TLK

I bought some cookies.  I know the leader that was in charge of the cookie station. I wonder to whom I was reported and if I am now on a no-fly list or something.  This is getting really out-of-hand. No more cookies for me.

It appears as though they are contending that the damage is already done...and cannot be un-done.  That seems to be the primary purpose of the examples cited in the complaint, and might well be the basis for the award of damages.  Certainty, the dollar amount of damages will be difficult to quantify, and will end up being a negotiated number, poddibly based on an alleged decrease in GSUSA registrations balanced against the some 68,000 girls that entered Cubs and will ostensibly graduate to the program in question.  The requested treble damages looms large.

The whole thing  has the feeling of being less than fully considered, and while "dying on the hill" is probably a little dramatic, this could (will??) have a detrimental impact on the program.

We had a real good discussion in our Troop Committee last night on how to handle the high probability of having a linked non-male troop.  I came down to the consensus that we are willing to share pretty much everything except that we draw the line at shared/joint overnight events.  The overriding fear (yup, fear) is that the overall goal of YP, namely never allowing a circumstance to occur where abuse could occur (or an accusation is implausible), cannot be sustained in the "me-too" era.  The feeling is there is just too much risk to make it worth it.  I know, there are lots of anecdotal tales from Venturing leaders that it can be, and has been, done, but it is not what we signed up for as leaders of a traditional troop.  The girls and their leaders gotta do this on their own.

Thanks for the info. That would be kinda clumsy, but I guess it works.  We are all probably gonna end up calling it the "girl troop" anyway...especially the youth.

At my Troop Committee meeting last night, we discussed the inevitable formulation of a girl troop at our church under the "linked" model.  In light of the lawsuit, we kinda figured that if the new troop had a different number than the existing troop, it would simplify what to call them and avoid the inevitable use of the term "girl."  Our Council Exec could not tell me if linked troops could use different numbers or would be forced to use the same number.  Anybody have an answer? 

WWW

TK

Lurker here, but with a great interest in this topic. 

I read the entire complaint. BSA is in trouble and very likely will lose. Treble damages are a big deal, if so ordered by the Court. If the issue were reversed, I am sure the BSA would be doing just what the GSUSA is doing. Indeed, we appear to have acted without fully considring the downside.  Somewhere in Irving, the ball was dropped, seriously.  As a Leader out here in the bushes, and one that tries to stay informed, there was (and still is) a serious lack of guidance that has lead to the allegations presented in the complaint.  The message to the Council Execs on trademark issues was sent to them in April.  The content of that message, if appropriately distributed and strongly emphasized, would have gone a long ways in preventing the kinds of things alleged in the complaint. I understand that the Chartered Partners are still not scheduled to receive full guidance documents until the end of November, which, IMHO, is way late.  My Troop is in the throes of deciding how to handle this entire change to the program.  Tough times for Scouting.