Jump to content

Advancement Resources

Scouting ranks, merit bades, and the advancement programs

2344 topics in this forum

    • 9 replies
    • 479 views
    • 1 reply
    • 294 views
    • 6 replies
    • 425 views
    • 18 replies
    • 1362 views
    • 6 replies
    • 339 views
    • 0 replies
    • 233 views
    • 0 replies
    • 458 views
    • 2 replies
    • 813 views
    • 21 replies
    • 1422 views
    • 3 replies
    • 392 views
    • 15 replies
    • 798 views
    • 22 replies
    • 880 views
    • 16 replies
    • 822 views
    • 10 replies
    • 511 views
    • 15 replies
    • 755 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA June 2018 revisions and current September 2020 says same Compare the above to the 2007 version
    • I'm sure this has been discussed before but I believe there was a change in 2018. In the event of a Troop dissolving who owns the assets.  Troop bank account, trailer, chuck boxes, tents and all the other stuff that has been acquired over the years. I always thought the CO owned the Troop and all of its assets but now I'm reading that the Council might have claim to some of it. Our CO has given the Troop a place to meet and nothing else.  Not a dime.  The Troop has acquired everything on its own. I just need a clear answer as to who owns what and what they can do with it if the Troop is not re-chartered.    
    • There's also two secondary aspect here (and they may not be totally "secondary") 1) This ends all claims at once. Even if every case/claim was legitimate, it would take decades of litigation. Even if only 70% or 60% or 50% were, it would be a quicker and "cleaner" solution to simply find the claims that at least meet the minimal requirements for filing a claim, figure out the assets, and divide. Otherwise, BSA gets "abuse lawsuit trial" in headlines for another 10+ years. 2) The insurance companies balked. This gets skipped over (a lot) but the other major reason BSA had to file was because several insurers refused to honor the policies claiming that either a) the policies didn't cover what BSA was accused of or b) the policies were void due to BSA's actions. That's why Hartford and other insurance companies are part of the bankruptcy as an "Adversarial" action.
    • In virtually any actual lawsuit about abuse BSA, from today, or 10 years ago, or 30 years ago, the CO, the local council, and the individual offender are all going to be sued.  Assuming the suit has merit, at the end of the trial a judgment is first rendered about each defendant: was that defendant responsible for the harm that occurred yes or no.  So if, as a matter of law BSA's programs were enough that they were not responsible for the harm than they're in the clear, same for  actions or lack of actions by council, same for CO, same for individual defendant.  After its determined who is responsible for the harm than you need to determine who is going to pay the damages.  This varies by state, some states say everyone is responsible for everything, and so everybody has to pay what they can until the victim is made whole, in some states blame is apportioned by level of responsibility, and so if a particular defendant is only 5% responsible than they only pay 5% even if that leaves the victim uncompensated. Even under these old cases, even if the CO can't be made a defendant, the CO's actions are going to be part of the decision, either in deciding blame, or if there is apportioned liability, in deciding how much of the damage BSA is responsible for.  The working assumption behind the bankruptcy and the desire to set up a universal victims' fund is that however meritorious BSA's YPT programs were, either they were according to the law insufficient, or they were not carried out well enough in an individual case to prevent that individual harm, and that the sum total of all those legitimate cases was and is greater than the liquid assets BSA would have available to pay them and still continue normal operations.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...