SiouxRanger

This is entirely accurate. It is an attorney's ethical responsibility to understand the legal aspects of a situation, the client's circumstances, and then advise the client regarding different courses of action, the consequences of those courses of action, and the range of typical results. Sometimes the attorney recommends a course of action as the one most likely to coincide with the client's known interests. And then let the client decide how they want to proceed. A client who directs an attorney to take a course of action that the attorney does not recommend, or which is significantly more adverse to the client's interests (as perceived by the attorney), will likely trigger a CYA letter to the client stating the essential and controlling facts and law, the course of action recommended by the attorney, a statement of the course of action client has directed the attorney to pursue, and a discussion of how the client's desired course of action compares to that recommended by the attorney, highlighting what the client is giving up. The purpose is not only to put a statement of these matters on the record with the client, but also fend off heirs of the client who surface some day claiming that client was not adequately represented. (Clients don't live forever, and the attorney won't have their client as a witness to defend them.) The greater the deviation of the client's direction from the attorney's recommendation, the more such a letter should be considered. Client should sign a receipt at the end of the letter to show proof of delivery. But the really big problem here is representing multiple clients who have adverse interests. It is a breach of professional ethics for an attorney to represent simultaneously two clients with adverse interests. Exceptions exist where "full disclosure" is given to the adverse clients, and they sign an informed consent (and perhaps varies widely from state to state). How does one "give full disclosure?" "Well, YOU didn't tell me THAT!!!" "Had I known THAT, I NEVER would have agreed to YOU representing both of us!!!" And yet, we apparently have a number of firms representing Claimants with legally enforceable claims, and Claimants with unenforceable claims. And those classes of Claimants are competing for the same apple, and thereby have conflicting interests. Seems like an inherent conflict of interest to me. So, back to the initial premise: duty to represent one's client zealously How can an attorney make diametrically opposed arguments for these two clients? "May it please the Court: Your Honor, my client, Claimant A is entitled to the whole apple, and my client Claimant B is entitled to half that same apple. I have no further argument." Whether the attorneys involved are paying any attention, or consider the risk to them of adverse consequences to be low, CLAIMANTS should be paying a lot of attention. And therein lies the near inevitability of Claimant classes opposing each other.

It is the compassionate thing to do, no doubt. It is the smart thing, in slight defense of National, as it can make the claim that it is trying to (equitably?) compensate victims by including a class with no legally enforceable claim in the settlement. But National does not need to be successful in this attempt, just make the attempt to claim that it tried. (As I've posted, National definitely seems to want those folks voting in favor of its Plan.) With respect to claimants "turning on one another," my read is that that is unavoidable. I find it highly unlikely that a Claimant with a claim against a wealthy LC, CO, backed by sound insurance coverage will want to share their recovery with a Claimant who is less fortunate. And even less so, share with a Claimant who should recover nothing. That may not be the whole story, however, as the voting process is a bit murky to me. If each Claimant actually casts their own vote and is knowledgeable about the degree to which the Plan (and Settlement mechanism) will decrease their recovery below or inflate it above what their individual circumstances might yield, we should have a truly meaningful vote. If those votes are cast by their attorneys, en masse, then Claimants will get what they get. And even at that, if Claimants with no legally enforceable claims get to vote, from all I've heard here, those folks vastly outnumber Claimants with legally enforceable claims, and may well vote themselves some of the money that would otherwise go to folks with legally enforceable claims. The Claimants with the greatest legal entitlement to recovery will be short-changed.

I agree that someone with a time barred claim should have no vote. And because they have no right to recovery and no path to have a right to recovery. The law does not tend to favor those who "sit on their rights." It is why we have statutes of limitation. Courts do not want to be in the business of adjudicating stale claims, where documentary proof has not been retained (discarded in reliance of the existence of a statute of limitations), witnesses are dead, can't be located, or their memories faded-because these factors tend to diminish the ability of the court to assure both sides a fair process. Society wants people to feel confident they can rely on the stability of the law in conducting their business affairs. National's "lack of support for months and months for complete validation" should have no significant bearing on the decision. National lit the fuse on this whole process-that it may take a long time to do things correctly-that is a reason to do them incorrectly??? Sometimes, it is helpful to analyze situations by looking at what we don't have. We don't have anyone proposing that any registered scouter over 6 feet tall gets a vote. Why not? How are they different from someone who once had a legally enforceable claim but no longer does? Were the law to be applied properly, neither the over 6 footers nor those who have time barred claims would recover nothing. But, National has elevated those holding time barred claims to those entitled to "something" in a legal world where they would get nothing. National is attempting to create a class of stakeholders and thereby create a class voters which should not exist. And why would National do that? National desperately wants its Plan to be approved and that happens only if approved by claimant votes. The more claimants who vote for the Plan the more likely it will be approved. So, "Let's just invent a class of voters who have every reason to vote for the Plan-and let's create lots of them." They'll be predisposed to vote for the Plan because they will very likely get nothing if they don't. And so the ballot box was stuffed. And, just for insurance, if the attorneys representing this new class of voters truly will be voting the ballots of these claimants (by proxy, of sorts), we'll pay them $10 million to get their attention, and thereafter, nearly a million a month, though we have no invoice, don't know what they've done, nor benefit provided, time expended... When one strikes down (ignores) the law to achieve a result, there is no law. And that is a bad place.

I agree, but think the court "can't suddenly make it so." Not without authority in the bankruptcy code.

I absolutely agree. I cannot conjure up even a hint of a wisp of a legally sound argument to support a time barred claim recovering anything.

Generally, the first to volunteer for the job is the only one to volunteer, and the committee then generally acquiesces in the volunteer taking over the role of COR. We have a small troop; the active adults is 8 to 10, and most attend troop meetings, so we know each other over many years. The IH's participation or involvement with our Troop is minimal and largely limited to signing the charter application and that is about it. As Pack and Troop Committee Chairperson for about 20 years, I never had any substantive discussions with the IH.

That answers that. "Ancient" = "the memory of man runneth not to the contrary."

Both IH and COR, or just only one? I seem to recall obtaining the IH signature years ago, but not sure if the IH signature is still required.

In my unit, the COR has always been a volunteer. And so, with every signature on an adult application, perhaps the COR has signed on to liability if the adult abuses. And National knew this was a problem, created risk, and gave no warning? Trustworthy?

My adult involvement goes back to 1996± and I believe COR or IH signatures were required then and ever since-and were pro forma at that.

It is a question of finding one's backbone.

And there times when one must speak the Truth, to be true to one's core beliefs, or remain silent and die a little bit in spirit and soul-and forever regret one's weakness. One never stands taller when one shirks from one's beliefs.

I think we are essentially on the same page. What should be done, ought to be done, and would be done in a normal business organization, at least in my council, has not been done. My information is only anecdotal, in-depth knowledge of my council, and incidental information of other councils. And even from incidental information, it is beyond clear that other councils operate in a much more efficient manner than my council. I once asked the second in command in my council for some statistical information about a council-level program I was working on. The second in command pretty much confides in me, and I him-a good friend. He asked a third tier professional staffer for the information and the reply was, "Who wants to know that information and what will they use if for?" I never got the info. The subordinate refused to give it to his superior. Hmmmm. The program was never happened. I do hope other councils operate better.

Tell me about it. We are on our 5th SE in 20 years. Volunteers and staff report to me that the 3rd one was good. I left direct involvement at the official council level a couple of decades ago because it was clearly a pointless effort. I put all my energy into my unit and the scout camp. Now that I am back at the council working committee level, I am reminded of why I opted out long ago. Nothing has changed.

No one regrets more than me that I have more ill-formed questions, than half-baked answers.

And so, let's take this ON. First, I am not talking about audited financial statements. (You have made the legally objectional assumption of a "fact not in evidence.") I am talking about MANAGEMENT reports to its Executive Board provided by management; "stated" in accountancy parlance. And pumped out routinely from the council's accounting software. And if financial statements are given to Executive Board members, but are of no meaningful use to assist those Executive Board members in managing the financial aspects of the council, then please tell me why anyone bothers to provide them? "Last month's Cub XXX lost its 'donkey'-third year in a row..." (And what went wrong and how can we improve???) "Last month's Cub XXX did twice as well as last year, and the changes that made the big difference are..." Why not just give the Executive Board members a report of the local river levels, or pollen counts, or a bird census. Or local parking ticket fines, or any other manner of drivel? If the Executive Board is not intended to be provided with reliable data on the operational performance of the council and make policy decisions based on that data, then the Executive Board is a sham. (And that is precisely my view.) Financial reports are presented by council management presumably to INFORM the Executive Board and empower it to make sound management and financial decisions about the future operations of the program. Are you saying to me that the members of the Executive Board of a Council are NOT ENTITLED to know if major programs of the Council are losing their "donkey," month-to-month, year-to-year? Seriously? I have served on my council's Executive Board, I have seen our meetings cut from monthly to quarterly, and I KNOW that the financial statements, of management, are worthless as far as providing meaningful information to the Executive Board in aiding it in its duty to manage the Council. I was the lone voice on the Board to point out, some decades ago, that my Council was insolvent, that is, incapable of paying its bills as they fell due, and that the council was about a quarter year behind paying its bills, at that. Board members were being asked for $1,000 donations to cover payroll. Every two weeks. And they paid, and paid. And no one on the Board knew of this precarious financial situation, board meeting after board meeting, quarter after quarter, until I and another non-Board member, figured it out, and there was h***fire to pay. Council professional staff WILL NOT MAKE INTERNAL FINANCIAL DATA AVAILABLE TO ANYONE NOT A SENIOR PROFESSIONAL STAFFER. That was confirmed to me, just 3 days ago, by a Scout Camp Site Manager who said, "You will never get that data." And that site manager is on the volunteer side of the equation.

In all my reading and study of history, that which governments fear most is the citizenry taking to the streets. It is a simple question of math: Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation -- till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving. And so, now we have not only individual CO's, but large blocks of CO's "taking to the streets," figuratively, and refusing to stand in the line of compliance and acquiescence dictated by National regarding National's bankruptcy.

Well, I can speak only for the shower houses and restrooms at my council camp and the separate show and restroom stalls are simply sterile-cinderblock walls to a ceiling. NO place to mount a camera, even concealed without being obvious to anyone looking for a concealed camera. That all being said, I do not know if my camp's shower houses and restrooms were built to National standards, or something else. So, perhaps my council camp's buildings are unique. But I agree, virtually every building is unique, wherever located.

As I keep reading bankruptcy posts, I keep thinking of the post about the attorney who was "spitting nickels." There are many aspects of this whole proceeding which are bizarre. (Failure to comply with discovery, failure to file complete Exhibits (National-many times), seeking Ten Million Dollars in attorneys fees never having produced a bill??? (And $950,000± a month thereafter??? For what?) A payment without substantiation to a group who controls the vote to approve National's Plan??? What would one call that??? And I truly agree, this is a long way from over. And the greater the talk, the longer it takes, and the darker the forest becomes for National to realize its Plan. (And I do not think that National will realize its goal of a "quick hit" solution, namely, put $850M into a Settlement Fund, quickly get a pat on the back for "A Job Well-Done" and move on to membership drives and Recharters.) I think that hope is toast. I have not been able to watch but a few minutes of Zoom hearings. I cannot tell if the Judge is oblivious to the "spitting nickels" aspect of this, or is paying out enough rope for parties to hang themselves, only to draw it tight at some point-a comeuppance. What is happening here is an "awakening." It is the typical response of persons affected by a program affecting them being rammed-through: they awaken (usually slowly) to the consequences of the ran-through on their interests and raise their voices, singularly or collectively, but soon enough become a force affecting the process and outcome. National's quick-hit Plan is now being pressured by insurers and CO's. The LC's role in this is likely that of the lap-dog. "Whatever National says, we do."

(Gee-not a word about ban......ptcy here-ahhhhh.) I've owned Gore-Tex, coated nylon rain jackets, plastic cheepie rain jackets, and ponchos. I've camped extensively with the Troop in the midwest, winter at 10 below and hot summers, muggy, rain. Worked at the local scout camp a couple of summers, and on the Philmont staff 4 summers, 3 as a Ranger, and taken 4 Philmont Treks as an adult advisor. (over 40+ years). So, what I've learned and what I do: My Gore-Tex rain jacket and pants were very expensive and not serviceable as they did not breathe, leaked water, and were heavy. Used the set only a couple of times and never again. Coated nylon rain jackets. This is my "go-to" rain jacket. But not perfect. In rainy conditions, one spends more time sitting out the rainfall, yet rain jackets rarely are long enough to cover that which you sit on. I may well add about a 12" skirt around the bottom of my current rain jacket so I can sit down on something waterproof instead of soaking my shorts on a stump. I always buy oversize rain jackets to promote better ventilation. "Sweat management" is important. When the rain slackens or stops for a bit, unzip the jacket to ventilate. Keep "pit-zips" open if possible. When it rains very hard, just find shelter and wait it out. Particularly at Philmont, where rainfall will generally move on in 30 to 45 minutes. Rain Skirt. I ALWAYS carry at least one larger, heavy duty garbage bag-generally 3 to 4 mils. Contractor bags are too large and too heavy. I make my rain skirt out of one heavy duty garbage bag. Slice along the bottom of the bag, but smaller than your waist. Step through the slit and pull it up, slightly stretching the bag to fit your waist. (This will help help it snug around you and hold in place.) If necessary tuck the top of the bag into your belt to hold it in place. It should hang down around your knees or a bit lower. In heavy rain, sit down and cover your boots with the skirt. If push comes to shove get out the Philmont crew dining fly and drape it over as many as will fit under it to shed the heaviest rain. A rain skirt can also be used as a "chair," that is, placed on the ground and against the tree or log you are sitting against for lunch. Protects you from pine sap from trees, and such. Also, when unpacking one's pack at Philmont put the bag skirt on the ground and unload stuff onto it. Keeps your gear clean, and collected in one place so you don't lose things. Make as many uses of it as possible. Rain skirts provide great ventilation. Rain pants are not good in my view. I never slit my rain skirt bag until I need to because it is a bag until you do, and after you slit it, it is a tube. Cheepie rain jackets. One can get by with these but not very durable, and generally too heavy for backpacking. Ponchos. Hard to make work well as rain gear, but possible with a waist belt or rope. A poncho fluttering loose in the breeze is a nuisance. What I know and do.

Well, I recall a previous post speaking of 53% of total assets and 73% of unrestricted assets, if I got that right. If that is not the case, but truly 15%, or paid from a year's passive income, well, certainly nearly painless. I doubt that the Bay Area Council is a typical council. On the other hand, based on information from a source considered reliable (by me), my council's contribution is at about 50% of unrestricted assets, and 32% of total assets-assuming National's financial statements for each council are accurate (which I don't necessarily accept). It seems that my council is credited with considerably more net worth than anyone I have discussed it with believes to be the case. And I also don't believe my council has the net worth attributed to it. But, from my years on the Executive Board, I felt that the council financial statements handed out to us intentionally obfuscated content. It was impossible to determine if the camp made a profit or lost money, or Cub Day Camp, etc. Not GAAP, I think. We NEVER received any kind of profit/loss statement for any program or camp. All smoke and mirrors. Regardless, my council is planning to obtain a loan, per the SE. I think the camp is restricted, so, perhaps an unsecured line credit as we have scout office which is worth about 1/7th the loan amount. Or the phantom net worth, whatever it is, will also be collateral. What lender makes an unsecured loan to a business that lost 40% of its customers in a single year? And, if the Claimant Voters ever get good information, and 15% is the rule, then they can vote the Plan down.

I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless. As I recall, National's standard was to report a 2% membership growth year-to-year. Recruiting new members was a DE's job responsibility. Now we have a 40%± drop in membership. Further, it seems the consensus that the LC's will spend about 50% or so of their total assets and even a higher percentage of their unrestricted assets. What company just sends off 50% of its assets and feels good about it? It would be fatal to most businesses. Precisely. And they won't. The non-disclosure agreements have put the lid on mobs of irate peasants (us) storming the Lord's castle (National). The peasants have some facts and much conjecture. It does not seem to be enough to spur the needed numbers of peasants to take to the digital streets. There is no grass-roots movement, much less opposition, to the implications and growing consequences of National's bankruptcy plans. The consistent posters on this forum number 24 to 36 people. There are a number of guests, but still not typically more than 250 or so at any one time. Just not enough to get the attention of National. The guests are not motivated to register and make their voices heard. 5,000 folks sending a daily email to National for a month. Well, that's a start, perhaps. Some Claimants may be paying attention-either on this forum or other forums. There is another problem. Even educated, Scouting folks (non-claimants), at least in my orbit, are paying virtually no attention to the bankruptcy. The COR, Troop Committee Chairperson, SM-none of them seem interested and know very little about it. True, but probably of little practical importance as those voting will be voting on the Plan as a whole. Arguments for and against the Plan will be based on an aggregate analysis, not the facts pertaining to a single or limited number of LC's. For example, those voting might reject the Plan if it is shown that only 5% of LC assets are being paid into the Settlement Fund. That a council or two is paying 99% means little as the total Settlement Fund contribution is miniscule in the aggregate. Conversely, a Plan which proposes that 85% of LC assets be paid to the Settlement Fund would have a better chance of approval, even though a council or two might be paying 0%. We will be handed a fait accompli. Our choice will be to accept what is left of Scouting and soldier on, or leave in disgust (or for any other reason).

"Fraud in the inducement" and "fraud in the execution." It raises the question: "The statutes of limitation were reopened so that abuse claimants would have enforceable claims, but were the statutes of limitation reopened so that the CO's and LC 's, who may have liability on account of National's acts or omissions, can assert their claims against National for indemnification?" Probably no one considered that CO's and LC's would be claimants in their own right. Ooops.

I do hope decisions are coordinated and sooner than later. I don't know what our unit would do if we had to find another location. It only occurred to me the other day how dependent we are on having our meeting room adjoining our storage room. It would be inconvenient to have to go to, or meet at a different location to prepare for a campout, and then go to the meeting location. It would be OK to meet at the storage location the night of the campout to load up, but gear is typically returned over several troop meeting nights, and that gear would have to be ferried to the storage location. Just one more step in the process.

Roughly appears to be about 17,000 Latin Catholic Parishes, 144 Dioceses, and, 32 Archdioceses in the USA.