fred8033

No. It's not that they are "as invested". It's that it's just too hard to figure out right now and the answer is being kicked down to the future to clarify. Again ... "As invested" ... Emotionally absolutely. Morally yes. The question is legal standing is not clear. That's the debate. If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful. ... Current legal actions (voting on settlement) can't be based on possible future legislative action. The debate is can it be based on probable legal standing as it's too difficult at this exact moment. ... but ... if it's clear they don't have right to funds, they don't get a say. ... that was the reason for the comment about Uruguay votes. ... there is a ridiculous aspect to those without legal rights voting on a settlement.

As always, thank you. The detailed reasoning is very useful and I am grateful. My interpretation of your writing is that potentially not a single claim is time-barred in this bankruptcy. Potentially. BSA owns the program and BSA has been incorporated in SOL open states. So even if the incident is in a closed state and the unit / CO and LC were all in closed states ... and even if the DE / SE and BSA oversight individuals' offices were in closed states, the BSA organization itself was incorporated in open states. ... effectively jurisdiction shopping ... @CynicalScouter ... Going for a far stretch that I could see some court pulling in. ... At some point, it seems the commerce clause of the constitution comes in. How does an organization as BSA function across nation wide when individual states such as NY can change laws effectively putting companies like BSA out of business. I really question whether organizations like BSA should exist anymore. Instead, should BSA be designed more like a standards body (think IEEE) that is funded by members and provides structure and standards. Places like Philmont should be also independent to serve nation wide under that same organization body. To be honest, I bet BSA often sees itself more like IEEE than McDonalds.

@ThenNow ... It's hard to keep this dispassionate. It's an ugly subject obviously. Ugly for victims. And ugly to those watching it go thru the process. I'm not sure if SiouxRanger has said it that many times himself. He's probably reflecting what many believe. Many find it hard to understand how those with effectively no legal standing are involved in voting on this. QUESTION - Is that true? They have no standing? Or is it that their potential claim against their LC is time-barred, but they can still pursue BSA. If both, then it seems fairly easy to look at the fifty states and broadly remove those in time barred states as settlement voters as they don't show any standing. The grey area are those who's standing is unclear. ... It just seems wrong to have those who would clearly have no legal standing vote.

@HelpfulTracks has it right. The advancement requirement is for the individual. Though I could see it as a sign of achievement, having it as an explicit requirement seems wrong. The requirement seems ambiguous if you are looking to weigh a result. The GTA is taking it more like a process; a conversation. If the SM does not think the scout is doing enough, the SM should talk to the scout. Have a conversation. That's what the GTA is saying. The GTA is also saying it's wrong to arbitrarily say now after-the-fact. The unit needs to have clear expectations before the scout starts. The unit needs to discuss with the scout why those expectations are not being med. The scout needs a chance to explain, defend, change behavior. The unit needs to do it early and not wait to judge. AFTER-THE-FACT judgement is a sign of failure of the unit; not the scout.

So you are saying that a failed suit by victim against an LC can't be escalated to the Supreme Court where the SC could agree with the US trustee that says the LCs (who were not in bankruptcy) can't get protection from the bankruptcy of their business partner? Perhaps there is an easier way to agree. Are there case law examples of business partners (separate companies) or franchise relationships where the bankruptcy of one discharges the debt of the other?

How would those 24 absolute and 1 only in extreme (WI, NY already done) affect the claims? Would the LCs and COs in those states be protected by SOL? I'm assuming BSA is not protected because of jurisdiction shopping and BSA's location and federal court.

I just don't see that working. Too much ugliness in the combination of things that could happen.

We can always do more. Always. ... BUT, it's not automatically negligent or liable or even bad if we are not doing everything we can. ... What is reasonable? YPT and the current structure seems like a good standard / expectation. Perhaps this is a different thread, but what is better? What is the next YPT improvement? I fear the next improvement and the next and the next will eventually destroy scouting and it's better to not have the organized youth program. The same reasoning can go for many youth organizations.

... BUT ... Say a year from now a victim sues a LC in state court ... Suit asserts that LC is not legally protected because it was in bankruptcy. Finds in favor of victim ... a believable finding. Gets appealed. Goes up. Eventually, the whole protection could be found illegal per US trustee current position. At this point, the money is gone. It's in the trust and a good amount is probably spent. I doubt the LC could retract the money in a timely way.

USA Gynmastics hid / protected / ignored Nassar. Are you saying BSA hid / protected / ignored abusers since 2010? Are you saying BSA had a single abuser that victimized 500 people? I'm not willing to go there. Was mandatory reporting done? Was YPT followed? Did BSA shield the abusers? Was the same single abuser allowed to victimize 500 claims? As much as people want to hate BSA, they've done a lot for YPT in the last 20 years. A huge amount. This seems like a very different situation than USA Gymnastics.

I'm still trying to understand why LCs would kick in the money if there is a strong question whether they will really be protected or honored. I'd be concerned that the money is gone and not retractable if the protection falls thru. LC protection seems like it will be litigated for years. I know I've read the arguments about being protected. BUT, ... if some judge says ... "it's not legal" ... the protection is gone and the money is already gone. Ummm ... so much for a ruling thread vs a non-legalese thread.

USA gymnastics is current history. The victims are still teens / twenties. Those in charge were dealing with Nassar. BSA incidents are mostly historical. The majority of the victims are now in their 40s/50s/60s and up. The people in charge of BSA at the time of most of these incidents were our parents OR our grandparents. BSA has been improving YP / safety for 20+ years. So who's left at the top levels that was at the top level 30 years ago (1991) or 40 years ago (1981). Are most of those executives even still alive?

Reading CNN ... always a regret but it's a short URL ... On CNN I read more about the gymnastics hearings at the capital. It's an interesting read considering following BSA's case for many years now. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/larry-nassar-senate-hearing-09-15-21/h_0b79bc8905cc46df9e2f7db83b3a38e9

Taking out of ruling channel ... I'll be crossing line between the ruling and general chat. Really important point being addressed. Drastic changes have happened over the last 50 years ... even over the last 20 years. BSA did not insure COs before 1970s because ... no one bought that type of insurance. Back then, companies were just starting to take liability insurance in case someone tripped on your sidewalk or if you didn't shovel your sidewalk enough. Further, CO and BSA in 1970s really would have been extremely hard pressed to take that type of liability insurance seriously. Their then eyes seeing today's situation would cause them to think the world went crazy. From a 1970s perspective, it is inconceivable that you would need liability coverage 20+/30+/40+/50+ years down the road ... for massive judgements ... for something people questioned the impact (THEN) ... for something most did not want to report or be associated with ... for something viewed as a criminal action (if laws existed to make it a crime) ... for something outside the scope of their roles ... for something done by a volunteer ... for an effective honorary charter agreement. FUTURE OF INSURANCE ... I've read a few articles on the future of insurance. It sounds rather bleak, but a great area to earn money in and a great area to sue. https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2017/04/13/10-emerging-developments-in-liability-insurance/ Will large companies like GM/GE/BP/3M become ill advised as over 40/50/60 years future trends could cause their value to be destroyed in a single few legal cases? What about insurance for them? Will GM be bankrupted for in 20 years for causing global warming? ... Seriously !!! QUESTION ... I'd like to better understand the legal state of insurance from the 1970s / 1980s. Just because a company can have expired SOL given new life, does that mean the insurance policies are open ended too? The contract between BSA and the insurance company was based on a point-in-time contract basis. So BSA's liability could be extended, but does that automatically extend the insurance companies liability policy? I'm betting there will be future cases on this one. It's one thing to extend liability of one company. It's another to re-write the contract between two companies. ... ugly interesting future https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-518-2251?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

I'll have to think thru the pros and cons of this. I could see this as painful in the short run and very beneficial in the long run. Beneficial in weeding out those not really committed families or stragglers that would drop. Those tend to influence and cause further loses. It would help those on the fence by causing buy-in ... aka those more involved tend to stay. ... still need to think thru this. It probably is good.

Calling it fanaticism is offensive and argumentative. It's dependability. Ya do what you say. I've been in a troop that canceled at least two a year. Too few scouts. Too few adults. Scheduling problems. Then mix when they camped only six or seven times a year. You end up canceling 30% of your camp outs. ... It seriously affects the program. Perhaps we should get back to just congratulating the original poster on a really cool achievement.

It's not the same thing. No one ever ever says let's endanger our scouts. Problems are rarely to do with weather. And, when it is weather, you adjust. Leave earlier or later. Relocate. Adjust. The real cause of canceling is usually too few leaders or too few youth or conflicts or not prepared (forgot to reserve a site). The real impact is scouts begin to get jaded. Scouts that wanted to go are frustrated and absolutely less excited to sign up the next time. Scouts want to depend on their troop to be there. A mentality of you don't cancel is important.

50 years is hard. But not every camp out is 85% of the troop. Some might end up with a few scouts and a few leaders. Some months might have multiple small camp outs. One OA. One new scout patrol. One high adventure. ... Even then it's really hard to not miss some month over 50 years. One thing I do miss. Under our first SM, our troop never canceled. Bad weather. Bad scheduling. Ya make it work. POINT: Having a troop mentality that you don't cancel is important. Otherwise, it does become a bit too easy to cancel one or two a year.

I'm glad to hear that. As a unit leader, I never explicitly seen an explicit OA benefit. Perhaps it's inspiration and that's enough. I can see that. All too often we look for something tangible like a quality camp out or good training. Without that benefit, OA does look mainly like an obstacle / interruption. ... such as annual planning needing to avoid OA conclaves. Perhaps inspiration is enough.

Sounds like a good idea. The terms diversity, equality and inclusion are devisive right now. Now, I hope this includes consolidation. World? Nation? Community? Society? Family?

... side comment ... for me, humor comes in strange places. I looked at the twitter feed above. I'm used to social media feeds with thousands of likes. Even our states governor gets 2k+ to 5k+ likes per post. Above post had three. ... doesn't mean anything. I just thought it was funny.

"Will" ... definition : a legal declaration of a person's wishes regarding the disposal of his or her property or estate after death Sadly apropos.

Not all council agreements have the exact same wording. Some wanted that phrase removed. Agreement wording has changed over time. Was that wording always in it? Absolutely not for any/no reason. The version I read says "The Boy Scouts of America may revoke or decline to renew council charters for failure to comply with the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, or policies of the Boy Scouts of America, or in any instance where it deems such action advisable in the interests of Scouting." BSA's failure is not a failure by the local council. Past YP failures are followed by many years of rechartering is evidence of waiving those possible cause for action. Advisable in the interests of scouting is extremely vague and does not mean BSA can terminate to use to pay BSA's debts. The local council can still fulfill it's scouting objectives even if BSA is going thru bankruptcy. Local councils have been paying taxes independently. Incorporated separately. Having separate titles to land, property, etc. Simple fact that local charter org agreements exist is an example of a contractual relationship between separate entities. Charter agreement calculates a dollar amount to be paid from local council to national. Simply accepting that payment is yet another acknowledgement of the separate existence of independent legal entities. This is one of the huge questions that the bankruptcy needs to finalize. Theoretically ... if BSA liquidates ... can a local council re-align with Trail's Life or BP association and thus fulfill it's scouting objectives?

Though we are just hearing one side. SM/COR/CC probably all have responsibility / blame in it. But I don't find it that hard to believe. I was COR for years. There was a period where we had a CM that I don't think he really knew my role until one year when he handled the recharter paperwork. It's easy to keep a unit running and not realize "official" roles. I know when I did the rechartering, I tried to keep the other leaders out of it as it was just a distraction for them.

Ummm ... mostly. We might be thinking the same thing, but negotiating words. Yes. COR can make himself CC. Partial when the COR does not make himself the CC Then, someone else is the CC. CC has the right to choose his committee and run the behind-the-scenes activities. Committee members server at the pleasure of the CC. If the CC doesn't want the COR as a committee member, that's the CC's decision and role. COR can disagree by replacing the CC. People have to give power to be bullied around. Perhaps I'm old enough ... or with less to lose ... or recognizing there are other places to spend my time ... it's okay to push back. In fact, it's good to push back. COR really has less power than they think. The real issue is subverting another person's efforts and not playing nice. Try a friendly conversation.