Jump to content

David CO

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by David CO

  1. 5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

    I was thinking about protection for the future, not so much protection from the abuse lawsuits.  Let's assume for a moment that the lawsuits do get to some conclusion that results in your camp continuing to exist.

    It's a nice thought.  It would be great if camp alumni bought up these camps (and created endowments) as BSA and councils sell them off to pay debts.  I just haven't seen this happening.  The camps are mostly being bought up by developers.  

  2. 19 hours ago, dkurtenbach said:


    The key point is that district executives exist  because district volunteers aren't fulfilling council's priorities 


    This is yet another example of top down thinking.  The council thinks that volunteers exist to fulfill their priorities.  The volunteers, not surprisingly, think and act differently.  We tend to think that councils exist to fulfill our priorities.

    I agree that this is the only reason that district executives exist.  They exist because the volunteers won't fulfill the councils' priorities.  Hiring district executives allows the council to create their own priorities rather than focus on things that actually benefit the units.

  3. 21 hours ago, MattR said:

     And even if it doesn't get that bad it would certainly help make the BSA stronger if it could deliver a good program with fewer resources and fewer people.

    My school gets a lot of professional services donated to us.  The largest business in town has a bunch of IT people, and they give their employees some comp-time for donating their services to our school.  This saves us a ton of money, and gets us some highly skilled people (who we could never afford to hire full time).

  4. 1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

    You're the one who keeps calling on Charter Organizations to have complete control. If that's the case, then they need to foot the bill for Victim Compensation. Somewhere, a long time ago, those adults were approved to be leaders by a Charter 

    Fair enough.  If it is shown that Chartered Organizations knew of the abuse and covered it up, my guess is that they will be included in the lawsuits.  I not only think that this is a possibility, it is a likelihood.  

    Yes, I do think Chartered Organizations should be actively involved in their units.  They should carefully select the leaders and properly supervise them.  The Chartered Organization owns the unit.  

  5. 51 minutes ago, codger said:

    There is nothing moral about taking from the innocents of today, and the future, to give to victims of the past. 

    I think we agree on this.  There should be a better way.  The victims of the past should have been given justice many years ago.  They weren't.  The executive board and the employees were (and still are) more concerned with keeping their secrets and hiding their complicity than with giving justice to the victims.  


  6. 4 hours ago, ParkMan said:

    It would be far better for Congress to assert it's ownership here and clean house.

    First of all, Congress doesn't own scouting.  It has no ownership rights to assert.  

    If BSA did somehow become nationalized, it wouldn't be the congress who would run it.  It would be the executive branch.  President Trump would probably get the authority to appoint the new executive board.  So be careful what you wish for.  Unless you want to go back to a more conservative Boy Scouts, and Make Boy Scouts Great Again, you might want to reconsider this position.

    Personally, I would love to have a retro version of Boy Scouts.  Roll back all of the new liberal social changes.  But I think it would be best to do it from within.  All we need is a fair vote, and I think it could happen.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  7. 1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

    In the case of Scouting, the BSA may dissolve in this bankruptcy, if so, it will be replaced and Scouting will move on.  IMHO, Scouting is an idea, a philosophy of life, not an organization. 

    Another $0.02,

    I mentioned, a few years ago, that I have a friend who owns a franchise restaurant.  The franchise went bankrupt, but the existing stores are allowed to continue using the name and logo.  It was the best thing that could have happened to him.  He still has the restaurant, but he doesn't have to pay the franchise fees anymore.  Business has never been better.

    Imagine if BSA and its councils all disappeared, and the existing Chartered Organizations are allowed to continue with their Boy Scout units without the interference and fees from BSA.  It would be the best outcome that could possibly happen for my unit.  :)


    • Upvote 1

  8. 7 hours ago, ParkMan said:


    We're not talking firing the Executive Board and replacing the professionals.   


    That's because we can't.  If we had the power to do that, it would have been done years ago, and BSA would not be in the mess it is in today.  The executive board and the employees are going to try to hang on right to the end.  They won't give up their control of BSA until the lights go out.


  9. 2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    I really question the value of penalizing a current non-profit for what effectively were society wide ills.  

    Unfortunately, it is the only way to force change.  Many of the people who are suing BSA aren't doing it just for the money.  They are angry with the lack of transparency and positive change in BSA.  They don't see much improvement.  Frankly, neither do I.

    I question the wisdom in our society of using the court system to solve our ills.  I would much rather they be solved by more democratic means.  This hasn't happened, so the courts have become the primary instrument of change.  

    • Upvote 2

  10. 33 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:


    Did I mention that's insane?  The folks responsible (Professional BSA / Volunteers / Board Members / etc) they should be in court for being insane.


    Maybe so, but I would settle for their removal from any further office of responsibility in scouting.  True insanity would be to allow them to continue in office.

  11. 4 hours ago, Beccachap said:

    I'll be all sorts of bitter if my dysfunctional council that we've all but eliminated from our lives demands a fee from us next year. Do we have to charter with the council in our zip code, or can we charter with any council? 

    You have to charter with the council in your geographic area.  Bitter?  Yep, that's exactly where I'm at.  We haven't participated at council for over 5 years.  Yet they are still going to charge us a tax for all the services we don't use and don't want.  It's maddening.

    • Upvote 1

  12. 4 minutes ago, MattR said:

    Because of the mortgage on Philmont the creditors can't go after it. The bank owns it.

    My understanding is that a bankruptcy court can go back and nullify any financial actions, including a mortgage, that was done to protect assets.

  13. 3 minutes ago, carebear3895 said:




    I suppose that is one of the issues the bankruptcy court will determine.  Good luck with that argument.  From a unit prospective, I can't see much of a separation between council and national.   I think the bankruptcy court will see that too.


  14. 40 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

    However strong our current youth protection program is, we still have three weak links:  the overwhelming predominance of volunteers operating in highly autonomous units

    I totally disagree.  The fact that my unit is highly autonomous will help to insulate us from the bankruptcy.  The council is not so highly autonomous.  It will have a much harder time showing the bankruptcy court that it is not a functional unit of BSA.  

    • Downvote 1

  15. 15 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

    Councils may choose (and most probably will) to set a council program/activity fee.  

    Does anyone actually believe this is a program/activity fee?  It is a legal fee.  It is a bankruptcy fee.  This money isn't going to go for programs and activities.  This is a classic example of BSA's dishonesty.