fred8033

Isn't this analogous to a franchise that buys goods from the parent corporation? It's 100% separate for legal, tax and execution. But if the franchise fails, it often has to return relevant assets to the franchising corporation. In this case, the council promises to "vest" (... secure in possession ... ). that does not necessarily mean "ownership" as much as ability to transfer to another agency to execute the purpose of the previous council. .... I'd be curious if vested, legally means the same as "owns". ... I'd also be interested if the "charter" agreement is binding between national and council. It seems more like a friendly statement of agreement and not a legal contract.

Yeah, if Dec 2020 ... it's sad but not as alarming. Covid. LDS transition. Price shock. I know one local pack that is not 100% registering all youth or all adults due to cost of registering. So if the family is tight on funds or the scout doesn't care as much about advancement, then the scout doesn't know but the pack doesn't "charter" the scout. I can't blame them. The only thing really on record about cub scouts is AOL. Plus, we really need to consider the results of 20 years of bad press. BSA has had a target on it's head for a really long time. We've lost a generation of youth because of bad press. It always makes me very sad. Personally ... some of this begs the original question. Why scouting? What draws kids? What pushes them away? ... I really don't think this is as hard as we think.

I've been to many ECOHs over the years. My strong preference is to tack the Eagle recognition at the end of a normal COH. It creates a strong connection between the scout's accomplishment and the troop. Sets a great example. If it's separate, it's not really a "troop function" and attendance is always poor. Having ECOH in the normal COH, it's very well attended and adds to the celebration. But then again, the Eagle portion is five/ten minutes not sixty minutes. Parent involvement / stress is much reduced as the main challenge is to invite friends and family. If parents ask what they can do to help, I suggest contributing a bit more food to help cover the number of invited guests. ... Every one of our COHs is a meal in some way. Potluck. Grilled food. etc. First meal, then ceremony. A few times, the parents volunteered to host the food for the whole COH. Our scouts and leaders never said no to that. If asked what I liked, I'd say steak with a straight face ... then smile. ... Never got steak. But always a good time and positive experience for the scouts.

One I liked ... Tigers and Lions showing up at the elementary (after clearing with principal) and pulling weeds from bushes by the front door (for 15 to 30 min ... scouts 10 min ... dads 20 min or so) ... then playing catch with frisbee or foot ball ... and just so happens (by pre-planning) an ice-cream truck shows up at a specific time. Yes, you can usually find one that will show up on a schedule if you call them in advance.

@Kamala ... You can't find it in the Guide To Advancement because it's not a rule. It's troop folklore and what others leaders have traditionally seen. I myself do not like the idea of needing to use court of honor service as "service hours". ... BUT ... there is no official rule saying outside of scouting. BSA rank requirements are written to be precise to interpret. If the words are not there, it's not part of the requirement. Examples: Since joining scouting Do not include Before you start When the words are not there, it's not part of the requirements. Other than the Eagle rank, none of the other ranks say for an organization other than BSA. The earlier mentioned Bryan On Scouting was about "can it be" outside scouting? I'd suggest also reading this Bryan On Scouting. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2019/05/30/does-helping-fellow-scouts-count-for-service-requirements/ "We’ve received this question numerous times from Scouters with many different projects in question: Volunteering at Cub Scout day camp Improving trails at a council camp Helping a Cub Scout pack set up for a blue and gold banquet or Pinewood Derby Cleaning up another troop’s trailer or meeting place Assisting Cub Scouts during a Cub Scout fundraiser "The simple answer is: Any of those projects could count." Another good Bryan On Scouting list of ideas: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/10/09/101-great-scout-service-project-ideas/ In our troop, we routinely counted camp ranger service hours, helping charter org, etc. We did not count anything that was part of the normal troop meetings or activities. I'm sure our troop had counted planned a service project such as scouting for food or serving as an OA elangomat or helping with OA elections. I don't remember any scout needing to count ECOH service, but Bryan On Scouting said: "We also recommend that you encourage your Scouts to look for opportunities to help others wherever and whenever they can. You can point them to projects they can do for their fellow Scouts, " PERSONAL OPINION: Service hour requirements are an opportunity to celebrate service in a discussion between the scout and his scoutmaster. "Great job" "How did you feel after helping" ... We're teaching the wrong lesson when we get legalistic on service hours or give the scouts a form to fill out to track service hours. The "requirement" is about teaching scouts to value helping others. Period. Yes we expect a bit more each rank, but that's about maturing. ... If the SM sees a scout trying to "get away" with "iffy" hours or gaming the system, don't sweat it and don't play the approve/disapprove card. Instead open a conversation with the scout on why scouting values service. Then, resolve it during a friendly conversation. TOO BIG FOR THIS THREAD: Whether the BOR can reverse a SM on hours counted ... I don't think this is as clear cut. ... Easier to focus on a future discussion with the scoutmaster and not necessarily sending the scout back.

Is the "restricted" referring to donor conditions tied to Summit Becthel ? Or BSA considered restricted as needed for continued operation?

NTier ... The recreation area is called the BWCA. I question the accessible cash value of the camp beyond it's current function. I'm sure someone would acquire, but it would not be a windfall for the class action. Sea Base would be similar. Wonderful properties, but it would take years to convert to cash.

Wow. That doc was a fascinating read. Creepy. With business partners like that there is no possibility of justice.

This is one of the few ways that I could see as a fair recompense for the past. I just don't think you can compensate fair / correctly for things that happened in the past. But, perhaps some action like this would be a "fair" and "protective" for the benefit of people using these bases / properties.

For Philmont, this could easily fit into the Antiquities Act as a Philmont trek is a recreation of many historic ways of living. While I love BSA having this property for high adventures, making it available to the nation as an adventure option is a great idea.

Philmont should become Philmont National Park. I'd visit.

"Some" was about money / reputation ... but I just don't accept that as a broad statement. It's definitely not an automatic dishonest / not trustworthy. Ask anyone in HR, the legal profession or taking responsibility.

Perhaps I'm not understanding. What statement was a lie? That sounds more like an aggressive interpretation of the past than a specific lie. Where was scouting less safe than pretty much any other organization? I don't know any scouter than abused kids, but I do know teachers, coaches, private music teachers, etc that did. I just don't accept that scouting was less safe than other community organizations.

Again a personnal choice ... if you wear red loops, find matching red troop numbers. Yes interchangable per BSA, but you do look want to look sharp and consistent. And, not like the proverbial Johnny Cash free Cadillac that he picked up at the factory.

So what should have BSA done? Not try? Doing that is a legal and moral liability itself. It really seems like BSA is dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Yeah, I hugely disagree with you. in the 1980s, if a teacher got kicked out of a school they could find a job in another state or another district. Or apply at a private school. Or start as a substitute with lower level checks and get back in. ... Trouble as a youth minister in a church, then start attending another church and slowly volunteer with kids again. ... Starting to get strange looks at the YMCA, apply at another YMCA. There were no and still are not any large national registries tracking rumored bad people. Only recently (late 1990s) did states and national government create registries tracking sexual predators. Only very recently were they easily searchable.

In public opinion, BSA would be hur trying to defend the past. In court, I don't know. But in my conversations with my friends and co-scout leaders, I must admit I'll never stop trying to put context to this. ... Wrong is wrong. Abuse is wrong. But hindsight is easy. Who could have expected BSA to be forced into bankrupcy and accused of fault for inaction because of having a system that tried to exclude bad leaders and tried to document the reasons. Legally BSA would have been safer to not try to track abusers and definitely not keep documentation ... like the past schools and legal systems back then. The youth would have been worse off, but BSA would have been better off. I'm still surprised that BSA did not create a document retention policy to avoid become a target for fishing. This happened for most companies back in the 1990s. But then again, who "back then" would have thought BSA would be liable for trying to maintain a system to exclude abusers before other companies, schools, and groups had such systems. SOL is important because legal situations like BSA is in are inconceivable back when most of these abuse cases were happening by abusers who were volunteers and vouched for by other local organizations and the crimes not really pursued by others involved, by families or by the law. It really is inconceivable.

To ThenNow, I'd bet there are many similar reasons ... not wanting people to judge their kid when accusing such an upright adult ... so sick that it can't be true ... don't want to be "that" family ... or the family that caused problems for their church, school, community ... or just don't want to be associated with it. ... family dynamics are large and ugly at times. ... And those parents were kids when pregnant women were not really to be seen in public and out-of-wedlock daughters would be shipped away to have their kid. ... Only in 1978 did it become illegal to fire a woman for getting pregnant. Though uncouth before, sexual harassment was outlawed around 1977. Things have drastically changed in the last fifty years. Wrong is wrong, but judging the past is hard.

You are applying today's rightful indignation to things that happened a long time ago. An era where the kids were doubted and blamed for accusing nice upstanding people. An era where people commonly drove drunk. Where men were understood to have certain rights over their wives. Where banks commonly denied based on race or religion. Where many things are viewed today as ghastly that back then were just things you deal with. Today is a different time. Period. Looking back, it's hard to know when police were called and not. In the pseudo case provided, the parent could have called the police. Other troop leaders. The charter org. For all we know, someone did. Other discussions occurred. This is why SOLs exist. Times change. Details are lost. Expectations change. Today's righteous indignation is often about feeling better about ourselves at the cost of those who came before. The past is far from perfect, but it's a fool who judges harshly thinking they are better than the past.

If a PR war happened, it should be about BSA having a structure to try to prevent re-entry of dangerous adults decades before the public, the teachers, the doctors and the politicians were recognizing the issue.

Thank you. That's triggering a lot of reading. Supreme court decision from 1798. I'm still reading on this. It is truly a complex topic. I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer. I confused when I read things such as this: "The cases cited hold that the ex post facto effect of a law cannot be evaded by giving a civil form to that which is essentially criminal." ... I'm still wondering how this is all possible.

Personal choice. Both are valid. I prefer the green as they are iess "flashy". Red reminds me of a 1970s style. It's always been a bit "iffy" as all past uniforms are still valid. BUT, I never ready about mixing and matching. At some point, the most important thing is your troop looks sharp and similar. Look at your troop and youth. If "ALL" leaders are wearing red, maybe you want red. If some are each color and youth are mostly green, maybe wear green. Your choice. I prefer the green as it's less flashy.

QUESTION ... I was reading on retroactively extending SOL. Am I correct to interpret a difference between criminal and civil SOL? Or a specific person SOL versus an institution? I'd like to better understand the topic. I've read Supreme Court rulings about extending to apply criminal charges, but not found the specific about extending for institutional civil cases like the BSA's situation. Pointing to an article I could ready would be fine.

My apologies. I did not mean to indicate you had not communicate. Sometimes our scout's families subvert the very program we are trying to establish. My key points were about this should not be in G2SS.

Many of us have been in your shoes. Years when I enjoyed scouting. Years that sucked because I was not part of the "click". Or, I was treated bad because I was friends with someone the other person did not like. Even more similar, times where I really enjoyed scouting and then took the next step and it did not work out. It was hard to enjoy scouting after that bad experience. My suggestions. Focus on your son. Enjoy his company. Don't worry if he's not perfect or if you're not perfect. No one is. Enjoy your time together. Focus on yourself. If being Cubmaster is not fun, step back. That's okay. Someone else can up then. If scouting is not a positive in you and your families life, it's okay to find somewhere else for your family. Talk to your wife. Talk with friends.

I agree with your disruption point and your example is meaningful. My issue is putting the rule in Guide To Safe Scouting, Abuse, etc. Are we saying the scout is not safe with the mom? Are we saying parents should not be allowed to take their kids out of camp because it endangers the troop? ... "barring medical exceptions" Are we saying a non-emergency medical condition allows ignoring Guide To Safe Scouting rules ? Radically, I'm going to assert ... Scouts are safe with their mom and dad. Troops have zero authority to override parents in such decisions on the basis of "safety" or "abuse". Bar it on troop policy or that it would interrupt the program. Bar it because the parents did not communicate well. Just not on "abuse" or "safety". Your example is of poor communication and subverting the program. Troops need to work with parents to encourage letting scouts have their own experiences and to let scouts interact with scouts. I'd be very very upset with the parents. My issue is it should be somewhere else, not in G2SS.