SiouxRanger

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.

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I know why we need phones for safety purposes and adult connection to work and family, but why does a Scout need a phone at camp? I’m glad I couldn’t search the web for lashing or Barred Owl mating calls or reflector oven biscuits or raccoon scat identification or any one of a 1000++ other video tutorials I could now fetch up. For me, as both a Scout and camp staffer, seems it would have been totally disruptive (and even destructive) of the positive things I took away from camping, Summer Camp particularly. No?

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.

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I often argue our expectations of the scouts should parallel the expectations of the adults.  If no phone charging stations means no adults, I'm not surprised at all that our youth membership is dropping.   ... BUT ... that's another debate that's been had many many times. 

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 parts of the week.  It gets done, but nothing seems easy anymore.

We do have some parents who know nothing of scouting and are there as a placeholder.  They tend to be on their phones. (Our camp is fairly remote, so service is spotty.)

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.  They were awarded at an Eagle Court of Honor.  I participated at the Eagle Court of Honor IN UNIFORM, and the Scout's pins were pinned to my uniform.

I wear only my Eagle knot, and nothing else.

On 9/27/2019 at 1:56 AM, The Latin Scot said:

Actually, parent pins shouldn't be worn on the uniform, and there's really nothing to be gained by doing so.

"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.'

9 hours ago, yknot said:

Today No Wi Fi = No Adults = No Camp LOL

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.  As an adult follows a scout group about the camp, the adult can charge his or her phone anywhere the scouts go for program (with a few exceptions which are located between charging stations).

Just a dumb and simple improvement, but the Number One most favorable comment on adult evaluations of summer camp.

No phone charging stations = No Adults = No Camp.

And the invasion of power has not stopped there.

We have run power to at least one campsite.

At first blush, sounds ludicrous, but many adult leaders now use CPAP machines at night and they need power, so to accommodate their needs to permit them to attend camp, we have run power to at least one campsite.  Several more campsites are likely to be so outfitted.

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.

9 minutes ago, skeptic said:

2. The chartered organization representative is automatically a voting member of the council and the district upon selection or appointment by the chartered organization.

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 pay-to-play model.  Many invited to the Executive Board are flattered and happy to build their "community involvement" resume.  But many know little of Scouting.  (I saw this pattern time and again on my Council's Executive Board.)

Most telling, in my humble opinion, is that about 20 years ago, my Council (and perhaps all, or many?) switched Executive Board meeting frequency from monthly to quarterly.  This drastically restricted the information flowing to the Executive Board members, and diminished its influence.

By contrast, the Executive Committee (of about 4 or 5 senior volunteers-largely hand-picked by the Council Executive) made all the important decisions.  The decisions of the Executive Committee were unlimited and unrestricted with the sole exception that the Executive Committee (of 5 or 6) could not countermand a decision of the Executive Board (of about 45).

Sound like "good governance?"

Well, for the Executive Board (big) to control the Executive Committee (small) the EB had to ANTICIPATE a future action of the EC (impossible, mostly), or the EC (small) would beat the EB to the punch and the few would prevail over the will of the many.

(I'm placing a mat here in the dining room because Junior will spill his cereal here in 4 days.)

Trustworthy...

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

7 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is my understanding that the CORs were automatically members of the district committee, not the council board.

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.))

May have changed. Having served on the Executive Board for some years, I don't recall a single COR appearing, except at that one meeting.

The district and council bylaws are rather "stock" and "legally infirm" in my opinion. Not custom crafted for District and Council operations and practices and therefore ill-suited to permit balanced governance.  In fact, they seem designed to preserve control to professionals.

10 hours ago, ThenNow said:

 Or, this all was settled amicably and no one told us.

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?

50 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

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 abs important.  I still hold several council and troop positions. And too many Scouting friends are damaged. And they need a kind word.)

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 was in exercising.  I told her that if I did not heal myself, I would not heal.

And this I advise to all of the abuse survivors on this forum:  In the final analysis, you will need to find the strength within yourself, or your family, or Scouting friends, or friends, to heal.

And if there is no support there for you, you MUST find it.  Few people can resolve these issues on their own.  You deserve a settled emotional life.

My best friend is a Scouting abuse survivor and not doing well.  My call to him 3 weeks ago, has not been returned.

I am intentionally not revealing my expertise, leaving what I write as evidence, hopefully enough to be persuasive.

On 6/23/2021 at 5:15 PM, CynicalScouter said:

 

This times a million. If it had not been for several lawsuits, and especially the Oregon one, BSA would still have stifled and stuffed the IV Files away. They appealed all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court to try and avoid releasing that information.

The victims and their lawyers (deleted) were the ones who forced those files open and forced BSA to admit at least a little bit what it had done. BSA wasn't about to admit anything.

If it were not for the victims and their lawyers (deleted) in the prior BSA sexual abuse cases (and I will say secondarily the Catholic sexual abuse cases which prompted a lot of re-examinations in this area) BSA wasn't about to lift a finger to help anyone.

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.

On 6/24/2021 at 7:07 AM, ThenNow said:

Honestly, I think this is the most misunderstood, overlooked and perhaps ignored part of this (and any CSA) case. We were abused, which is a catastrophic psychological and sometimes physical trauma. Use significant brain trauma as an analogy of severity. As with some traumatic brain injuries, the soul/psyche and the relationships and impacts they have on the body never fully heal. In the Proof of Claim, we were asked to list impacts. It listed prompts of the ways our lives may have been damaged as a result of the abuse. We were asked to list medications, therapists, treatments, social problems, sexual problems, legal trouble, career problems, addiction issues, and, etc. For me, this was the longest section. The abuse was the abuse. Terrible. Awful. Dark. Evil. Yes. Ok. Ok. We all get it. BUT, understanding what the last 50 years has been like is the part I think some who play the “You guys are abusing the current and future Scouts, and are trying to destroy Scouting” walk right by on your way to the lawyer and victim bashing party.

BSA will emerge with a self-imposed limp. We entered with a limp, if we were VERY lucky. Psychologically, some of us used crutches and wheelchairs. Some came in on gurneys, pushed by family members and noble attorneys. Some are long buried, not all gone by natural causes. Others ran to the gates, God bless ‘em. Today’s “King for a Day” decree would be that all the “haters” (or any who would be brave and empathetic enough to do it) would be visited by the Ghost of BSA Abuse Past. You would glimpse, not experience, the trauma and walk with one of us through the decades that have followed. I truly don’t think most people understand the loss of “our lives” this has been for us. Some things you take for granted, we were denied. I can barely look at some photos of my boys at certain ages because I see their young, innocence faces and I know I failed them in that moment. I attached pages of medical and treatment bills to my POC and it was daunting and heartbreaking to see them. I read every one. Treatment reports. Intake questionnaires. Diagnoses and program reports. Ugh. My wife endured so much. I see and reported the business losses. While I was in the psych hospital and then a national treatment center’s “Professionals In Crisis” program, one business went south. My big career opportunity of a lifetime, down the crapper. I have scars on my body inflicted by yours truly. Outward signs or inner torment. I spent a lifetime battling addiction, a classic maladaptive coping strategy. I wish you could understand. BSA will emerge to pursue its mission.. We may get some money. There will be no emergence. No great corporate sigh of relief. No monkey off our back. No live to fight another day. This is not and never was about healing or vengeance for that matter. Both are in God’s hands. This is recompense to child victims and BSA offered it. BSA offered it because it happened on their watch and, effectively, by their hand. 

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 still hold several council and troop positions. And too many Scouting friends are damaged. And they need a kind word.)

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.

On 7/11/2021 at 7:36 AM, ThenNow said:

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

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.

On 7/8/2021 at 11:25 AM, fred8033 said:

Recognize that this set of threads and posts are highly one sided. 

• One person's "conceal" is another person's view that BSA did far more than other organizations.  BSA had an exclusion system in place to try to block volunteers before background checks, before computer systems, before the current understanding of CSA and before the current laws existed.
• Strongly debatable whether abuse happened at higher levels than other programs or rest of society.  I know of no cases directly in scouting, but know of multiple cases / incidents in our local music programs, school programs, sports, church, etc.  Over the last 100 years, BSA has easily had 100+ million scouts.  When divided by math and incident rates in other programs, I question whether BSA is different enough to be uniquely called out.  
• BSA could not have "concealed" cases on their own.  Many cases had COs and other groups.  When I read the files, you will often find police reports and other records.  

Demonizing BSA over this is not as clear cut.  Yes, BSA could have done more, but society as a whole failed and did not understand CSA well until the last twenty years.  

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, and council volunteers to National, and letters from National to the Council.

That all being said, my experience in my council tells me that the council follows the lead of National. A council executive is NOT making policy contrary to National's policy, particularly with respect to an issue of national significance. Council policy, in my opinion, was policy directed by National.

"Demonizing the BSA is not clear-cut."

I agree.

The Oregon case produced "perversion files" show many communications between councils and national.  They were trying to manage an embarrassing and difficult problem for the times .  The files I have read, largely dealing with my council were at a time when social norms were different. Not to say this diminishes the damage done to innocent children, but how adults tried to deal with it.  I know many of the adults mentioned in the perversion files (not offenders but scouters responding to allegations).

In defense of the BSA.  

An allegation of abuse against an adult is a very serious matter. Under the American system everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  We all know this and grade school children repeat nearly as a rhyme.  

But "nearly as a rhyme" does not diminish its significance in our legal significance.

Many times in legal analysis it is of value to discuss the opposite.

"EVERYONE IS PRESUMED GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT."

Well, you might think that this simplifies everything.  Well, sort of, but a crime was just committed in New Orleans, and under the "presumed guilty" proposition above, YOU, sitting in Oregon, or New Mexico, or Maine, are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence.

And is this presumption workable?

No.

So, a complaint is filed with a council executive of alleged abuse against scouter X.  What is a council to do?  That is the question to the council executive.

Social workers tend to attribute credibility to abuse  claims if the abused describes activities that a child of that age is unlikely (or never) to be able to describe unless is happened. ("I couldn't know to tell you unless it happened, and since I am telling you about it you must know that it happened.")

That is pretty persuasive.

So, the Council has an alleged abuser, probably married, probably with children, and likely employed.

A public charge by the council might cost the alleged abuser his job (seems mostly males are alleged).

And, what if the alleged abused loses his job, pension benefits, etc. over the allegations?

And then the allegations are unsubstantiated?

A career destroyed, a family disrupted or destroyed.

We sit in a marginally enlightened time.

Now, in retrospect, we have many advantages to evaluate this history.

I know two very close friends who only recently disclosed to me their abuse or near abuse.  One I have known for over 50 years and only learned about 4 years ago.

Not sure I responded to all your comments.  If I missed anything and you'd like my further comment on, let me know.

Thanks.

On 7/8/2021 at 1:25 PM, elitts said:

 

 

 

Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads.  Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.

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 quote from Al Franklin, brother of Ben.)

So at the risk of offending the forum rules, and if so, moderators wield the ax, though believing to be within the parameters of ThenNow, attorneys who practice this manner of law:

(Content deleted without prejudice as not allowable under thread rules)

On 7/10/2021 at 2:01 PM, PACAN said:

So when do we see Exhibit C...LC contributions?

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 when we want to show it."  Just-in-time data delivery.

And so I sense the Judas Goat is at the head of this line.

On 7/12/2021 at 5:47 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Got blast email from my council.

not 

"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?"
 

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Depending on the council this is going to mean dipping into their endowments and long term investments. It is it NOT just cash sitting in a checking account for operational expenses.

That means the x% interest the council gets each year is going to be lesser in the long run. That is why not for profits are NOT inclined to dip Into endowments unless they absolutely have to.

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 only the interest generated. Even the interest may be subject to restrictions.

In my experience, my council prefers donations to be made to the general fund and not subject to any restrictions.  Why the donor of a significant donation would do that is beyond me.  Far more protective of the donor's gift is a separate entity that is not controlled by the council, which disburses funds as determined by that separate entity to the Council to fulfill the donor's intent.

This gets me to the issue of the proper role of a not for profit.  Is its goal to amass a war chest and, hopefully, remain forever untouched?  I understand the need for a rainy day fund, but to what degree? At some point, when a sufficient war chest is amassed, the not for profit should get back into the business of improving its program offerings. (I was particularly struck by the net worth attributed to my council in the bankruptcy filings-millions more than ever appeared possible, camp being a mere fraction of the total, yet camp is always scrapping for minuscule amounts (less than $1,000) to replenish dog-eared camp expendables.  Why would this be?

The issue is partly one of matching a donation to a likely intended beneficiary.  When grandpa donates $50 to Friends of Scouting he is expecting those funds to have some effect which his grandchild will see.  At council level, the attitude seems to be that all donations benefit the scouts, as they benefit "Scouting."  Even if the entire donation is consumed by salaries, or goes into a long-term investment.

If councils were truly seeking to benefit youth by providing program, donations would be used to provide those programs to more youth. But I don't see that happening.  After some years on the council executive board, I do not recall one second's discussion of budget issues-how much to spend on program as opposed to salaries, or long-term investments. Those issues disappear into a black hole.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, up to a point.

Depending on what state you are in the payment may be as low as 1% or as high as 75%

So, from 1% to 75% of non-legally enforceable claims are on tap to be compensated.

What is the basis of the  "Gray" system of classifying states (and thereby the claims arising in that state)?