SiouxRanger

And so it has all changed. In my day, our patrol met once a week, no adult supervision, and worked on scout skills.

Gee. May 6 was a busy day. All posts in a single day. There are no posts after May 6. Is there a reason? It is difficult to follow the discussion at points as there seem to be allusions to information not posted. I need to read this thread again. This is an important, if not critical thread. The issues raised here address the crux of the relationship between the LC's and the bankruptcy of National.

My experience has been that I rarely see a scout with a phone. And to the extent those observations are at summer camp, most units seem to have a strict no phone policy. And enforce it. At our unit meetings we have a plastic tub into which scouts place their phones, to be retrieved on the way out the door at meeting's end. We don't always use it, just when scouts seem to be using them.

I truly suspect that there would be no debate just two folks on the same side. Many adults just can't be away from their employment responsibilities and need some degree of contact with work. or they can't be at camp, jeopardizing scouts' attendance at camp. My unit sends 8 to 10 scouts to summer camp. Not a big unit. We have a tough time lining up enough adults to provide two deep leadership for a week. Some years an adult or two stay the entire week. Other years, maybe one stays the whole week and the second position is filled by two each staying half a week, or 4 or 5 covering pa

I am normally pretty steady, but those using the uniform rules of National (in my estimation seeking to elevate their own importance within the program over trifles), affect an attitude that any trivial or minor deviation from National's "rules" constitutes a point of attack against the alleged offender. So if some scout or adult offends National's rules on Eagle Scout Pins (Mom, Dad, Mentor), what are we to do? Those pins are revoked? Eagle Scout status is revoked? I have been the fortunate recipient of several Mentor Pins. Each was presented to me as a complete surprise.

"Nothing to be gained..." Except that the child sees their parent proudly wearing the child's token of affection to their parent and feeling accepted thereby. Dang, hopefully Scouting does not promote a child's love of their parent. (See, William Proxmire, Wisconsin Senator). Were that to happen, everyone might love one another. And there would be no war.

"As Tom played a red 7 on a red 8, there was a knock on the door-it was the Solitaire Police.'

At our camp, we have instituted Wi-Fi for the sole reason of allowing adults to connect to work and family so that they could keep in touch and feel comfortable being at camp. In fact, just a few years ago, in the adult training center building at my camp, there was a single duplex outlet for ALL adults in camp that week to charge their phones. Maybe 60 adults had to wait in line for one of two plus-ins. Noting that deficiency, our camp installed charging stations which could charge 6 phones at a time at every program area with power, so now, there are 90 plug-ins throughout camp.

Well, now, I may need to back up-how I hate doing that. I need to check with a fellow volunteer to determine if the COR's voted at a "Council Meeting" or an "Executive Board" meeting. I don't recall any particular differentiation, but I may need to stand corrected. I will update after my investigations.

And, there it is. I am not sure, and nearly certain, that my Council does not invite COR's to Executive Board meetings. Nothing of consequence happens at District meetings that a COR would likely have interest in. (Like allowing a U.S. Senator to vote at local sewage district meetings.) The nuance of COR's being invited to and attending an Executive Board meeting is more intriguing. Executive Board members are generally selected from professional and business elite. Some have Scouting backgrounds, many don't. Primary goal is to flatter them and obtain donations: the p

The result of this analysis may be different from state to state as the not-for-profit corporation law may well be different.

At one contentious Executive Board meeting some years ago, COR's voted and there were no objections. My understanding is that COR's were voting members of the Executive Board, at least 20 years ago. I don't recall reviewing any documents from National or the Council that COR's were voting members of District committees. (In my state, I believe that COR's have the right to walk into the Scout Office, and as a matter of right, be entitled to see any documents in any file cabinet then and there; not-for-profits are not privately held corporations. (Good luck getting that done, however

Yep. The news broke first on Channel 43, Comedy Central. (I laughed aloud when I first read the post and will chuckle for days to come-thanks.)

Ever been permanently removed from your scouting membership though reinstated to full membership?

And by "Scouting Friends" I mean everyone who is a Scouting Abuse Survivor on this Forum.

In reply to the many comments posted throughout this thread about the benefits of this bankruptcy to the abuse survivors. A very astute client of mine once remarked that "the law provides a resolution, but not a solution." That is, the law resolves-closes-the matter, but does not fix the damage. This issue has been mentioned in a number of posts. Whatever the financial settlement is, it does not repair the initial damage. And it won't repair life opportunities lost and damage done to them. A few years ago, I severely damaged my knee. My therapist commented how "compliant

I tried to post a generic post about the legal profession, but it was blanked by a moderator. I will try again. Every client hates their opponent's attorney and loves their attorney. Most attorneys are quiet, competent nerds, who are compassionate, and do good work, largely silently. Mass Tort cases apparently bring out the worst of the worst. I have read the pleadings about Century's request for Discovery. It is well-founded. Comments by some members bear this out.

This post simply says it all. Sadly. I find I have little sympathy for the BSA, or the future of the program. And my life, and that of my 3 sons has been Scouting. My Scouting resume is 4 pages long, single spaced. And most positions I have held for over 20 years. Scouting is what I do, and I am disgusted. (And if Scouting survives this in some form, what survives? A program managed by the same people who got us into this mess, and they, then, only compelled to "fess up?") (I tried to sign off on this site, but I don't think I can let this go. It is simply too important. I s

I want to thank all of you for your patient answers to my questions. I shall pass on what I have learned to my scouting friends. I have decided to pull the plug on my 50+ years in the program with the possible exception of camp maintenance work (for so long as that might last.) Adios.

Well, I thought your post sought insight into his resort to safety into the BSA program to perhaps give insight into your situation. And as I work through the timeline of his life relative to mine, I may have been his only friend of any significance during all that time. And so little did I know that was the case. I am so new to this forum that I have not had a chance to work backward into prior comments, nor your specific history, though I shall do so.

Just caught this on a re-read of posts and should respond.. I truly recognize that these posts are "highly one-sided." My take is lightly one-sided. Mostly, they are extraordinarily polite and balanced and not one has given me pause to consider the poster as ranting or raving. (I guess "flaming" is the web term. but I am pretty old school, feeling myself pretty successful in get a few posts sent up successfully on this site.) I have read many files posted on account of the Oregon Case. they are replete with newspaper clippings of criminal cases, letters from Council Executives, an

This post is of particular interest. I can understand the prohibition on making general derogatory comments about lawyers generally, so as to discourage the proliferation of meaningless posts ranting and raving against lawyers. Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not? Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be." (I believe a

After 8 or 10 hours of research the other day, (read most of the 3rd amended plan and the critical parts of 4th amended plan and other stuff, including this forum) I told a friend that the ONLY number of importance was the LC contribution our council. And that was not available. Which raises the question why are those numbers not of record? National's determination of the amount each council should donate is not dependent on the LC's agreement to pay it, yet they are not available.. This entire process is a master case of selective revealment. "Just what we want to show, just w

"A non-binding letter of intent." And just to what purpose is that? Meaning something like "we've reviewed it, not screaming yet, just might do it, but we want to see more?"

To my way of thinking, "long-term investments" is an artificial designation or determination by the owner of those funds, essentially meaning, "We don't want to spend those but to rely on the interest generated by them." But the owner retains control of the funds. In a bankruptcy, by a council, any funds the council has signature authority over is an assets of the bankruptcy estate. "Endowment funds," to my way of thinking, are funds donated by third parties, and subject to some measure of restrictions on use. A council is not likely to have signature authority over the principal, but o