T2Eagle

I was specifically referring to the Ineligible Volunteer files that were made public by court order back in 2012. I'm sure they keep records on members against whom they've taken some action since then. I'm just not sure how or whether they would keep allegations about someone that they received years after that person was no longer a part of the organization. If I understand correctly, you were a scout in the 70s. Although it's possible, it's unlikely that your abuser remained in the organization for much past that time. I'm not sure they would have any computerized record of his me

Out of curiosity, was your abuser still in scouting then? I'm not sure what anyone could have done with that letter if he wasn't. The ineligible files, as I understand them, were lists of people BSA or councils had taken some action against. And I believe they stopped maintaining the lists as such prior to 2008.

I think it's really important to distinguish between the two types of LCs, those in the revival states and those not. Those in the revival states know that at a minimum their non restricted assets are gone. A settlement that involves monies from the other LCs might save some camps and allow the downsizing to be rational. For those in the non revival states it's a lot more complicated. There are several hundred claims attributable to my council (I forget the exact number), but my understanding is none of them are current, and for what may be within the current SOL we're insured and ha

It's hard to decide where and how to jump back in to the discussion after the big slow. I think it's still better for everyone, especially the majority of claimants if some universal settlement is achieved. If settlement talks collapse, that really shuts out claimants from any state other than the current states with revival or extended SOL periods, which I believe is somewhere between six and twelves states depending on how you count things. Within those states, filing suits against the LCs will probably lead to bankruptcy proceedings for just about every council. It's true that f

The party that will be named in a lawsuit is the CO, that's who the Directors and Officers of the troop are. Whoever is running the CO should certainly have D&O insurance of some sort.

A couple of points for clarification. Although SOLs can be extended, for criminal offenses they can't be made retroactive. So if a state today removes the SOL for criminal prosecution of child abuse that doesn't mean that every abuser in history can now be retroactively prosecuted, it only means that crimes that are today within the SOL will have that SOL extended going forward. Things are, as we see, very different for civil cases, SOLs can be retroactively extended, hence the problems facing BSA and others today. Where invoking the fifth amendment comes in is that if in a crimi

The thing that has bothered and challenged me for a long time is that scouting where I live doesn't even look like our local high school or the local sports leagues, drama clubs, high school bands, etc. in terms of diversity of membership. I live in a pretty median mid-west suburb. If you go to the local high school you see a fair number of kids whose ethnicity is clearly Middle Eastern, Asian, Indian Sub continent, Hispanic, et al. But if you go to our district camporee the ethnicity is almost uniformly white. There's no reason to think there is any disparity between their parents in

Ask a different agent, or ask the agent again. The whole point of umbrella policies is that they cover things not covered by your homeowners policy. If being involved in youth activities as a volunteer was really that risky you would know about a lot more claims and be offered insurance as part of every kid activity you're involved in. So you probably don't need it. But it's relatively cheap and brings some peace of mind, so I have it.

LCs clearly are coming to the table as we're seeing camps being sold even in closed states. The decision to sell a camp is a very emotional and fraught action to take, and is fought tooth and nail to the extent in can be even under the best circumstances. That LCs are contemplating it and moving forward actually is a sign of real seriousness. I'm in a closed state, and we have two camps that in normal years are financially self sustaining. I know we have cash assets and I know we'll be in a position to make a reasonable contribution. But I doubt we'd get to the point of selling a camp

I'm going to assume the "crossbows" mentioned in the article are actually the compound bow(s) in the original posting.

Have you read the new one? I haven't seen it, but my own council sent out an "all is well but with a subtle message that we're going to have pay into the fund" note. Usually these things are circulated boiler plate that every council uses a version of.

You've posted that Black Swamp article twice recently. It's not from two weeks ago, it's from two years ago --- before the bankruptcy was even filed. You've also mentioned that BSA keeps talking about "ask" and "voluntary" when talking about LC contributions. That's what they will be, there's no mechanism today that would force LCs, especially LCs in non look back SOL states, to make a contribution. My council has been up front about the possibility that we'll need to make a contribution, but the devil is in the details, how much and in return for what. I don't know what the message

With few exceptions a non profit cannot be forced into liquidation. These can be long drawn out court battles, years even, if everyone wans to fight rather than settle. And the issues aren't at all clear how they'll come out, so everyone would be rolling the dice with no surety of the outcome. So settle, IMHO is going to be what happens. BSA is going to have to sell some big assets --- more than they want to, LCs, even those like mine that have no SOL change, are going to have to pay --- more than they want. Claimants are going to get paid --- less than they want. But the least like

I'm really curious how you arrive at that conclusion. Walk me through, step by step, how you think BSA shuts down. There are tremendous issues of both fact and law at play here. BSA has literally billions in assets, not a single dollar of which has been awarded to any creditors or claimants. I can't even conjure up a series of events that results in BSA, let alone your local council or troop, shutting down this summer.

One thing I've been puzzling through, and haven't seen a good explanation of is whether or how a universal settlement now prevents currently unknown time barred claims in non look back states from being opened in the future if a state changes its SOL and does a look back period. If anyone has seen a good explanation please share it.

A couple thoughts on some of the previous comments. I'm curious what YPT violations folks have seen that they think should have been acted on but haven't. Compliance with YPT rates should be taken with a grain of salt. BSA's record keeping, especially with respect to training has long been atrocious. I'm not even sure today that training and membership are actually the same database, rather they are in different databases and then some reporting function tries to tie them together. Making registration and recharter contingent on up to date training, which has been the rule

If everyone has to have a valid for the charter year YPT, than pretty soon doesn't that just end up with everyone having their expiration date become December. Mine expires in June, so if I needed to follow that rule I would have had to redo this past December then I would be good until December 2022. And then every other December I would renew. Of course this is almost what happens now. Anyone who hasn't renewed when theirs expires ends up renewing before recharter. So at this point there are probably more than half a dozen leaders who have expiration dates in December.

I'd really be curious to see any actual data on YPT. I don't know that I've ever actually seen any. i've seen plenty of assertions that it's among the best, and as I mentioned above it seems pretty standard to the other training I've received. Has anyone on the boards here ever seen any actual stats?

Many, many moons ago my old Contracts professor told me never assume things will go right. It's what happens after a breach that matters. Assume everything has gone wrong, ask yourself if whether, when everything has gone wrong, the parties are where they want to be when everything has gone wrong. If so, you have a good contract.

Vested means owns and agreements are legally binding. What is VESTED? Accrued; fixed; settled; absolute ; having the character or giving the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. See Scott v. West, 03 Wis. 529 <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/vested/" title="VESTED">VESTED</a> What is AGREEMENT? A concord of understanding and intention, between two or more parties, with respect to the effect upon their relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances.

So the triggering event for all the assets to vest in National is the end of the current charter if it's not renewed. Upon termination of a local council charter or dissolution of a council, all rights of management and ownership of local council property shall become vested in the National Council for use in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. Assume your LC's charter expires 3/31/21. If your local council doesn't renew than 3/31/21 is the "termination of the local council charter" and that's the day "ownership of local council property [becomes] vested i

I live in Ohio. For something like the VRA to pass would take a massive change in the political landscape. Just a few years ago we tightened SOL rules for even basic contract cases. For a state like Texas the shift would have to be even larger. The incentive to pay to settle, and I know my council anticipates that as a very real possibility, is that the current situation is bad for everyone, it's always worth some money to reduce uncertainty and this could act as an insurance policy against VRA laws, keeping your own assets at the cost of BSA going down in flames is pennywise pound foo

The control of local councils is very complicated. As far as i can tell if it went all the way to trial it would be a "matter of first impression" meaning it's the first time that particular interpretation of the law came before a court. The councils are unquestionably independently owned and operated corporations that exist as entities established within each state's laws governing corporations. They have their own boards, corporate by laws, legal obligations, etc. The reversionary interest national has in the councils' properties comes from their ability to confer or revoke charters.

In order for BSA to demonstrate that two thirds of its assets are restricted and unavailable to creditors they would need to have been incredibly disciplined in their accounting and bookkeeping over the past century to make sure there was no comingling of the various funds and properties. This is not a habit of mind that I've seen them exhibit in any other sphere of their behavior. I have always thought that one of their weaknesses of BSA as an organization is that virtually everyone in the organization has come up through the ranks and so there is little opportunity for new ideas or dis