fred8033

It's like summer camp. Our camp has at least 50 troop sites. I really bet that 30+ of those sites are really good. In those sites, I'm betting scouts think their site is the best. They know it. They have good memories. They want to go back next year. So when your troop chooses to stay mostly separate, I'd bet it's more that they like your troop and have had good experiences. They want to avoid change and the unknown. Those same scouts ... if they had joined with a co-ed troop ... they would only know that co-ed troop and would be perfectly happy with it. ... again ... generally ... most scouts ...

Ummm ... The words manage, direct, operate, etc are not explicitly there. What is there are words such as: "The Chartered Organization, as a duly constituted organization that serves youth, desires to use the program(s) of the BSA to further its mission respecting the youth it supports." The CO agreement says CO wants "to use the (scouting) program". By use, it means it's running the program. Further words are similar to that. Then, each leader app requires a charter org rep signature. The charter org selects the leaders and can setup the program as they want. Those unit leaders are effectively CO representatives running the scouting program. Unit failures are CO failures. Units that don't follow G2SS or leaders that don't get trained or ... etc do reflect CO negligence.

Parents can hang out at all the 2 day and 2.95 day camps. It's when a single camp is 72 hours long or the parent stays cumulatively at that event for 72 hours. Cost ... I don't see much of a solution. I know some game it by registering as MBCs. It is significantly cheaper. Free. Most should register as committee members. I say that as having a parent hang-out at camp but register as an ASM causes issues as they are direct-involvement role. They need to be in-sync and coordinated with SM. Sometimes it's better to have parents hang-out with other adults and let scouts be scouts. Only a few SM/ASM should be directly interacting with the scouts.

Yes with the exception that we don't want side-effects of visiting parents to be a structured youth protection mechanism. It's too haphazard with too much variance unit-to-unit and event-to-event. Related ... G2SS explicitly says ... "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders. The BSA does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program" ... This might have a slight conflict with the 72 hour rule. If the parent is to be at the camp longer than 72 hours, BSA wants them registered with a background check. ... My view is ... The 72 hours is a threshold to say "Come on, the person is really a registered leader and not just a casual parent observing. They need a background check". There is no reason units can't register people who only attend for 24 hours. BUT, if longer than 72 hours (a summer camp or extended adventure issue), they must be registered. FYI ... Parents can still drop in for visits ... cumulatively up to 24 / 48 / 71 hours for that event. BUT, if longer, they need to be registered. I view the 72 hour rule as a YP protection mechanism to call units that might game the system on "who is a leader". Parents attending for less than 72 hours might reduce incidents. It's just not a structured / dependable YP mechanism.

Big swing against the BSA, but I'm not sure it helps the claimants. I could easily see a failed bankruptcy resulting in less dollars for many victims. More for some by actions against their specific LC. Only path out seems to be a BSA only bankruptcy exit. The other parties maintain their liability.

... Electing seems to also beg the overly heavy focus on advancement. Adults fear SPL/PL appointing positions won't be fair to kids looking to advance ... which ignores the reason that Eagle scout was originally so valuable. Eagle scout did reflect someone that could work with others and get things done. ... The more I think about it, electing or adults appointing subverts the program significantly.

Our troop elected most positions. In hind sight, I'd like to have gone by the book. It's part of being a leader to select your team; develop the individuals; figure out how to work together; assign jobs and expect results. With electing, it weakens the chain where the SPL asks others to do something. At least if the SPL says "can you be our librarian", then the SPL has started the conversation and the two youth know results are expected. And a scout asking the SPL for a job is part of growing too. IMHO ... more we can get the adults out and let the scouts work together the better. But electing vs appointing is not a do-or-die. I prefer the BSA published method, but that's me. IMHO, the do-or-die is getting out camping and having adventures. The rest supports being an active youth program.

In my 15 to 20 years of following these discussions, I've seen repeatedly the answer that legally the CO owns the assets. It's the right answer. ... But people still argue CO liability; insurance and who really oversees the leaders.

Happy Thanksgiving

Don't use me as an excuse to post a diatribe.

Great quote. Strongly agree. I'm sitting out the G2SS discussion as I've been in too many. Times change. Laws and liabilities change. G2SS is a sign of the times. At the same time, I've thought a lot about this topic. My heros were John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart. Many of my values started there. ... I think we can teach youth to be strong without violating G2SS and taking excessive risks.

Agreed. I'm betting as a LLC, you still have at least annual paperwork to keep your LLC in good standing right? Otherwise, it can lose it's registration. The topic is not hard, but it's not a big easy button that once pushed it's done. There is needed knowledge and maintenance.

You hit on the main reason "friends of" were to be avoided. It does take a bit of extra work. It's easy to become a 501c3 / charter org. The hard part is the small amount of work every year needed to stay as a valid 501c3. Many will fail to file paperwork at some point and put their status at risk. BUT, most scouting units are small and not targets. ... If you wan to keep running, I think it's a good option.

Five / ten / fifteen years ago, I heard that too. BSA wanted to move away from "friends of" COs. This year I've seen several units re-chartered that way. I'm familiar with the potential issues (legal, structural, etc). I'm aware of at least three units lately that have re-chartered as effectively "friends of" or "parents of". I'm betting if it's losing the troop or "parents of" that you will be able to charter as "parents of". I'm not saying it's a perfect answer, but I'm betting it will keep your troop going.

Charter as a "Parents of" ... or "<city> scouting assocation". Then, you are a real troop that would just meet at the CO. No difference than before.

Thought about this a bit more. IMHO, NCS doesn't apply to unit camping. NCS is a document for those running council camps. https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/national-camping-school/ It's not about units not "knowing". It's that NCS doesn't apply to units. BSA has too much contradicting info. I'd argue that statement in NCS was about units not competing with council camps. Now, it's migrated to G2SS. I'm not sure that's a good change that will last long term. It's like the tour permit. Now local councils need to approve units working together? Sounds like providing a LC paper trail for future lawyers.

NCS ... National Camping School ... I'm aware of it, but I know zero unit adults that have used NCS in their unit. That's always about council staff running council camps. Unit scouters use G2SS. If it's not in G2SS, it's effectively not real guidance to units. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new rule introduced since April 2021. Rules not provided to units can't be held as real rules. IMHO ... there is a line somewhere here. The rule intention seems more about units trying to create something that competes with council / district activities. The rule correctly points out that units are not the right level to do that. ... BUT there is something less that should be reasonable. Units should be able to partner to help each other. Blocking that is just not scout-like and not a good idea.

It does bother us. Deeply. It's very sad. Many factors. Organizations have issues as people change. People stepping in and trying to do the right thing not knowing that they are actually alienating and causing issues. It's weird that it can actually be more of an issue in non-profits than in for-profit companies. Times have changed. 1950s loosely styled agreements are a real liability now. WORDS MATTER. In many ways, I'm with the CO that you want the signed form to match what will really be done. Change does happen. A large number of scouting units I know have had to change their CO at some point. Not half, but a large number. It happens. In the past when I've had problems, I've built a list of grievances to justify / defend my position and to feel righteous in my frustration. Try not to do that. It blocks finding a solution. I am NOT saying you are wrong. I'm hoping things can de-escalate. The CO is offering something with the facility use agreement. If that won't work, find another CO and be grateful for the many years of support your previous CO was able to provide.

Wow. Well ... It has not been in there for long. Sometime after April 2021. The Way Back machine doesn't even have the new version archived yet. The April 2021 version can be found on that site. There is zero such reference. https://web.archive.org/web/20210410212338/http://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/ This re-write seems focused on laying down further restrictions. I always wonder whether BSA gets well considered review when these edits happen. OR if an exec says "reword the page and add this". Agreed that this has zero to do with CO rules or approvals. This re-write seems confusing and I'm betting further re-writes will happen soon.

Agreed. Outside of COVID statements, I question if it existed before. I do weirdly appreciate learning where I'm wrong. I am not sure yet though that it's different than I wrote. ... I just don't like infer more strictness in rules than really exist.

You misunderstand me. When I write that the best path is a BSA only bankruptcy, it does not include the LCs, COs or insurance companies. The LCs are independent companies that own property, pay taxes and run similar to a franchisee. I'm even confused how a company not going thru bankruptcy can end up getting protection from the bankruptcy of another company. The CO's are their own companies too. The insurance companies would still exist to pay liabilities from the pre-bankruptcy BSA. This case is so complex that the only path to make reasonable progress seems to be a BSA only bankruptcy.

Agreed. ... And I used the wrong number. I thought it was in the 90+ thousand. 98000 was in my head. I agree that insurance companies should not be part of the bankruptcy. Pull out the BSA assets that BSA can survive without. Then, let creditors / lawsuits fight over that amount AND continue insurance claims. I'm not sure it even needs a CSA victim agreement. The question is how much cash can be preserved to pay past liabilities. The sooner done the better. I believe BSA is long-term viable if it can get past historic liabilities. I also believe more cash is available if BSA continues (chapter 11). If BSA is put in chapter 7, then victims get paid behind a few other categories like pensions. That would extend the bankruptcy and eat a lot of the assets. From what I understand, the best path is a BSA only chapter 11 bankruptcy. I just hope this moves on soon. Every year this continues is painful.

I feel for the situation. When you write "we have to be part of the bankruptcy", I see that emotionally and for debate. I just don't see it legally unless your state opens liability before BSA bankruptcy finalizes. IMHO ... this is an frustrating point of law ... I just don't understand how expired liabilities can be legislatively re-created. The Supreme Court has created a really weird situation allowing expired civil SOLs to be re-opened because they are different than criminal SOLs.

"Prosecure all perpetrators." Expired criminal SOLs can't be extended. That's the law. Liquidate LCs ... LCs are not in bankruptcy right now. So, it's not their chapter 11 or chapter 7. Only BSAs. No matter the route this goes, there is no adequate result. Plaintiffs expect millions. It's just not there. BSA does not have the assets. The funds just are not there. Even the LCs don't really have the assets. ... I doubt insurance companies even have enough to give each of the 98,000 plaintiffs a million. ... This whole bankruptcy is arguing over thousands or tens of thousands. ... Only the law firms will do well. IMHO ... The real question is whether BSA as a company has a future public benefit. If so, helping it emerge from bankruptcy is a public good.

Thanks. I will have to hunt that sentence down. I've never seen it. ... I'm hunting. I can't find a BSA reference outside COVID protocols. If you can publish a source, I'd really appreciate it. ... I fully accept being wrong. I'd just like a source if I'm wrong.