SiouxRanger

But I do think it is "that simple." IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE! When, EVER, was it acceptable to sexually abuse children? CHILDREN. Ancient Greece? Would YOU, YOU calmly accept your children having been so abused? The U.S. has had "age of consent" laws, I would think for a long time. It is not even a question of statutory "r.....e." (A systematic survey of those laws, and when enacted and such is a piece of legal research work and not needed for this discussion). National has NO EXCUSE. It knew children were being abused, damaged, and systematically concealed the problem from parents and insurers. And thereby protected the "glorious careers" of Nationally commissioned guardians of the purity of the male youth of America. And total ruin followed.

I don't fully understand your post. My suspicion is that my troop's situation is the same as all the Catholic troop's situations in the entire Diocese. I don't know just how many Catholic chartered troops there are in our Diocese, but maybe 20 or 30. Maybe half that or twice that. My point here is that however many troops (and packs) that are Catholic sponsored, all are in limbo (so-to-speak). And that is not a good thing as we are now in a new scout year. I agree that "signed words should match intent and reality," but we have a bankruptcy proceeding of National in which the "signed words" of National does NOT match intent and reality. National wants to abandon its responsibility to the Settlement Fund folks, and in the words of Winston Churchill, Vol VI, Triumph And Tragedy, his Nobel Prize winning history of WW II, in his Theme of the Volume: How the Great Democracies (National BSA) Triumphed, (Passing off the details of settling abuse claims to the Settlement Fund folks and walking away from the mess) and so Were able to Resume (running BSA Scouting National on the same failed model that got National into this hideous mess) the Follies (without any meaningful Youth Protection going forward) Which Had so Nearly Cost Them Their (but for a stressed interpretation of just what the bankruptcy law is intended to protect which might drag them from the fire) Life (Continued operation of National by the professional culture at National that got the concept of "Scouting" into the scandalous mess.) BSA sold its "bona fides" with a friendly smile for decades, generations, and America bought it, but that "friendly smile" was false and has damaged thousands of children and created hundreds of millions of potential liability. National KNEW of the abuse claims and concealed the problem for about a century. And thousands were abused during a good part of that century-and they could have been spared. And it does not appear that National took any measures effective to spare children. All, please correct me if I am wrong. I have posted before that I am not a claimant. I am a best friend of a claimant entitled who elected not to file a claim. I have known him for over 50 years and only in the last 3 or 4 years did he reveal to me his abuse. I was shocked by his revelation. My profile describes my scouting history. It is extensive. Another poster has posted that only Claimants/Survivors should have a say in National's plan going forward, but I do not agree. Not being a claimant, but someone heavily involved in my troop and local council, and clearly concerned in the balancing act of allocating assets between Survivors/Claimants and local councils (and affecting those Councils;' ability to continue to provide the Scouting), my position is that the Claimants/Survivors should be PRIMARY. And if that costs us Council camps, and even Philmont (where half my heart lies), how can Scouting as a principled organization continue if it denies the shame and damage of its history. BSA cannot move forward until it has remediated and assuaged the past damage it has done. And if that price is costly, so be it. How can an organization based on the principle of "Trustworthy" cripple and damage children and call itself "Trustworthy?"

There is a provision in the Congressional Charter of the BSA prohibiting military drill, I believe, and that may prompt National's aversion to camo as just skirting too close to the "military" prohibition. But others here may have deeper insight. I have generally been opposed to camo on that basis that it is too far from the scout uniform that I think youth don't see themselves as scouts. And I could be wrong. Camo shorts are not so distracting, but a camo shirt undercuts the scouting personna, in my feeble opinion.

No longer sure where to post this, but an update on my Catholic Diocese and rechartering our troop. 1. The parish priest signed a traditional rechartering agreement. Then, soon thereafter requested the original be returned to him. That was done. 2. District Executive asked that all data be uploaded as if rechartering was progressing normally, even though the DE knew that the parish was not willing to sign any rechartering agreement, at that point. That was done. 3. Chartered Organization Representative asked DE to provide written confirmation, before Janary 1, 2022, that the unit would be "officially rechartered" without a rechartering agreement from the parish., AND that BSA insurance would cover troop activities after 12-31-2022. No response. 4. Our troop has not paid for rechartering as we figure we don't know what we are getting for the money. We have a concern that BSA won't be able to provide a year's worth of services for a year's worth of fees. The DE has not asked for payment. 5. We have no further word from the parish regarding whether or not the parish will recharter at all, or if it will recharter on the traditional basis, facilities use only basis, or something else. So, another 30 days, more or less, have passed, and passed the start of another scout year, and no meaningful guidance from the parish or council. We are not sure if we have a BSA authorized unit, insurance coverage, or whether we have authority to conduct typical troop operations. Personally, I don't think these questions are likely to be answered with any authority or certainty until after the BSA Plan is approved, or some successor plan is proposed and approved, or there is an agreed resolution. Perhaps we will have a definitive answer and known path before summer camp? That is my most optimistic estimate.

I can't recall whether I've said it directly or only by implication. I recall at least 2 references of mine to George Peppard about loving "when a plan comes together." Well, the plan seems to be rotting. Litigation is a huge and complex legal process. Outcome uncertain. As we have all seen in National's bankruptcy. "When the waves turn the minutes to hours." Gordon Lightfoot. National seems to have hoped to do a "quick hit" and exit bankruptcy leaving all its legal problems behind with the Settlement Trust to pick, up the pieces. And the "quick hit" has turned into hours. And months. At the end of this National will likely walk away with a barrel of goo. And from that, National will have to fashion a national movement based on the principles of Scouting. And who will follow?

Well, with only the recent addition of girls to Scouting, how many moms have "Boy Scouting Experience?" Likely few. Girl Scouting experience-likely some. So, I have no in depth of knowledge of mother/Girl Scout camping knowledge. Maybe mom's just haven't put scouting on the radar. I would not give up on encouraging moms to go camping. We have had several stay an entire week at summer camp. As an aside, I have noticed that scouts at camp, weekend camps and summer camp, will look over to where the adults are hanging out from time to time. I've wondered whether they are looking to be reassured that their parent is present, (or whether the "window is open" to get away with something). I think they were looking for reassurance.

I'd note that my mom has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from a land grant university and my 2 sisters have 3 degrees between them, and I worked at Philmont when the first two women Rangers were employed there, and then a year later when 5 women were Rangers. And then on my 4 Philmont treks as an advisor, two of our Rangers were female. And they did a better job than the male Rangers. And one year at Philmont, my responsibility was to train and evaluate everyone on the Ranger Staff but the Chief Ranger and Assistant Chief Rangers. The women set a high standard.

No, not awful. Just two few willing to be involved. And if they don't have a son (and now daughter), involved they are unlikely to just show up "just as part of their civic duty." Many parents don't show up even when their child is participating. As an aside, not being from the West, I have noted that women in the West seem to have much more interest in outdoor (backcountry) activities (from my personal observation).

Seems to me it is easier to make rules for others than oneself.

Just seems like madness to me, that "BSA" ( whatever that means, national, local council, and chartering organization, or all of them) would be liable in such circumstances without some direct and CAUSAL connection between scouting and the abuse. The application of YPT to activities outside of scouting activities makes YPT totally unworkable from a practical standpoint. For example, how is a chartered organization representative to have any idea whatsoever of the activities of an abusive assistant scoutmaster at soccer matches? And BSA (etc.) is liable. That is a VERY HARD CASE TO MAKE. And as to the John Wayne mentality comment, rigidity and thereby certainty, is convenient and comfortable, but reality is complex and fuzzy.. And the defense that "someone dictated my sense of morals and I adhered to them" has not found legal traction.

Thanks. This helps to establish in my mind a tad bit of independence of local councils from National. The mechanism of discussions among the Council representatives remains a mystery to me unless of the 250 or so councils, they selected a small number to form an executive group to formulate the formula. As to the mystery of the origin of the formula, I recall it was kept confidential, and perhaps the prior poster did not have it right, or I read it wrong.

I was under the perhaps mis-impression that National dictated the amount each council would contribute. "Representatives of local councils determining the amount each council would pay" seems a recipe for chaos. "Fine with my council that YOUR council pays "$XXX." (And this scenario plays out with 250+/- councils?) My mind flashes to the scene in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies where the council of the pirate kings all vote for themselves and the deadlock perpetuates. Somewhere along all the posts on the many threads, I believe I recall a mention that no one knew how he amount of each council's contribution was derived other than that National set the amount and was unwilling to reveal the algorithm for its determinations. If you have details, in depth information on the details, I'd be interested.

I am not giving up on a failure of Plan 5 and the TCC having its say at the table with the added clout of a failed vote on National's Plan. I am not sure I understand how the LC's have a say in the amount of their contribution, considering: 1. Scout Executives are beholden to National for their career advancement, not to the local council, so Scout Executives have little reason not to toe the line with National's demands. 2. If National collapses and liquidates, of what benefit is it to a local council to decline to pay what National dictates if that refusal leads to the lost of its parent?

I have long maintained that the Scouting is in the entertainment business. It provides fun and challenging times (shooting, swimming, playing with fire (safely), knives,) learning new things, and comradeship with their friends, while those devious adults slip leadership, assuming responsibility, planning, ethics, morals, into the program to be absorbed seamlessly (perhaps with a bit of suggestion now and then).

"If common sense were so common, it would not be so valuable." -Ronald Rotunda (And almost certainly quoted by him from somewhere, but from him I heard it first.)

(Must have "clicked off) and lost a part of a sentence.) No one from the council ever became involved in the transition of tangible assets to my troop. All fo the stuff my troop received was of marginal value. We pretty much just took whatever was offered and much of it was useless, and disposed of.

I just throw this out there... @scoutldr's comment just has an interesting perspective to me. And that perspective relates to the DE being involved in negotiating the disposition of a CO's (troop) assets if the CO is is bowing out of the business of scouting. And this is not to counter @scoutldr's post, for I believe that many councils function along the lines he/she has experienced. In, and from, my experience, in my council, council staff have no interest in anything controversial at unit level. (And I have witnessed doozies.) Nor, would I, with my experience over 25 years at various levels of a council, even think, in my council, to engage a DE to resolve issues on the disposition of a troop's assets. With respect to my council, I do not think the staff could contribute anything useful. I have come to believe that councils have markedly different methods of operation, support for units by professional staff, toxic, supportive, assistive, etc. environments... Units in my council which have shut down have simply "passed on" their assets (tangible) to other units. Not quite sure what has happened to bank account/cash assets. Were my Troop to have to move to another Chartering Organization, I'd contact the Chartering Organization leadership, advise them of the Troop's move and ask it to sign off relinquishing ownership of all of the assets, tangible and financial. Frankly, I doubt there would be any objection. All Troop funds were raised from troop participants, youth and adult, for the purpose of operating the troop. I'd like to think that most chartering organizations would recognize that and waive any interest in them. As a practical matter, most troops' tangible property has no market value, and the cash/bank accounts are a few thousand dollars and just insignificant to most Chartering Organizations. Not to mention the "black eye" a chartering organization would receive if it bullied a scout troop. My troop has been the beneficiary of cook kits, dutch ovens, and such from disbanding units. No one from

Bingo. Double BINGO!! That is precisely the problem, and as I can't afford the time to follow this micron by micron, maybe someone in the case has raised the issue, but as near as I can tell, no one seems to care (Judge, U.S. Trustee...) At its simplest case, any attorney who represents a client from a state with an open statute of limitations and a client from a closed state who does not have a legally enforceable claim, is in an inherent and obvious conflict of interest. An irreconcilable, ethically fatal conflict of interest. Period.

(I've mentioned goings and doing with respect my Troop's Catholic Diocese in the past-which thread I have forgotten.) Ever thus, an update: Despite my several inquires of my Troop's Diocesan Scouting liaisons, one never responded and Diocesan legal counsel referred my other inquiry to the head insurance person whose response made no sense whatsoever. (And I am in the business of making legal sense of legal things.) So, some month or more later after my inquiries, the Parish pastor having signed the traditional chartering agreement contacted the Troop Chartered Organization Representative and asked that nothing be submitted to recharter the troop-as the Pastor was awaiting Diocesan direction. (Be Prepared, in this case means STOP, the unprepared are still unprepared.) So, my inquiries started in mid-September are still not answered in early December. Meanwhile, just tonight, an adult scouter associated with my Troop and serving as a Unit Commissioner (with whom I spoke for 2 hours and have known for over 20 years) said that the word from the DE, for our District, was that our Council was NOT willing to charter units. And so, our Troop is likely an orphan, by all appearances. (And, by extension, so would be all Catholic sponsored units in our Diocese.) (Space here Moderator, new topic follows-thanks). All of which raises the question of which entity owns the Troop's $4,000 checking account balance and the Troop trailer, and the tents, dutch ovens, fire pails, and such? TROOP REMAINS OPERATIONAL BUT CHANGES CHARTERED ORGANIZATION. 1. Troop remains operational but moves to a new Chartering Organization. One line of thinking is that the Chartering Organization owns the Troop's assets. And, at that, even if the Troop (being all the people, scouts and adults) leaves for another Chartering Organization, the original Chartering Organization can retain all of the Troop's Assets. (If it wants.) 2. A second line of thinking is that the "Troop" owns/controls the assets and can move them with the Troop and that the initial Chartering Organization has no claim to them. I don't know what the rules are. I would expect that most Chartered Organizations would acquiesce with whatever the Troop leadership desired. (Even if there are rules to the contrary.) Another issue is if a Troop completely ceases operation. There will likely be some bank account balance and tangible equipment (tents, dutch ovens, stove, etc.) In my experience, those troops have simply donated the tangible assets to other troops. What happened to bank account balances, I have no knowledge. I believe that National's approach is that if a unit ceases operation, its assets revert to its Council, and if a Council ceases operation, its assets revert to National. Just some thoughts, and if anyone has comments, I'd be interested in their experiences or analysis.

Thank you @yknot. And, your last point "that bears repeating" does truly bear repeating. Loud and boisterous fools and idiots can cause a world of pointless, expensive, and damaging rampage. My totally unscientific, statistically unsupported analysis, (having Aced my 300 level statistics course) is that the typical spread of forum registered folks compared to unregistered folks on the forum is about 5 to 130, so about 90% to 94% of the folks viewing the posts on this forum are not registered (and that is fine). And so I say again, chat and discussions among registered posters is not a MOVEMENT. If this forum does not create a political force which affects National bankruptcy, then why have we all bothered? 95%± of the folks who view this forum do not comment and their views are unknown, and I encourage them to register and let us know what they think. (And @Mrjohns2 and @qwaze, perhaps you might consider stating the basis of your downvotes, to which I will respond. And please mention the law school of your J.D. Degrees and state of license, mine being the University of Illinois, College of Law, Champaign, Illinois, licensed in Illinois since 1977.)

@mzzgwenef-- Welcome to the forum. Let the moderators help you get your message out.

Gee, a downvote for merely stating the "blackletter" (default, basic) rules of law pertaining to the formation of not-for-profits, related tax issues, and the liability protections and risks. No opinion. No position taken or advocated. Just the mechanics of it all. Like a downvote on a YouTube video explaining how to replace an oil filter on a truck. Hmmm. Never been a legislator, so don 't blame me for the rules.

By way of background: States issue corporate charters to folks who want to incorporate not-for-profit corporations. It is analogous to a birth certificate-it establishes the legal existence of the not-for-profit corporation. There are state fees to incorporate. Check with your state's secretary of state's office for the amount. There will be an annual renewal fee, also. Factor that cost in to the annual budget. Corporations, including not-for-profits, should have written By-Laws (about 30 pages of rules governing the corporation's operations-generally only prepared once at the time of incorporation) setting forth the rules of operation: election of directors, election of officers, establishment of bank account(s), corporate meeting schedule, etc. "Housekeeping" stuff. The By-Laws should be in conformity with the state's not-for-profit statute. Those statutes can be different from state to state. Not-for-profit corporations should hold corporate meetings, and should keep corporate records of those corporate meetings which would include recording any major corporate actions taken by the Board of Directors, elections of officers and such. It is important that those meetings be held, minutes kept, written up and entered in the corporate minute book. Failure to observe the "corporate formalities" could result in a court finding that the corporation existed only in name and not in fact, meaning that a claimant suing the not-for-profit might be able to "pierce the corporate veil," and hold the directors personally liable for the legal obligations of the corporation. This result is precisely NOT what folks want when incorporating a not-for-profit to serve as the chartering organization of a scout unit. Applying for a tax exempt status, 501(c)(3) status, is a Federal income tax issue and separate and apart from incorporating. It is a separate form of some length because everyone would like to be tax exempt-the form is long to ensure that tax exempt status is warranted. The cost of all of these initial steps, were an attorney and accountant to be hired to do the work, along with the state's incorporation fees could exceed several thousand dollars. Some folks do their own incorporations without professional help. That is fine if doing it solely for themselves because if not done correctly, only they suffer the consequences. But, if done for others, aside from practicing a profession without a license, if not done correctly, and others who would have been protected had it been done right, have no protection because done inexpertly, the person who undertook the work may be held liable for the damages suffered by the person who would have been protected. Typically, when someone undertakes to perform professional services but is unlicensed is held to the standard of performance of someone who holds the proper license. Some states may provide some statutory protection for directors of not-for-profits. It may depend on whether the director is uncompensated for their service, or the type of not-for-profit. Exemption from liability for officers of the not-for-profit is another legal issue to investigate. Generally, statutory exemptions from liability extent only to negligent acts. Intentional acts or willful and wanton acts are not exempt from liability. Another huge problem is that a person is generally liable for their own actions. So, someone signing off on an adult application of an adult who they know is suspect, runs the risk of being held accountable, even if they are also a director who may have an exemption from liability for other actions taken in their capacity as a director. This a practical issue with respect to scout units because active adults generally hold several positions simultaneously. The issue then becomes was signing off on a suspect adult application their act as a director (which may afford protection), or as a unit leader (which does not afford protection)? And further, is it an intentional or willful and wanton action that is not entitled to any protection at all? Finally, there is the question of a unit obtaining errors and omissions insurance for as many adults and positions as possible. Even, to the extent available, such insurance may not afford blanket protection. As plaintiffs' attorneys' mantra is: "Sue everyone with even a remote possibility of being held liable and let the judge sort it out," means if you hold a position and there is a claim, you will be named a defendant will become entangled in a lawsuit. If you are a named insured of a policy affording coverage for the claimed loss, you likely have coverage for the cost of your defense-your attorney's fees. If no errors and omissions coverage, your attorney's fees are your expense.

As with all of the "legal paperwork" relating to National and the local councils, it is a mess. Either intentional or by neglect. Had folks donating property for the use of Scouting truly wanted to limit the use of their donation to that as a scout camp and no other. And to prevent the sale of their donation, the legal path to do so is ridiculously simple, but apparently rarely used. The deed of conveyance of the donated property to the local council should have contained all of the restrictions desired by the donors. It also should have included was is called a "right of reverter," that is, which essentially provides that "if the property ceases to be used for the restricted purpose, title 'revert' to the donors (or their heirs)." Then, that deed is recorded in the public record and thereby puts the whole world on notice (actual, or constructive = presumed notice). Any prospective purchaser of the restricted property would have a title search conducted, find the deed of conveyance with restrictions and the right of reverter appear in the title commitment (a title company's written list of the documents adversely affecting title to the property), and require the local council to produce a document terminating the right of reverter before purchasing. (As a practical note, the more time which has passed after the original donation, the greater the number of heirs, in the usual course of life, and the greater the number of folks from whom the local council will have to obtain consent. Some may waive their rights, some may demand compensation, and other may outright refuse.) No buyer in their right mind would buy a property subject to a right of reverter without that right having been fully terminated, because, if not terminated, the heirs could file suit and seek a declaratory judgment that the heirs are the owners due to the operation of the right of reverter. The heirs would not have to pay any compensation to the buyer. That is a bad result for buyer. So, that there are "restricted" properties that are being sold without such adverse consequences to buyers (at least none mentioned so far in this forum), indicates that either: 1. all the heirs agreed to terminate the right of reverter, or, 2. the "restrictions" were a non-public agreement between the original donor and the local council (the buyer had no notice of them at the time of purchase) leaving the legal battle between the heirs and the local council. The buyer is in the clear, or, 3. the buyer had legal notice of the right of reverter, and is just taking a gamble that the heirs never show up to complain. (This is a horrible idea, as the deed from the council to the buyer is a public record available to anyone who wants to see and copy it. It will be public forever-and pretty clear evidence the local council violated its private agreement with the original donors.) And, for all of that, a legal structure much more protective of the donor's interests is to create a trust, transfer title to the trust, provide that the local council can use the property for so long as used as a scout camp, and that the local council's rights END when it is no longer being used as such. The heirs of the original donors would be the "remainder beneficiaries" of the trust and would be entitled to direct the trustee to do with the property as they see fit. In this scenario, title to the property would NEVER be held by the local council, and thereby, the local council would have nothing to sell. A title search would show that the trust owns the property and any buyer would require a deed signed by the trustee who will not do so without express, written direction of all of the remainder beneficiaries.

Part of my Wood Badge ticket was to improve my troop's opening ceremony, and I added the Outdoor Code to the ceremony, and some years in, it is still being recited.