fred8033

USA Gynmastics hid / protected / ignored Nassar. Are you saying BSA hid / protected / ignored abusers since 2010? Are you saying BSA had a single abuser that victimized 500 people? I'm not willing to go there. Was mandatory reporting done? Was YPT followed? Did BSA shield the abusers? Was the same single abuser allowed to victimize 500 claims? As much as people want to hate BSA, they've done a lot for YPT in the last 20 years. A huge amount. This seems like a very different situation than USA Gymnastics.

I'm still trying to understand why LCs would kick in the money if there is a strong question whether they will really be protected or honored. I'd be concerned that the money is gone and not retractable if the protection falls thru. LC protection seems like it will be litigated for years. I know I've read the arguments about being protected. BUT, ... if some judge says ... "it's not legal" ... the protection is gone and the money is already gone. Ummm ... so much for a ruling thread vs a non-legalese thread.

USA gymnastics is current history. The victims are still teens / twenties. Those in charge were dealing with Nassar. BSA incidents are mostly historical. The majority of the victims are now in their 40s/50s/60s and up. The people in charge of BSA at the time of most of these incidents were our parents OR our grandparents. BSA has been improving YP / safety for 20+ years. So who's left at the top levels that was at the top level 30 years ago (1991) or 40 years ago (1981). Are most of those executives even still alive?

Reading CNN ... always a regret but it's a short URL ... On CNN I read more about the gymnastics hearings at the capital. It's an interesting read considering following BSA's case for many years now. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/larry-nassar-senate-hearing-09-15-21/h_0b79bc8905cc46df9e2f7db83b3a38e9

Taking out of ruling channel ... I'll be crossing line between the ruling and general chat. Really important point being addressed. Drastic changes have happened over the last 50 years ... even over the last 20 years. BSA did not insure COs before 1970s because ... no one bought that type of insurance. Back then, companies were just starting to take liability insurance in case someone tripped on your sidewalk or if you didn't shovel your sidewalk enough. Further, CO and BSA in 1970s really would have been extremely hard pressed to take that type of liability insurance seriously. Their then eyes seeing today's situation would cause them to think the world went crazy. From a 1970s perspective, it is inconceivable that you would need liability coverage 20+/30+/40+/50+ years down the road ... for massive judgements ... for something people questioned the impact (THEN) ... for something most did not want to report or be associated with ... for something viewed as a criminal action (if laws existed to make it a crime) ... for something outside the scope of their roles ... for something done by a volunteer ... for an effective honorary charter agreement. FUTURE OF INSURANCE ... I've read a few articles on the future of insurance. It sounds rather bleak, but a great area to earn money in and a great area to sue. https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2017/04/13/10-emerging-developments-in-liability-insurance/ Will large companies like GM/GE/BP/3M become ill advised as over 40/50/60 years future trends could cause their value to be destroyed in a single few legal cases? What about insurance for them? Will GM be bankrupted for in 20 years for causing global warming? ... Seriously !!! QUESTION ... I'd like to better understand the legal state of insurance from the 1970s / 1980s. Just because a company can have expired SOL given new life, does that mean the insurance policies are open ended too? The contract between BSA and the insurance company was based on a point-in-time contract basis. So BSA's liability could be extended, but does that automatically extend the insurance companies liability policy? I'm betting there will be future cases on this one. It's one thing to extend liability of one company. It's another to re-write the contract between two companies. ... ugly interesting future https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-518-2251?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

I'll have to think thru the pros and cons of this. I could see this as painful in the short run and very beneficial in the long run. Beneficial in weeding out those not really committed families or stragglers that would drop. Those tend to influence and cause further loses. It would help those on the fence by causing buy-in ... aka those more involved tend to stay. ... still need to think thru this. It probably is good.

Calling it fanaticism is offensive and argumentative. It's dependability. Ya do what you say. I've been in a troop that canceled at least two a year. Too few scouts. Too few adults. Scheduling problems. Then mix when they camped only six or seven times a year. You end up canceling 30% of your camp outs. ... It seriously affects the program. Perhaps we should get back to just congratulating the original poster on a really cool achievement.

It's not the same thing. No one ever ever says let's endanger our scouts. Problems are rarely to do with weather. And, when it is weather, you adjust. Leave earlier or later. Relocate. Adjust. The real cause of canceling is usually too few leaders or too few youth or conflicts or not prepared (forgot to reserve a site). The real impact is scouts begin to get jaded. Scouts that wanted to go are frustrated and absolutely less excited to sign up the next time. Scouts want to depend on their troop to be there. A mentality of you don't cancel is important.

50 years is hard. But not every camp out is 85% of the troop. Some might end up with a few scouts and a few leaders. Some months might have multiple small camp outs. One OA. One new scout patrol. One high adventure. ... Even then it's really hard to not miss some month over 50 years. One thing I do miss. Under our first SM, our troop never canceled. Bad weather. Bad scheduling. Ya make it work. POINT: Having a troop mentality that you don't cancel is important. Otherwise, it does become a bit too easy to cancel one or two a year.

I'm glad to hear that. As a unit leader, I never explicitly seen an explicit OA benefit. Perhaps it's inspiration and that's enough. I can see that. All too often we look for something tangible like a quality camp out or good training. Without that benefit, OA does look mainly like an obstacle / interruption. ... such as annual planning needing to avoid OA conclaves. Perhaps inspiration is enough.

Sounds like a good idea. The terms diversity, equality and inclusion are devisive right now. Now, I hope this includes consolidation. World? Nation? Community? Society? Family?

... side comment ... for me, humor comes in strange places. I looked at the twitter feed above. I'm used to social media feeds with thousands of likes. Even our states governor gets 2k+ to 5k+ likes per post. Above post had three. ... doesn't mean anything. I just thought it was funny.

"Will" ... definition : a legal declaration of a person's wishes regarding the disposal of his or her property or estate after death Sadly apropos.

Not all council agreements have the exact same wording. Some wanted that phrase removed. Agreement wording has changed over time. Was that wording always in it? Absolutely not for any/no reason. The version I read says "The Boy Scouts of America may revoke or decline to renew council charters for failure to comply with the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, or policies of the Boy Scouts of America, or in any instance where it deems such action advisable in the interests of Scouting." BSA's failure is not a failure by the local council. Past YP failures are followed by many years of rechartering is evidence of waiving those possible cause for action. Advisable in the interests of scouting is extremely vague and does not mean BSA can terminate to use to pay BSA's debts. The local council can still fulfill it's scouting objectives even if BSA is going thru bankruptcy. Local councils have been paying taxes independently. Incorporated separately. Having separate titles to land, property, etc. Simple fact that local charter org agreements exist is an example of a contractual relationship between separate entities. Charter agreement calculates a dollar amount to be paid from local council to national. Simply accepting that payment is yet another acknowledgement of the separate existence of independent legal entities. This is one of the huge questions that the bankruptcy needs to finalize. Theoretically ... if BSA liquidates ... can a local council re-align with Trail's Life or BP association and thus fulfill it's scouting objectives?

Though we are just hearing one side. SM/COR/CC probably all have responsibility / blame in it. But I don't find it that hard to believe. I was COR for years. There was a period where we had a CM that I don't think he really knew my role until one year when he handled the recharter paperwork. It's easy to keep a unit running and not realize "official" roles. I know when I did the rechartering, I tried to keep the other leaders out of it as it was just a distraction for them.

Ummm ... mostly. We might be thinking the same thing, but negotiating words. Yes. COR can make himself CC. Partial when the COR does not make himself the CC Then, someone else is the CC. CC has the right to choose his committee and run the behind-the-scenes activities. Committee members server at the pleasure of the CC. If the CC doesn't want the COR as a committee member, that's the CC's decision and role. COR can disagree by replacing the CC. People have to give power to be bullied around. Perhaps I'm old enough ... or with less to lose ... or recognizing there are other places to spend my time ... it's okay to push back. In fact, it's good to push back. COR really has less power than they think. The real issue is subverting another person's efforts and not playing nice. Try a friendly conversation.

Situation is common. Grudge being pursued by getting "perceived" power and causing issues. Power grabs using the COR role is fairly common. Another is CC or a district role such as unit commissioner, etc. "Perceived" as others need to give them power. Others should push back when someone misbehaves / behaves as a bully. Try friendly conversation. Offer friendship. Offer honest open conversation. For this situation. COR sitting in a committee meeting is just a committee member. They don't get to usurp conversation or CC authority. COR should NOT be emailing all parents without SM/CC agreement. That's absolutely not their role. Key point - COR does not get to inject themselves into day-to-day unit operation. Clarify roles per BSA expectations COR's job is to approve unit leaders and serve as liaison between unit and charter org. (share goals, expectations, results, etc). Once the COR approves the CC/SM, then the CO needs to trust the CC/SM. CC job is to run the committee SM is to interact with scouts. SM/CC need to reach agreement on who coordinates with parents. Push back CC/SM needs to stand up to preserve role. It is okay for CC to remove the COR as a committee member. "We'd prefer you not attend." Be prepared to quit. If COR is subverting the CM/SM, honestly be ready to step away. The person who can resolve this is the charter org executive. Period. Council and DE don't want to step into internal unit politics. Sometimes they are willing to mediate. Usually, not. They can replace the COR or release the troop. The troop can't select another COR without the CO releasing the unit and it's assets. ... UNLESS ... you give up your troop number, assets, meeting space, etc and re-signup everyone under a new troop number. Finding a new CO Usually, leaving the CO is when the CO doesn't want you or doesn't care. That's not the situation. WARNING - been discussed before ... Don't even think of moving the assets (bank accounts, equipment, paid reservations, etc) without the CO's approval. It's theft and can easily cause issues. Especially if you have a COR raising issues. ... Similar ... do NOT spend down unit assets before leaving as that's effectively theft too as you are not working in the CO's best interest. All unit members can step away enmasse effectively embarrassing and killing the old troop. BUT, you lose the troop number, the meeting space and all assets. Only way to do this is to get the charter org EXECUTIVE agreement.

Ok. That is cool. I was always proud of our 10 months a year camping for 15 years. That wins. Really, really cool achievement.

IMHO ... Webelos den leader is the absolute best role in cub scouts. CM is fun. CC is interesting. BUT, Webelos den leader gets to take these cubs (and usually their dads) to special events, camping, visiting troops, etc. ... Absolutely the best role in cubs. ... IMHO, hardly a give up CM. More like run from CM to WDL. ... AND, WDL weirdly feels like less work than many of the other roles. I'm not sure why, but it was.

I see many possible paths. Even with all the problems of the last 20 years and the legal issues, scouting has intangible historic value that can easily continue. The program will take a long time to shine again. BUT, it can easily continue. The issue of LCs, COs, where to meet, membership policies, etc ... is interesting, but it's all noise. Scouting will continue. For BSA, it's future is fully in whether it can get out of bankruptcy. I see little value to anyone to keep BSA in bankruptcy and worse for everyone is a failed bankruptcy. I see the best for all the victims is moving past the BSA bankruptcy and directly to claims against the insurance companies. I see BSA's bankruptcy slowing that down. Perhaps, it's me. I'm always hopeful.

I think splitting cubs might be a good idea. k,1,2 in one. 3,4,5 in another.

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?

Absolutely. Being a troop leader is work, but rarely exhausting. More importantly, many opportunities to recharge like sitting around camp fires and laughing with friends. Younger cubs was lots of work. It can really burn you out. The scary point is the work is inversed with the perceived benefit. Boy scouts has visible growth after every camp out and every activity and has managable effort. Tiger cubs was lots of work for the den leaders with little perceived benefit.

There was a coolness about joining scouts back when I was a kid. I was not a scout back then ... but it was cool. The derby races. The bow and arrow. The knives. The fire. etc, etc. Cubs was the beginning of manhood ... best called adulthood now. ... Even though mom's were the den mothers, dads got to do cool things with their boys. It's different with Kindergarden and 1st graders. They don't have the maturity or the beginning of independence to just hang with their friends like they start to do in 3rd grade. And, I doubt you wanted to give Kindergarden / first grade boys knives, matches, etc. Most importantly ... you viewed yourself as a little brother to a troop where the boys ran the show. You were immitating that older boy independence program. Now, by the time you're 3rd / 4th grade, you've been building pinewood derby cars since kindergarden. All the cool things are old. Worst of all, cubs is now five / six years long. It's repetitive and gets boring. Worse, it's more and more work for the adults as you move the program to younger and younger ages. 3rd / 4th graders you can let entertain each other. kindergarden and 1st graders need constant adult interaction. I've been in scouts now 20+ years, but I really believe scouts would have been better left starting in 2nd or 3rd grade. I have seen my four sons thru each earning eagle. I would have absolutely been fine ... I would have preferred they started in 3rd grade. IMHO, I would have been fine if Kindergarden and first grade the boys were home a bit more before we got involved in the extra work of those early years. Worse, each one got pretty burnt out with scouting by the 4th / 5th grades. Three years was enough.

And that's what makes "WeBeLos" make sense. Wolf Bear Lion as the ranks and Webelos as the exit award. IMHO, this would have been better. 4th / 5th graders see cubs too much as a little kid program. It's lost it's cool. It's lost the little brother to the big boy troop program.