Jump to content

Working with Kids

Counseling, inspiring and teaching kids.

809 topics in this forum

    • 12 replies
    • 35 replies
    • 1 reply
  1. 'Mommy, I Know You'

    • 0 replies
  2. " Controlled Risk"

    • 2 replies
    • 19 replies
    • 0 replies
    • 26 replies
  3. "Catching Kayla"

    • 2 replies
    • 0 replies
    • 5 replies
  4. "Goofball"

    • 9 replies
    • 8 replies
  5. "JUSTICE"

    • 8 replies
    • 49 replies

    • I have confirmed all of this with our denominational leadership. I don't think that the word has gotten down to the council level yet in many instances.  We are clearly heading into a tipping point, probably more rapidly than most of us would have anticipated. This is a route to attempt to deal with the recommendations by conference attorneys that churches distance themselves from Boy Scouting. The irony here is that the program is probably the safest it has been in the past fifty years. And needed more than ever, I believe. I understand the concerns but sense the danger of an over-reaction. The new option would allow our existing units to continue to function even if a chartered partner choose to cease sponsorship. 
    • The new CO agreement released by national is a game changer. New form released November 23: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/524-182_web.pdf Old form: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-182WB.pdf EDIT: As for "imminent", it would have to be within days or maybe a week or two in order to make the December 31 deadlines for recharter
    • We have heard rumors here. Our "sitting-on-the-fence" CO has asked about charging facility fees for "hosting" a unit. I can't see adding unit assets to the local council during Chapter 11. My $0.02,
    • It appears that we are on the verge of seeing a major change in the model used by the BSA with organizations that host Scouting units. It would change the relationship from one where the sponsor “owns” the unit(s) to one in which the unit(s) is viewed as a distinct community organization “housed” by the organization. A tenant, so to speak. There would be a formal “hosting” agreement signed with the organization. This is similar to the model that has been used by the Girl Scouts. Our understanding is that chartered organizations will be given the option of either continuing with the long-standing current model or changing to the new model. The specific date that the new option will be available is unclear but appears to be imminent. The sponsor must make the decision about which model they will use if they choose to continue an association with Boy Scouting. This change in sponsorship models apparently arises out of major liability concerns expressed by some organizations and denominations.  Currently, some chartered organizations have declined to re-charter and attorneys have advised of a significant liability risk for continued sponsorship, especially if the BSA is overwhelmed by claims. This change would affect only future liability. If a chartered organization chooses to continue with the present model, it is our understanding that there will be a revised agreement. It will specifically state indemnification and insurance coverage. For units whose chartered organizations chooses to only provide meeting space in the future, the unit(s) would be “owned” by the council. If it follows the Girl Scout model, which has not been clarified, then unit assets would be “owned” by the council. This could have an impact in several areas such as bank accounts, titling of trailers and the ability to receive donations. This apparently is very much a work in progress at the national level in response to the threat of losing a significant proportion of community sponsors. We understand that there will be more detailed information available within the next week. While this development was not unexpected, it still will have a profound impact on the nature of the organization in the future.
    • yes. some are. I apologize for using a wide brush. My point (I bumbled) was that the bankruptcy hearings and tort against BSA cannot hold any individual liable unless they are named in the suit as a respondent.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Create New...