fred8033

Situation is common. Grudge being pursued by getting "perceived" power and causing issues. Power grabs using the COR role is fairly common. Another is CC or a district role such as unit commissioner, etc. "Perceived" as others need to give them power. Others should push back when someone misbehaves / behaves as a bully. Try friendly conversation. Offer friendship. Offer honest open conversation. For this situation. COR sitting in a committee meeting is just a committee member. They don't get to usurp conversation or CC authority. COR should NOT be emailing all parents without SM/CC agreement. That's absolutely not their role. Key point - COR does not get to inject themselves into day-to-day unit operation. Clarify roles per BSA expectations COR's job is to approve unit leaders and serve as liaison between unit and charter org. (share goals, expectations, results, etc). Once the COR approves the CC/SM, then the CO needs to trust the CC/SM. CC job is to run the committee SM is to interact with scouts. SM/CC need to reach agreement on who coordinates with parents. Push back CC/SM needs to stand up to preserve role. It is okay for CC to remove the COR as a committee member. "We'd prefer you not attend." Be prepared to quit. If COR is subverting the CM/SM, honestly be ready to step away. The person who can resolve this is the charter org executive. Period. Council and DE don't want to step into internal unit politics. Sometimes they are willing to mediate. Usually, not. They can replace the COR or release the troop. The troop can't select another COR without the CO releasing the unit and it's assets. ... UNLESS ... you give up your troop number, assets, meeting space, etc and re-signup everyone under a new troop number. Finding a new CO Usually, leaving the CO is when the CO doesn't want you or doesn't care. That's not the situation. WARNING - been discussed before ... Don't even think of moving the assets (bank accounts, equipment, paid reservations, etc) without the CO's approval. It's theft and can easily cause issues. Especially if you have a COR raising issues. ... Similar ... do NOT spend down unit assets before leaving as that's effectively theft too as you are not working in the CO's best interest. All unit members can step away enmasse effectively embarrassing and killing the old troop. BUT, you lose the troop number, the meeting space and all assets. Only way to do this is to get the charter org EXECUTIVE agreement.

Ok. That is cool. I was always proud of our 10 months a year camping for 15 years. That wins. Really, really cool achievement.

IMHO ... Webelos den leader is the absolute best role in cub scouts. CM is fun. CC is interesting. BUT, Webelos den leader gets to take these cubs (and usually their dads) to special events, camping, visiting troops, etc. ... Absolutely the best role in cubs. ... IMHO, hardly a give up CM. More like run from CM to WDL. ... AND, WDL weirdly feels like less work than many of the other roles. I'm not sure why, but it was.

I see many possible paths. Even with all the problems of the last 20 years and the legal issues, scouting has intangible historic value that can easily continue. The program will take a long time to shine again. BUT, it can easily continue. The issue of LCs, COs, where to meet, membership policies, etc ... is interesting, but it's all noise. Scouting will continue. For BSA, it's future is fully in whether it can get out of bankruptcy. I see little value to anyone to keep BSA in bankruptcy and worse for everyone is a failed bankruptcy. I see the best for all the victims is moving past the BSA bankruptcy and directly to claims against the insurance companies. I see BSA's bankruptcy slowing that down. Perhaps, it's me. I'm always hopeful.

I think splitting cubs might be a good idea. k,1,2 in one. 3,4,5 in another.

That won't happen. Individual methodist churches may be sued, but ... to my knowledge ... there is no "national" organization to be sued. The main reason I don't think this will happen is the lack of deep pockets combined with lack of momentum. It's one thing to sue a national organization with thousands of cases and billions of assets at risk. It's another to sue a local church that has one building and is trying to keep the lights on. Then, try to research back over a time of 30 / 40 / 50 / 60 years to find the insurance policy that was active at the time of the incident. While I don't think they could be "sued into the ground", I could see strong arming analogous to patent infringement blackmailing. I could see victim law firms saying "your church sponsored #### and ##### was victimized by #### on #####. As the victim's lawyer's we're willing to broker a settlement and waive future liability in exchange for paying the victim $$$$$." No lawsuit. Just a lot of strong arming. Churches might sign to get a liability waiver and victims might agree to avoid the challenges of actually suing. I could see the strong arm path as lawyers could easily research each church for membership, revenue, etc. Then, lawyers guess how much they think they could get paid. So, several hours of strong arming could yield tens of thousands. Church exits quickly without bankruptcy and victims / lawyers get paid quick. QUESTION - I do have questions about victim's being able to sue COs. I'll raise this in the main bankruptcy channel, but can victims sue the COs now? Is the previous deadline gone? Many of the victim's didn't know the CO or the troop number or the council. So, the CO was probably often not named in the claim. Even then, the claim was put to BSA. Can the victim extend to other debtors? ... I'm asking because the bankruptcy exists as a legal item, but I'm not sure the claim exists without an actual lawsuit. Or can the bankruptcy claim be converted to a lawsuit claim?

Absolutely. Being a troop leader is work, but rarely exhausting. More importantly, many opportunities to recharge like sitting around camp fires and laughing with friends. Younger cubs was lots of work. It can really burn you out. The scary point is the work is inversed with the perceived benefit. Boy scouts has visible growth after every camp out and every activity and has managable effort. Tiger cubs was lots of work for the den leaders with little perceived benefit.

There was a coolness about joining scouts back when I was a kid. I was not a scout back then ... but it was cool. The derby races. The bow and arrow. The knives. The fire. etc, etc. Cubs was the beginning of manhood ... best called adulthood now. ... Even though mom's were the den mothers, dads got to do cool things with their boys. It's different with Kindergarden and 1st graders. They don't have the maturity or the beginning of independence to just hang with their friends like they start to do in 3rd grade. And, I doubt you wanted to give Kindergarden / first grade boys knives, matches, etc. Most importantly ... you viewed yourself as a little brother to a troop where the boys ran the show. You were immitating that older boy independence program. Now, by the time you're 3rd / 4th grade, you've been building pinewood derby cars since kindergarden. All the cool things are old. Worst of all, cubs is now five / six years long. It's repetitive and gets boring. Worse, it's more and more work for the adults as you move the program to younger and younger ages. 3rd / 4th graders you can let entertain each other. kindergarden and 1st graders need constant adult interaction. I've been in scouts now 20+ years, but I really believe scouts would have been better left starting in 2nd or 3rd grade. I have seen my four sons thru each earning eagle. I would have absolutely been fine ... I would have preferred they started in 3rd grade. IMHO, I would have been fine if Kindergarden and first grade the boys were home a bit more before we got involved in the extra work of those early years. Worse, each one got pretty burnt out with scouting by the 4th / 5th grades. Three years was enough.

And that's what makes "WeBeLos" make sense. Wolf Bear Lion as the ranks and Webelos as the exit award. IMHO, this would have been better. 4th / 5th graders see cubs too much as a little kid program. It's lost it's cool. It's lost the little brother to the big boy troop program.

Interesting ... I somehow always thought of wolves as starting in 2nd grade. The late 1980s saw the transition from 3rd grade to 2nd grade. IMHO, this was the start of a bad path causing scouting to look like a little kids program.

WARNING! Warning! Tangent !!! I really wish the program went back to that. Younger siblings can be friends of the pack, but Lions and Tigers are killing the cub program.

I'm not the uniform police either. Silver epaulets sound fine. It is a council/district position. On the other hand, the goal of MBC is to get the scout to learn something new and at the same time learn to work with other adults. As such, I'm not sure you really need to wear a uniform as a MBC. In fact, I'd argue there are reasons to not wear it as the MBC program is often perceived also about getting the scout comfortable reaching out into the community for resources. Wear it or not. 100% your choice.

Argh ... I fear inserting myself. The problem with "walk the walk" or follow the "scout oath and law" is that two well meaning individuals doing their best can reach different conclusions ... make different decisions ... judge things differently. Each person has their own unique set of experiences, perspectives and thoughts. Each person enters into situations with different capabilities and may have different options than the next guy. It's just not that simple. Also, I've known too many scouters at all levels of scouting. I can't say I've liked every one or agreed always. BUT, generally I've never seen a better motivated and well meaning set of individuals. The worst I can say is that there are many that use scouting as a place to fill voids in their own lives. BUT, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I know others have run into individuals that have done wrong and committed crimes. From what I've seen and experienced, that's far and few. .My point is ... scouting is filled with many well meaning people ... paid and volunteer. None are perfect. Each has their vices. BUT, overall there are so many well motivated individuals that I can't say BSA's problems are due to not following oath and law or not walking the walk. ... except the guy who bought discount cloth for the centenial uniform pants. That guy didn't follow oath and law. ... OH ... And the iron on BSA / United States letters. That guy should have walked the walk.

Outstanding write-up. THANK YOU !!!! I'm still slightly confused on how you allocate salaries by program or not in an organization such as scouting. To be more precise, salary of directory of training? IMHO, that's program. Training oversight / coordination is a major focus of the council and a big contributor to program quality. Front desk receptionist. Most front desks deal with mostly scout leaders and new parents wanting to find the scout shop or individual signing up for things. So, I'd allocate front desk to program. Essentially, I'd allocate most roles (DE, advancement, training, etc) to program as that's how scouting works. "Management" is nebulous. Is that finances, marketing, etc? It must be an art to decide which is which or done per some generally accepted accounting principles.

So ... "program expenses" ... I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples. What is a program expense and what is not? of the 49% salaries, what is program expense versus overhead. It's easier to compare when it's a fundraising corp that hands over the cash to a program arm.

medication ??? ... I wrote that. Dang. I need to go sit in a dark room and be quiet. mediation.

I was not inferring ownership as much as rights to use continue. Your analysis of IP being similar to a building is correct. BUT, it's not about ownership. It's about rights to use and continuing current agreements. Analogy --> Strip mall owners can go bankrupt, but that does not mean Great Clips and Ace Hardware are tossed to the curb. Their leases continue (generally with some exceptions). Another company will end up owning the strip mall, but the current tenants have their rights to continue. If their lease is broken, then they can submit their own claims in the bankruptcy. Similar ... if BSA were to liquidate, then LCs could file suit for damages due to breach of contract. One medication could be continued right to use IP.

That's why I'm saying something doesn't smell right.

Loss of CO model does not automatically mean loss of meeting places.

If national fails, the LCs might have rights to continue IP usage. The failure of a business partner is not a mutual suicide pact. Who ever receives the IP ownership would need to partner with those already using the IP.

Something doesn't smell right or is not fully explained. Can someone explain why a 2nd set of lawyers would use the signature of someone from the first? Or were they formally or informally partnered in this at that time or during a transition? Something just does not smell right about the complaint? And given the case load, I'd really find it hard to believe each person who signed talked to each claimant directly. I'd expect lots of questionably fast signatures.

You don't even need to talk about BSA throwing CO's under the bus. ... Times have changed. The CO was historically more an honorary document the church could hold up to say: look at all the good we are doing. They get their ribbon and certificate to display and get bragging rights. ... NOW, decades and decades later ... guess what? Those pretty words mean something in court now. It's a liability that people have learned to exploit to the tune of million and millions. ... Times have changed drastically. Scouts and parents would see zero difference. Sounds like a good plan.

Cheap summary from my local area ... I'm amazed how few units / CORs / COs are taking this seriously. Maybe it's not hit their visibility yet. My meeting with the CO executive was ... Do you want to oversee the leadership selection and unit program? Answer no. Do you see scouting as core to something the church elders want to oversee? Answer no. How is scouting perceived in the church? Answer - It's a nice community organization supporting youth that we want to support as a church. BUT, it's not aligned with the church goals as the church already has it's own youth program with it's own youth pastors. My recommendation This is an opportunity to represent the relationship correctly. CO was never guiding the program. Everyone knew that. Now, let's make the paperwork match reality. The words we sign with our signature matter. We need to get it right. WAS (and communicated) - Use the facility use agreement. Do NOT sign the charter org. NOW - LONG TERM ... If I am asked again, I'd recommend CO's should not sign anything. The CO supports many community organizations allowing them to use the space and have keys only using the church's registration form. They will still do that and with scouting too ... The key is ... The CO does not benefit at all by signing a document. ... IMHO, the CO needs to have it's own insurance anyway ... The negative is signing the document represents a legal agreement that can be twisted into a liability. ... It makes no sense for the CO to sign any agreement. It does not help them.

Even without lawyer comments ... which I enjoy as much as the next guy ... it's easy reasoning. ... My money won't go to help current scouting. Let the past fund the past. I'll save my money to help the future. ... Just like Eagle projects. It's easy to raise funds to enable a future project. It's almost impossible to raise funds to pay the debts of a past project. I'm wondering if it's materially affecting the bottom line significantly. I was not sure how much of BSA's national budget reflects "dues" versus "donations".

Not sure if this goes in the CH11 thread or other ... trying my best ... Do the negative numbers reflect shutting down of donations? BSA has always been a donation / gift heavy organization. Few individuals and organizations want to donate during a bankruptcy. I'd imagine a bankruptcy completely dries up that funding source.