fred8033

Sympathy. For years, our family spent a lot on camps; exactly as you described. Sometimes four active scouts over three scouting units. Long term ... Those most motivated often can make the biggest difference. ... Volunteer to step up as a fundraising volunteer. ... I've seen scouts earn thousands each year to afford scouting. If this was August, I'd suggest Christmas wreaths and garlands. You can often earn 50% profit and they sell really well. Other times of the year, popcorn. Sadly, "staffed" scouting isn't cheap. I was always thankful when we camped on private property or group camp sites. Those were affordable. Even then, $15 each for food plus gas plus spending money. A cheap weekend of scout camping was easily $100 for our family.

It moved around. For years, it was same as pack meeting night. Other years when we had more money and created a really big special event, it was a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night. My preference ... again mine, no rule ... is to keep a consistent night of the week. People often choose activities that align with a night of the week. If you move nights, you will lose people due to conflicts. BUT, then again ... it's once a year ... be flexible. build consensus. no single right answer exists. ... You can make it 30 or 60 minutes earlier to feed people. ... One point though is that some people will view B&G as a really big event. Others just view it as another cub night.

I'm assuming that will trigger a LC bankruptcy case ... which seems the right way to handle it. Those 20 get a claim against BSA's bankruptcy and the future local LCs bankruptcy. It seems the righ way to handle it.

January 3rd 2022 ... Welcome to year bankruptcy year four ... I started discussing bankruptcy rumors in 2019 to handle CSA, GSA etc suits. If counted from when bankruptcy was filed, we'll be starting year three in February ... BSA filed Feb 2020.

My apologies. I thought I was clear. I did not mean to trigger a button. ... My point was we (more than just your CO ... but I'd expect your diocese too) are in for long-term re-charter issues. Before bankruptcy, my COs (and others I'd expect) signed the recharter agreement but never really comfortable with it. They signed to help scouts. ... That's the past though. We are now past a transition point. COs will want the recharter agreement words to match what they are doing. Or more correctly 100% question why they are signing a charter when all they are doing is providing a place for scouts (a community group) to meet. This has been debated over and over. We can all feel righteous indignation, but it's not that simple. Past is never pretty and rarely holds up to today's judgement. I view this as a judgement of almost all organizations in the past. Blame goes far and wide.

A successful BSA bankruptcy plan will not solve re-chartering concerns. The cat is out of the bag. COs are questioning the mismatch between signed documents and the mostly independent scouting programs happening in their building. "If I were the business administrator", I'd want the signed words to match intent and reality. Anything else is negligent; morally and legally. I hope your troop's situation goes well. Hopefully a friendly smile and constructive thinking will smooth the future.

Once you start requiring finger prints, it's going to be required again and again. It's more than having the finger prints on file and more than checking if you are a criminal. It's also to prove you are who you say you are ... comparing newly recorded finger prints to previously on-file finger prints.

I'm curious. Back in the 1970s and maybe 1980s, it was difficult to identify if someone was the same person. People could change names, etc or use part of the name differently. Now, that's much more difficult to get an ID. Not impossible, but more difficult. Having read thru many IVF files ... only a very small percent involved people re-registering with different names. And again that was back in the 1960s/70s/80s(?) ... I did not see any after background checks started in the 2000s. I'm not a conspiracy person. Seriously. I don't believe people are sophisiticated enough to be successful with conspiracies. BUT ... I don't believe finger prints will prevent CSA by known leaders. This smells more like a first step to just requiring all citizens to be fingerprinted. It's like needing to pre-emptively prove you have not committed a crime. As a parent of four kids (who helped at my kid's school) and volunteer at my church and having been a college freshman who helped with his preivous high school team ... not to mention adult scout leader and helping briefly with my kids youth sport ... it feels like I would have had to hand over my finger prints pre-emptively at some point. ... Why just not require all people in the US as part of getting an official ID (drivers license, state ID, etc) to be finger printed and DNA sampled? I'm really not sure there is much of a difference. ... I'm not sure if I'm for or against it. It just feels a bit wacked that people think finger printing will reduce CSA. QUESTION - Are there recent incidents (2000+) where a youth program that does background checks had someone circumvent an effective background check to abuse? Are there cases where finger prints would have scared someone away? Or would have pre-emptively caught someone with bad intentions? I only ask as I like that our country believes in innocent until proven guilty. Supplying biometrics begins to smell of national IDs and tracking the citizens in even more detail. ... Perhaps that's where we are at. Also, it seems like this re-directs down a bad path back toward "stranger danger" understanding of abuse versus the understanding of grooming by known people/friends/family.

No perfect answer. There is no perfect way to run the troop. Many of us can see the ideal in our heads. Then, we easily get very frustrated when our visualized ideal doesn't become reality. ... So, here's my comments. Celebrate the small successes. Laugh. Have fun. Build friendships. Take small steps. Talk with your SM repeatedly to develop a plan. If you can, Challenge patrols to do something every month. Have the PLs report to everyone what their patrol did. Encourage it being fun. Our troop encouraged patrols to do an outcoor camping like activity and a fellowship activity every month. Some, patrols might just say they went to see a movie together and then ate at the food court. Some might say they went on a hike. Some might say they Share the work.

I'd second the importance of DO NOT USE UNIT LEADERS. I think this applies to current unit leaders from the same unit current unit leaders from a different unit former unit leaders from the same unit It all comes down to agendas; somehow inserting their own views / agenda with some sort of passive authority over the unit? Or, bring too much current/past history that damages being an outside friend to the unit? IMHO, the best UC is a retired SM/ASM (for a few years) that is well respected and is just looking for an excuse to stay connected to scouting and wear the uniform. ... Sadly, they get scooped up into other district roles way too fast. ... It's why I often describe a UC as a unicorn. People tell me they exist, but I've not seen one yet. I've seen very useful district commissioners, but not unit commissioners.

I agree with @yknot . There are no rules. Do what works for you and your pack. Don't create stress yourself or your fellow pack members. Key thing ... find a way to make it fun for everyone ... with minimal effort (or at least manageable). Asking parents to bring something to share is a great way to get people emotionally involved. For our pack, we did a modified pot-luck. Pack provided (and cooked) the meat and buns. Families shared sides or a desert. Families brought their own drinks. It worked great. .... There were a few of us dads that liked to hide at the grill. Full pot lucks are a great way to build fellowship in a troop. A troop of 40 scouts would have 30 scouts at the COH and would need to feed an average of 60 people. Scout are more mature and willing to roll with the punches of you get what you get. In our troop, assignments were only managed at the patrol level. Patrols were assigned main, side, desert or drink. Sometimes members brought the wrong thing. Sometimes we'd end up with lots of one thing but not a lot of another. Sometimes we had lots of sides and little main. Sometimes lots of deserts. ... It was fun to guess how it would turn out. BUT, it was always fun. Always. Our COHs were always fun.

Very common to franchises. "Commissioned" is effectively a qualification. Here is a suggested franchise supervision clause. https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/supervision-of-franchise-business "You must not hire any General Manager or successor General Manager without first receiving our written approval of such General Manager’s qualifications. Each General Manager and successor General Manager must attend and complete our Initial Training (as defined herein). Each General Manager must sign a written agreement, in a form approved by us, to maintain confidential our Confidential Information described in Section 9.1, and to abide by the covenants not to compete described in Section 15.5. You must forward to us a copy of each such signed agreement. If we determine, in our sole discretion, during or following completion of the Initial Training program, that your General Manager (if any) is not qualified to act as General Manager of the Franchise, then we have the right to require you to choose (and obtain our approval of) a new individual for that position." The most famous parallel example is McDonald's Hamburger University. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University Franchises can also have on-site training / assessments and be required to get approval of who buys and is employed by the franchise. https://www.franchise.com/blog/training-franchisors-provide/ https://www.sba.gov/blog/8-rules-franchisees-must-follow

Could be argued (not by me) that COs are making substantial contribution because the insurance contribution is by the same insurance policy that covers the CO. Effectively, that's the CO making a significant contribution thru their insurance coverage.

Correct. It was a simple summary saying law firms probably support third party releases as it supports larger awards and faster conclusions; versus on-going litigation in many courts. My opinion is (like in BSA case) the result gets unwieldy; denies plaintiffs their day in court; lacks balance (bankrupt company becomes a new company; other debtor continues on); and in BSA's case, is just way too complex to be fair. The idea of bankruptcy protection seems right. It's a chance to start fresh where there is value to continuing. Liability protection for those not going thru bankruptcy feels like another form of unjust enrichment.

@ThenNow ... By the way ... I know we've often been of differing opinions ... but I want to let you know ... I really appreciate your posting article / news links. The sources are extremely useful and helps me learn. Thank you.

Conernnig NRPA, I'm not sure which side of the fence you are on. I weight the article based on it's source. A law firm. NRPA allows for larger awards and maybe faster results (debate-able). At the same time, it slams the rights of both victims and non-debtors to have their time in court. I'm a rules guy. It seems like a mismatch for a non-debtor to get protection from another's bankruptcy. The non-debtor continues to exist; same company; with share-holders retaining value.

Reading about 3rd party releases last night. District courts are not consistent. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/third-party-releases-are-not-consistent-bankruptcy-code-creditors-can-still-maintain 11 district courts ... https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf BSA bankruptcy is district 3 (Deleware) Districts 4 & 11 - legal (3rd party releases) District 6 & 7 - believe "residual authority" ... not sure limits Districts 5, 9 & 10 - not legal Districts 1, 2, 3, 8 - ??? Fascinating topic.

The settlement trust resolving the mess would probably be the most efficient solution. Instead, we're in for years of proceedings. As for the future, ... if BSA can survive bankruptcy, it will have followers. The legal process can easily make anyone look like a smuck. BSA still has deep legacy that will help. Plus, the ideals still exist. It's a matter of being able to focus. PERVERSELY HUMOROUS COMMENT: This December our family received legal notice and a small amount of money from a bankruptcy trustee. We were surprised. The case started in 1923. Case was reopened in 2015. ... Still though. Wow. ... 98 years ... I've searched court records and ... if I pay money ... the 1923 (and on) court records would be scanned and brought online. ... It is enough money to buy a nice meal for two at a very nice restaurant. ... I really want to know ... what were the total legal fees for a 98 year old case?

I'm saying people leave because they are burnt out. A trigger is needed. I doubt G2SS is the trigger. It might receive a share of blame, but I doubt it's a trigger.

I don't buy it. Scouter's regularily burn out and blame it on other things. Their personal belief in scouting chains them to the program. It's almost like they are waiting for a reason to step away. The first time I saw it in scouting was when OA chapters merged. Expert and extremely committed scouters couldn't be flexible to work together and each wanted to be the advisor. So one walked. ... Reality is the person was burnt out by a big commitment and just needed a trigger to leave. I'm sure in many ways it was an absolutely relief and also a badge of victimhood to wear and a story to repeat. Times change. We can't expect the program and the rules from long ago. ... G2SS is not perfect. Many of the rules are hard to apply in nuanced sitautions. BUT, the key is learning how to apply and asking for advice and guidance. Also, providing feedback to get rules fixed. My posts were based on two very specific comments. #1 Infering we can play a G2SS game. Now, I'm a scouter. Now, I'm not. Then a few hours later, I'm a scouter again. #2 Similar, the comment that G2SS has rules that you don't really need to follow and that it's an ethical decision each scouter needs to make. ... We should not teach those examples.

Again ... I know we are all experienced scouters ... and I have deep respect for our commitment to the scouting program. I cringe. These should NOT be the words of a scouter. PERIOD. Our oaths mean something. Our promises mean something. Our character is on the line when we sign saying we will represent BSA and follow the program. I'm far from perfect, but I do try to measure my decisions based on G2SS guidance when it involes scouting youth. Ethical justification? We're not talking life and death situations. We're applying G2SS to daily life. No one is forcing you to be a registered BSA leader. Further, how do you draw your line? It's silly, but you can use similar justification to ignore other G2SS rules. Laser tag? Handguns? Full contact martial arts? Hazing? KEY COMMENT: I'm an old-school character guy with John Wayne as the type of hero I respect. He'd spit in your eye if you give him a rule he won't or can't follow. He'd have contempt for a man that makes a promise with the plan to break that promise. It's two faced. My eyes view it as cut and dry. Do your best to follow G2SS or don't be a registered leader. When you have trouble following the rules, pull in others (DE, council training or membership chair, etc) for guidance. I've had a few that fall in that category. I've talked with our council training and advancement chairs to make sure I'm applying a reasonable G2SS interpretation. Finally, playing the scouting vs non-scouting game is how a significant number of past abuse cases happened. Non-scouting events with scouting leaders and scouting youth. Again, my apologies. I know everyone is trying to do their best to raise their own kids; be a good leader; and, to give back to the community. I have a lot of respect for that.

I've dealt with similar, but chosen to follow G2SS as best I can. To be really, really honest ... and please forgive my response, but it is my view. I absolutely cringe hearing that comment. It is very dangerous and shows contempt for the Scout Law and contempt for the program that you've put your signature saying you will follow. Even tongue in cheek, it is absolutely NOT something we should say or do. It is absolutely a violation of G2SS. It is a bad example to set for our youth. I am really sad to hear a scout leader saying those words.

I've seen this too. The newly 18 year old that we have to tell that he can't share a tent with his long-time friend that he shared a tent with the month earlier. I'm not sure the right rule, but there needs to be an exception based on age and position. Perhaps ... Age needs to be within two years. Same as the existing G2SS rule for youth. Perhaps a new position of a young adult mentor that is not direct leadership role. The challenge is USA has some hard rules triggered by turning 18. Someone more knowledgable would need to navigate that issue.

Will criminal charges affect the lawsuit? Would insurance companies use a criminal conviction or trial as proof that the damage was not covered? BSA's current insurance is general liability; not covering criminal acts. BSA site: "The general liability policy does not provide indemnification or defense coverage to those individuals who commit intentional and criminal acts. The Boy Scouts of America does not have an insurance policy that provides defense for situations involving allegations of intentional and criminal acts." https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/ I'm not sure what past insurance was like, but I would expect the policies would be similar. Also, I'm not sure if BSA is still insured or if it's just the individuals. ... I find I only understand insurance after-the-fact.

I thought I heard in the past that BSA had been paying for counseling for some past victims. I remember reading it. The poster commented that when bankruptcy started those payments stopped.