ParkMan

25 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

The experience with the SM brings up the question of who can dismiss the SM from their position?  If the SM isn't fulfilling their role as a guide in a youth-led program, then they need to go.

In my experience this is a challenging question.  It works differently in different units.

• Technically the chartered organization is responsible for deciding who is and who is not a leader in the program.  So, many will say that the COR or IH can make that decision.
• There are many units that follow the believe that the Scoutmaster reports to the Troop Committee.  As a result, the Troop Committee and perhaps even Troop Committee Chair could effectively dismiss a Scoutmaster.  Within forums and discussion groups you'll see the occasional discussion about this one.

But really, in my experience you never want to dismiss a Scoutmaster if you can at all avoid it.  Regardless of who can technically do it, it creates a very dangerous political climate in many units.  Units implode because of stuff like this.

I've always been a fan of a friendly adult beverage between the key decision makers in the troop when there are issues.  Having a discussion with the Scoutmaster about why he/she is doing what they are doing.  Even if it's wrong, see if you can find a way to make it work for everyone.  If something needs to change, find a way to change it by working with the Scoutmaster and other key leaders - not be getting rid of him/her.  

4 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

One of the reasons so many of us think traditional training and organizational structure are the answer is because they worked.  Do you honestly think families today are more broken than families in the 1920s and 30s?  Scouting got its reputation because it provided not just outdoor skills but genuine leadership training, the ability to plan and deal with the unexpected, etc.

The growth of companies like REI, EMS, etc. tells us the modern family is actually interested in the outdoors.  Don't you think it would behoove Scouting to really teach outdoor skills?  Employers want employees that can think, learn, plan, teach, improvise, etc.  All of these were skills that Scouting used to teach.  The Patrol Method was a proven method for developing leadership skills which is why a few here keep harping on returning to using it.

My sense is that there are a few different things going on with respect to families.

1) The core challenges families face today are not all that different than they were 10, 20, 50, even 100 years ago.  Having a good job, being able to provide for you family, raising your kids, etc.  For youth, the struggles of increasing independence, a desire to build friend groups, and for many - the beginning of dating and working.  These basic problems really are the same as they've always been.

2) The mechanics of family life are different though they share a common root.  Today you have more two income families than you once did.  There are more outside distractions on family life than there once were.  There is a reduced influence of extended family networks than there once was.  Youth are less independent in some ways, more independent in others.  

3) The superficial parts of life are substantially different.  TV, cell phones, internet, social media, etc.

I think a big part of this discussion is a conflict between two mindsets:

• the feeling that because of the changes in the superficial parts of life that organizations like Scouting need to change. 
• the feeling that because the core challenges are largely the same, that the fundamentals of Scouting are sound.

This is where I believe Scouting needs to be very careful.  I think you are spot on when you write:

4 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

Employers want employees that can think, learn, plan, teach, improvise, etc.

I would modify what you wrote slightly to say:

Quote

We want young adults that can think, learn, plan, teach, improvise, etc.

Scouting can, and should, certainly adapt.  Yet, in doing so, we need to be mindful of why what Scouting does works and we need to be smart about where we adjust the program.  Sure, modernize the program and techniques, but be very careful that in doing so we don't loose the very essence of what is working.

For example, in this topic on training, I believe that the BSA does need to adjust it's training program to recognize that Scouters today have an interest in the outdoors, but less specific backgrounds in it.  We cannot, for example, assume that ever Scouter cuts their own firewood for their home fireplace.  As such, Scouters come into the program was a decreased understanding of things like building fires.  Does it mean that Scouters do not want to build fires - no, it does not.  But it does mean that a new Scouter has to learn a skill that was considered commonplace 20-50-100 years ago.

Similarly, with the patrol method.  Youth today has a greater number of options for activities than they once did.  That puts a strain on the patrol method.  So, does that mean we should abandon the patrol method?  I would submit, that no - it does not.  Kids still need to learn leadership skills.  Kids still need to learn to work in teams. Scouting provides a exemplary place within which to learn these skills. So, in the example of the patrol method, it becomes even more important for Scouting to utilize the patrol method.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

They absolutely are more broken. And offering 1920s solutions to 2020 problem is the definition of anachronistic.

How would you like to see Scouting address the unique problems of 2020?

11 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

Getting adults to like Roundtable has always been a challenge.  I think the problem is that simply going through announcements, providing program information, etc. takes up a good portion of the time and a lot of the adults want to get home, have dinner, etc.  I liked the introduction of University of Scouting even though the title was a little pretentious because it was a way to pass on beginning, intermediate, and advanced knowledge.  It's really hard to do a worthwhile class on anything in 15 minutes -- having 45 minutes gives you enough time to really get into things.  I didn't have to be part of the WB clique for UOS, I was simply asked by the organizers to conduct or supplement various classes based on what they knew I knew (to be fair, our council's WB crew wasn't really cliqueish -- I think they wanted me to join them but of course I'd have had to go through the program and earn beads to be an instructor and I just didn't see a lot of value in that).

15 minutes talks at roundtable was just an idea.  The picture I keep seeing is roundtable becoming a place with very few announcements and most of the focus on tech talks.  Let's discuss going outdoors and make it really interesting for participants.  It strikes me that the world today is actually more outdoor focused than it once was.  There is greater interest in physical fitness and more people seem to be out camping and hiking than years ago.  You look at the rise of companies like REI that didn't seem to be around when I was a kid.  There has to be a way to capture that spirit in the adult community.

I'm pretty sure you won't capture that with a couple of beginner classes online.  My sense is that you can build that in a district or council, but it will take effort.  

11 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I think if BSA looked at training as a big picture, you'd break out overall training into beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels with clear tests to let some graduate (or immediately move) to the appropriate level.  Beginning level would basically give the adult First Class skills (or what used to be First Class skills) plus the necessary adult adds of youth protection, how the troop works with district and council, etc. Intermediate would build on those skills, and advanced would build even further.  Put WB in the intermediate level and have an advanced outdoors course so you can do the bead thing and unit improvement or just have intermediate courses focusing on unit improvement and make WB the advanced course.  Filling Scouting magazine with "how to" articles is an excellent idea.

This sounds like a great sequence to me.  I would be excited about this kind of progression.

45 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because there is a large and vocal contingent who want things "the way they were." Except, of course, that that program they remember with such fond memories was developed for a time that no longer exists and for a nation and society that simply will not embrace it.

Organisms and organizations have three choices: move, adapt, or die. Since Boy Scouts of America isn't going to move, that leaves adapt or die.

And I honestly thing some of the people where would rather see a dead but "pure" Boy Scouts of America vs. one that adapts.

Or maybe it's because those with some continuity in the program recognize that the BSA keeps adapting without an underlying plan or vision.  As a result, the BSA keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic without really dealing with the primary issues.  Those issues become apparent when people see it happen a few times and recognize the pattern.

History is full of failed organizations that adapted to the wrong trends.  It's not simply adaptation that's important - it's making the right adaptations.

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

I absolutely agree. And if I'm wrong, please correct me, but it seems like the answers that keep being delivered up on this site are connected to returning to or at least harkening back to practices from decades ago. I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see many threads truly examine what modern families and scouters need or want. Every time the topics come up, people freak out.

I've read some of the long posts on this particular thread about training and traditional organizational structure and I feel like it is so disconnected from what modern day families are interested in or willing to spend their time on. I realize we're often weaving in two discussions -- how to deal with the bankruptcy with how to survive post bankruptcy -- and if I've confused that I apologize. 

My apologies.  I deleted my prior post in an attempt to not come across as combative.  Didn't realize you were reading it at that time.

COMMENT REMOVED

46 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Folks,

Would it be possible to take a pause for a little bit? I know this is a very challenging issue that is extremely multifaceted.  I see all sides of the arguments. I know folks who were molested, I know someone falsely accused (criminal investigation conducted and evidence supported her story), and I had to keep Cubs occupied while police intervened (that was not a good night at camp).

Request respected and appreciated.   We're all passionate about Scouting and this most certainly is a very difficult issue for all of us.

31 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Exactly. Even before all these claims, BSA was dying and hemorrhaging money and membership.

Which is why the BSA needs to not be focused on continually and endlessly fighting lawsuits.  The BSA needs to be focused on adapting it's program to the needs of today's youth so that they can fulfill their charter:

Quote

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

And when said corporation is endlessly fighting lawsuits from the events of 30 or 40 years ago is a little hard to do.  Let the corporation focus on doing what Congress asked them to do.

21 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

That's the whole point of statue of limitations. As other posters have noted, there are claimants who cannot remember basic details about the alleged abuse: when, where, who? I hate being in a position where I'm casting doubt on abuse claims, but how can the BSA or any organization defend itself against 30, 40, 50 year old claims, particularly when the victim cannot remember any of the details either? 

This is what led me to say that perhaps it's time for Congress to say - enough on continual and perhaps even open ended extensions to the statute of limitations.

Somewhere in there is a reasonable length for how long an entity should be liable.

• perhaps for a person liability extends to their whole lifetime
• perhaps for a for-profit corporation that liability is longer because of the gain in profits and the ability to assess stock holders
• perhaps for non-profits the statute of limitations is shorter because there is no ownership group.

30 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can see trying to persuade you that such blanket immunity is dangerous and that being a not for profit, no matter how noble (BSA, Feeding America, Red Cross, etc.) should not grant you immunity. So, I'm done here.

I never claimed that.  I simply said that at some point there should be a limit on how long we let lawsuits continue to linger.  There comes a point in time where history is history.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

The work "penalize" implies punishment. Kids are not being "punished" any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued.

• Does raising costs penalize kids?
• Does closing camps penalize kids?

I struggle with the logic of your argument.  You  have this notion that extract damages without their being an impact on the youth of today.  How does one extract large settlements for each abuse victim without there being a negative impact on the kids today?

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But let me ask you a question: are people without food "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued and is forced to pay for tort claims/damages?

I don't know the specifics of the lawsuits that you reference here.  I looked, but have not found them yet. Give me some data and I'm sure I can provide an answer.

Let's recall that my proposal was not blanket immunity, but instead a cap on the length of the statute of limitations:

18 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I would like to see legislation that limits extensions of statue of limitations for federally chartered organizations. 

Here we have a nationally chartered corporation whose ability to fulfill it's legislated charter is now in doubt because states have extended the statute of limitations to levels beyond what is practical for what is largely a volunteer organization.  Congress should recognize that this action by the states is causing harm to the ability of these kind of organizations to meet their charters.

Having a reasonable duration on the statute of limitations for a congressionally chartered corporation (say 10 years) would still allow the states to ensure that the corporation is following current law and that volunteers and employees of the current organization are held correctly responsible for their actions.  Limiting the duration of the statute of limitations to something reasonable would enable the federal corporation to predict it's ability to meet it's congressional charter and not be continually responding to actions by people involved with the corporation years ago.  Congressionally chartered organizations like this have a unique ability to have a long corporate lifetime which makes it unusually susceptible to problems like this.  It's in the best interest of the people of the United States to enable these corporations to fulfill their congressional obligation while still being reasonably held accountable for the actions of it's contemporary volunteers and employees.

I am not, and have not, suggested blanket immunity for federally chartered organizations.  But at some point I do believe there is a point upon which the federal government says enough.  Maybe it's not 10 years, but 20 or 25.  But at some point, the original leadership is gone.  The abusers are gone.  The volunteers have all changed.  The professionals have all changed.  There are no stock holders and so you can't assess them.  All you can do is charge a completely different group of people a bunch of money because someone else 20, 30, or 40 years ago did something reprehensible.

It's a lovely notion to say that "the BSA should be held responsible", but doing that has a cost.  It's entirely a matter of public policy for us to ask "do we want, as a nation and a people, want to incur the cost of endless litigation for our nationally charter non-profits?".

You want to hold there organizations responsible forever it seems.  That it's OK because insurance companies will pay or that kids really won't feel the impact of it.  Is that correct?

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The lawsuits against BSA are not "penalizing" the kids of today.

And you make that claim how?

The kids of today are already paying higher fees.  You've already stated that the BSA will pay more going forward.  Who precisely do you expect to pay the BSA's portion?

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I reject your premise and charaterization.

Upon what basis?

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I expect BSA and local Councils will pay. But your doom scenario (HA camps sold, council camps closed, etc.) is not automatically a given.

So you do expect the BSA will pay.  The choice below doesn't say anything about how much.  So we're back to the same choice:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

So you're in favor of providing abuse victims compensation and penalizing the kids of today because you believe that the penalty won't be too bad.  Is that correct?

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. And one last thing you keep skipping over and over. What will insurance be forced to cover. You simply skip over it so you can offer a false choice between two false premises.

If the total liability/claims is = insurance coverage, BSA will NOT have to sell local camps, sell HA bases, etc. Insurance premiums will rise, but that is all.

We don't know what claims valued at how much we are even talking about here yet.

That is precisely how people duck the real question.  The lawsuits are OK because victims get lots of money, the insurance companies will pay it all, and the kids in the program won't be hurt.  People have been saying that for 20 years now and as a result today we are looking at a bankruptcy hearing. 

Do you really see it happening that the BSA will pay nothing, the insurance companies will pay it all, and victims will get lots of money?

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It is not a punt. We are discussing a) who bears the legal liability and b) legal responsibility to pay.

That's the real choice here. It is a question of law that is currently pending before the court.

We have no idea to what extent the BSA's liability and responsibility to pay (vs. the insurance companies) will be and if that will require what you are describing.

This whole topic is about the bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America.  What high adventure bases will be sold, which councils will go bankrupt, which local camps will close, and now which chartered organizations will pay.  We've already seen the impact of insurance companies paying in the form of higher insurance premiums to kids.  There is no scenario under which the BSA does not pay money.  With that in mind, just what is the third option that does not result in the choice:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Please articulate a third option that does not mean we choose between these two.

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for your two premises, again, I reject that those are the only two options. I've already demonstrated there is a third option (insurance companies carry most of the load) that is currently pending before the court.

And this is the problem with our country today - let's punt on the real choice because someone else will make it OK.  But, even if the insurance companies pay, all it does is lower the amounts we're talking about.  The BSA will still have to pay which will mean higher fees for kids, camps sold which means fewer camps for kids, a diminished reputation which means fewer kids participate in the program.  The will be a material impact on the kids of the United States.  So that's not a real third choice.  It just attenuates the impact.  Kids are still penalized. 

You've not convinced me that this is a real third option.  As far as I can tell, you are still telling me the choices are:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

 So which one do you want?

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

You keep changing what you are asking (it went from "deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?" to "sue in perpetuity". No one is saying perpetual suits.)

And you are offering a false choice/dichotomy that immediately rejects a third option. So no, I don't accept the premises of your question, namely, that those are the only two choices.

I merely prefaced the text with some action words based on your context.  Ok, let's go back to the original text:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Which path do you think is the correct one?  If there is a third one, what is it?

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And they can be. But under the charter, as written, the new BSA leadership would be chosen by...the old BSA leadership.

 

Congress created the corporation.  Congress can amend the enabling language to do whatever it needs to.

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

Your comment raises an interesting question. Any work I've ever done for federal or state government has had to meet all sorts of standards for non discrimination. Even though it's pretty much unlikely, If Congress were to actually examine the charter, how would BSA fair? Until recently, the organization has not exactly been welcoming to large and politically important categories of the nation's youth. And while girls are now allowed, they are still segregated into separate dens/troops,. There is also the problem of church involvement and the fact that atheists are not welcome. There have been a few recent reports about historic churches having trouble with National Historic Trust applications because they are churches, and the HT is another Congressional Charter so you can kind of see where the pendulum is swinging. Instead of Congress helping BSA, I'm wondering in today's environment if we should instead be worried about them possibly revoking it?  

I've lobbied for a long time for Congress to appoint an inspector general to oversee the BSA.  Congress should absolutely do it's job to ensure that the BSA is fulfilling it's charter.

The slight distinction from what you describe that I would make is that the BSA should not be allowed to violate the charter.  This is a corporation created for the purposes of the United States.  If the BSA leadership is in place to fulfill the needs of the country.  If the leadership violates it, said leadership should be replaced.  

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Not conflating. There's a third option

• Insurance companies pay the bulk of the abuse victims compensation. BSA's financial damage is substantial but not catastrophic (fire sales of Sea Base, Philmont) or even fatal

Nope - that may happen, but that's a side question.  That's the "we'll stick it to the system concept and no-one is hurt."  That's conflating the issue by suggesting that someone else is harmed that is not victims or kids of today.

Really this comes down to the hard question:

• let abuse victims sue in perpetuity so that we do not deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on
• limit the timeframe of suits so that we do not penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening

What's your choice?

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Close.

A big point of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the question of how much insurance companies will pay. Keep in mind that if the insurance companies honor their insurance policies that the victims will be compensation and BSA will have to pay but not nearly as much.

The insurance companies are claiming, in effect, the insurance agreements are void because a) BSA lied to the insurance companies when the contracts were signed OR b) BSA while insured failed to exercise the minimum amount of care necessary to honor their end of the insurance agreement or c) both.

There's no way BSA walks away unscathed. The damage to BSA's reputation is already done (and started with the first abuse lawsuits years ago and the release of the Perversion files). That meant financial drag as people fled. Then there's the claims/bankruptcy. But as above, even if the insurance companies have to eat 100% of the payments, BSA will still be looking at decades of decline because

1) The reputation is shot

2) Any new insurance premiums will be astronomical

3) Boy Scouts was developed for a post-World War II, mom and apple pie, vision of patriotic Americana that believes in institutions. That nation no longer exists. BSA is an anachronism and that means its funding model is an anachronism, too.

Let's not conflate the issue.  The insurance companies are not the point here.

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Which path do you think is the correct one.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Why do YOU want to deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?

This isn't about seeking protection from Congressionally Chartered organizations. Your plan is simply a BSA bailout. No one organization should get that kind of a custom carve-out from tort liability.

Yes, it is a shame that today's kids get penalized. You want to just focus on today's kids. I want to focus on the kids (now grown men) who got abused.

And even if I didn't want to focus on the kids, I find the idea of such a special carve-out from tort liability is bad public policy. No one organization is so important that it should receive special favors from Congress.

 

So let's net this out then.  The choice is either:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Is that it?

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

• So, if you make it to the century mark, you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability?
• So, if the tort/abuse is more than a year ago (vs. "years"), you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability?
• So, if the CURRENT volunteers are squeaky clean, then all prior bad acts (and liability) for the incorporated entity's officers and agents get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability?
• There literally are no owners of the BSA (36 USC 30906(b) "The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.").
• So, if your organization is here today, all prior bad acts are hereby waived and you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability?

"We do good works today" does NOT absolve the entity itself from having to pay for its malfeasance, misfeasance and, nonfeasance.

You know I didn't say one year.

The Ski Patrol skipping out on a contract is not germane to this discussion.

The core public policy problem we are dealing with is how does a federally chartered organization with a mission to serve the kids of the United States deal with bad acts in it's distant past.  If you go back far enough in history you can certainly find all kinds of bad things that occurred.  

This isn't s family business that got rich through illegal activities.  This is a national non-profit created by Congress with a specific governance structure.  By virtue of that structure the organization will survive as long as people show up who want to help.  

As there is no stock, the owners of this corporation are effectively the people of the United States.  By penalizing the organization today you are penalizing the children it serves today and in the future.  Selling Philmont hurt kids.  Selling council camps hurts kids. Raising fees to pay lawsuits means kids today pay more.  A great many kids in the program can not afford to pay hundreds of dollars a year to cover lawsuit settlements.  

Why do you want to penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes. And what I pointed out is that your proposal to shield federally created organizations is unworkable. This is NOT like the question of whether state law should impact a federal government.

• You know that the BSA is a 100+ year organization
• You know that the issues with abuse were many years ago. 
• You know that the vast preponderance of the volunteers and professionals involved with the BSA today had nothing to do with that abuse.
• The owners of the BSA are us - the people of the United States.
• The BSA is here today to serve the kids of today.  The people involved with it are largely volunteers serving the kids of today.

Just who precisely do you think my proposal shields?

And - your response did not point out that my proposal is not workable.  You stated that I was trying to create a haven for pedophiles with money.  You inferred that I was trying to blame the victim.  That was out of line.

55 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That sounds great, and that may have been a 19th century view of things, but as a legal matter, it matters not a whit. All "Congressional charter" means is "I got pull in Congress". And BSA did. 100 years ago. Now, to try and use the fact that it has a congressional charter as some sort of shield from abuse claims? "Sorry you got molested and all, but we have a Congressional Charter, so too bad."

And I'm sorry, but if I'm a lawfirm and you write a law that allows for absolute waivers of liability as long as I can somehow register as a charity? I'm all over that.

Sorry you were molested kid and our organizations leaders knew, but you can't sue us because we are a charity? A not-for-profit?

And how "prominent" do you have to be? If your gross income is over $100 million a year you get a "molest all the kids, stay out of legal liability" pass? What about $10 million? $1 million?

BSA (the organizational leaders thereof) did this to itself. Their poor choices means there are two generations of victims: those who were abused and those who now suffer due to the decline in the program.

I will never, ever, EVER blame the victim or seek protection for an organization that KNEW what was happening and failed to act sufficiently or to exercise due diligence.

EDIT: One final note. Part of being an incorporated entity, one of the benefits, is being able to avoid personal legal liability. There's no talk of seizing the PERSONAL assets of the former Scout CEOs and other leaders who knew, should have known, and did nothing.

So under this theory, so long as you run a not-for-profit staffed with pedophile volunteer leaders:

1) You can't hold the not-for-profit that trained and oversaw the pedophile volunteer accountable because it is a not-for-profit

2) You can't hold personally liable the paid officers of the organization ("pierce the corporate veil") because it is an incorporated entity

Therefore, out of the two sets of wrongdoers (the not-for-profit and its officers PLUS the pedophile) one gets to skate?

No, thank you.

Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote - which was about the public policy question from a federally created organization being impacted by statute of limitations changes in individual state laws.  You're trying to turn my comment into something very different.  No thanks.