Eagle1993

7 hours ago, yknot said:

It is shameful and ignorant that anyone should suggest their destruction, removal or denigration. This doesn't happen in many other countries, just the idiotic United States and Iran apparently. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_monuments_to_Vladimir_Lenin_in_Ukraine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-21666091/syria-crisis-raqqa-crowds-topple-assad-statue

Perhaps you can find Nazi memorials in Germany...nope.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/germany-has-no-nazi-memorials/597937/

There are many, many, many more examples of former leader status being torn down.

I think it is probably the opposite.  USA was one of the few countries to honor traitors who tried to keep in place a system of slavery and murdered tens of thousands of people in their effort.  Lee was a great general but had a choice.  Lincoln wanted him to stay with the Union. He made his choice as did Jackson... we should not honor these people. Just as Iraq no long honors Saddam, Ukraine Lenin, Syria Assad, etc.

What you fight for matters.

I read through the line of credit document for Philmont.

https://ministrywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Mortgage-Agreement-Philmont-without-exhibits.pdf

Some interesting findings:

1) It appears that Philmont is not the only property to be mortgaged to secure the line of credit.  One could only guess that most properties (notice the offshore reference … Sea Base Bermuda) are now probably mortgage

Section 12.13 Counterparts - This Mortgage is being executed in several counterparts, all of which are identical, except that to facilitate recordation, if the Mortgaged Property is situtated offshore or in more than one county, descriptions of only those portions of the Mortgaged Property located in the county in which  a particular counterpart is recorded shall be attached as Exhibit A thereto. ….

Section 11 also mentions other Mortgages 

2) It looks like any major work on any property that is under Mortgage will have to be approved by JP Morgan.  If true, looks like a added hurdle for any major changes at these locations.

Section 3.14 Alternations - Long section, but looks like any alteration exceeding $100,000 must be approved prior to start by JPMorgan.  Also includes a doozy (not sure if this is standard) that "Mortgagee may, as a condition to giving its consent to a Material Alteration, require that Mortgagor deliver to Mortgagee security for payment of the cost of such Material Alteration in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of the Material Alteration as estimated by Mortgagee. ...

3) Bankruptcy protection … this one is interesting.  I wonder if we have any experts that would shed light on this session.  There is speculation that BSA setup these Mortgages in prep for bankruptcy.  Basically, secure LOC on all our properties, which prevents them from being sold off.  Not sure, but if that is the strategy, great news.

Section 5.3 … this Mortgage shall constitute a "security agreement" for purposes of Section 552(b) of the Bankruptcy Code …  

4) Prior Debts … I think this is the section others point to saying Philmont had a prior Mortgage.  Two issues with that.  One is that Philmont is never mentioned in this section and per my point 1, this same document is used for other properties.  There is no clear document that Philmont had a prior mortgage.  

Bunch of Whereas's … 

2010 Loans … Principal Amount of up to $75M … term loan in aggregate principal amount of $25M … so $25M debt here

2010 Bond Agreement … located om West Virginia on behalf of Fayette County and Arrow WV, Inc.  Series 2010A revenue bond of principal $50M and Commercial Development bond 2010B of principal $50M … both loaned to BSA through Arrow WV, Inc. … so looks like $100M of debt here, not sure

2012 Bond Agreement … Also references Arrow WV Project, Commercial Development Revenue Bond principal of $0.175M … peanuts

Based on the summary of this section, it sounds like these prior loans & bonds are just referenced and not replaced by this new LOC.  

Not sure what to make of all of this, but found the above interesting.  

@TAHAWK  I’m just happy they are listening and adjusting a bit in this case.  
 

However, given that they hocked Philmont, I wouldn’t recommend giving them your bank account info any time soon.

I don’t blame you..

Hope this works.  

 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156762459640658&id=414443808703460&ref=bookmarks

Here is the FB post.  Posted in Talk About Scouting. 

CBC Forms released 11-25-19.zip

See attached forms.  Updated language is in the Additional-Disclosures... document.  

I'm having trouble linking the post.

Just saw new forms referenced on Facebook.  I haven’t been able to download them yet.  See FB post below.  Thanks goes to the FB poster & BSA for listening!
 

New CBC Forms Released Today. 

READ ALL OF THIS POST.  IF A PERSON HAS TURNED IN THE NEW FORMS THERE IS NO ACTION NECESSARY UNLESS THEY WANT TO SUBMIT THE NEW FORM THAT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES THE CREDIT CHECK AS THESE FORMS DO.

There is a new sentence in the forms that says, "This authorization applies only to criminal checks/driving records and does not allow the Company to obtain credit checks." It can be found in the form you sign titled "Additional Disclosures-and-background-check-authorization. Note: There are different forms depending if you are in California or the other 49 states.  Link is for a zip file of all the forms since you can only upload 1 file in a post, and it won't let me upload the zip.

Source:  BSA Legal provided the documents.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ktde7yyx3d206aj/CBC Forms released 11-25-19.zip?file_subpath=%2FAdditional-Disclosures-And-Background-Check-Authorization-NOT-CALIFORNIA+112519.pdf

We have had multiple discussions with our PLC about Cyberchip.  The scouts’ response vary between laughing and annoyance.  I have not heard a single scout tell me it is valuable and unique.  As mentioned, the information is typically outdated and at best redundant to what they see in school.  

2 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I don't know who she is, but my first thought was one of those upper level muckety mucks that "monitor" social media.  

In an updated FB post she referenced the lawsuit that @RememberSchiff posted on our forum... essentially the request that he file a lawsuit.  I don’t think she has inside knowledge of the situation and is speculating.  

National must answer the following questions:

1) When did they start using Philmont as collateral for debt (March 2019 or earlier)?

2) Did the action taken in March 2019 put Philmont in any more risk of loss regardless of BSA’s financial situation?

3) What specific expenses was the credit line/increase of Credit line from Philmont used for?

4) What other options were considered?

5) How was the Philmont volunteer committee involved in either the decision and/or post decision report out?

6) What is the status of the other BSA properties?

The decision they made may have been the right one, but their process continues to be poor.  They take input from volunteers they ignore and then seem to tell half truths when rolling out change.  I’m been supportive of many of their changes, but regardless, they have not been fully truthful or transparent.  It’s time for a change of leadership.

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Thank you. Not good news, but thank you for clarifying that. 

There could be a chance Philmont was mortgaged since 2010 I just didn’t see it in the document.   I did look into the references Arrow WV Inc.  That is a non profit setup by the BSA.  I checked Arrow WV Inc last 990 from Dec 2017 and found that at the end of 2017 it had liabilities of $330M and net income of -8.5M.   

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

There was a Reddit discussion on this a few days ago and information there said it has been mortgaged for a line of credit since 2010. If that's true, I don't know why the steering committee wouldn't have known or why the BSA is not putting out a clarifying statement. Regardless, it seems BSA merrily continues to shoot us all in the foot. Whether it's bad information or bad publicity, it hardly seems to matter at this point.  

I read the mortgage and the references to the 2010 and 2012 agreement didn’t include Philmont, it was for land in West Virginia for the “Arrow WV Project”.     Project Arrow (in Wedt Virgina) is Summit.

Based on what it looks like to me, they had an existing line of credit, needed to increase it, looked at what they had available to hock and decides that Philmont looked good to them.  At some point you have to ask what they wouldn’t be willing to put at risk.

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

No need to send Eagle workbooks to National either (what do they do with them?) Actually the whole Eagle workbook should be replaced  with just a signoff sheet and one page project description.  

I just went to council two weeks ago post Eagle BOR.  They only needed the advancement sheet and the 2 page signed application to go to National, not the workbook.  So perhaps this did change.   

Yes, private organization can discriminate if they can prove it conflicts with their organization mission/values.  The Supreme Court has been fairly consistent.

While I personally believe BSA made a mistake banning gay youth in the first place and an even bigger mistake fighting it so publicly in court, I don’t believe it was a primary cause of our massive membership drop.  Nor do I believe that reversing the decision was the primary cause for further loss.   If this was the case, the Coed Campfire program and the conservative Trail Life program would each have hundreds of thousands of youth.   Both are barely the size of an average council.

I’ve never had a youth leave the program that brought up the social issues.  Only once, with a close friends who don’t join, was the gay ban brought up.  They said they wouldn’t sign up their scout because of it... I explained that changed... they still didn’t sign up.

BSA, outside of Eagle Scout, is not in the formula for getting little Jonny into the best colleges.  STEM or STEAM education has replaced the Scout Law as the National crisis.  Patrol method is messy, parents are not patient to let it work.  Youth have plenty of other opportunities for entertainment and are typically already over scheduled. 

Done right, scouting is a fun experience that does teach critical values and skills our nation needs. Unfortunately, too few know this and I see further declines in membership ahead.  

52 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Camporees and Klondikes don't need districts

These things don’t magically happen.  It takes dedication of many volunteers inside and outside the units at the District  level to put on good programs.  Yes, our unit has a lot of our own events throughout the year but it is greatly enhanced by broader outings.

I could add some districts have talented unit commissions that help out struggling units.

If districts and councils don’t matter, then why do certain council areas flourish and over perform in terms of youth participating in scouting and others languish?  I don’t believe that is random.  I believe when councils and district professionals find and support their experienced/solid council and district volunteers, it absolutely helps units perform well and deliver and improved program.

Perhaps I should amend my initial summary... good Districts and Councils are vital to scouting.  

31 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Take a good look at what districts and councils and BSA National does.  How much value does it add to unit programs?

At our District level, camporees have added a lot of value.  Our Klondike, our on by district, is a Troop favorite.

Council level summer camps, merit badge clinics (some) and a variety of partnerships with local universities and professional sports teams have helped provide solid experiences.  In addition, my council has definitely helped on recruiting tasks.

National...  improving IT systems (Scoutbook linkages & online applications)  along with high adventure plus program material.

Now, I do question if our fees and fundraising are going to these areas in the most efficient way possible and I question all the layers of leadership.

8 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

The change is nowhere near significant for inclusion in the opening paragraph.  It will be at the minimum moved to a blurb at the end, but more likely deleted.  The Wiki admins don't mess around.

Wikipedia battle continues.   The info has once again been removed.

37 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

"The properties of the ranch secure a mortgage from JPMorgan Chase."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philmont_Scout_Ranch#cite_note-2

That was updated fast. 

It was updated yesterday.  Then deleted today as false information.  The updated again.   Wikipedia is fast....

Note that it is being edited by a user that was created 3 days ago and these are their only edits.  Not stating it is false, but where this is included is clunky in the report so I expect more experienced Wiki users will continue to edit.  

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

Just a thought: with LDS out of the way, can we make Family Life elective and Bird Study required for Eagle?

Ha!  Now, if you said Wilderness Survival I’m all in!

I wish him a full and speedy recovery.

In a web of trolls, talk Patrols here!

The issue is what services does National provide that we are paying to receive.  National does not provide facilities for meetings, any of the District or Council paid staff, most camps any scout goes to, etc.   National provides the program outline (actual program materials comes with extra cost), insurance (but not the insurance that councils provide for injuries at outings), IT systems, and  administrative overhead.   The actual program is put on by units, districts and councils.  
The correct comparison is GSUSA, Trail Life, 4H, etc. who’s National fees are much less than BSA.  My disappointment is not necessarily the increase, but the lack of any transparency on what they did to ensure their financial house gets back in order.  

We have a lot of members stuck prior to Scout due to this Cyberchip requirement.

1. As an individual or with your patrol, use the EDGE method and to teach Internet safety rules, behavior, and “netiquette” to your troop or another patrol. You are encouraged to use any additional material and information you have researched. Each member of the patrol must have a role and present part of the lesson.

In general, the Cyberchip is the primary reason we end up with some backlog.   The other requirements are easy and can occur at nearly any outing.  Cyberchip also requires watching videos at home that tak an hour or so plus creating a contract with your parents.   To me, this should be a Tenderfoot or even Second Class requirement.    Let’s keep focus on basic scout skills and Patrol structure for scout rank.
 

When I’ve talked with the scouts, all already cover internet safety in school, and they said the videos are outdated and goofy.  The only valuable portion is going over the Troops electronic device policy.

This topic came up after a recent PLC.  My son just crossed over to the Troop this spring and I was asked to be SM.  After refusing multiple times I reluctantly accepted.   The first PLC meeting three adults were present (CC, a very experienced ASM and me).   We sat at a table next to the scouts. 
 

After the meeting, I mentioned that I thought in general the scouts were very quiet.  In addition, the one topic they talked about, asking for a change in electronic policy, their idea was shot down the the CC immediately.  They asked me for some clarification and I had to correct some errors the CC made in his argument.

I talked with the CC after the meeting and suggested we sit in a far off area, out of ear shot.  The SPL can come over if needed, but in general we would come over for the last 10 mins to close out any discussions.  The CC didn’t agree and that ended the conversation.

Your point that scouts act differently when adults are around is 100% correct.  I remember as a youth this is true and can see it as a new SM.  Unfortunately, some adult leaders who claim units are youth led are afraid of actually allowing a youth led unit.