Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. And how many COs actually did  so? I have the utmost sympathy for the mess this is making for today’s COs

But I also recognize that BSA pretended like COs were exercising any kind of oversight and COs were happy to perpetuate that myth.

At least in my case the unit committees checked the references. In one case, they even did a background check, bu the SM was a LEO and had access to that info.

Only 3 units did not check my references: the troop I grew up in, the troop my older two sons were in, and my current troop. BUT then again, I personally knew everyone in the troop, and used them as the references.

 

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

Except for the Catholic units, of course.  We had the vast Vatican international spy network to do some vetting for us.  

Actually the unit that did the background check on me was chartered by my Catholic Church. I showed up to a meeting the second week in town.  Before they turned in the app to council, the SM checked me out.

[yknot 1338]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

COs were responsible for checking references. BSA got into the criminal background checks for YPY in the 90s or 2000s.

Thanks. There was a period of time where my council said it was doing criminal background checks but didn't do them. They believed anyone with a problem would balk at signing the waiver and they would self screen, so why spend the money. 

[David CO 1783]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Does anyone here have experience observing a DE actually creating a bona fide "new unit?"

No.  Just my troop.

[vol_scouter 365]

6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Does anyone here have experience observing a DE actually creating a bona fide "new unit?"

Yes.  Several new traditional units.  Dens, Packs, Troops, Crews, and Labs. STEM Executives have started about 30 new units a year.  

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

10 hours ago, yknot said:

Thanks. There was a period of time where my council said it was doing criminal background checks but didn't do them. They believed anyone with a problem would balk at signing the waiver and they would self screen, so why spend the money. 

You would be surprised. Some folks think that what they did 15, 20 years ago would affect them still.

[SiouxRanger 490]

14 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

and celebrated with champagne the news he was leaving.

That comment triggered a spontaneous chuckle.

It is sad however, that individuals who have risen to the SE level are so deficient.So man of them.  Of my council's last 5 SE's, 3 of them evoked the "Champagne Kill Goodbye."  And, just anecdotal, for how many councils can any one of us experience in any depth, but enough anecdotes posted here can show a trend.

14 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Would a former DE actually creating 4 new units count for you?  Starting a new unit following all of the 10 or 12 steps ( sorry old age is getting to me) is a long,  stressful process. Most of the time if you follow the process step by step, your units are successful, but sometimes there is failure.

Well, this is actually encouraging.  I don't think any of my council's DE created units were anything but phantom.

I would be very interested if you could post the 10 or 12 steps a DE was to follow to create a new unit. That there is a "process" is encouraging.  At least someone has thought it all through.

And thanks for your contributions to the Movement. It lives irrespective of the BSA.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

28 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I would be very interested if you could post the 10 or 12 steps a DE was to follow to create a new unit. That there is a "process" is encouraging.  At least someone has thought it all through.

It's 12 Steps And here is a link from SCOUTING WIRE. Some of the steps utilized Commissioner Corps, but if you don't have an active one, you gotta do it yourself. Now I remember why I thought it was 10, steps 11 and 12 I normally did not do. Usually my District Commissioner did those. That's because I did get reprimanded for going to the meetings and presenting the charter to my first pack, which was chartered by my church's Knights of Columbus Council. When I did show up to help out, it was a CO's member, and not as a Scouter.

https://scoutingwire.org/marketing-and-membership-hub/new-unit-development/the-new-unit-organization-process/

This document looks like it has the 12 steps in it, and more.

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/522-025-Unit-Roadmap-Final.pdf

Edited September 5, 2021 by Eagle94-A1

[Muttsy 137]

19 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

My recollection is that there was huge BSA membership fraud. Way back to A. G. Barber's day.

The United States Postal Marshalls raided Circle Ten's offices seeking membership records, and the Atlanta Council, I believe, agreed to strike somewhere around 14,000 names from its membership role.  Mames aybe c. 2000±?

Whichever council it was, struck more names than registered in my council.

A huge scandal.

And BSA gets a "pass."

"Well, anyone can make a mistake."

The day of BSA getting a "pass" has passed.

There have been multiple BSA membership fraud scandals. There was one in the early 2000’s. The FBI opened an investigation.  It ended with some kind of consent decree with BSA that they wouldn’t do it again. The fraud is connected to the fact that large charities like United Way make donations in relation to the number of people, here scouts, actually serve. 
 

BSA fought criminal background checks until around 2006. In the 1990’s BSA testified before Congresss that it should not be required to do them because of the administrative burden despite the fact that the FBI did not charge not for profits to do them. 
 

Note: This is in the epilogue to Boyle’s book Scouts Honor. 

[Muttsy 137]

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Thanks. There was a period of time where my council said it was doing criminal background checks but didn't do them. They believed anyone with a problem would balk at signing the waiver and they would self screen, so why spend the money. 

There is a significant pile of further anecdotal evidence mounting in this forum that demonstrates how child molesters could so easily enter scouting, undetected and unvetted, even during the early days of YP. Anyone remember the 3Rs program? 
 

The reality of a criminal background check, while itself inadequate, is nonetheless an important “barrier to entry.”

The BSA had the audacity to testify to Congress that in addition to the administrative burdens, and checking about prior convictions or accusations would also deter adults from volunteering. BSA understood exactly what it was doing. It wasn’t interested in excluding ANYBODY except gays and atheists. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

There was one in the early 2000’s. The FBI opened an investigation.  It ended with some kind of consent decree with BSA that they wouldn’t do it again. The fraud is connected to the fact that large charities like United Way make donations in relation to the number of people, here scouts, actually serve. 

Thanks! I remember that. It started with looking at an Alabama council and quickly went national.

Boy Scouts investigated by FBI over membership

FBI investigates Boy Scouts for fraud
 

Quote

 

One employee, who didn't want to be identified, says in some Scout councils it's almost a joke.

"I remembered hearing the registrar and some of the professional staff joking about who's got a goldfish, who's got a cat or a dog," she says. "[In other words,] who's got a name I can put in?”

On Scout rosters obtained by NBC News, names are frequently duplicated. Others have phony Social Security numbers. And over and over again different Scouts share the same home address.

Much of the Boy Scouts' funding, as evidenced by the Birmingham Council's 990 tax form, comes from business and government grants — that's tax dollars and charities. United Way alone gives the Boy Scouts $85 million a year.

 

The question was: is this limited to just one council or system wide?

Answer: system wide.

The argument National made at the time was, in effect, "we just rely on whatever the councils tell us. If they tell us there are 20 scouts, all last name Doe, living at the same address, how were we supposed to know?"

Etc.

[skeptic 992]

Yes, these things did happen and were dealt with as well, though maybe not as soon as they should have been in some cases.  Over the years, there have been instances of drunk leaders, leaders carrying firearms with not proper licenses, leaders and parents doing caravaning, even after it was recommended not to, units still driving kids in the backs of trucks and with improper insurance, or even none.  These are all things that have happened and often were likely not even reported.  But they are also reflective of what many in the larger population do regularly as well, in their jobs, in their interactions with neighbors, and on the roads.  Scouts and Scouters, and the parents of the scouts are all human beings and often fall very short of the ideal.  That is what we try to fix with the proper programs.  

Failure is too often a fact.  Does that mean we should simply give up?  Does it mean that we attach those failures and errors in judgment to every unit now and to possibly come?  While we hope we can possibly be a bit above the madding crowd, but too often we still are not.  That does not mean we cannot be.

IF you feel, or ever felt, that the overall idea of Scouting will make better citizens and young people, then you should remember that when  reading the anomalous stories that media pushes with bias and attempts to sensationalize, and try even harder.  JMHO of course.

[Jameson76 1481]

22 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

There was an infamous program scoutpower of 1976 I think it was called where hundreds of scouts and dozens of units were created on paper.

as long as the checks cleared to pay for the scouts registration people didn’t care. Inflated numbers worked just fine.

Boypower 76 - Heralded by CSE Alden Barber.  Big old Crash and Burn. The resignation is sort of underscored in the following article snippet.  Left the profession "to pursue other interests"  The plan was for 1/3 of all boys to be in Scouting by the Bicentennial (1976).  This led to widespread phantom units.  The epicenter was Chicago, but the impact was in all councils..  Took many years to shake out.  Sort of rinse lather and repeat with Scouting for Life issues in the Early 2000's

In October 1967, he was appointed by the BSA National Executive Board as Chief Scout Executive. During his tenure, there was a strong membership development emphasis called "Boypower 76" which stressed the goal of reaching a representative one third of all boys in the country by serving more minority youth and urban youth. He worked with volunteers and staff to reshape program elements for the core Boy Scouting program during a major 1972 revision. These major changes included a completely new Scout Handbook, complete revision for Boy Scout rank advancement requirements, addition of "skill awards", and multiple uniform options (including the introduction of the visor cap and beret). Some of the program changes were well received, but other changes, particularly those that emphasized urban activities over camping and out-of-town trips, were criticized. He resigned his position before the normal retirement age, due in part to BSA experiencing membership declines and internal issues.

 

[SiouxRanger 490]

16 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Yes.  Several new traditional units.  Dens, Packs, Troops, Crews, and Labs. STEM Executives have started about 30 new units a year.  

In a single council?  Nationally?

 

[vol_scouter 365]

46 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

In a single council?  Nationally?

 

Many councils.  

[fred8033 1591]

On 9/4/2021 at 11:47 AM, CynicalScouter said:

If UMC is sued into the ground, program will be the least of folks worries.

That won't happen.  

Individual methodist churches may be sued, but ... to my knowledge ... there is no "national" organization to be sued.  The main reason I don't think this will happen is the lack of deep pockets combined with lack of momentum.  It's one thing to sue a national organization with thousands of cases and billions of assets at risk.  It's another to sue a local church that has one building and is trying to keep the lights on.  Then, try to research back over a time of 30 / 40 / 50 / 60 years to find the insurance policy that was active at the time of the incident.

While I don't think they could be "sued into the ground", I could see strong arming analogous to patent infringement blackmailing.  I could see victim law firms saying "your church sponsored #### and ##### was victimized by #### on #####.  As the victim's lawyer's we're willing to broker a settlement and waive future liability in exchange for paying the victim $$$$$."  No lawsuit.  Just a lot of strong arming.  Churches might sign to get a liability waiver and victims might agree to avoid the challenges of actually suing.  

I could see the strong arm path as lawyers could easily research each church for membership, revenue, etc.  Then, lawyers guess how much they think they could get paid.  So, several hours of strong arming could yield tens of thousands.  Church exits quickly without bankruptcy and victims / lawyers get paid quick.

 

QUESTION - I do have questions about victim's being able to sue COs.  I'll raise this in the main bankruptcy channel, but can victims sue the COs now?  Is the previous deadline gone?  Many of the victim's didn't know the CO or the troop number or the council.  So, the CO was probably often not named in the claim.  Even then, the claim was put to BSA.  Can the victim extend to other debtors?  ... I'm asking because the bankruptcy exists as a legal item, but I'm not sure the claim exists without an actual lawsuit.  Or can the bankruptcy claim be converted to a lawsuit claim?  

Edited September 7, 2021 by fred8033