Major Change in Chartered Organization Relationship

[walk in the woods]

2 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

We've had the discussion wondering what would stop a family from suing the place where the Facilities are used.  So not being the CO wouldn't make any difference.

Nothing would stop them and there would be no difference.

[Eagle94-A1]

4 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

 So people  are now going to start suing the Charter Organizations where the 'issue' occured?  I thought that was covered by the BSA Umbrella..... 

And at is what many COs, and probably a few councils too, believed when they paid the charter fee. That is what I was told as a DE, and what I told prospective COs. In fact it was a "selling" point. Heck I was told that as early as 1993.

[CynicalScouter]

6 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

Sorry to be so dense, but what are all these 'waves of lawsuits' you mention? 

The current bankruptcy stay was partially lifted to allow new lawsuits to be filed (but not taken any further than filing). In states like NJ, NY, Arkansas (newly enacted law), NC, this will meant or has meant hundreds of lawsuits are coming against BSA, local councils, and COs.

The BSA "umbrella" covers all 3 (BSA, LCs, and COs) FOR NOW. What may likely happen is that if BSA emerges from bankruptcy, it will NOT cover LCs (the "toggle plan") or covers SOME LCs and COs, but not others.

That's why the COs like the LDS Church and Methodist Churches have absolutely come out in opposition to the BSA plan: it leaves them to fend for themselves when they feel they were promised BSA protection.

6 hours ago, GrammaScout said:

We've had the discussion wondering what would stop a family from suing the place where the Facilities are used.  So not being the CO wouldn't make any difference.

Sure, anyone can be sued for anything, but it won't get that far in court. The facilities agreement makes it clear that it is a FACILITIES ONLY agreement. If the BSA unit is sexually abusing kids, the facility that they are meeting in takes NO responsibility and has no liability.

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

That is what I was told as a DE, and what I told prospective COs. In fact it was a "selling" point. Heck I was told that as early as 1993.

Yep. Only BSA has now said

1.  Coverage only started in 1977 or 1978.
2. Prior to that, the COs were on their own.
3. And there are caps/maxes. So if the abuse victim sues and wins $3 million, BSA (and its insurance) covers the first $X million (depends on the policy year), the rest is on the COs.

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's why the COs like the LDS Church and Methodist Churches have absolutely come out in opposition to the BSA plan: it leaves them to fend for themselves when they feel they were promised BSA protection.

Currently, they are being promised protection (at least for charter year 2021):

[CynicalScouter]

29 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Currently, they are being promised protection (at least for charter year 2021):

Yep. And a case can be made for 1977-2021 that the COs were covered. The problem is pre-1977 claims and claims that exceed BSA's insurance maximums per occurrence or total.

Edited June 11, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mrjohns2]

34 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The problem is pre-1977 claims and claims that exceed BSA's insurance maximums per occurrence or total.

Now those troop longevity bars are a sign of potential liability. :-{

[MattR]

Since the Ch 11.3 thread is wondering around CO's and their responsibilities I thought I'd try and drag that sub thread over here.

The discussion was CO's are not responsible. That's clear to me. The question, however, is what to do going forward. Just changing the wording on the agreement doesn't make anyone responsible. Who takes on the responsibility that the CO no longer will evade? It won't be the DE. It won't be a background check.

[GrammaScout]

On 6/9/2021 at 9:12 PM, GrammaScout said:

 

On 6/10/2021 at 3:57 AM, CynicalScouter said:

"Own" was never in the agreement. However, the text and context made it clear that the CO was owner of the unit.

Well, it was in the Charter Agreement about 2013...that is when some unknowledgable guys went ballistic when they read that word.  And it has been paranoia ever since.

 

 

[GrammaScout]

On 12/5/2020 at 8:04 AM, ProScouter06 said:

I’m not sure I’d agree that council execs have always wanted to have direct control of units... I worked for the BSA professionally for almost a decade and never once heard this sentiment across the four states I worked or at any regional or national gathering.
 

I will say that we often wished that units could offer more consistency in quality, but that never meant we wanted control. I think there’s a difference. 

I have never heard a thing about Council Execs wanting to have direct control of Units.  Why ever would they?  Directions and 'suggestions' are plentiful to tell Troops 'how to do everything'.  However:   It should be common sense that each Troop is a bit different than the next one.  Size, funding, volunteers, location, etc. and the 'management' are all up for 'adjustment' depending upon such variables.  Council Execs could never keep up with the differences.   

 

[yknot]

37 minutes ago, MattR said:

Since the Ch 11.3 thread is wondering around CO's and their responsibilities I thought I'd try and drag that sub thread over here.

The discussion was CO's are not responsible. That's clear to me. The question, however, is what to do going forward. Just changing the wording on the agreement doesn't make anyone responsible. Who takes on the responsibility that the CO no longer will evade? It won't be the DE. It won't be a background check.

I think that's largely going to be the Councils going forward? Could be good, could be bad. It might force Councils to finally understand and deal with local unit issues if they are knee deep in them. One of the dysfunctional aspects of the scouting structure is that we have different levels operating in different directions to meet different goals. This might collapse the CO/Unit/District/Council layers into one more functional entity. The bad side could be if instead of learning Councils simply tried to mandate down to units.  

[mrjohns2]

1 hour ago, GrammaScout said:

Well, it was in the Charter Agreement about 2013...that is when some unknowledgable guys went ballistic when they read that word.  And it has been paranoia ever since.

I have looked at 08, 09, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 21. None say own. I could not find 2013. I guess it could have been an outlier. 

[GrammaScout]

mrjohns2:  Thank you for checking...but where then was the 'word' own that was the impetus for a contentious

meeting with Staff, Clergy, Church Council...." I remember when the President at that time  came up to us and waved/shoved the Charter in my husbands face...yes...and yelled something about didn't you and the other past presidents even read this before you signed it?..........................pertaining to the word 'own'...    My husband had served two terms as President and also two terms as President at a nearby Lutheran Church whose Troop is managed by themselves was a Scout, all three sons are Eagles and he has worked for countless years in some Adult capacity or another..We have three grandsons, also on the Trail....I think he has read the Charter many times....eh?

I just don't get this.   Could we have had a charter made just by our District?  I don't know how such things work...

This word 'own' was grabbed by a power-hungry Church Manager and she claimed every last thing was 'hers'  or 

'ours'..as in the Church.  She even took the Medical Records and locked them in a drawer in her locked Office...

After being called to the Church several times in the early evening or the early morning to unlock and give them

to the Scoutmaster as the Troop prepared for an outing,  she eventually gave up that effort of abuse of power.

[MikeS72]

17 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Currently, they are being promised protection (at least for charter year 2021):

If my interpretation of the last two lines is correct, it would not cover abuse of a scout, as that is both intentional and criminal.  While it may be argued that it could not have been expected, it was certainly intended (at least by the perpetrator).

[CynicalScouter]

3 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

If my interpretation of the last two lines is correct, it would not cover abuse of a scout, as that is both intentional and criminal.

It would not cover the ABUSER.

It would cover the CO since the only claim against them would be civil (not criminal) negligence (not intentional act) in failing in their duty to care for the scout.