David CO

The 3 should align. Reimbursement, liability protection, and YPT.

I agree. In some units, where the scouts are all members of a Chartered Organization, like a church or school, all of the scouts and scouters have some sort of connection or relationship outside of scouting. A settlement would settle nothing.

Try walking upright.

This is a scouting forum. We never make smart comments.

Did he say he wasn't expecting to speak, or he wasn't prepared to speak. There is a difference. If he wasn't expecting to speak, but he came prepared to speak anyhow, I'm impressed. Be Prepared. ,

You missed the bag?

It is too much. I would never ask a parent to take on more than one leadership position at a time. You have been a parent long enough to know that you can't help with all of your kids' activities. They know it too. This clinches it. Dogs should be treated like royalty.

Drop it.

Fair enough.

I can't stomach that position if that position means the old guard, who guided us into this foul abyss, remain in their positions on the national and council boards. They are the ones who shouldn't be here. They should be gone. I can't stand the idea that BSA will lose billions, we will lose our camps, membership will plummet, the remaining kids will pay skyrocketing dues and fees, and yet the silver buffalo crowd will all hang on to their positions of honor and power in BSA. It makes my blood boil.

I think you've got it backwards. People haven't stopped using council camps because they aren't well maintained. The council camps aren't well maintained because people have stopped using them.

If that had happened, the councils would be getting a much better price for their camps.

If a Catholic diocese went through bankruptcy a few years ago during the clergy sexual abuse scandal, are their CO's still on the hook for the BSA lawsuits?

I'm surprised the moderators haven't stepped in. We are drifting pretty far off from the topic of this conversation.

Very true. Many scouters on this forum have said as much in past topics. Many have also stated that the CO is more of a sponsor of scouting than the owner of the unit. Neither have I. I don't think BSA would recognize someone as IH unless he/she is the head of the Chartering Organization. This doesn't mean an IH cannot have someone above them in the hierarchy. AD/Parish/Diocese/Holy See or PTA/school/school district/state

I understand that thinking. It might work if the scout unit thinks of itself as a stand-alone entity rather than an integrated program of a CO's youth outreach. A CO will often try to make rules and procedures so that they can apply them to all of its programs. That way, nobody feels picked on. The rules apply to everyone. We don't want sports programs and scouting programs complaining that we favor one over the other. So it goes both ways. Sometimes the scouts greatly benefit by it. Sometimes the scouts feel unnecessarily restricted by it. I think it all evens out over the long run.

As an IH, my job was to ensure that the scouting program follows the rules and procedures of the Chartered Organization.

Most of the scouters on the forum would agree with you.

Absolutely. Every activity has its fanatics. Scouting isn't unique in this, but neither is it immune to it. The fanatics need to be controlled. If they can't be controlled, they need to be removed.

It's possible. The CO owns the unit. I never liked the idea of transferring units and CO shopping. This adds one more reason for me to dislike the practice. A new CO should always start out with a new unit. New number and everything. No inherited baggage. I've been hearing that some councils don't want to take on the charters of these old legacy units. Do you think they might know something about this inherited liability question? As usual, not a word about it from BSA.

I totally agree. OA is not a unit activity. Not at all. Except when the CO needs to clarify its position that OA is not a unit activity.

Your posts are so well written, it puts the rest of us to shame. Since a scout is kind, It would appear that the moderators have graciously consented to remove some of your better written posts in order to save the rest of us from the pain and humiliation that any comparisons of your posts with the posts of other members of the forum would surely cause. On behalf of myself and other members of the forum, we hope you understand.

I don't know which is more frustrating, a CO who doesn't realize it owns the unit, or a former CO who thinks it still owns the unit. Once a CO gives up its charter, it isn't their unit anymore. They don't own it. It belongs to someone else. It is not their unit under a different format.

I don't know if that was the OP's intent, but it was certainly the intent of the KKK members who first used that title in their publications. I can tell you, from first hand experience, that this is exactly how the KKK presents themselves to prospective recruits.

I don't think I would recommend that any CO adopt an existing unit. Who knows what baggage comes with it? If it is discovered that a scout in that unit was molested 40 years ago, it is possible that the new CO will have its name and reputation dragged through the mud as well.