fred8033

"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.

Really interesting post with interesting details. Your 1st half (befor COVID FAQ) ... I'd argue your CO can require that both supervising adults be members of your CO unit, but the G2SS does not explicitly require that. It's your CO's choice. The G2SS has a vague flip-flop. Rarlier refering to "in a unit serving" and later just refering to registered leaders. The 72 hour paragraph never says "unit" anywhere. It refers only to registered leaders; aka BSA application; BSA background check and not removed from BSA. We've always had trouble differentiating BSA registration versus unit registration. Just because BSA has very open membership requirements does not mean your CO has to approve the application. Similar for activities. BSA requires "registered leaders". Your CO can require more. I always fear reading in more meaning than explicitly stated. I'd fear applying that same level of extra inferrence into other requirements. COVID FAQ ... Yeah, I'd again argue you are reading more into the statement than the purpose. COVID FAQ is for the duration of the COVID pandemic. As the world return to normal, there is a gray area. After COVID, this COVID FAQ is useless. BSA is fearing rogue units not respecting COVID protocols. BSA does not want units defeating COVID protocols by effectively doing their own district / council camporees. BSA COVID FAQ does not preclude two COs from detailed planning their own camp together. Two COs could align and agree on the benefits and structure of a camp out. ... The issue is DURING THE PANDEMIC. BSA asks the units to let the council know. The COVID FAQ sentence that SCARES ME the most is: "Units with different chartered organizations that wish to hold activities together must have council approval. " ... I trust this is only for DURING THE PANDEMIC. I've never seen that written before. So much for three troops sharing a MB Saturday. So much for inter-unit activities. ... I see this as a one-off, put in a COVID FAQ for a immediate now issue; aka pandemic. ... I'm not sure it will hold water long-term. It's definitely not in the G2SS right now. I'm not sure if units are accountable to every FAQ published or just to the explicit policy / procedure statements. ... IMHO, this is a huge G2SS expansion with a much stricter rule. Heck, I'm betting the LCs don't want that role any more than approving travel permits. The original question is whether the 72 hour rule "registered as leaders" means registered in the same troop. I really just don't see that explicitly said. I'd hate to read more into it than explicitly written. Even then, we'd just ask the person to quickly fill out another adult leader app ... have them submit it. Then their leader becomes an ASM on our troop and our leader becomes an ASM in their troop. Fundamentals Ultimately ... The CO better trust the COR, CC and SM to follow G2SS. If the CO wants the activity leaders registered in their unit, that's their choice and their unit leaders better follow thru.

Wow. Writing a simple, but precise document is really hard. G2SS seems vague. It's clear, the person must be registered with BSA (aka background checks, etc ... who calls the references on the adult leader app ... the local council? ???) ... But page 1 "Adult Supervision" sometimes refers to "registered in the unit" and sometimes just "registered as leaders". https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34416.pdf ... numbered page #1 Unless the G2SS is re-written more precisely, I'd interpret the words as written. G2SS Pate 1 ... "All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders." If you can show me your BSA membership ID, you fulfill the requirement. As a unit leader, I should check that your registration and training is current. BUT, you are still registered. Plus, everyone that registers fills out the same BSA Adult Leader App. It's just that MBCs have an affiliation with council or district and not with a specific unit. I'd worry about inferring too much. It creates other problems. Would an ASM from a near-by troop be sufficient to fulfill the adult supervision? I'd really hope so. Multiple times we've had a patrol from another troop join us on campouts with only one of their leaders attending. The combination of their and our leader(s) fulfilled the adult supervision requirement. I see zero issue with doing that in the future.

I hear good and bad in your writing. "Grays" ... This whole BSA bankruptcy is because of grays that are now being exploited by a legal system because the words in the charter did not match what everyone expected ... not church leaders ... not scout leaders ... not BSA staff ... not parents. Further, the structure creates problems because of unit leaders seen effectively the same as church staff and BSA staff. ... The fact is words matter. If the charter says XXXX, that XXXX better be happening otherwise there is negligence and liability for damage. The CO is smart to not want to sign a charter that it can't or won't be able to fulfill. If the current CO is willing to do a facility use agreement ... GO FOR IT !!!!! Your scouts will not see a difference. Be very, very, very thankful. Be grateful to the church. The CO's concerns are very, very real. I'm impressed your CO is willing to compromise. It means they are happy with your troop and support scouting. The CO is just worried about legal liability for a program they don't really run in detail, but then are asked every year to sign an agreement saying they do run it in detail. I would create a lightly structured non-profit that makes the parents of the current scouts automatically CO members and call it "Parents of Troop #####". In a way, it's a good improvement. The SM reports to the CC. The CC reports to the COR. The COR is effectively the president of the CO (parents of troop ####). Heck, the COR could hold annual meetings where the parents re-confirm the workings of the troop. ... This could be a really good. Avoid suggesting to the parents that they could directly influence the troop. Instead, just ask for feedback on "the health of the troop". Perhaps, ask for an up and down vote on the troop annual plan. Beyond that, each leader continues to function like today and owns their sphere of influence. Scouting is changing. Your CO recognizes it. Welcome that your CO is considering a Facilities Use Agreement. Find a way to make it work.

Pay down debt? Probably. Also probably because BSA's finances are changed. I doubt they receiving the huge subsidizing donations they had in the past. I've watched price increases for 20 years that I've only been able to reason as correcting for lower donations.

Scouting is best when it's consistent. Schedule. Rules. Permission slips. ... You will have scouts coming and going. Parents coming and going. It's too hard to know if ... when the parents leaves for an afternoon ... if you have a permission slip from the scout to handle an issue. Just get the permission slip up front for all scouts participating.

Absolutely great answer. Great. ... and I only comment ... because I tend to comment ... ... "only go if the weather's nice" ... I would absolutely work toward never canceling. Yes, if the weather is dangerous or not managable, don't go. BUT, if there is a way to moderate the experience, go. Maybe it means, working with the camp ranger to have a roofed shelter. Or, change the plan to do XXXXX. ... Or camp out at your CO's building for the night with an outdoor camp fire. ... A key to success is to keep to your schedule. Too many cancels and scouts / adults find other places to spend their time or will 2nd guess if the troop will really go.

Easy to agree with that. I don't agree that you get to choose for other people. Don't hijack district or unit mtgs where other people don't get a choice. A shorter time is acceptable, but don't cross the minute threshold without others having a choice.

I'm just catching up. Glad to read that someone posted it. "Could be filed in federal court" ... refering to requiring events / abuse that cross state boundaries or occurred on federal property (military bases, national parks, etc). Unless federal jurisdiction is triggered, state laws would be in effect with state SOLs. ... really wish I would have studied law ...

CSA is the bankruptcy driver, but I doubt BSA can limit background checks to that. BSA needs to look for criminal records that are kept at national, state and county levels. You also need to handle identity confirmation. This is not a minor challenge. Applications arrive at the registration office from online or via paper. They don't get to see a drivers license or identity card. This was a big expensive challenge in the 1980s. Each decade has introduced improvements. It's much easier now, but it's still not cheap. It costs money especially as you multiple the number by hundreds of thousands of registered adult volunteers.

I love that answer. Perhaps it would fit nicely with an OA conclave. WB recipients could be recognized.

Interesting ... Your comment made me search and read. The $5 sounds right for the search of the national sex offender database. Probably does not include identity verification, county(plural??) criminal checks, state criminal checks, national criminal checks, etc. Our school district charges volunteers $11 approx for their background checks. Add cost on top of that to maintain the background check system, paperwork, making sure you have signatures with permission to do the background check, etc. I'd imagine BSA can't administer the background check system for less than $20 per person per year. ... I'm just guessing. I'm just saying that there is real cost. Interesting topic.

The words don't support your interpretation. The first sentence is talking about an activity ... singular ... a camp out, a trip, a high adventure .... Any activity that is 72 hours or more. The second sentence ... "not consecutive" ... exists so that adults don't game the system and leave the camp for two days and then return. If the adult comes and goes from the activity, it's the cumulative time. I've seen zero people apply this across separate different camp outs. I've seen zero people that include each troop meeting to this. This only applies activities that are at least 72 hours ... example leave 6pm Thursday and return after 6pm Sunday. If we were to add up multiple activities, it would not say "at the activity for 72 total hours". It would say refer to multiple activities or over the course of a year or ... something. Instead the sentence refers fully to "at the activity".

100% agreed. Except I'm more on the mode of 30 to 60 seconds planned with the knowledge that people being told 30 seconds will take two minutes. One of my biggest COH regrets was allowing a person five minutes at our COH thinking they would be done in 3 or 4. Then, they took 25 to 30 minutes. NOW, I would absolutely pulled them when they went over the time I gave. Then, I did not know better. I thought they knew what they were doing.

Yeah. I'm a HUGE BELIEVER in scouting is fun. Hanging with long-term friends. Adventures. Learning things you would not see otherwise. ... It's why I'm so so disappointed in the MB program. I can way more easily accept cooking as a MB than I can several of the others. All my sons have had adventures they will never forget. Sadly, many of the MBs were just a waste and a poor rehash of school. Perhaps, I'd accept the MB program way more if the program was more action oriented. Personally, I wish my sons never saw a MB fill-in-the-blank worksheet. A complete excitement killer.

4 hours ago, qwazse said: Then the worst thing litigants could do for our nation's youth is to discourage duly diligent CO's from engaging with them. It's not blaming survivors. It's a statement about society. Youth need somewhere to spend their time. Youth need opportunities to learn values, responsibility, skills, etc. Scouting has had 100+ million youth. The vast majority have benefited. The statement reflects the belief that a good portion of youth in scouting will be worse off. ... I know for one of my sons that would easily be true. Without the weekends camping, he would have spent more time with his friends that drank, smoked and worse. I'm glad scouting was there to provide an escape to build friendships with kids who did not have those issues. I'd draw a similar analysis from high school sports. I know multiple youth by name that have long-term physical damage from football, hockey, etc. Concussions. Broken vertebrae. Paralysis. ... Society generally beliefs youth sports are a large net positive. I'd argue the same is true for scouts ... if we can get past the lame parts.

You may have had due diligence, but prove it. Most of these incidents are from 1980s or earlier. That's effectively 40+ years. The average CO/COR/elder was probably 50+. So, we need to pull these CO/COR/elders out of the nursing home or the grave to testify. Good luck finding the CO records or proof. Zero COs have a way to prove they exercised due diligence or worked hard to keep their scouts safe. Even then, the reality is a perpetrator is not easily identifiable in-advance.

I had long talks with our pastor about that. ... Is scouting core to the CO purpose and would be significantly less without it. Almost always the answer is NO. For our CO church, the church has it's own long standing youth group and it's own long-standing faith formation program. Even more, scouting faith components are generic and not well aligned with the CO. i.e. the church can't use scouting to pass on their personal beliefs and values. So if it's not core, the church members don't invest the time and money to oversee and run the program. That's when negligence and liability become an issue.

Agreed. If the program ever stabalizes (law suits, finances, membership, woke, etc) ... the MB program will need to be re-organized. In 2022, 14 of the 21 Eagle MBs will be explicitly required. Leaving 7 to be chosen by the scout. Of course the scout can always do more, but I'd really like to see the MB program truely matching the advertisement to explore and discover new skills and new careers. Too much feels like a weak immitation of school. Even the communication MB. Instead of the communication MB, couldn't we have a Life Rank requirement to design and MC a troop COH. Isn't the commnication MB requirement to teach a skill overlapping with previously emphasized EDGE requirements. ... I don't mean to knock every MB, but we have too much school in scouting and too little explore, discover and have adventures.

"When I said ... the pack bus the advancements", I was referring to this pack's decision. IMHO, if the person is a member of the pack, the pack should not be asking the question as they don't for other members. Treat the dues / fundraising as a membership question, but not a does the pack buy advancements ... unless as you assert ... the pack asks all members to buy their advancements. Pay as you go ... I really like the idea if you can make it work. It is much more work for the treasurer and the pack leaders, but a nice model. I like it because some parents chase bling way out of balance of others. Others just want to have their kids active. It's hard to balance things. Our pack at one time had pack buying rank and the parents buy the others awards.

I was just saying ... don't mix involvement in fundraiser with buying advancement items. The real test is: are they a member of the pack? If yes, the pack buys the advancements ... UNLESS you charge back to each scout their advancement tokens. I've only see that for EXTRA tokens. One pack did it for belt loops. Pack bought rank and core advancement. Other things the pack expected families to purchase as there would always be one or two families running up the costs. The whole idea of fundraisers is to benefit the organization and the organization's goals; not just those raising the funds. ... Not everyone will be as committed as others ... you will always have some doing more ... paying more ... covering more costs ... etc .... Sales are a great for a scout to pay his own way. So is mowing yards. Doing chores for neighbors. etc. ... Likewise, it is 100% acceptable for a pack to help scouts sell products that they then get the income to pay their way thru scouting. ... Just don't call it fundraiser. Don't do it in the non-profit's name. Absolutely don't call it tax deduction. What our troop did ... years ago ... we charged $75 dues. We gave 15% of the profit back to the scout. Wreaths were 50% profit. If the scout sold $1000 in wreaths, that paid for his dues. Troop got $425 to help everyone. Scout got $75 to pay dues. Fundraiser workers are often paid as an incentive to raise more for the non-profit. That is acceptable. BUT if 100% is going to the scout, it's not a fundraiser. It's private benefit in the name of a non-profit. ... this forum has been thru this debate many times.

I really find this the most interesting development. City was sued City paid. Paid now because suits against the COs / LCs are not bankruptcy blocked. Shows the deepest possible pockets. Cities, insurers and large institutions. Shows not all paths are blocked now. Why are COs and LCs not being sued? They are not blocked by the bankruptcy case. Seems like BSA bankruptcy is noise blocking progress getting money for victims.

Doesn't it depend on the incorporation of the fire department. Did the city run the fire department? Provide training? Own the building? Provide oversight? ... That's the whole volunteer scouter issue. BSA liable for volunteer actions. If a city fire department failed to oversee a scouting unit, then the city should be liable for damages. I'm also betting there is a paid staffer somewhere in the volunteer fire department chain. Even if paid a token amount. Similar can be argued for elementary school chartered packs. Or even for schools that allowed recruitment in the elementary school classes. They endorsed scouting without any oversight.

Pack fundraisers are to help everyone in the pack. You can give them 20% (or similar) of their sales as an incentive, but the fundraiser's whole purpose is to reduce the cost for everyone doing work in the pack. The whole fundraiser / dues / cost is something that's been discussed ad nauseum. Key point is non-profit fundraising serves the purpose of the non-profit. Individual sales can benefit individual, but then there is a different question. Generally, pack sales are usually smaller than IRS noise level. I mention as charge dues is fine. But don't consider fundraiser sales as a plus/minus on whether to buy awards.