CynicalScouter

That hasn't been true since at least 2007. Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America (2007) And the 2020 version essentially repeat this. The CO doesn't get to keep the money.

We'll agree to disagree. Scouting is suppose to be about the youth. Not the adults. Scouting is suppose to be about the youth's accomplishments. Not the adults. Scouting is suppose to honor the youth's awards. Not the adults. Adults awarding each other awards should not be part of the equation. Do it at a district event, a committee meeting, the next SM/ASM meeting, etc. As I said, I was willing for Silver Buffalo only because it was literally BSA's top adult honor, but that was it.

Adult BSA awards and honors have NO business at a unit event. I'll add one exception that I personally participated in that was I think is the only exception. Our CO is a church. A parishioner who had been involved at council and national level scouting for 30+ years was award the Silver Buffalo. As in BSA National's top award. I went to my Committee Chair and suggested we acknowledge that award at the next Court of Honor.3- 5 minutes in which the honoree's Scouting accomplishments were read aloud (by the ASPL) and he was acknowledged. Round of applause. Done. I know some units, will honor and recognize the Scoutmaster/Cubmaster Key or the Scoutmaster/Cubmaster Award of Merit. I guess I can see that, but even that is a "maybe" for me. Unit events are to honor scouts. Not adults.

I wonder what the reaction to COVID will be 1) People are more apt then ever to isolate and not attend such events (Bowling Alone updated) 2) Having been isolated, people will rush to embrace getting out and being with people more than ever. Time will tell.

I mis-remembered. This particular one was Methodist Scouting Common Table for December 2020. They talked about the new council-chartered system.

Was told that the S.E. for Circle Ten Council was going to the Diocese of Dallas this morning. All Catholic COs in the Diocese are out. They may sign facilities use agreements, but they will never be COs again.

Old information: insurers are claiming many of the 90k claims were dicey New information: interview with Kosnoff gets to the heart of the infighting - the TCC wants to focus on National; Kosnoff wants the Council assets. Plaintiffs Firms Flooded Boy Scout Bankruptcy With Unvetted, Potentially Fraudulent Civil Claims, Insurers Allege

It isn't; this is what I was told during one of the National Roundtable discussions.

That is partially what the new system is. The (former) CO signs a Facility Use Agreement in which they commit to providing a place to meet and use of facilities only plus $2 million in general liability insurance. Storage isn't mentioned directly. As for a "trust", no. That gets into IRS and tax issues as well as having the "trust" being controlled by, who exactly? Right now that answer's simple: all assets of the unit belong to the CO (including and especially the money). Units are not authorized to set up "trusts" or such as that becomes a tax nightmare. One alternative, and Councils depending on where you live may or may not approve, is to move to the "Parents of Troop 123" or "Friends of Troop 123" model where the CO is some group of people. The alternative is that the Council holds the cash/owns the assets in the same way that the CO owns the unit and its assets now. Now, the question is whether or not the Council is merely the custodian of the money or has control over it. The other questions is whether this is temporary. So, for example, if units go to Council-charters for a few months or a year until they can find a new CO. Short Form Facility Use Agreement Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement

There is nothing in the new Council model agreement. But I have been told that (in the same way that the CO's "own" the unit and its assets) that the Council while acting as CO "owns" the unit and its assets and that it requires councils to create budget/line items and accounts. Now, because this is all brand spanking new, that's my question. Is the Council is holding the funds? That is what I was told. Is it in a unit bank account somewhere? How much control do councils have over the assets? Etc.

IF they switch to the new Council-chartered model, the Council holds the unit's money.

Yeah, that's exactly what I am thinking. Don't need to ask the Troop for a FOS donation when you hold the money you can just help yourself.

Given how little many COs actually participate in the units (other than to sign the charter agreement annually) I can imagine many will. There's no upside and only a ton of liability on the other. That said, the one big thing that is going to choke a lot of units is that Council holds your money now. Now, it is one thing of a Council just serves as piggy bank/bank account. It is another if Council decides it needs/wants to approve your budget and expenditures.

I had heard that the Diocese of Dallas had last year done something similar, namely, that they were not going to be CO/CORs anymore and switch to the new model. But I heard it in a Zoom discussion, I never saw anything in writing. And of course the Methodist churches are also pushing for this in some areas as well.

I hate to repeat, but it bears repeating: During the introduction of girls in Scouts, BSA and Cub Scouts there were some units and councils that in fact did outright (mistakenly) say that GSUSA and BSA had merged or that this was not the new Girl Scout (note the caps here) program. Units and councils went so far as to use GSUSA logos and images and items that were CLEARLY GSUSA intellectual property. Even BSA's own research indicated that a large percentage of people when asked did NOT know that GSUSA and BSA were completely separate entities. Every time GSUSA's lawyers reached out to BSA National's general counsel the mistake was immediately rectified. The fact is BSA National a) fibbed and fudged to GSUSA about its intentions to bring girls in and b) a few BSA units and councils screwed up the roll out. That doesn't mean GSUSA can or should win; it just means this is not as clear and clean as GSUSA = bad; BSA = good.

That was my fault: I cut and pasted the headline and subhead as well. Oops.

Interesting data experiment I am doing. I have downloaded the list of merit badge counselors within 50 miles of my zip code. I am going to run the same search tomorrow and see who is even left.

In short, BSA was telling GSUSA it was NOT going to go coed...while running focus groups and preparing to do just that. I mean, wow. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-coed-recruiting-touched-off-ground-war-with-girl-scouts-11612094400

That council had already had several years of declines in contributions. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/boy-scouts-of-america-218-pine-tree-council,010211490/

Pretty good example. USOC is a regulatory and sanctioning body. If you want to get to the Olympics, you have to get there via USOC OR whatever successor organization shows up. USOC is recognized by IOC as the "National Olympic Committee" for the U.S. USOC is a "monopoly" on access to the Olympics. But that doesn't mean you can't go run around the block if USOC closes tomorrow. BSA is not a regulator. Internationally, the only thing it would/could stop is some competitor from claiming WOSM status (no one cares). Nationally, yes, it does have a congressionally-granted quasi-monopoly on "Scouting" (that's the point of the GSUSA lawsuit, it is only a "quasi"). If someone wants to create a scout organization (note the lower case s) and operate they can do so, they just cannot use BSA names, logos, etc.

Do you have a shred of anything close to evidence that anyone here is "acting in concert" with "interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation"? Before you start throwing around defamatory accusations, put up evidence or retract.

Yes, but the question is how much? Do I see all four HA bases surviving? No. But how many get sold? 1? 2? 3? And the other big giant question for Councils is whether they will be forced to pay for claims in which they have no part and there is no look back window? That is what the insurance companies are arguing: why should someone with claims from say Iowa (where there is NO look back window on abuse claims) get a payout? They are arguing, in effect, this should be limited to those 7-12 states that have such lookback windows. To me that will be the time when the in-fighting comes out. Why should an Iowa council, with ZERO claims against it (that aren't time barred) be forced to pay a nickle? You could say that even if the Iowa council is not LEGALLY obligated to make recompense they are MORALLY obligated to do so, but that's not a Chapter 11/bankruptcy question.

Exactly. Even of BSA dissolves, we are NOT the same nation as when BSA was founded. There's different laws, different liability needs, etc. That is not going to change.

We can't move on while the litigation is still ongoing. Until we know what is left of BSA, there's no way to gauge what should be done. Moreover, if the idea is to focus on alternatives, this is probably not the thread for it to be discussed on/in.

I will admit to slipping and calling or referring to our SM as "Mr. SCOUTMASTER LAST NAME" on occasion when there are no scouts around. It is a slip. The only time I ever heard/saw anything else was there's a troop in our district where one of the ASMs is a medical doctor and referred to as "Dr. ASM LAST NAME". Everyone, adults and scouts do it. I think several members of the unit had him as their personal physician, so I get it.