mds3d

But that isn't the situation that Eagle1993 is talking about. Once the bankruptcy proceedings are done, new assets can't be targeted. National won't be looking for more money to pay lawsuits. This is all about if the lawyers are able to convince a judge that the Councils assets should be included in the proceedings. If they aren't then the lawyers will have to go after councils individually.

@Eagle1993 Unless the bankruptcy court brings the councils into the process (which no one has ever provided precedent for). Council properties will only be in danger from lawsuits/judgement against individual councils, not against national. So if no one sues my council, it doesn't matter how much the payouts are against national or another council, our council property is not at risk. I am still doubtful that the lawyers will be able to target the unaffected councils. Certainly CO's are safe unless they are named in a lawsuit.

I think it is entirely possible that the bankruptcy proceedings will take more than a year. I doubt that the 80 days the BSA has requested for victims to come forward will be granted. As long as we are waiting for lawsuits to be filed, there is the chance that they will go after councils. Merging councils puts assets at risk. I am not saying we shouldn't do it but I think we have to be careful about the timing.

I really don't know how I feel about this. We have more than 15 districts in our council as it is. There are no small bordering councils. I think this just doesn't apply here. I don't live that far from the central office and it already seems far away. I can't imagine what the farther districts think. Seems like a thing to tackle after everything settles down so that no new problems arise. Maybe we should just merge all the councils up to the area.

I think that TLS has explained how they were different. His explanation is consistent with my limited experience with LDS Crews. One of the things that is often explained is that we do not punish boys for the mistakes of adults. Just because he is an adult now, that doesn't change. He was involved and registered as a venturer from 16-18 so he is entitled to those years of service. If he really wants to represent those years correctly, I don't think anyone would fault him for including his years in his Boy Scout star. I think this situation is perfect for combining everything under light blue, but that is my preference anyway.

I think everyone was aware that LDS Crews weren't the same thing as a traditional crew. It's not quite the same thing as a paper crew that didn't really exist.

I think if you are going to wear stars, they should actually add up to your years of service. I am a combined under the scouter blue man myself, but that's mostly laziness.

That quote is news to me. The bylaws state that council property is transferred to national on dissolution of the council but there isn't anything about national having any direct control over the assets of the council (only that they be used for furthering scouting).

I think there is a big question on if the BSA national organization was involved in any "intentional wrong-doing" or was simply not doing enough.

Even if the insurance doesn't have to pay out for that specific incident, more lawsuits mean that the BSA is a greater liability for continuing litigation.

This doesn't really address the reason that it is important that councils and national are separate. Yes, the lawyers can add the council and even the unit (CO) to the lawsuit. However, my council cannot be added to a lawsuit that happened in your council. This means a couple of things. First, the property owned by my council should not be included in the bankruptcy settlement. I believe the BSA that enough has been done to keep these two entities separate. If you believe otherwise then find precedent where a bankruptcy court included the assets of a legally separate organization. I haven't been able too. It also means that unless a suit is filed against my council the lawyers can't go after this council's assets. That doesn't mean we are safe from suits that include us, but that we can't be hurt by those other suits. I think this will help many councils' assets stay safe. Since summer camp locations are owned by councils it means we aren't about to loose all those. The problem with insurance isn't the increasing premiums. It is that they have limits. They are great as long as you stay under the limits but don't help much if the lawsuits start to add up past them. I think the limits on insurance payments is probably more of the problem than are the increasing premiums. They might be. I imagine that they haven't been targeted as much because of the larger pockets of national. It may be that the affected councils insurance has covered their suits so far. Remember that councils are only dealing with a small number instead of everyone nationally. I think CO's could definitely be held liable. It will depend a lot on the situation and whether you are worth going after or not.

There is a lot of US History on the Citizenship test. I am not sure that is the aim of Citizenship in the Nation. I would be interested in the non-history questions. I also wonder about the methodology of this survey as there doesn't seem to be any information on how the questions were selected. The actual test randomly selects 10 questions from a bank of 100. For example, the actual test only asks you to name 3 of the original 13 colonies. There is also is a significant difference between someone who studies for that test and one who doesn't. I wonder what the pass rate would be if you allowed people to review the 100 questions for only 1 hr then asked them the same questions. If you are interested, here is the current list of 100 questions the test comes from - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/100q.pdf The questions do not change without notice though the answers might (who is president for example).

Predictions are often wrong. They are also often predicated on nothing changing from current environment (not the case over the last 30 years). The news does all these things a disservice by always reporting on the extreme of whatever was said by the scientific community. Academia is rarely in agreement so well as it is on climate change, and that should tell you something. Richard Mueller might not be disingenuous but I think he is at least taking his stance in the way that will make him the most notable.

@DuctTape I didn't really mean to defend it. I was trying to give my thoughts after some others had responded without putting them all at the beginning. I help my units through JTE every year and don't get a lot of pushback so I don't have personal experience with the problems with it. @walk in the woodsI do wish that it was easier to track these things without a separate worksheet. Most of this stuff should be automatic. I like your idea for tracking camping and service hours. @ParkManTheoretically, Unit Commissioners are supposed to be the people working collaboratively with units to set goals and help them meet them. The Commissioner Corps is struggling at best in many districts however. The truth is that I should have the opportunity to talk with someone influential over JTE after the first of the year. I doubt my voice will mean much in that context but I wanted to see what issues people were having and realized I could ask here.

That's the idea! Again, I don't think already great troops are the target for JTE. I think that the idea with the numbers is to put a measurable (because it is supposed to be consistent) score on good practices. Here is how I think these goals are supposed to be read: 1. Planning and Budget: Good troops will make a plan, involve the youth, and have an active committee to support that plan. 2. Building Scouting: Good troops will grow. 3. Retention: Scouts will stay in a good troop (and age out). 4. Webelos-to-Scout: Good troops will provide the next step for graduating cub scouts (I'll admit, I think the specific goals are off here). 5. Advancement: A good scout program provides most of its scouts the opportunity (which they will take) to advance each year. 6. Short-term camping: A Good scout program camps frequently 7. Long term camping: Long term camping provides a great opportunity for scouts and they should be encouraged to participate. 8. Service projects: A Good troop serves its community 9. Patrol Method: A good troop has patrols, leadership that is trained, and an active PLC 10: Leadership and family engagement: Good troops involve those outside the minimum required adults. (I actually don't agree with the numbers here either). 11: Trained leadership: Troop leadership should be trained and seeking higher training. I don't know how you assess "scout led" objectively. The problem with non-objective measures is who assess them. There is no way to be consistent with subjective things across the nation. How would you change JTE to help it assess the things you think it falls short on?