fred8033

Happy Thanksgiving

Don't use me as an excuse to post a diatribe.

Great quote. Strongly agree. I'm sitting out the G2SS discussion as I've been in too many. Times change. Laws and liabilities change. G2SS is a sign of the times. At the same time, I've thought a lot about this topic. My heros were John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart. Many of my values started there. ... I think we can teach youth to be strong without violating G2SS and taking excessive risks.

Agreed. I'm betting as a LLC, you still have at least annual paperwork to keep your LLC in good standing right? Otherwise, it can lose it's registration. The topic is not hard, but it's not a big easy button that once pushed it's done. There is needed knowledge and maintenance.

You hit on the main reason "friends of" were to be avoided. It does take a bit of extra work. It's easy to become a 501c3 / charter org. The hard part is the small amount of work every year needed to stay as a valid 501c3. Many will fail to file paperwork at some point and put their status at risk. BUT, most scouting units are small and not targets. ... If you wan to keep running, I think it's a good option.

Five / ten / fifteen years ago, I heard that too. BSA wanted to move away from "friends of" COs. This year I've seen several units re-chartered that way. I'm familiar with the potential issues (legal, structural, etc). I'm aware of at least three units lately that have re-chartered as effectively "friends of" or "parents of". I'm betting if it's losing the troop or "parents of" that you will be able to charter as "parents of". I'm not saying it's a perfect answer, but I'm betting it will keep your troop going.

Charter as a "Parents of" ... or "<city> scouting assocation". Then, you are a real troop that would just meet at the CO. No difference than before.

Thought about this a bit more. IMHO, NCS doesn't apply to unit camping. NCS is a document for those running council camps. https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/national-camping-school/ It's not about units not "knowing". It's that NCS doesn't apply to units. BSA has too much contradicting info. I'd argue that statement in NCS was about units not competing with council camps. Now, it's migrated to G2SS. I'm not sure that's a good change that will last long term. It's like the tour permit. Now local councils need to approve units working together? Sounds like providing a LC paper trail for future lawyers.

NCS ... National Camping School ... I'm aware of it, but I know zero unit adults that have used NCS in their unit. That's always about council staff running council camps. Unit scouters use G2SS. If it's not in G2SS, it's effectively not real guidance to units. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new rule introduced since April 2021. Rules not provided to units can't be held as real rules. IMHO ... there is a line somewhere here. The rule intention seems more about units trying to create something that competes with council / district activities. The rule correctly points out that units are not the right level to do that. ... BUT there is something less that should be reasonable. Units should be able to partner to help each other. Blocking that is just not scout-like and not a good idea.

It does bother us. Deeply. It's very sad. Many factors. Organizations have issues as people change. People stepping in and trying to do the right thing not knowing that they are actually alienating and causing issues. It's weird that it can actually be more of an issue in non-profits than in for-profit companies. Times have changed. 1950s loosely styled agreements are a real liability now. WORDS MATTER. In many ways, I'm with the CO that you want the signed form to match what will really be done. Change does happen. A large number of scouting units I know have had to change their CO at some point. Not half, but a large number. It happens. In the past when I've had problems, I've built a list of grievances to justify / defend my position and to feel righteous in my frustration. Try not to do that. It blocks finding a solution. I am NOT saying you are wrong. I'm hoping things can de-escalate. The CO is offering something with the facility use agreement. If that won't work, find another CO and be grateful for the many years of support your previous CO was able to provide.

Wow. Well ... It has not been in there for long. Sometime after April 2021. The Way Back machine doesn't even have the new version archived yet. The April 2021 version can be found on that site. There is zero such reference. https://web.archive.org/web/20210410212338/http://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/ This re-write seems focused on laying down further restrictions. I always wonder whether BSA gets well considered review when these edits happen. OR if an exec says "reword the page and add this". Agreed that this has zero to do with CO rules or approvals. This re-write seems confusing and I'm betting further re-writes will happen soon.

Agreed. Outside of COVID statements, I question if it existed before. I do weirdly appreciate learning where I'm wrong. I am not sure yet though that it's different than I wrote. ... I just don't like infer more strictness in rules than really exist.

You misunderstand me. When I write that the best path is a BSA only bankruptcy, it does not include the LCs, COs or insurance companies. The LCs are independent companies that own property, pay taxes and run similar to a franchisee. I'm even confused how a company not going thru bankruptcy can end up getting protection from the bankruptcy of another company. The CO's are their own companies too. The insurance companies would still exist to pay liabilities from the pre-bankruptcy BSA. This case is so complex that the only path to make reasonable progress seems to be a BSA only bankruptcy.

Agreed. ... And I used the wrong number. I thought it was in the 90+ thousand. 98000 was in my head. I agree that insurance companies should not be part of the bankruptcy. Pull out the BSA assets that BSA can survive without. Then, let creditors / lawsuits fight over that amount AND continue insurance claims. I'm not sure it even needs a CSA victim agreement. The question is how much cash can be preserved to pay past liabilities. The sooner done the better. I believe BSA is long-term viable if it can get past historic liabilities. I also believe more cash is available if BSA continues (chapter 11). If BSA is put in chapter 7, then victims get paid behind a few other categories like pensions. That would extend the bankruptcy and eat a lot of the assets. From what I understand, the best path is a BSA only chapter 11 bankruptcy. I just hope this moves on soon. Every year this continues is painful.

I feel for the situation. When you write "we have to be part of the bankruptcy", I see that emotionally and for debate. I just don't see it legally unless your state opens liability before BSA bankruptcy finalizes. IMHO ... this is an frustrating point of law ... I just don't understand how expired liabilities can be legislatively re-created. The Supreme Court has created a really weird situation allowing expired civil SOLs to be re-opened because they are different than criminal SOLs.

"Prosecure all perpetrators." Expired criminal SOLs can't be extended. That's the law. Liquidate LCs ... LCs are not in bankruptcy right now. So, it's not their chapter 11 or chapter 7. Only BSAs. No matter the route this goes, there is no adequate result. Plaintiffs expect millions. It's just not there. BSA does not have the assets. The funds just are not there. Even the LCs don't really have the assets. ... I doubt insurance companies even have enough to give each of the 98,000 plaintiffs a million. ... This whole bankruptcy is arguing over thousands or tens of thousands. ... Only the law firms will do well. IMHO ... The real question is whether BSA as a company has a future public benefit. If so, helping it emerge from bankruptcy is a public good.

Thanks. I will have to hunt that sentence down. I've never seen it. ... I'm hunting. I can't find a BSA reference outside COVID protocols. If you can publish a source, I'd really appreciate it. ... I fully accept being wrong. I'd just like a source if I'm wrong.

Really interesting post with interesting details. Your 1st half (befor COVID FAQ) ... I'd argue your CO can require that both supervising adults be members of your CO unit, but the G2SS does not explicitly require that. It's your CO's choice. The G2SS has a vague flip-flop. Rarlier refering to "in a unit serving" and later just refering to registered leaders. The 72 hour paragraph never says "unit" anywhere. It refers only to registered leaders; aka BSA application; BSA background check and not removed from BSA. We've always had trouble differentiating BSA registration versus unit registration. Just because BSA has very open membership requirements does not mean your CO has to approve the application. Similar for activities. BSA requires "registered leaders". Your CO can require more. I always fear reading in more meaning than explicitly stated. I'd fear applying that same level of extra inferrence into other requirements. COVID FAQ ... Yeah, I'd again argue you are reading more into the statement than the purpose. COVID FAQ is for the duration of the COVID pandemic. As the world return to normal, there is a gray area. After COVID, this COVID FAQ is useless. BSA is fearing rogue units not respecting COVID protocols. BSA does not want units defeating COVID protocols by effectively doing their own district / council camporees. BSA COVID FAQ does not preclude two COs from detailed planning their own camp together. Two COs could align and agree on the benefits and structure of a camp out. ... The issue is DURING THE PANDEMIC. BSA asks the units to let the council know. The COVID FAQ sentence that SCARES ME the most is: "Units with different chartered organizations that wish to hold activities together must have council approval. " ... I trust this is only for DURING THE PANDEMIC. I've never seen that written before. So much for three troops sharing a MB Saturday. So much for inter-unit activities. ... I see this as a one-off, put in a COVID FAQ for a immediate now issue; aka pandemic. ... I'm not sure it will hold water long-term. It's definitely not in the G2SS right now. I'm not sure if units are accountable to every FAQ published or just to the explicit policy / procedure statements. ... IMHO, this is a huge G2SS expansion with a much stricter rule. Heck, I'm betting the LCs don't want that role any more than approving travel permits. The original question is whether the 72 hour rule "registered as leaders" means registered in the same troop. I really just don't see that explicitly said. I'd hate to read more into it than explicitly written. Even then, we'd just ask the person to quickly fill out another adult leader app ... have them submit it. Then their leader becomes an ASM on our troop and our leader becomes an ASM in their troop. Fundamentals Ultimately ... The CO better trust the COR, CC and SM to follow G2SS. If the CO wants the activity leaders registered in their unit, that's their choice and their unit leaders better follow thru.

Wow. Writing a simple, but precise document is really hard. G2SS seems vague. It's clear, the person must be registered with BSA (aka background checks, etc ... who calls the references on the adult leader app ... the local council? ???) ... But page 1 "Adult Supervision" sometimes refers to "registered in the unit" and sometimes just "registered as leaders". https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... numbered page #1 Unless the G2SS is re-written more precisely, I'd interpret the words as written. G2SS Pate 1 ... "All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders." If you can show me your BSA membership ID, you fulfill the requirement. As a unit leader, I should check that your registration and training is current. BUT, you are still registered. Plus, everyone that registers fills out the same BSA Adult Leader App. It's just that MBCs have an affiliation with council or district and not with a specific unit. I'd worry about inferring too much. It creates other problems. Would an ASM from a near-by troop be sufficient to fulfill the adult supervision? I'd really hope so. Multiple times we've had a patrol from another troop join us on campouts with only one of their leaders attending. The combination of their and our leader(s) fulfilled the adult supervision requirement. I see zero issue with doing that in the future.

I hear good and bad in your writing. "Grays" ... This whole BSA bankruptcy is because of grays that are now being exploited by a legal system because the words in the charter did not match what everyone expected ... not church leaders ... not scout leaders ... not BSA staff ... not parents. Further, the structure creates problems because of unit leaders seen effectively the same as church staff and BSA staff. ... The fact is words matter. If the charter says XXXX, that XXXX better be happening otherwise there is negligence and liability for damage. The CO is smart to not want to sign a charter that it can't or won't be able to fulfill. If the current CO is willing to do a facility use agreement ... GO FOR IT !!!!! Your scouts will not see a difference. Be very, very, very thankful. Be grateful to the church. The CO's concerns are very, very real. I'm impressed your CO is willing to compromise. It means they are happy with your troop and support scouting. The CO is just worried about legal liability for a program they don't really run in detail, but then are asked every year to sign an agreement saying they do run it in detail. I would create a lightly structured non-profit that makes the parents of the current scouts automatically CO members and call it "Parents of Troop #####". In a way, it's a good improvement. The SM reports to the CC. The CC reports to the COR. The COR is effectively the president of the CO (parents of troop ####). Heck, the COR could hold annual meetings where the parents re-confirm the workings of the troop. ... This could be a really good. Avoid suggesting to the parents that they could directly influence the troop. Instead, just ask for feedback on "the health of the troop". Perhaps, ask for an up and down vote on the troop annual plan. Beyond that, each leader continues to function like today and owns their sphere of influence. Scouting is changing. Your CO recognizes it. Welcome that your CO is considering a Facilities Use Agreement. Find a way to make it work.

Pay down debt? Probably. Also probably because BSA's finances are changed. I doubt they receiving the huge subsidizing donations they had in the past. I've watched price increases for 20 years that I've only been able to reason as correcting for lower donations.

Scouting is best when it's consistent. Schedule. Rules. Permission slips. ... You will have scouts coming and going. Parents coming and going. It's too hard to know if ... when the parents leaves for an afternoon ... if you have a permission slip from the scout to handle an issue. Just get the permission slip up front for all scouts participating.

Absolutely great answer. Great. ... and I only comment ... because I tend to comment ... ... "only go if the weather's nice" ... I would absolutely work toward never canceling. Yes, if the weather is dangerous or not managable, don't go. BUT, if there is a way to moderate the experience, go. Maybe it means, working with the camp ranger to have a roofed shelter. Or, change the plan to do XXXXX. ... Or camp out at your CO's building for the night with an outdoor camp fire. ... A key to success is to keep to your schedule. Too many cancels and scouts / adults find other places to spend their time or will 2nd guess if the troop will really go.

Easy to agree with that. I don't agree that you get to choose for other people. Don't hijack district or unit mtgs where other people don't get a choice. A shorter time is acceptable, but don't cross the minute threshold without others having a choice.

I'm just catching up. Glad to read that someone posted it. "Could be filed in federal court" ... refering to requiring events / abuse that cross state boundaries or occurred on federal property (military bases, national parks, etc). Unless federal jurisdiction is triggered, state laws would be in effect with state SOLs. ... really wish I would have studied law ...