T2Eagle

I've read all the BSA rules I can find, backwards and forwards, I'm pretty sure I've never seen this one before Covid. Interestingly, it has nothing to do with CO rules or CO approval of leaders, because it's up to council to approve, so there's no formal approval needed fro the CO.

I agree with Mrjohns that that's not the rule, unless your council is locally imposing it. Even if they do impose that there would be no additional cost. You can "multiple" register with multiple units, but you pay only one egistratin fee.

Yes, I was responding to the idea that anyone not willing to register after 72 hours of contact should be looked at with askance. My point is that 72 hours is a passingly small amount of time in the career of a scout, and that most parents would hit it before their kid would be fluent at long division.

A little redundant to copy and paste "ask the expert" when you're the expert that was asked. A good post all the same.

I would always start with camping. If you're really being cautious make it weather dependent, and only go if the weather's nice. Don't worry about requirements or anything like that, just put up some tents and have everyone, adults and scouts, divvy up the basic tasks:, cooking, cleaning, fetching water. Get a campfire going and get everybody around it telling bad jokes and old stories. Do this a few times and everybody will get better at their outdoor skills and the scouts and adults will become comfortable with, and start desiring, to separate themselves from each other, or as we call it, forming patrols.

Our troop, meaning the PLC, adopted it as part of our opening when learning it became a formal T21 requirement. We do it with scout raised because it is a promise.

Permission slips also usually include some version of liability release; they're more than just permission to be there.

I don't want to belabor this point too much, but kids can be registered as scouts for upwards of 12 years. Attend a pack campout when your kid is in second grade, 6PM Friday night through noon on Sunday is 42 hours. So if you want to go on the same campout next year you're over the 72 hours and need to register. Finesse the hours a little and maybe you don't have to register until your kid is in fourth grade, but at that point you need to remain a registered leader for another eight years, or never camp with your kid again. Even if you reset when you crossover to ScoutsBSA, you're talking about 1 1/2 campouts and then you're obligated to remain registered for more than half a decade. So for instance, you're a big skier, and you're really only interested in helping the troop for the annual ski trip, that's 7 years worth of registration, fees, and training, for one campout a year.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. If a parent is also a leader, clearly they will be observing what happens with their child at a scout event because they'll be helping to run or at least guide the event itself.

He makes an interesting argument, I don't have a strong opinion on it as a philosophical question. I do have some nits to pick with him in the particulars. Louisville didn't not have to pay any of their own money. Their portion of the settlement came from their self insurance fund, which is just their own money put aside for just such occurrences. And I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the COs don't get release unless they pay some funds into the trust. That latter fact is the big complaint the COs have.

I'm sure there's more information being shared in mediation than is being made public, but I am amazed at the paucity of knowledge about the insurance. Despite all the questions and back and forth about BSA's restructuring, and the LCs and COs contribution , THE seminal issue in this case seems to me to be the insurance. I don't see how anything gets finalized until that's hashed out.

For den meetings, as long as there were enough folks sticking around to help I never required every parent stay. Teachers handle 25 kids, I figured with at least one or two other adults I could handle eight. Always had a lot of, OK Cub is here, then I'm taking sister to soccer, then brother to gymnastics, then I'll be back before the end to pick up Cub, and then make the pick up circuit for everybody else. For Pack meetings it worked about he same although parents did seem to hang around more because of the awards stuff.

Respectfully, we probably cannot. Any hypotheticals we might provide would be on the outer edges of the spectrum, and wouldn't illuminate even for us where the lines are within the gray areas. We ourselves don't have a stock of posts that we can look to for any precedential use. Candidly, speaking for just myself, I am not that invested in trying to draw up an elaborate set of rules because I don't think that's necessary to fulfill the mission of the forum which is to be a venue for folks to have respectful, though vigorous at times, discussion about matters related to scouting. No one should take, and the moderators do not intend, for the deletion, editing, or moving of a post to be a commentary on the author of the post. I cannot emphasize this enough, it is unwise for anyone to feel too protective of any one of their posts, because we cannot live up to that expectation. We’re trying, as a group of volunteers who don’t even really know each other, to keep useful guardrails on a rare civil space on the internet. We are imperfect at doing that, accept our imperfection as the cost of using the forum.

Interesting, I knew about Easter Seals but not Christmas Seals. Wikipedia here I come.

Yeah, I never heard of them reaching out to any volunteers. I signed up, a friend of mine who owns a software company signed up, and neither of us got anything but that email. I doubt they reached out to any volunteers --- and their IT systems remain perpetually crappy. Coincidence?

We're 50+ years old. I'll post if I receive anything.

It has to be pretty hit or miss so far. I'm COR and CC for a pack and troop, and I haven't seen anything. I wonder if LCs have to have a hand in it for it to happen?

It's true they were picked for a reason, but we don't know what that reason was, so we have no way of knowing whether the reasons to select them for one role would be the reasons to select them for a different role. Presumably the US Trustee, who is an expert in bankruptcy, but not necessarily in Youth Protection, believed they would be best equipped to represent survivors in a bankruptcy. The skills necessary to excel at that may or may not be the same ones necessary to excel in another role. It's not clear to me that at least the most public facing members of the TCC were subject matter experts prior to now. It's very possible that some survivors that have chosen to be represented by some of the lawyers in the coalition are already subject matter experts: social workers, psychologists, educators, etc. Experiencing trauma is often a motivator to enter into a professional field specifically to help others who have experienced the same trauma. Since we are talking about actions and boards post this case, expertise in the case seems less relevant. My understanding, which may be flawed, is that the members of the TCC have been participants, but not exclusive participants, in all the proceedings so far. Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe the same could be said for members of the coalition. So at least some of the clients of the coalition could have been privy to all the same information as the TCC. There are some 82,000+ claimants, it would be an extraordinary feat of selection and organizational design if an already selected nine of those folks are without doubt better than all 81,991+ people at two different roles.

I might be a little off here, but my understanding is that suits against LCs and COs are currently stayed by the bkr proceedings. Someone has to assert that stay to stop a proceeding, so in theory any LC or CO could allow suits against themselves to proceed. And though the news reports say the city and the Boy Scout's insurer are paying the settlement, that may not be a perfectly exact statement. It may be that the insurer is covering the LC or BSA or both. It is also possible that the insurer had already agreed to step into the shoes of BSA prior to bkr, and that might allow them to settle without the court's direct approval.

It is interesting to think of this settlement in comparison to the current plan 5.x. Essentially the victims will be splitting the insurance coverage of the scouts and a much smaller amount from the self insurance fund of the Chartering Org. This doesn't seem that different from the current plan on the table. It also makes me wonder how viable the alternative idea of "well let's all just go to state court" is. This was a pretty straightforward case with criminal convictions, egregious behavior, and in the municipality a defendant traditionally thought of as being fairly deep pocketed.

Generally, even though the case is heard in federal court, the fed court uses and applies state law to decide the case. That would include SOLs.

I'm COR of a Catholic Unit, haven't seen or heard of anything like that. I would venture either he misreported or misunderstood what he received. Or it's a scam.

That seems really strange unless he is the COR or IH of an independent unit like "Friends of Troop xxx" with no nationally affiliating group like VFW, Elks, Lions, a church, etc.

Krad, Welcome to the forums. I'm sorry you had such a terrible experience, I hope your new troop was more welcoming. You correctly label what you saw as corruption, one of the definitions of which is "the action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so." Unfortunately as you go through life you'll find that there is lots of corruption in this world. Just because someone belongs to an organization, be it a church, a school, scouting, government, etc. that should be a place of virtue doesn't mean it will be. And just because someone belongs to a good organization or claims to live by its virtues doesn't mean they do or will. You will also find, as you did with your troop, that there often isn't redress, and this can be maddeningly frustrating. The best you can do often is learn to recognize quickly situations and people that aren't good, or good for you, and put them behind you quickly. Broadly, people don't change, and the phrase "cut your losses and move on" should always be in your mind as a possibility. Find a few friends that are good for you, and be good for them. Your responsibility is to be the best person you can be. You are not responsible for fixing the flaws in others. Challenging as all that is, finding good people, and especially being a good person, is the surest road to a happy and contented life. Another important thing to remember in life is that there are many times when you need help coping with the bad parts of it. This isn't a sign of weakness it's a sign of maturity. When you need help, go find it. If four years later you're still bothered by this experience go talk to a professional about it. If you're in school now there are almost certainly people available for that kind of counseling, and if you're not, start with your family doctor and ask for a recommendation. There are also lots of helplines, internet referral services, etc. that can help you find the help you, and virtually all of us at some point in our lives, need. Hope this helps.

one ≠ five, therefore one on one ≠ one on five. If I can spend five hours with five scouts --- and no other adult -- in my vehicle on the way to a campout, there can be no logical explanation for not being able to spend twenty minutes in one classroom in our building while the other adults are in the room next door with the other five scouts. The danger in claiming something is a rule when it's not, especially if it's a rule that doesn't make sense or fulfill the purpose of rules is that it leads to a waste of valuable time enforcing something that shouldn't be enforced, and more importantly undermines the following of real and important rules.