Jump to content

Order of the Arrow

Discussions for OA Members and those interested in Scouting's Honor Society. Also includes a private sub-forum for OA Members only.


Subforums

  1. Western Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussions

    39
    posts
  2. NOAC

    Been to NOAC? Heading there? Chat about the Order's bi-annual gathering

    158
    posts
  3. Central Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussions

    136
    posts
  4. Northeast Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussions

    50
    posts
  5. Southern Region

    Sections, Lodges and local discussion

    154
    posts

566 topics in this forum

    • 11 replies
    • 1.6k views
    • 32 replies
    • 6.9k views
    • 69 replies
    • 5.8k views
  1. A Lënape Carol

    • 0 replies
    • 974 views
    • 41 replies
    • 5.3k views
    • 1 reply
    • 1.2k views
    • 2 replies
    • 1.6k views
    • 10 replies
    • 2.5k views
  2. Camping Nights 1 2

    • 26 replies
    • 6k views
    • 7 replies
    • 2.4k views
    • 94 replies
    • 11.3k views
  3. Odd Year in OA

    • 5 replies
    • 1.8k views
    • 0 replies
    • 2.3k views
    • 15 replies
    • 3.5k views
  4. Ordeal Ceremony Sequence 1 2

    • 25 replies
    • 5k views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Er, sorta. The sale and transfers may take place if the money is kept separate and secured and is for fair market value. So, no quick transfers for $1 (looking at you, Middle Tennessee Council). Also keep in mind that the LC plan calls for cash and properties BUT that cash can be substituted. So, if a council wants to keep its camp, it has to make up the difference entirely in cash. This also addresses the situation in councils that are so small or broke or unique they have no camps or offices (Colonial Virginia, Gulf Coast, Far East, Transatlantic, a few others)
    • Stupid question, so here it goes.   I thought the bankruptcy but a hold on all sales and transfers of property and other assets?
    • Technically, they didn't. What they did was sign "letters of intent": IF the BSA plan goes into effect and IF the LCs are covered by such a plan THEN the LCs will pay out. No plan that covers LCs, no money from the LCs.
    • FYI: Interesting article I read about retroactive extension of statutes of limitations in civil matters. While the U.S. Supreme Court has said since Calder v. Bull (1798) that such things do not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on states passing ex post facto laws (holding, in part, that the provision applies only to CRIMINAL law) state constitutions have been read in such a way that such an attempt to extend civil statutes of limitations would be a violation of the defendants under the state constitution's due process and ex post facto provisions. 24 states have a per se rule against such statutes and two others (New York and Wisconsin) only allow it for "exceptional" circumstances. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3446&context=vlr "Departing from the federal approach, twenty-four states have held that a retroactive extension to a statute of limitations that revives an otherwise time-barred claim is per se impermissible, meaning that it is absolutely invalid in any context. Seven of the per se states depart from the federal approach because of specific prohibitions against retroactive legislation in their own state constitutions. (Alabama, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) Eleven per se states (Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia) depart from the federal approach even further by holding that retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations are a direct infringement on a vested property right that is created under their state constitutions. In these states, once a claim has time-lapsed, the potential defendant enjoys a vested property right and no longer needs to defend against a particular claim. Under this type of constitutional interpretation, unlike the federal approach, any infringement on that right to be free from suit is considered a violation of substantive due process and invalid legislation. Six states hold retroactive extensions of the statute of limitations to be invalid per se without relying on their state constitutions to support this position. Five states embrace the per se invalid approach but do not cite any source in their constitution or general statutes that create a protected vested right. In these five states—Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania—the complete prohibition against revival of time barred claims is a rule of construction as opposed to a statutory or constitutional restriction. Vermont’s prohibition on retroactive legislation is rooted in a state statutory provision, rather than any limitation imposed by the Vermont constitution."
    • USA Gynmastics hid / protected / ignored Nassar.  Are you saying BSA hid / protected / ignored abusers since 2010?  Are you saying BSA had a single abuser that victimized 500 people?   I'm not willing to go there.  Was mandatory reporting done?  Was YPT followed?  Did BSA shield the abusers?  Was the same single abuser allowed to victimize 500 claims?  As much as people want to hate BSA, they've done a lot for YPT in the last 20 years.  A huge amount.  This seems like a very different situation than USA Gymnastics.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...