NJCubScouter

It isn't necessarily anybody's "failure." It's just the way things are.

I did. I then changed my mind about whether I wanted to discuss it again.

We have had this exact same discussion several times, it probably is not necessary to have it again right now.

Does that mean he is required to salute the flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance even though his religion tells him not to? Just out of curiosity, does he wear the American Flag patch on his uniform?

I'm not sure what that means.

Yes, the back-and-forth needs to stop.

If the BSA files a bankruptcy petition, I wouldn't expect their salary structure for entry-level professionals to improve anytime soon.

Recruiting members from another group is not illegal. Recruiting members from another group by using the other group's trademark is "illegal," not in the criminal sense, but in the civil sense. That is what the lawsuit is about. A court will eventually decide whether the BSA (and/or its councils) violated the GSUSA's trademark rights. Or the BSA and GSUSA will reach a settlement. That's how these things go.

I think that is true. This situation does not necessarily show that current leadership is incompetent. On the other hand, it doesn't show that they are competent, either. As I said before, if the BSA files, and after their schedules are filed, there will be a lot more information by which us, the general rabble, can evaluate (and argue over) what and who the problem really is, and was. And eventually, when the BSA proposes to set up a fund to pay these sex abuse claims, which will result in lower payments than the plaintiffs are looking for, the plaintiffs' attorneys will have their say

Dire, yes. For a business (which I assume would include a non-profit like the BSA) to file for any kind of bankruptcy, its assets would be less than its liaibilities. The tricky part here is that when a substantial part of your debt is pending and anticipated claims for things that do not have a fixed dollar value (like pain and suffering, emotional distress and disability, etc.), what is your debt, actually? It's an estimate, and different parties to the case may have an interest in doing different estimates. Is Former Scout X's case eventually going to produce a recovery of $2 million ag

The sad part is, this is exactly what was predicted by some in this forum when this donation was accepted. My recollection is that National thought they would get a good chunk of money by renting out the Summit for events, but there was that tax problem with the State of West Virginia and I am not sure how that got resolved, and I am not sure how much rental income there ended up being. Not nearly as much as they thought, evidently.

It has always been my assumption that BSA National owns Philmont. The question would be whether there is any "restrictive covenant" in the deed by which the property was transferred to the BSA, which seeks to control what the property can and cannot be used for, and what happens if the BSA no longer owns it. [Note after seeing Mashmaster's comment: Ok, I was thinking in the right direction, but not far enough.] I see no reason why Philmont would be any more "immune from divestiture" than any other non-residential property owned by any other person. (Residential property, meaning the ho

I'm sure the BSA's goal is to increase membership. The gender composition that results is probably of secondary concern.

It has been awhile since I took Troop Committee Challenge, but I just found a syllabus for it online, as well as a version of the Troop Committee Guidebook that is the 2000 printing, but I doubt the fundamentals of how the committee operates have changed since then. They don't say that the committee MUST operate by voting, nor do they say the committee CANNOT operate by voting. The only thing they say about voting is in the negative: SM's and ASM's do not vote. This implies that someone can vote, i.e. committee members, but it does not say what they get to vote on. In fact, the chapter ab

Such cynicism in one so young.

I would add a fourth criterion: That the new name did not open the BSA up to a very plausible claim of trademark infringement. On that count it is a failure.

Latin Scot's DAC is correct about one thing: A unit may not REQUIRE a "troop board of review" for Eagle, as the "preliminary" or "practice" EBOR's are called in my district. I believe that was made clear in the most recent version of the G2A, or maybe the one before that. I see nothing wrong with a troop OFFERING a "practice" EBOR, if it will make the Scout more comfortable. I don't see how a DAC can prohibit it. In fact, I don't see how a DAC, or any district committee chair, can issue any "mandates" to units, on any subject. How are they going to enforce it? Our troop has never

I did not look back to see if I ever responded to this thread since it was started in 2003. To my recollection my summer camps as a Scout were as follows: Allamuchy, Stanhope NJ (then Morris-Sussex Council, now Patriots Path Council) - 1972 Ten Mile River, NY (both summer camp and TLD, the predecessor of NYLT) - 1973 Philmont - 1974 Masawepie (way northern NY state) - 1975 It is possible that I went to camp as an 18-year-old ASM in 1976, but I don't remember. If so, it probably would have been Allamuchy. (If there seem to be a couple of years missing, there are

Eagle1993, I want to read the complaint, which I have printed out, before commenting. My daughter and grandson who live in Washington State are here for a week-long visit so I am kind of giving that my priority at the moment, other than work of course.

What they should have done is come up with a completely new name for the age 11-17 program for girls, which is what they said (or at least strongly implied) when the changes to Cub Scouting were first announced about a year ago. But they didn't. And they left us locals with an issue that, while its an issue, is not insurmountable. We can say "female" instead of "girl." It's awkward, but it's not a huge deal.

No, it wasn't.

Oh my gosh, lawyers are involved? Take cover, hide the women and children, it's a disaster! That was sarcasm.

Ok, we have different ideas about how worked up people (other than the parties and their lawyers) are going to get over a trademark dispute, but there's only one way to find out..

I think it's exactly the opposite, but whatever.

That's very cute. The papers will be served in the morning.