to defend you." Strangely, employers rarely seem to obtain Non Disclosure Agreements when an employee is hired. And when a new employee would likely sign without an after thought. NDA's are generally offered after the employer wants to dispose of the employee-but then the employer finds itself at a significant bargaining disadvantage. I know an individual whom I greatly respect who declined to sign a council non disclosure agreement. A person of calibre. Two more points: FIRST. Many employment agreements, just guessing but highly suspecting, that Mr. Johnson signed before employment, provides that upon termination of employment all documents, records, memoranda, books. pamphlets, computer data, (you get the drift) are to be returned to BSA National, the employer. The point is that Mr. Johnson was contractually obligated to return EVERYTHING he received, saw, produced, or touched to BSA and if not he would be in breach of his employment agreement with BSA, and perhaps liable to a charge of criminal theft. So, were Mr. Johnson to do a "data dump" after his employment was terminated, BSA could not only brand him as a "disgruntled, non-performing, inadequate" employee, but also as a thief. There is a book in this: "The Art of the Smear." SECOND. My second point is that Mr. Johnson walked away from some amount of money by refusing to sign the Non Disclosure Agreement offered to him. Almost no one does that, my good friend excepted. And it was probably a significant amount of money. Probably more than $100,000 just judging from his position at National and could have been much more than that. So, most of my comment is pro Johnson, but I still wonder about the bona fides of the roll out of his appearance. If he is at the top of the food chain in his life, he can afford to speak out, but if not, then there are other considerations involved. And I do not know that they are.

@ThenNow having captured (been imposed upon) the position of Forum Dunce, so I'll just claim "stupid." I'll even answer to ":stupid and clueless." So, as I understand it, we have a volunteer who has spent 2 full weekends, at their expense, and perhaps 18 MONTHS WORKING THEIR TICKET to improve scouting at their level of involvement, and y'all are debating whether their beading ceremony should take 30 to 60 SECONDS, but GRACIOUSLY allow them 2 or 5 minutes? And, as one poster suggests, if the scouts, in the ideal "boy led troop" does not invite the beading ceremony into its COH, it should not be allowed (apparently as that would be some primal violation of that which is "Scouting.") Am I missing something? I guess we would not want an adult leader, Wood Badge awardee near recipient, to be honored before the scouts who look up to her or him. Why give scouts another reason to respect a mentor? (And as to the "boy led troop," concept, the "boys" are children and need A LOT of guidance in "their" leadership of their troop. And boys who are not guided by adults, things resort to William Golding's Lord of the Flies.)

When a young attorney realizes that they need to speak tautologically (at some point in the future) about something, they learn to THINK tautologically during their research, so that they can speak tautologically about it later. Not just a big word, but THE difference between a hack and a master attorney. And a master attorney is one among thousands or tens of thousands. They are rare.

I want to comment on this sentiment, having watched at least 3 TCC town hall Zoom meetings at which Mr. Stang and Mr. Lucas were speakers. There is this realization that comes to every young lawyer serious about his/her craft of the necessity of learning to speak "tautologically," that is, that every statement they make is true no matter what the circumstances it is applied to. This is not easy to do, nor easy to learn, but it is a must to practice law at the highest levels, and with the greatest precision of analysis, and clarity of argument. The ability to do so is the mark of a master legal craftsperson. When a lawyer hears a question, looks away into the distance for a moment to form his or her thoughts, and then speaks, THAT lawyer has learned the skill to speak "tautologically." Mr. Stang and Mr. Lucas have this skill down. From what I have seen, the TCC could not be better represented. (Being 45 years in myself.)

The goal is to get kids in the door, turn them into Scouts, with trained adult leaders, and teach them while they are having fun, learning life skills, and building relationships, in a safe environment. Any rules that get in the way of that, are obstructions.

On the other hand, if National allows someone to register for 5 positions, is that not an implied recognition of that person's right to earn the recognitions applicable to each of those positions? And on another front, Tom, multi registered, works himself silly, completes the recognition requirements for 3 of his 5 registered positions, though awarding them all would violate some rule(s), nevertheless, receives all 3 recognition awards. A lawyer's first question will be, "So what is the damage?" And a wholly insufficient answer is, "Well, he violated rules, though he works harder now as a volunteer than ever." There is no damage. So, even if a rule violation, there is no remedy. And the purpose of lawsuits (litigation) is to determine breaches of some standard, the amount of $$$ damages caused by the violation, and award $$$ damages to the injured party. A non-monetary remedy is an injunction. "We don't want Tom to hold 5 jobs simultaneously-yeah, he does fine-but cut him back to 1 job." We really want to discourage volunteers?

So, I've made this argument before. So, as I understand the issue is that we have an individual who has taken on TWO jobs as scouting volunteer, done one (perhaps both) well and is going to be DENIED performance recognition because of being double (triple, quadruple…) registered? Seriously? Who thinks up this trash? Being DESPERATE for volunteers, Scouting has rules to insult them? There are folks who can perform 2 or 3 or 4 Scouting unit, district, and council positions simultaneously in great form. I personally know many. I have held so many positions, at so many levels, for so long, many overlapping, and I have no interest in applying for whatever knots I might qualify for. I don't need any such motivation. (Anyone here getting a knot for the untold hours of reading and replying to posts on this forum? Yet we do it. No knot needed.) But, recognition is important to some to encourage their continued leadership. But, instead there are rules to defeat recognizing them for their efforts. Hmmmm.

I would note that I have been counseling distressed individuals and families for 45 years. And giving folks a bit of leeway, consideration, and forgiveness can work wonders. And that every injured soul appreciates a kind word. And a kind word costs nothing.

Another poster made a comment about this ending with "And now we return to your regular programming." I agree with his sentiment. Benjamin Franklin is attributed as saying, "We must all hang together or most assuredly, we will all hang separately." Long interpreted as "we all have to stand together." From that I take, in these difficult circumstances, we all need to make a special effort to cooperate for the greater good. There is a measure of patience (always underestimated in its significance by those who have the luxury of never having to demonstrate any), and humility (not easy either but I have several times upon the presentation of superior evidence by posters on this forum and learned thereby) to "stand together" for the greater good. There is a saying in the law: "Disagree without being disagreeable." (Well, perhaps, "Good Luck."). I have not seen the actual post which included the allegedly offensive contact information, and exhortation to contact the attorney. But, under the ancient concept of "demurrer," which means "we agree that all that is alleged is true, but that is insignificant." So, from my memory, I recall several occasions of posts of Mr. Kosnoff regarding all manner of issues and comments. Twitters (tweets?") and maybe other social media posts. I do not recall any objections by Moderators with regard to any of them. And, I think that there is a significant difference between a post which says: "Hey, have you seen this Tweet:" and one which says: "Hey, look at this Tweet, he has his act together, call…" It does not seem to me that @ThenNowwas endorsing Mr. Kosnoff. But even if so, I stand with @ThenNow as myself being something of a dunce on the rules. But I want to be PERFECT.Y CLEAR that @RememberSchiff has been a steady and sensible voice of moderation during my entire membership. And he would not be a moderator if not so. And I have absolute confidence in @RememberSchiff. I am not sure where the fault, if any, or issue lays. To move on, perhaps a modification of the rules on what can be quoted, and identifying the required redactions of phone numbers and email addresses.

This is a huge topic, but I agree that a complete review is required. My bio, resume, or whatever it is, on my profile, many positions held for 5 to 15 years simultaneously, I have had extensive experience as a scout, camp and Philmont Ranger Staff (one year responsible for the training of the entire Ranger staff), observing, teaching, and mentoring scouts, my three sons included. I have noted a tremendous diminution in the outdoor skills learned, or that are required to be learned, by scouts. And that few to none have actually mastered them. There is much to be said for requiring scouts to be organized in their thinking and in the expression of that thinking (written, spreadsheets), but adding that to the program to the extent that it has been, seems to have diminished and out-paced the former focus on outdoor skills. Scouting seems much more like school than development through outdoor education. Scouting today is not what is was when I was forming to become a fossil. But, I can save a life (Lifesaving was required in my day-I have), build a fire in a pouring rain, select a campsite on high ground devoid of widow makers, navigate, make shelter, signal searchers, select edible plants, and TIE MY KNOTS. And schools teach (perhaps) spreadsheets, but not fire-building or knots. Or Lifesaving… There is some balance to be struck, but what we have now, I do not think is it. I have seen many Eagle Scouts-ALL of them to be exact-who could not build a fire. Even in ideal conditions. So, some of it is the result of technology. Tents are all clips-no knots. Some sort of snap together, so "step back as it assembles itself." Who needs to build a fire, learn their wood types, make coals, tend the fire, and cook dinner? Nobody-we've got stoves! At Philmont in the 1970's, breakfast and dinner were cooked over wood fires. Just think of the time that that took. And crews still made it to program at the next camp. Today, with cold breakfasts and lunches, crews struggle to make it to the next camp for program (well, not all of them). Just some perspective on how Scouting has changed. Limiting Scouts to a mere 7 elective merit badges and the rest being heavily bookish, seems unbalanced to me.

Who?

Why not? Your reasons may help others consider their individual situations on sticking with their current attorney, or making a change. Thanks.

My state has statutory exemptions from certain types of liability-generally negligence-for unpaid volunteers serving on governmental or quasi-governmental boards. Perhaps such exemptions exist for unpaid volunteers serving as volunteer firefighters, etc. And, it could vary by state. I doubt that intentional torts are given the protection of an exemption, so the abuser would not have any protection, but those not intentionally committing abuse would likely be protected. Whether the government which sponsors the firefighting unit would be exempt raises the issue of "governmental immunity," which is complex, and also could vary from state to state. Retaining an experienced attorney who is knowledgeable in these legal issues is critical to maximizing the value of your claim.

A few paragraph breaks would help follow this.

I remember a TV series some years, ago, M.A.SH. There was an episode with a scene with the two principal characters sitting in their barracks tent, each holding a few playing cards, with a chess/checkers board between them, with checkers and chess pieces on the board. Another character came in and made some comment about the "game" noting the discordant collection of pieces, and asked, "What are you playing-and what are the rules?" The reply was "Double Cranko-there are no rules." And with the new bill, the entire dynamic of the BSA bankruptcy may change. Not so much for the BSA, but dramatically for the Claimants. There are currently two groups of claimants: 1. Those whose claims are legally enforceable under current statutes of limitation. By law, they are the only group legally entitled to any share of any settlement money. 2. Those whose claims are legally barred from enforcement and legally entitled to nothing in the BSA bankruptcy. BSA seeks to include these barred claims in the settlement for reasons I have mentioned several times previously. And so now, a bill proposes to eliminate the statute of limitations regarding child sexual abuse claims, which will, if enacted in time relative to the BSA bankruptcy, (might) convert all of the child sexual abuse claims against the BSA which have so far been barred by statutes of limitations (paragraph 2 claims above) into legally enforceable claims, which must then be recognized by the Bankruptcy Judge as legally enforceable, and thereby ENTITLED to be added to the calculation of the distribution of the total amount of money in the Settlement Fund to be divided up amongst the sexual abuse claimants. So, what is the significance of this bill to eliminate statues of limitation relating to child sexual abuse claims? Well, it means to the Claimants with claims not barred by statutes of limitation, that you will receive LESS because now there is a whole other group who will receive some of the funds that would have been paid to you. And to the Claimants whose claims are barred by expired statutes of limitation pertaining to you, you will now, likely, receive some payment, but it will come at the expense Claimants whose claims which have not been barred by statutes of limitation. ThenNow, I believe it was, expressed a concern that the process would "turn Claimant upon Claimant." Sadly, bankruptcy is a mathematical process of taking a FIXED AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS and dividing it up amongst those Claimants who have a legally enforceable claim to those funds, as determined by law. It is elementary math: The numerator is the funds available and is a fixed amount (Though that amount is not yet fixed-but once fixed, that is it). The denominator is the total number of Claimants (and their claims as weighted by the degree and elements of abuse which they were subjected to). Increase the number of Claimants in the denominator (weighted for degree of abuse) and the amount paid to each Claimant DECREASES. So, those Claimants who have legally enforceable claims and are not barred by statutes of limitation are, in effect,. subsidizing Claimants whose statutes of limitation have expired. And so, a poster expressed his concern that the bankruptcy process would pit Sexual Abuse Claimant versus Sexual Abuse Claimant. Sadly, it does, but it is not "personal; it is elementary math which is part of the bankruptcy code. In a nutshell, if you are a Claimant with a legally enforceable claim, and if those whose who were abused whose claims are barred by statutes of limitation are allowed a payment, YOU are paying that, and your payment will be LESS. IF that statute is enacted, and IF it is applicable to the BSA bankruptcy (filed prior to the effective date of the law), no one will have a choice. It will be the law. Upon the applicability of such a law, enacted AFTER the filing of the BSA bankruptcy proceeding, I express no opinion or thoughts.

Good point. Healed.

And, I just want to say, I rather vented on what I consider "insiders" on this forum, speaking in a partially obtuse code. Speaking to each other. It is hard to follow at times. And anyone-me-who can post the quoted post above-does not tend to find anything hard to follow. And any lawyers on this forum who have refinements to make to my post, please do. I apparently have a completely different view of this particular part of the forum (political issues and bankruptcy) then many others. I understand the need for "insider" discussion and to support Survivors. All those folks chatting are likely Survivors or those high attuned to the needs and concerns of Survivors, and I have no problem with that. Survivors need huge support. And I am am a huge supporter. I have no issue with ThenNow or anyone else. My concern is that there a another 82,000± claimants WHO CANNOT FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION. And they seek INFORMATION and cannot get it from this Forum. Because the discussion is too obtuse to be followed easily. Some poster mentioned that he/she really appreciated PosterX because it made them look all the "hard words" that PosterX used. I have a Bachelor's and professional degree normally earned in 7 years I earned in 6. And I can slather all my posts with big words that no one understands. And the RESULT: I have FAILED to communicate. So, I say again, everyone make clear references so the outsiders can follow along. THEY NEED THE GUIDANCE OF YOUR WISDOM AND JUDGMENT.

Notices Of Depositions normally follow Requests To Produce (documents), and sometimes Requests To Admit (facts). Attorneys want the documents first, for review, and then structure their deposition questioning strategy around the documents produced, and admissions or denials of admission of facts. So, dig up TCC's Request(s) To Produce, and you will see what TCC is interested in investigating. Likely, the TCC is interested in the nature and extent of insurance carrier coverages: coverage type, time period covered, amount of coverage, deductible, identity of insureds, and the cooperation the insured is to provide to the insurance carrier, i.e, reporting potential claims and concealment of known or suspected claims. Typically, with each renewal of a policy, the insured is to declare if there are any known prior incidents which might produce a claim during the term of the new policy, and if any such incidents are declared, the insurer will "except" them from the coverage of the new policy. Meaning, those potential claims will NOT be covered in future policies. (It is their "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. And insurance companies love them.) In this fashion, insurance companies narrow their exposure by excluding potential claims from the new policy which have not "ripened" into a claim covered by the expiring policy. This means that the insured, BSA, is now "self-insuring" for those excluded potential claims, and thereby, the insurance company will pay nothing for those claims. If BSA does not disclose known potential claims at the time of renewal of a policy, and any of those potential claims ripens into a bona fide lawsuit during the term of the new policy TCC needs to know the true facts, good or bad, so that the TCC can evaluate the true strength of the aggregate claims of the abused.

And even with this explanation of yours, and your "cutsie" reference to Spartacus, you still communicate NOT to me. And yet I understand most of your posts, perhaps because I hold degrees equivalent to yours. This is a forum to make communication of serious information to abuse survivors.

I didn't bother to Google it. The point of communication is to communicate. The really important folks here are those who are NOT registered. They are looking for information. And it is our duty to provide that to them.

piobndinerinxsdingespoinesinberonobneqdsinxeonindeeeondeinonn !!! Well, at least we speak the same language. Can we try to communicate with those who are not on the "inside?" This forum is worthless if it does not EXPAND the audience of informed scouters. About a dozen registered members "trade messages," essentially a forum of "private discussion" conducted in public. That will not create a "movement" nor educate nor inspire the casual lurker on this forum. They are seeking CLEAR information. Those here who have it, should share it CLEARLY. And thus goodness is done.

I understand appreciate your post. My position on supporting Survivors has been stated several times. But, there is a huge qualitative difference between posters analyzing data from court pleadings, news articles, tweets, texts, press conferences, town hall meetings, and such, and, an anonymous statement in support of a position that attorneys will net $400 million in fees, especially considering that the bona fides of that block of attorneys is considered to be highly suspect. This is not an easy nut to crack, for I am not willing to take the position that the Anonymous Survivor should reveal his identity, but unless the Coalition can present a Survivor who is willing do so, (Of how many thousands of clients and can't find ONE???), the statement of the Anonymous Survivor has no value. Folks, I could claim to be a survivor. Allege all manner of awful. Swear or solemnly affirm that I am telling the Truth. My profile could be fiction. And CONDEMN the Coalition recommendation. And what would you have from all of that? NOTHING.

There are MILLIONS at stake. How do we know that the "EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS" is a human being? Surely, no one would lie to earn $400 MILLION.

I asked this question many moons ago on this forum (it seems many moons, but maybe not that many). Of a survivor, I asked, "What are your expectations of this bankruptcy?" (Or nearly that was what was asked.) In my experience I have NEVER seen an alleged wrongdoer, in any legal setting, admit doing wrong, even with a Full Release in hand protecting them from any admission. An admission that might lessen the damage done. NEVER. From the movie Amistad, Cinque, an alleged slave is relating the facts of his life and the capture of he and his cohorts. John Adams interrupts him, and says, "No, what is your STORY?" My interpretation is that the facts don't "carry the case." Cases are won by the Plaintiff's "story." The converse is that Plaintiff's will accept less of a settlement if the Defendant admits to the damage caused. That is, Apologizes. The offended tend to accept apologies. Offender humans nearly 100% of the time REFUSE to apologize, even though paying millions for the damages that they caused.. It is a "human thing" to apologize, and corporations are not human even though all the corporation's actions are conducted by humans. Corporations don't apologize. A conundrum and an enigma. An apology goes a long way to remedy wrongs. But the downside for corporations-NATIONAL-is that if it DOES NOT APOLOGIZE, Survivors will and should demand greater payment to make up for the lack of an apology. So, as to the "Then What?" Without an apology, there is a bank deposit. In person with a clerk who knows nothing, a mailed-in deposit, or by some sort of scams-the-check process. Sterile. No letter of apology, or condolences. You are left to the condolences of your close friends who you have let into the loop. And what will you tell them of the settlement you received? My best friend from high school, who moved away to college thereafter, never confided in me until about 5 years ago. I had seen a number of times in the interim. When he told me of this abuse, he said that he felt that I best understood him and that I was his best friend. His trusted siblings knew. And his pattern of abuse was simply horrific. AND EVEN YET, he told me he did not want any compensation, ONLY AN APOLOGY. He held a Phd. (And not to make this too dramatic, his pattern of abuse, confirmed by an educated sibling, spanned scoutmaster abuse, cleric abuse, Christian Brothers abuse, and abuse by the staff at the facility that was to counsel him about his abuse.) And the alleged scoutmaster abuser is NOT listed on any IV files now available, though I understand that N National has not released them all.. Though, in my contacts in my council, it has been confirmed that the alleged abusing Scoutmaster was a known/suspected child abuser.