fred8033

Government can purchase land for many reasons. Happens all the time. Parks. Preserves. Some of the scout camps are well located to become future parks. It may be a very good opportunity to improve public lands. The only legal risk I see (not a lawyer) is if the sale is significantly below the appraised value ... even then an appraisal does not equal cash.

... same guys that came in to sell the solid gold class rings ...

Feels creepy to egregiously wrong: asking for payments first before victim gets cash while also being under contract to take a very healthy contingent percent.

So the hiring and work is not controlled by BSA or the court? The bills / work is controlled by those being owed money. ???

Greatly appreciate the links. I liked this sentence on bottom of first page... "The total time expended for fee application preparation is approximately 12.5 hours and the corresponding compensation requested is $7,627.00" Hourly rate to prepare the fee application is $610. Who are "The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors"?

@johnsch322 ... Wishing you the best. It's an ugly scaring crime. I'm not sure what else to say.

@johnsch322 ... This is what I wrote that I did not post. Let me know if it's inappropriate. If so, I'll ask moderators to remove. The trouble is absolutist statements such as "cannot relate" or "No one else in scouting has listened to them." Absolute statements block a forum for discussion with the intention that we exchange ideas and views. Case mentioned above, John Brady: The BSA records reflect an organized system, removal from position, blocking attempt to re-register. Significant effort was made to block this volunteer. This was 1968; the year society was preaching the evil of requiring seat belts in cars. Before email. Before internet. Before online databases. The records show that the perpetrator traveled 1000+ miles away and the paper-based system blocked him from re-registering. https://bsa-perpetrator-docs.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/john-l-brady.pdf The records also reflect extended military judicial handling. The military JAJ (judge advocate, joint??) documented 12 sets of parents would not let their kids testify in a court martial. The case went up multiple levels of command and into hospitals to be handled by doctors / psychiastrists. So the military legal system failed. The doctors and hospital failed. The parents failed. Yes, BSA failed too. ... The only positive I can say is BSA did block him from registering three months later in St. Louis. It all started with the first troop leaders (scoutmaster and committee members) taking this seriously. They removed the volunteer and communicated that information to the council to block the volunteer. For 1968 ... speaking to paperwork / record keeping ... This was impressive. Three months later a paper system blocked the volunteer 1000+ miles away. That itself means BSA took this very seriously. As ugly as this case is, it parallels other cases. I re-read 15 or so random cases. Most were the first LA Times listed. One in 1980s had detective T<forgot her last name> saying it was too late to file charges when it was within a year or so. Another had the city police chief sending records to BSA with request to not publicly release the records. Another in 1980s had charges brought for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". Another had the executive directory of a child rehabilitation clinic promising to not contact police as part of being able to get the interview. I have trouble accusing those from 50 years ago using today's standards, today's understanding and today's laws. The crime happened. The damage is real. The pain continues. ... BSA has fault, but so a wide wide cut of society. ... I just don't believe society in 1968 understood CSA or how handle it.

@johnsch322 ... Thank you for the kind response. This bankruptcy is painful and as you said old wounds are being re-opened. I agree with the lawsuit from the aspect that victims deserve to be heard. I do question the motivations of some involved, but overall most intended well. @johnsch322 ... I'll post what I wrote. Let me know if it's inappropriate. If so, I'll ask the moderators to remove.

I want to reply, but I don't want to be beat up over my thoughts and my opinions. They are clearly not welcome here in a forum created for scouters to discuss scouting.

Does that mean we to start a war of words with each other? Different interpretations of facts exist that reach different opinions. Either this channel is about the legalise of the bankruptcy or devolves into a yelling fest. Some people have been thru hell because of the past. Others have not. One group can bring their pain. The other can bring a moderating view. Each INDIVIDUAL has a right to their interpretation of what happened. Out of respect for the hard work of the moderators and the purpose of this channel, I've been avoiding posting. Can we keep this channel to the bankruptcy proceedings?

It feels like there is settlement marketing in the term "independent review". Isn't this just that a victim can still sue/bring a claim in court? If an insurance debtor has not settled in this case, that party isn't really subject to any mediation or bankruptcy trustee or other mechanism enabled by the current settlement. Is "independent review" a euphanism for the victim's right to bring their case to court? It's infering a settlement agreement enables a special independent review as a benefit of the current negotiated settlement. It sounds like that "independent review" is there against non-participating insurance companies whether or not the victims settle with the other debtors.

Asking to better understand the above paragraph. TDP - trust distribution procedures for the Plan Trust Independent review - review of a specific victim's claim for whether it is valued correctly So an independent review of a single claim would go to increase the trust fund available to all members? Or is it affecting the distribution of the already established dollars in the fund to increase the amount to that single victim. I was trying to understand the "go into the trust".

The mark-ups are disgusting, but not evidence of fraud. The PDF starred entries are temp workers. ... It's the nature of contracting. Law firm contacts temp company to get extra workers. Temp company pays person $16-$20 per hour. Temp company has cost (insurance, payroll taxes, sales reps, facilities). That raises their cost $20-$30 per hour. Temp company wants to make profit so charges $40 to $60 per hour. Law firm has cost (building, equipment, coordination). That raises cost to $50-$65. Law firm wants to make profit. That doubles again at least to $80-$125. It's really no different than buying product from a retail store. Walmart contracts over-seas and pays $8 per pair of pants, but charges you $35. Oversea manufacturer pays $2 for material and $1 for labor. This sounds more like a disgruntled employee. Sad to see myself defending a law firm.

The best lawyers from that time did not recognize the responsibilities / liabilities. The best insurance companies at the time did not recognize the responsibilities / liabilities. It's only seen with hindsight using new understanding and extended interpretations.

Work with the scouter to have the troop buy the building and loan it to the church for occasional use.

Well written. Related to previous post. This does not mean it can't be boy-led or operate as a troop. As with all things everyone does in life, the CO should exercise discretion using people skills. As Ben Parker said: "With great power comes great responsibility."

I'm not a legal scholar ... but it seems to me to at least mean checks and balances with real knowledge of the unit.

I hear your frustration. The issue is as you infer in your last sentence. "There must be a way to write a charter so that this does not continue to happen." The current charter does say "to use" and "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies." Most importantly, those are prefixed with "The Charter Organization agrees to:". The CO is accepting the responsibility to perform a duty. The duty is to "use" and "conduct". The CO has actions it must do. Not performing those duties or poorly performing or incompetently performing those dues is negligence and exposes the CO to legal issues. Even without a legal crisis, is it moral to sign a document with no intention of performing those duties? Sure, senior pastors and PTOs and school principals want to help the community. They should do that by opening the doors and making their facility available and welcoming scouts with a smile; not by agreeing to words they will not fulfill. I agree 100% that the contract is the issue. ... Signing an agreement is not honorific ... It is a contract. COs need to either perform their written responsibilities in the contract or not sign the contract. The facility use agreement more correctly reflects the relationship between churches/schools/others and the scouting program. It's not 100% perfect, but it's moving in the right direction. The key point is ... BSA needs to continue to fix the outdated, problematic chartering model.

THANK YOU !!!!

"You learn something every day" ... hmmm ... I fear I lost hundreds of dollars for my scouting pack and troop as I rechartered them for 15+ years. I swear I was told all unit committee member positions should be registered as committee member. When seeing this registration guidebook page 36/37, unit functional positions did not have a registration fee !!! Advancement chair. Treasurer. Secretary. etc, etc. Many were listed as no-fee !!!!! Hmmm. I was told to register them as committee members. I hope this is only a 2019 change to save money. Otherwise, I lost our unit cash not knowing this. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Registration-Guidebook.pdf

Above answers are generally true. Key point is each council can implement the MBC program differently within boundaries of BSA GTA sections 7.0.1 and 7.0.2 . A few key points that come to mind because MBC is generally not to be a unit role. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf 7.0.2.1 ... Urge troops, crews, and ships to make as many of their counselors as possible available district- or council-wide. 7.0.2.3 ... Units may establish their own lists of counselors, but these lists are sub-sets of the official district or council list. District Dean of MB would be how one council implements the MB program. Our council keeps the MBC approval at the council advancement committee. There is a sub-group of the council advancement committee that approves the MBC applications. MBC is not automatically on any district or council committee. That would be yet another registration. And another application to submit. See page 36/37 of registration guide book where the codes are listed. District committee member is one. MBC is different. Council (advancement) committee is yet another. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Registration-Guidebook.pdf

Oh. Ok. The new ballot was not for a 2nd round of voting. It's part of cleaning up the first round of voting. I was trying to get context.

Perhaps I'm 100% confused. It commonly happens. My apologies. Plus, I was vague with "this starts". You posted a PDF of a new ballot. If the new ballot starts in March ... considering first ballot has taken almost six months ... would we face a August / September result? Perhaps I'm 100% confused. It happens.

The current balloting started in September and results are not fully resolved. If this starts in March, when is the answer? September?

SO SO SO TRUE !!!!!!! I still remember the big camp toys built from trees. That was cool and the scouts thought so too. ... I also remember the lame class room styled skills training. I wanted to leave too.