fred8033

It feels like there is settlement marketing in the term "independent review". Isn't this just that a victim can still sue/bring a claim in court? If an insurance debtor has not settled in this case, that party isn't really subject to any mediation or bankruptcy trustee or other mechanism enabled by the current settlement. Is "independent review" a euphanism for the victim's right to bring their case to court? It's infering a settlement agreement enables a special independent review as a benefit of the current negotiated settlement. It sounds like that "independent review" is there against non-participating insurance companies whether or not the victims settle with the other debtors.

Asking to better understand the above paragraph. TDP - trust distribution procedures for the Plan Trust Independent review - review of a specific victim's claim for whether it is valued correctly So an independent review of a single claim would go to increase the trust fund available to all members? Or is it affecting the distribution of the already established dollars in the fund to increase the amount to that single victim. I was trying to understand the "go into the trust".

The mark-ups are disgusting, but not evidence of fraud. The PDF starred entries are temp workers. ... It's the nature of contracting. Law firm contacts temp company to get extra workers. Temp company pays person $16-$20 per hour. Temp company has cost (insurance, payroll taxes, sales reps, facilities). That raises their cost $20-$30 per hour. Temp company wants to make profit so charges $40 to $60 per hour. Law firm has cost (building, equipment, coordination). That raises cost to $50-$65. Law firm wants to make profit. That doubles again at least to $80-$125. It's really no different than buying product from a retail store. Walmart contracts over-seas and pays $8 per pair of pants, but charges you $35. Oversea manufacturer pays $2 for material and $1 for labor. This sounds more like a disgruntled employee. Sad to see myself defending a law firm.

The best lawyers from that time did not recognize the responsibilities / liabilities. The best insurance companies at the time did not recognize the responsibilities / liabilities. It's only seen with hindsight using new understanding and extended interpretations.

Work with the scouter to have the troop buy the building and loan it to the church for occasional use.

Well written. Related to previous post. This does not mean it can't be boy-led or operate as a troop. As with all things everyone does in life, the CO should exercise discretion using people skills. As Ben Parker said: "With great power comes great responsibility."

I'm not a legal scholar ... but it seems to me to at least mean checks and balances with real knowledge of the unit.

I hear your frustration. The issue is as you infer in your last sentence. "There must be a way to write a charter so that this does not continue to happen." The current charter does say "to use" and "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies." Most importantly, those are prefixed with "The Charter Organization agrees to:". The CO is accepting the responsibility to perform a duty. The duty is to "use" and "conduct". The CO has actions it must do. Not performing those duties or poorly performing or incompetently performing those dues is negligence and exposes the CO to legal issues. Even without a legal crisis, is it moral to sign a document with no intention of performing those duties? Sure, senior pastors and PTOs and school principals want to help the community. They should do that by opening the doors and making their facility available and welcoming scouts with a smile; not by agreeing to words they will not fulfill. I agree 100% that the contract is the issue. ... Signing an agreement is not honorific ... It is a contract. COs need to either perform their written responsibilities in the contract or not sign the contract. The facility use agreement more correctly reflects the relationship between churches/schools/others and the scouting program. It's not 100% perfect, but it's moving in the right direction. The key point is ... BSA needs to continue to fix the outdated, problematic chartering model.

THANK YOU !!!!

"You learn something every day" ... hmmm ... I fear I lost hundreds of dollars for my scouting pack and troop as I rechartered them for 15+ years. I swear I was told all unit committee member positions should be registered as committee member. When seeing this registration guidebook page 36/37, unit functional positions did not have a registration fee !!! Advancement chair. Treasurer. Secretary. etc, etc. Many were listed as no-fee !!!!! Hmmm. I was told to register them as committee members. I hope this is only a 2019 change to save money. Otherwise, I lost our unit cash not knowing this. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Registration-Guidebook.pdf

Above answers are generally true. Key point is each council can implement the MBC program differently within boundaries of BSA GTA sections 7.0.1 and 7.0.2 . A few key points that come to mind because MBC is generally not to be a unit role. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf 7.0.2.1 ... Urge troops, crews, and ships to make as many of their counselors as possible available district- or council-wide. 7.0.2.3 ... Units may establish their own lists of counselors, but these lists are sub-sets of the official district or council list. District Dean of MB would be how one council implements the MB program. Our council keeps the MBC approval at the council advancement committee. There is a sub-group of the council advancement committee that approves the MBC applications. MBC is not automatically on any district or council committee. That would be yet another registration. And another application to submit. See page 36/37 of registration guide book where the codes are listed. District committee member is one. MBC is different. Council (advancement) committee is yet another. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Registration-Guidebook.pdf

Oh. Ok. The new ballot was not for a 2nd round of voting. It's part of cleaning up the first round of voting. I was trying to get context.

Perhaps I'm 100% confused. It commonly happens. My apologies. Plus, I was vague with "this starts". You posted a PDF of a new ballot. If the new ballot starts in March ... considering first ballot has taken almost six months ... would we face a August / September result? Perhaps I'm 100% confused. It happens.

The current balloting started in September and results are not fully resolved. If this starts in March, when is the answer? September?

SO SO SO TRUE !!!!!!! I still remember the big camp toys built from trees. That was cool and the scouts thought so too. ... I also remember the lame class room styled skills training. I wanted to leave too.

I agree. Too long. Too adult intensive. Too early.

Venturing has always been on life support. Fits and starts with sputtering along until the unit dies for some reason. The fact is: venturing is not a stable long-term program. Girls in troops solves much of the venturing problem. IMHO, something should be put-in-place for the 18 to 21 year old scouts. Perhaps camp volunteers or local scouting volunteers. Pull them out of units into the next volunteering level to see a broader picture. ... I'm not sure ... Just saying ... venturing has been problematic for as long as I've seen it.

The numbers you showed are inspiring in my mind. This is during COVID ... and a bankruptcy ... and political turmoil. IMHO, it shows strong promise for the future IF and WHEN we can get past current distracting challenges.

@Eagle94-A1 had a good response ... Look at the last 20 years. The rank requirements have more than doubled in words. Maybe triple. ... IMHO, split the words. Keep a simple statement for the scout to evaluate what the rank requirements are. Put in the adult leader "<year> requirements" book the details that a good program would teach. Leave the painfully long wording for the adults to think about what they can do better. Let the scout scout focus on a simple achievable program.

... dang ... I'll go down every tangent that is opened to me. ... Troops push hard for first class first year because they are taught that ... and because they need to compete with the other troops in the same city. Parents want Eagle scouts. Troop shopping provides the wrong incentive to troops that dements the program. If you want your troop to thrive over the years and there is more than one troop near by, you better push everyone to advance.

I've got a lot to learn. How would an excess insurance company settle / pay out after the covered party settles and/or the primary insurance company settles. Don't those earlier settlements define the value of the damage? Wouldn't the excess insurance only pay out the settlement amount that the insured or primary insurance can't pay?

I fully agree ... for the reasons you state and more reasons; a broad settlement just seems too imbalanced in many, many ways. We might have drastically different interpretations of the past, but I agree with this assertion.

The really hard ones are the scouts that want to get something out of the MB topic and are less concerned with the badge. IMHO, those are the ones that we really should be targeting. A good example was my son wanted to learn more about computer security, maintenance, etc . It was so painful, "make sure you fill out" work book references all the time, etc. It provided ZERO value to him. Sure he got the badge. BUT, it turned him off on that pursuit and really poisoned the MB perception. A good example is horsemanship MB. Almost every scout that signed up for horsemanship just wanted to be around horses. Almost always turned out well even though they ended shoveling a lot of ... stuff. Always great stories after ... including their tent-mate making them keep their shoes outside the tent.

Thank you for the link. I was amazed at the typos and the lack of city, state on COs preventing checking if basic data is right. Example ... I was looking at churches named after saints in the doc. There are many that I know can't exist because of the naming. Maybe because my home church was named uniquely that I notice this. If it listed city and state, at least we could look for a name that is similar. Using naming (with minor corrections), a fair number just can't exist.

I absolutely agree and this thread consolidates comments share repeatedly on this board. Example ... I often wonder about the good and bad of the MB program. I'd almost rather see a program where if you go on the troop canoe trip for 25+ miles (with a bit of coaching and skill dev) the scout gets the Canoeing MB. It does not mean you need MB workbooks or sit-down class rooms. The only sit down should be in the canoe with the SM in the next canoe coaching the scouts on what a J stroke is and sneaking in terms for the scout to learn. ... Same with camping. If the scout camps with the troop at summer camp and enough other camps, the SM and other leaders should be able to sneak in the skills and get the scout the MB. The scout should be able to also ask what he needs to do to earn the badge. BUT, it should also be given when the requirements are complete ... even if the scout doesn't know it. That way ... the scout can focus on the fun and activity without tracking the ugly details. A little of both with the option for either is a nice thing.