United Methodists might be pulling charters

[BadenP]

skeptic, et al,

 

My so called anomosity towards National is based on years of experience 25 years as a leader and 5 years as a DE/Sr.DE, with those so called "scouting professionals", and in case you have not noticed many other posters here have even more distain for National than I do. In my own case however I feel that National is necessary and could be saved from its own self created destructive path if there is some major changes made and soon, a sort of cleaning house of all the deadwood currently occupying that office. I really find it hard to believe that any current scout leader is actually happy with the current job National is doing as we watch our organization continue to dwindle and programs change for the worse.

 

In all honesty many of National supporters in this forum are long retired from active scouting and base their opinions on the good old days. Well the good old days are gone forever and the there are currently some serious weeds choking the life out of a program we all love and support, and all I am saying it is time to pull out those weeds before our progam dies out completely. It will not be the Methodists or the LDS or the Catholics who will decide the future of scouting it will be the leaders out in the field delivering the program every day.

[Abel Magwitch]

...Unfortunately, what is in play with BadenP has little to do with most issues in reality...

 

On the contrary, BadenP speaks reality. He is proclaiming that the emporer has no clothes and there are many who refuse to see. Many of his comments reflect my council as well as others. I find it fascinating that some of the troubles I see in my council are the same in other councils around the country.

 

I have often stated that for those in Scouting who are lucky to be living in parts of the country where Scouting thrives; where membership is still strong; where the traditional units are still the norm; where the council is well funded and managed by good pros; where the council camp is in repair, fantastic. I envy you. But BadenP speaks from his experience both volunteer and professional.

 

If you are unfortunate to belong to a council in one of the country's more depressed and poor areas, I can guarantee that the volunteers are struggling to get any service from the council. The council professionals are only concerned with meeting membership goals and they will do what ever it takes to get those membership numbers up. In School scouting is abused. Units are formed yearly in schools and whole classrooms are registered as members in the fall when the registration fee is low. Who cares if the unit ever meets the rest of the year? The kids are registered and the membership criticals are made. And all along the camps are run down; there are few district events; and council ends up on breaking their promises to the youth by not fulfilling their part of the bargain by providing the promised program at summer camp the Scouts paid for.

 

Skeptic, go ahead and put BadenP on your ignore list. What you are essentially doing is putting your fingers in your ears and saying lalalalala. But it wont change the truth BadenP is writing about. It is in fact reality in his council. There are indeed crappy councils out there. There are bad pros out there. And national is making decisions which do not reflect the spirit of Scouting. The folks that notice it the most are those who have been involved in Scouting for more than 35 years and are still around. I am one of those. If you dont want to believe that collusion is going on in the professional ranks of Scouting, you are only fooling yourself.

 

And a suggestion for any other volunteers stuck in a poor council. You want to learn some things? Get in touch with some former professionals who left the council after only working for a year or less; those who you may find left the profession in a poor economy because they could not continue working for a corporation where the sole purpose was to manipulate the volunteers in order to make personal gains and doing so while neglecting the youth they were hired to serve.

 

I say kudos to BadenP and others who are speaking the truth. Though it may seem that nobody is listening, realize that you are being heard.

 

[Tokala]

WasE61, funny thing about that liability issue: the BSA carries the primary coverage for the liability and the charter organization is secondary. Besides, in civil cases, the individual can sue whoever they want. First rule of lawsuits :"Don't sue people that don't have money"

[skeptic]

Well, the ignore list does not work anyway, as is obvious with this. Noted that two others I put there are also regularly appearing to me; so guess it has a problem.

 

My issue here is that the comments are vicious and dripping with very non scouting attitude. Some of his comments, if you can get past the vitriol, are reality; I have not denied that. But, even if something positive or possibly a move in the right direction occurs, he is negative.

 

So, it is the "black cloud" attitude and extreme comments that I find make his contributions less than believable. But, as noted, apparently, I still will have to see them and decide if I want to read and be rained on with negativity while looking for an element of fact or usefulness. And I hope this attitude IS only visible here, rather than in any direct relations with scouts and scouters, as they certainly would not encourage much on the unit level. Just my own opinion, and I can assure you that I do not wear blinders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WasE61]

Tokala : I think you might have missed a subtlety ... that being that neither the BSA nor the CO insurance will cover a civil action that is based on a criminal act. From other postings, that is what the UMC is worried about; civil exposure from criminal acts (of sexual abuse) by Scout leaders. No insurance will cover the damages in that case.

 

So, the UMC may be looking for BSA to indemnify them out of their own pockets. BSA's position has been that it is the CO's responsibility to weed out the ineligibles, but with BSA keeping records and not necessarily notifying the CO's, nor the authorities, its become a rats nest of culpability. Possibly the UMC no longer trusts BSA to keep the CO's best interest.

 

In fact, there could even be a case for not just suing the organizations, but also the individuals in those organizations. Churches don't generally protect volunteers, typically just the clergy and board members are covered...so if the COR is not specifically protected, they are at financial risk as well.

[Beavah]

Nah, WasE61, you're not understandin' the way things work, eh?

 

Quite naturally as a matter of law and public policy, yeh cannot ensure an individual or entity for strict liability for criminal acts. So da perpetrator of a criminal act cannot be covered by insurance, quite rightly. Jerry Sandusky doesn't get the benefit of insurance.

 

That in no way affects the Chartered Organization who may be named in a suit as the responsible "superior" of the volunteer who committed the crime. The CO remains fully covered by the general liability policy. Penn State does get the benefit of insurance. That's the point of insurance, eh?

 

Yep, yeh can choose to name individuals along with organizations. In fact that's typically what will happen. A boy gets hurt on an outing, the parents will sue the individual scout leader(s), the Chartered Organization as responsible superior, the BSA, the manufacturer of da climbing equipment, the owner of the land, whatever. The BSA general liability coverage protects both da Chartered Organization and all of its members and volunteers. Da scout leaders, da pastor, da church board of elders, etc. are all covered as primary. Of course most of 'em are likely to have statutory immunity from ordinary negligence torts anyway.

 

The exposure for da CO is only if the BSA coverage limits are exceeded, in which case their own insurance comes in to play. That's not a big deal, because it would be exactly the same as if a kid were hurt at their Bible camp. They still run Bible camps on just their own insurance. Again, no real problem.

 

Beavah

 

[RememberSchiff]

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Commissioners/newsletter/bsa_news/10_2012_liability_changes.aspx

 

"Old Republic Insurance Company provides the first $1 million in coverage. Additional policies, all providing primary coverage to the chartered organization, have been purchased so that more than $5 million in primary coverage is provided.

 

There is no coverage for those who commit intentional or criminal acts. Liability insurance is purchased to provide financial protection in the event of accidents or injury that occur during an official Scouting activity."

[Beavah]

Yah, RememberSchiff, I'm not sure whether yeh posted that to agree with me or to try to say I was wrong.

 

What da text you copied actually means is da exact same thing I wrote. "Intentional or criminal acts" is a term of art in da legal world which has a specific meaning that's a bit different than da colloquial meaning. The CO did not commit a criminal act, nor did it deliberately intend to harm kids.

 

Now, what gets a bit tricky is that da several states take somewhat different approaches to interpretation, and there can in some jurisdictions be an argument that some form of negligence by da CO in supervision or vetting amounted to an intention to harm children in a particular way. There is no coverage for a CO that believes in pedophilia and sets up a scout troop intending to molest kids, nor should there be. Da question would be, within da way "intention" is interpreted in da jurisdiction, whether the organization's lack of care amounted to the same thing as that sort of intention to harm.

 

IMO that's a hard case to make against a church in a molestation incident, and lots of states have pretty draconian penalties against "bad faith" insurers who try that sort of thing.

 

Da BSA and its providers have an excellent reputation as honorable, good-faith insurers.

 

A real question would be whether there's an exclusion in da BSA contract for child abuse or molestation. Many insurers these days do limit that so as to provide an additional fee-based rider for sexual misconduct insurance, which might also have different limits. That would be worth askin' the BSA to clarify in writing, which might be what da UMC is doin'.

 

As always, nuthin' a furry anonymous internet critter writes should be taken as gospel, or as legal opinion or advice. In actual cases, this stuff can get sort of complimicated. If yeh want gospel, go to church. If yeh want legal advice, talk to a competent attorney in your state.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagle92]

Ok I am coming to BP's defense here. Yes he can be abrupt at times. Yes he can criticize folks at national. And it may seem un-Scoutlike.

 

BUT, BP has seen the Darkside of Scouting: he was a professional. And some of the folks he worked with or for are currently at national, or recently retired from there. So he has first hand expereince, and "a Scout is trustworthy," so his opinions may be very valid.

 

I know the SE I worked for went to national eventually. I personally think they promoted him so he wouldn't cause anymore problems. Yes some folks at national do care deeply about Scouting. And unfortunately others think it's just a job.