Jump to content

T2Eagle

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Posts posted by T2Eagle

  1. 1 hour ago, curious_scouter said:

    Councils don't want to do this any more than the units do.  If they did, they would have been pushing this for years.  It's being done out of necessity and Scouts BSA needs this to work.  If there's widespread looting of unit resources by council(s) it will torpedo this and scouting is likely to fail. I'm not worried at all about council chartering and the resources of our unit being protected if we're required to go that route.  I'm more worried about having a consistent place to meet and somewhere safe to keep the trailer without having to pay through the nose for storage.

    There's a pretty big divergence in operations between councils.  I find my own pros to be just that, professional, and generally outstanding.  I will say money is where they are the funniest, I think because they never can relax about it because they don't have a dedicated income stream the way national does with registration, so it feels like the wolf is always at the door.

    My guess is that there will be some questionable actions in some councils, but I suspect what will most often happen is that things will become more bureaucratic and annoying, especially in comparison to the near total independence most units now have, but with no real change in the end result.

  2. 4 hours ago, jcousino said:

    Sound nice , but not sure why a council would give a charter to a group that has no assents and little money to cover liability costs alone or why would i risk offering my building if you can not supply proof of liability  coverage for the  building?

     

    So there's a lot of misunderstanding about the idea of "liability". 

    From council's point of view their liability, and their risk, is based on their actions.  If they are negligent in some action they take or fail to take they will be held liable for that action and damages based on that will be paid from their assets.  Whether the CO has or doesn't have assets doesn't affect their risk.  In the new model they are probably taking on more risk because they are now acting as CO and have a greater responsibility for supervising the actions of a troop's leaders --- and so more chances to be negligent.  Keeping that risk on a CO is probably less risky for them.

    As to actual assets, I would guess that many current COs have effectively no assets.  Your average Elks, VFW, small old line protestant congregation, etc. probably has a few months operating cash in the bank plus their building, which in many instances is probably a restricted asset in fact, or effectively so because it is core to their mission and wouldn't be forfeit even in the event of bankruptcy.

    • Upvote 1
  3. 3 hours ago, scoutldr said:

    Think long and hard about the personal liability you are assuming if you do this.  I personally would not put my home and personal assets at risk.  Even in the old days, I carried $3 million in umbrella liability at the advice of my financial advisor.

    I don't want to down play the risks here, but they also shouldn't be over stated.  The whole point of a corporation, of any type, is that they protect individuals from liability and leave it all on the corporation.  Churches may be being sued, but the church elders who run them are not.  The limit of liability for a corporation is the assets that the corporation owns.  I do think an umbrella policy is a good idea for anyone involved in youth activities irrespective of what the over lying organization is; I've had one since I became a Tiger leader decades ago.  

  4. 20 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    And when these are done intentionally, we call them lies.

    Interestingly, these folks, speaking of this kind of PR stuff broadly not just BSA individually, sincerely don't see it that way. 

    One particular argument I remember was when we decided to change a rarely used employee perk, payroll withholding to pay for a discounted car insurance through the company.  We were going to keep the discount but eliminate the withholding.  The reason we were eliminating the withholding was because it was cumbersome and took up a lot of someone's time, but was used by very few employees.  When the PR folks wrote the announcement they were describing the reason for the change as being made to benefit the employees because in the few instances that the perk was used it was so often screwed up in its administration (which it almost always was) that it was more trouble than it was worth.  They really didn't understand that just because that could have been a reason it wasn't actually accurate to say that was the reason when it was purely a cost cutting measure.  

    My stance was just tell people the unvarnished truth, it cost more than it was worth and the company was always obligated to think about such things.  I believe that adults can handle bad news if you're honest about it.  The PR folks just really instinctively felt that everything had to be given a positive spin.  They genuinely saw that as right and proper. and not an untruth.

    • Upvote 1
  5. 19 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    Riddle me this: What happens if the Chapter 11 global settlement whittles down to the BSA only, Toggle Plan? Did the real estate attorneys for any of these LCs factor in the prospect of retraction or delays in closing, pending the completion of the case? My assumption is, no, since no one expected it to go on this long ON TOP OF most LCs being repeatedly told, "All is well. You're fine. Scouting continues. You're not in bankruptcy, your money won't be needed, no camps will be sold..."

    Also, what is the mechanism for delivery the cash and is it all going into a sequestered escrow with the court?

    Pure speculation on my part, but I would think that whatever uncertainty there may be for the buyers, that is priced into their offer.  But these are pretty straightforward real estate transactions, there shouldn't be much trouble in closing them.  Multi-million dollar houses close in 45-60 days.

    As to where the money goes right away, hopefully into some nice safe investment held by the LC.  I know my own LC isn't and wouldn't turn over any money until the settlement is all blessed and kosher.  

    I haven't read into the bowels of the plan to see if there is a process for LCs to pay in and thus secure their release when the time comes.

    19 hours ago, ThenNow said:

     Regardless, I don't understand why National does such a poor job of keeping local Scouting apprised. Maybe they do and I just don't see/hear it.

    I consider the people who run my council to be friends, but there is such a strong culture of only speaking about things with upbeat and positive spin that it is innate to anyone who has been steeped in that culture.  They instinctively avoid describing situations with precision and depth; even with me, even in casual conversation, they speak that way.  

    It reminds me of my old days in the Fortune 500 world, where I had to wrestle with the PR department to not put out statements that were so obfuscating that they became both meaningless AND inaccurate.

    • Upvote 2
  6. 6 hours ago, SSScout said:

    The money is the units, and thereby the CO's . Period. 

    Scout leaves Scouting? Money is the units. Scout transfers to another unit?  The money is the "original" unit's. They could send it to the new unit, but I have often seen them not. 

     

    This is the really critical part to understand: the money is never the scout's, it belongs to the unit.  The scout isn't entitled to it, the unit can decide to spend money on a scout that a scout helped raise, but it can also decide not to, even after the money has been raised.

    It's not for the scout or the family to decide what happens to money that be in a "scout account", that's a decision for the unit.  The scout or family can express an opinion, but it's critical to understand that it's not their decision.

    • Upvote 1
  7. On 5/20/2022 at 2:39 PM, Eagle1993 said:

    I wouldn't think a committee should be investigating a YPT report that was submitted to the council.  Other than cooperating with the investigation, a unit committee should not be involved.   If I were CC, I would simply ask the SE if there was any immediate action needed and if not, move on.  

     

    I would add some nuance to that.  My troop may have higher standards than council or BSA.  The CC and COR are the people who recruit, select, and are responsible for troop leadership.  Something that might not be full stop grounds for ending scouting membership might still be grounds for a change or even an ending of the individual's role in the troop. 

    Additionally, I would really want to understand in depth any incident that was concerning enough for one of our parents to believe it worthy of reporting to council.  This is the type of thing that make it really important to remember how the chartering model works and how responsible the CO is for what goes on in the unit, irrespective of the views of the umbrella organization.

    • Upvote 2
  8. 11 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

    It is fascinating to me that these councils are selling camps prior to Judge Silverstein issuing her judgment in the BSA Chapter 11.  Our council will sell a camp to an identified purchaser only if the proposed settlement is actually confirmed but not before.  Perhaps the councils feel certain of the Judge's ruling or feel that they are better off with the liquidity no matter the outcome.  Just find it fascinating that they are selling now.

    Councils in open states like California are going to pay, whether through BSA bankruptcy or through their own.  It's probably prudent to get that liquidity lined up.

    • Thanks 1
  9. 2 hours ago, yknot said:

    Where do you store your personal food? 

     

    Everybody in the troop is allowed a "chaos" bucket: generally a five gallon bucket and lid.  Any personal food, especially all the junk they buy from the trading post, is kept there.  They're stored in the trailer at night so there's no temptation to have food in the tents.   In addition to food storage, scouts tend to keep in them stuff they're working on like their handbooks, mb paperwork, projects, etc.  That way they're not going in and out of a hot tent as often.  They also make great seats for sitting around the campfire

    As SM I used a plastic toter rather than a bucket, but for all the same reasons.

    • Like 1
  10. 6 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

    I was looking at the summer camp menu last night and noticed one night the main entree Isa turkey corn dog.

     

     

    That is just gross on oh so many levels.

    I always made sure to have my own jar of peanut butter and box of crackers at camp, plus various other packaged semi healthy snacks, for nights like that.  At our camp breakfast was always the best meal, and I made the most of it.  Lunch and dinner were more hit or miss.  Dinner always included a salad bar and I could usually do pretty well there.

    My consistent feedback on our camp's food was that they could do better providing healthier versions of what they served.  Not everything has to be prepackaged, highly processed frozen stuff from GFS, pre-loaded with sugar, fat, and salt.  I specifically told them to check out videos and books from Jamie Oliver showing you could do cafeteria food just as well with fresh ingredients if you just put some thought into it, especially as they had a fair amount of free or discounted labor they could call on for help

    • Upvote 1
  11. 2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Also, isn't that the whole thing that opened BSA's legal nightmare?  BSA kept incident records from 50+ years ago. ... It's legal negligence that BSA did not have these documents subject to a data retention policy.  Yes, handle the incidents.  Follow the law that exists at that time.   Make the best decisions and take the right actions.   Then, when done, the records should have been subject to a standard data retention policy.  ... Every major corporation I know learned that lesson in the 1990s.  ... Given how the courts enable using your own records against you, why would anyone keep such records from 30, 40, 50+ years ago?  

     

    This is a really big misunderstanding about the relationship between BSA's legal troubles and the IV files.  The files aren't the reason that BSA is in trouble.  BSA is in trouble because tens of thousands of boys and young men were sexually assaulted and brutalized while and because they participated in Boy Scouts.  Most of the attackers were not in the files, most of them were not found out at the time.  

    You don't need any kind of files when you have living witnesses who can testify about what was done to them and by whom.  The absence or presence of files doesn't change the facts of the assaults or the failure to prevent them.  That's what BSA is being sued for, the assaults and the failure to stop them, not whether or not they kept some records about some predators that they sometimes prevented from their predation.

    • Upvote 2
  12. 2 hours ago, MattySchnides said:

    what % of your fundraising profits do you typically give back to the FoS or to the districts?  By the way, I am not talking about pop-corm sales or camp card sales because we do plan on doing that as a fundraiser in the fall.  This is a fundraiser that was Troop and Scout led.

    Zero is the answer from my unit, and I've never heard of a unit giving any.  I've been doing this for a long time, and have had several council board members who are also adult leaders in our unit.  We do allow/invite a council rep to do an FOS ask at our spring COH, and our troop families give.  We support popcorn sales, but we don't push hard for it as it's not a primary fundraiser for us.  Broadly we're very supportive of our council and have good relations with them, so I'm not saying this as someone with an antagonistic relationship with council.

    A couple additional thoughts and questions.  It is always important to remember that when you are fundraising you are technically fundraising for your Chartered Organization which owns your unit and its funds.  The money doesn't belong to the troop it belongs to the CO who is allowing the troop to use its funds.  Before you give any significant amount of money to anyone, especially council, you should make sure that's what they want done with their money.  If council wants your CO to give them $2000 then they should ask the CO directly.  This is the first thing I would respond to any council type making this kind of ask.

    The next thought I have is how did anyone even know how much you made.  Again, this is your CO's money and your CO's business.  I know the Unit Earning Application asks some questions about this, but you can be very vague in answering.  Me, I just don't answer, but if pressed I would be mostly vague and direct them to my CO; again it's their money and it's not really for me to be disclosing their finances. 

    The final thought I have is wondering who actually had this conversation with you.  By your description I'm guessing it was the volunteer in charge of FOS and not necessarily a paid council professional.  It's worth remembering that means he is someone not necessarily completely versed in how councils should interact with units and isn't necessarily following direct guidance from the Council Scout Exec.

    • Upvote 3
  13. That isn't the most common format for a meeting, but I suspect what you were expecting is also not what a common format for a meeting should be.

    ScoutsBSA is very different from Cubs when it comes to what the focus and purpose of meetings are.  The meetings are not and should not be focused on rank advancement.  The idea you have that there should be "work towards progress"  is just not the focus.  At this age advancement is individual not group oriented.  A group of scouts can decide they want to work together or at the same time on a particular advancement skill, but the Cub way of everyone in the den working on the same thing at the same time is not the way now.

    What most troop meetings should be about is what this month's campout is going to be: planning for meals and duties, checking equipment, and if any particular skill is needed for the main activity learning, working on, or refreshing that skill.

    The most important thing about a meeting is whether the scouts are having fun.  If your son enjoyed being there than the meetings were good ones.  I'll give you the advice I give every freshly crossed over parent: relax, take a deep breath, watch your son grow.  If you're concerned about him advancing, and more importantly IF HE is interested in becoming an Eagle scout, he has seven years to do so.

     

    • Upvote 2
  14. As I understand the restriction, you're most specifically not supposed to go out and simply ask for money for the troop for things like equipment or to cover the cost of outings..

    If the grant your SPL has applied for is conservation projects than that's not really benefitting the troop so you're probably okay.  I would however make sure your CO is okay with it since they're actually the beneficiary.

  15. 16 hours ago, Tatung42 said:

    This is a good change with Packs bridging earlier and earlier.  We had a 5th grader join us in December, and he enjoyed his few months with his Den, but then all of his Den-mates bridged to scouts BSA in February.  He was not able to go with them since he had not earned his AOL and his 11th birthday is not until Aug.

    We had this situation once.  We just left the scout registered as a Webelo II but had him crossover to the troop with his den mates.  We like to have crossover by March so that the newest scouts get a couple of weekend campouts under their belts before summer camp.  First year summer camp can be hard enough because it's usually such a big change for the youngest scouts;  when it's their first ever camp where they're really responsible for themselves it can be overwhelming.

  16. 28 minutes ago, ramanous said:

    Whats your patrol Duty Roster look like?

    Fireman was a coveted role back in the day, but national now tells us not to start unnecessary campfires. The standard duty roster still features fireman, waterman which now appear to unnecessary. Our boys certainly don't bother with it. That leaves cook, clean-up and a lot of twiddling thumbs. 

    Our patrol duty rosters look like whatever the patrols wat them to look like, it's not an adult function.  For the most part they slot in two cooks, two scouts for clean-up, maybe somebody on water if we have to haul it from somewhere.  I'm not sure about twiddling thumbs, but there's no reason for everybody to be busy for the sake of being busy.  The rest of the patrol can be kicking a ball, playing cards, just goofing off, or maybe even the dreaded "working on requirements."

    • Upvote 2
  17. 13 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    It is official, our Catholic Diocese will not charter ANY BSA units. Somewhere between 30 to 50 units being dumped. ("Well, our Troop Committee can count about a dozen in our immediate area, and the Diocese is huge, so 20 to 60?) Lots.

    Worst fears realized. (Started the inquiries in October, 2021, guidance issued 4-19-2022.) Thanks.

    Nearly 80± years of sponsorship tradition DEAD.

    Still possible to enter into a Facilities Use Agreement with the Parish, but with conditions, specifically, certain insurance requirements (details yet unspecified-inquiries being made re details), and Catholic "youth protection training." AS LONG AS  our Troop and Pack can find a Chartering Organization. That might be doable.

    So, our Troop (and Pack) has several options:

    1.  Suffer a DEchartering and wish all the scouts and parents "Good Luck." (Our Council has informed us that this is looming-"You can't meet, wear uniforms... (...well, I will resist comment...a bit))

    2.  Encourage and assist scouts and parents to transfer to other units (allows them to continue to officially work on and be recognized for advancement).  We have a number approaching Eagle.  This is the "quail" solution-everyone scatters.  

    3.  Merge our unit's scouts with another unit.  This option could work well or go horribly wrong, depending on how the parents of the merging scouts react to a lessening of their role in the troop (pack) merged into.

    4.  Find another Chartering Organization, but enter into a Facilities Use Agreement with our current Parish, former chartering organization.  A seamless transition, as far as the scouts are concerned.  Keep meeting at the same place with their same friends and same adult leaders.  (Adult paperwork changes, but scouts see no change.)

    5.  Find another Chartering Organization which will provide new facilities for the Troop's (and Pack's) meetings. Change of chartering organization (scouts probably will not notice), BUT change of meeting location, which scouts will certainly notice.

    HOWEVER, a unit changing its chartering organization raises the specter of the unit having to FORFEIT all of its assets to the former chartering organization leaving the transferring unit penniless and devoid of equipment.

    Oh, Happy Day.

    Not so, as my units have no answers.

    Suggestions?

    What about the Facilities Use/Chartered by Council option?

  18. 1 hour ago, jcousino said:

    Bad choice as this makes the signers at  risk for any  claims (any cause). I would never ask any one to be willing to place their home at risk for scouting.

     

    there are lots of questions and answers needed specific to an individual situation, but the whole point of corporations is that they separate the owners of the corporation from individual liability.  When GM gets sued the shareholders of GM can't be held liable.

    More analogous to this situation, three guys want to start a business, say a canoe livery service, so they form a corporation.   They hire an employee, that employee does something stupid and someone gets hurt, the corporation gets sued, but the only assets at risk are the assets owned by the corporation.   The assets of the individuals: their homes, bank accounts, cash etc. are not at jeopardy.

    Somewhat closer analogy, you live in a neighborhood that has a homeowners association.  The HOA is a non profit corporation, the homeowners all own the corporation, they hire an employee who does something stupid, the assets of the HOA, probably nothing more than a current checking account are in jeapordy, but none of the homeowners can be sued or forced to pay anything.  Even if the HOA is sued into bankruptcy, after all its assets are gone the homeowners just start a new non profit and keep on rolling.

    • Like 1
  19. 17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Judge seemed very sympathetic to their points and didn't like BSA's response.  Basically the GSUSA is expecting at least $17M.  The insurance BSA set aside for them has limitations that will likely prevent that payout (even if GSUSA wins in court).  BSA's point is their case sucks and there is no chance they are going to win. The judge basically that may be true but you still need to be ready in case they do win.  Or.. she may just say district court's decision makes it highly unlikely for GSUSA to win so let's move on.  

     

    If BSA was an ongoing concern, they would have had to list the GSUSA lawsuit as a contingent liability on their balance sheet while it was still undecided in District Court.  Once they lost there it would probably drop from the balance sheet but still be listed in a footnote.

    I don't know how that translates in a bankruptcy case.  It would be legal malpractice for their lawyers not to argue for some money being set aside, but they really shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen, or if the money set aside is very small.

    • Thanks 2
  20. 40 minutes ago, Essayons926 said:

    (Sorry for being a noob... I won't attempt any more to understand what's going on with the lawsuit because it is unknowable.)

    Can anyone direct me to information about what processes and procedures were used to insure that the claims made against the BSA were not fraudulent?  I have spent 3 hours on this forum (which earlier research lead me to believe was the most current, active and authoritative on the subject) and I have found nothing.

    Thanks

    John

    The short answer is that attorneys who filed claims on behalf of clients were supposed to do do some screening as to basic validity of a claim before they filed.  If a claimant was pro se, that is representing themselves, then they themselves attested to the basic validity.  Any claim made was made under penalty of perjury so there is the possibility of severe penalties in the event a fraudulent claim is made.

    At least in part because it isn't yet certain that there will be a settlement or any money actually paid out there hasn't been any greater scrutiny than that of the veracity of the claims made.

    How that's going to happen, how rigorous it will be, and when and how it will be done are points of contention that need to be worked out as part of the final settlement and plan.

  21. I'm not sure what you mean by not supporting the OA.  If you mean they actively discourage troop members from being in it,  that's going to be a bigger barrier for you.  If you mean the troop just doesn't bother holding elections or otherwise encouraging interaction than a little support from your Scoutmaster should be enough to get started. 

    It doesn't take a lot of troop involvement to make it possible for those scouts interested to be allowed to become members.  Basically the troop just has to let scouts from the OA come in and conduct an election.  This should be a less than 30 minute process.  You can reach out to your Council's OA Lodge and get from them all the information they would need to schedule and conduct the election, and then talk to your Scoutmaster again along with your PLC to ask them to carve out a half a meeting and invite the OA team in.

    Good luck.

  22. OK, no they're not losing money on those events.  The contributions there are also money they brought in as part of those events.  "Contributions reportable on Schedule B(Form 990) are contributions, grants, bequests, devises, and gifts of money or property, whether or not for charitable purposes." 

    I'm not tax guy enough to know exactly why they're pulling them out of gross receipts, but they're definitely revenue associated with the events.  Most likely some part of every ticket they sell for say the golf outing is listed as a gift or "contribution" rather than just kept as simple gross receipt.  It is likely related to what the value of the golfing is and then the amount above that is considered a contribution.  So, $100 golf ticket buys you $25 worth of golf --- what you would pay if it wasn't a charity gig --- the other $75 is the gift you're making to the council.  

    But the end result is the same, that top line Gross Receipt is the real money coming in.

    ETA: I should have read Wëlënakwsu's helpful link.  It has a more straightforward explanation than mine.

    • Thanks 2
×
×
  • Create New...