CynicalScouter

Close. A big point of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the question of how much insurance companies will pay. Keep in mind that if the insurance companies honor their insurance policies that the victims will be compensation and BSA will have to pay but not nearly as much. The insurance companies are claiming, in effect, the insurance agreements are void because a) BSA lied to the insurance companies when the contracts were signed OR b) BSA while insured failed to exercise the minimum amount of care necessary to honor their end of the insurance agreement or c) both. There's no way BSA walks away unscathed. The damage to BSA's reputation is already done (and started with the first abuse lawsuits years ago and the release of the Perversion files). That meant financial drag as people fled. Then there's the claims/bankruptcy. But as above, even if the insurance companies have to eat 100% of the payments, BSA will still be looking at decades of decline because 1) The reputation is shot 2) Any new insurance premiums will be astronomical 3) Boy Scouts was developed for a post-World War II, mom and apple pie, vision of patriotic Americana that believes in institutions. That nation no longer exists. BSA is an anachronism and that means its funding model is an anachronism, too.

Why do YOU want to deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on? This isn't about seeking protection from Congressionally Chartered organizations. Your plan is simply a BSA bailout. No one organization should get that kind of a custom carve-out from tort liability. Yes, it is a shame that today's kids get penalized. You want to just focus on today's kids. I want to focus on the kids (now grown men) who got abused. And even if I didn't want to focus on the kids, I find the idea of such a special carve-out from tort liability is bad public policy. No one organization is so important that it should receive special favors from Congress.

So, if you make it to the century mark, you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? So, if the tort/abuse is more than a year ago (vs. "years"), you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? So, if the CURRENT volunteers are squeaky clean, then all prior bad acts (and liability) for the incorporated entity's officers and agents get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? There literally are no owners of the BSA (36 USC 30906(b) "The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend."). So, if your organization is here today, all prior bad acts are hereby waived and you get Congressionally-imposed immunity from tort liability? "We do good works today" does NOT absolve the entity itself from having to pay for its malfeasance, misfeasance and, nonfeasance. Congressionally chartered organizations. Which, as I noted, simply is not appropriate. Why should a Congressional charter give you a get-out-of-tort-liability card? Again, I used the example of breach of contract and the National Ski Patrol (also Congressional charter, 36 USC 1527). The National Ski Patrol enters into a contract with a local Colorado IT vendor for their website. The IT vendor delivers and National Ski Patrol fails to make payment on delivery. IT vendor sues in Colorado state court and National Ski Patrol moves for dismissal; as a Congressional Chartered Organization they are immune from suit. Under your theory, this is perfectly acceptable because the PAST National Ski Patrol leadership breached the contract, so therefore the CURRENT National Ski Patrol shouldn't have to pay for their tort (breach of contract). All because they have a Congressional Charter? This makes no sense. At all.

Yes. And what I pointed out is that your proposal to shield federally created organizations is unworkable. This is NOT like the question of whether state law should impact a federal government. This is NOT like the question of whether state law should impact a federal government agency. There, the supremacy clause is really clear (and McCulloch v. Maryland makes it clearer). What you want is for Congress to give immunity to federally chartered organizations from pedophilia suits. That's just not going to happen and it shouldn't. The fact that Congress incorporated the entity does NOT mean it shouldn't be held liable. But let's try something less charged in the area of torts. Say, breach of contract and the National Ski Patrol (also Congressional charter, 36 USC 1527). The National Ski Patrol enters into a contract with a local Colorado IT vendor for their website. The IT vendor delivers and National Ski Patrol fails to make payment on delivery. IT vendor sues in Colorado state court and National Ski Patrol moves for dismissal; as a Congressional Chartered Organization they are immune from suit. After all National Ski Patrol is a "federal corporation charged with responsibilities to the nation." (your words) Surely they shouldn't be held liable for anything! Etc.

That sounds great, and that may have been a 19th century view of things, but as a legal matter, it matters not a whit. All "Congressional charter" means is "I got pull in Congress". And BSA did. 100 years ago. Now, to try and use the fact that it has a congressional charter as some sort of shield from abuse claims? "Sorry you got molested and all, but we have a Congressional Charter, so too bad." And I'm sorry, but if I'm a lawfirm and you write a law that allows for absolute waivers of liability as long as I can somehow register as a charity? I'm all over that. Sorry you were molested kid and our organizations leaders knew, but you can't sue us because we are a charity? A not-for-profit? And how "prominent" do you have to be? If your gross income is over $100 million a year you get a "molest all the kids, stay out of legal liability" pass? What about $10 million? $1 million? BSA (the organizational leaders thereof) did this to itself. Their poor choices means there are two generations of victims: those who were abused and those who now suffer due to the decline in the program. I will never, ever, EVER blame the victim or seek protection for an organization that KNEW what was happening and failed to act sufficiently or to exercise due diligence. EDIT: One final note. Part of being an incorporated entity, one of the benefits, is being able to avoid personal legal liability. There's no talk of seizing the PERSONAL assets of the former Scout CEOs and other leaders who knew, should have known, and did nothing. So under this theory, so long as you run a not-for-profit staffed with pedophile volunteer leaders: 1) You can't hold the not-for-profit that trained and oversaw the pedophile volunteer accountable because it is a not-for-profit 2) You can't hold personally liable the paid officers of the organization ("pierce the corporate veil") because it is an incorporated entity Therefore, out of the two sets of wrongdoers (the not-for-profit and its officers PLUS the pedophile) one gets to skate? No, thank you.

I cannot see a scenario in which Congress overrides state statutes of limitations to protect Congressionally chartered orgs. I also don't see why Congress should. There are lots and lots of not for profit and charities that are locally/state incorporated and subject to state statutes. Why should Boy Scouts of America get special legal privileges over that of say the Salvation Army USA (incorporated in New Jersey)? The problem is that the situation with the BSA is so unique that it doesn't justify giving the other 90 or so Congressionally Chartered organizations special protections. One final point: I can very much see a situation where if BSA or someone on BSA's behalf tried to get these active pending claims tossed by getting a law granting this kind of blanket protection to Congressionally chartered orgs that the OTHER ORGS would actively oppose it because they don't want anything to do with it.

Why? I hate this to, but what would Congress stepping in solve? Stopping the bankruptcy and denying ANY victim ANY claims? What is the end game with Congress stepping in?

There is 0% change Congress will step in to stop abuse claims. That's absolutely radioactive.

As I read it, even if there is no valid, enforceable claims against certain councils, TCC want to know what money and assets they have to possibly force them into giving them up as part of a global settlement. If I were a council in a state in which the statute of limitations has lapsed AND I was betting that a statue of limitations extension would NEVER happen (as it did in NY), I would tell them to pound sand. That said, the TCC is once again making it really, really clear they are going to go after the chartered orgs. If your chartered organization hasn't been notified, they darn well should be alerted ASAP. I know my council hasn't told my CO a thing (then again our unit it 13 years old, so the theory is I guess no way we'd get hit?)

This is what I'd love to see I believe such a mediation statement is private/privileged, but it would be interesting to see to what extent National is in discussing the "complex legal issues" prepared (or NOT prepared) to throw local Councils and their assets under the bus. This will be interesting to see. Which as I've already noted makes things even more complicated since the charter says Boy Scouts of America is supposed to be "perpetual" can you really Chapter 7 liquidate? The only other times a congressional chartered non-profit dissolved was where the membership ceased to exist (e.g. the Grand Army of the Republic when the last Union soldier died).

Good for you!

Displaying a caged African in a zoo? In the Monkey House? Yeah, "controversy" is doing some heavy lifting there.

Details to be released November 1.

Read further

One more item: while this might MIGHT be put in place as a COVID emergency, I cannot see that it will stay that way. Virtual IOLS is here to stay. Of course some councils may simply refuse to do it; but if I'm in one council and can find another council that will do it virtually, since IOLS certification is valid nationwide, why not right? I mean I can now become a 100% position trained SM without ever having to leave my back yard. Hazardous Weather: Online YPT: Online SM/ASM Training: Online IOLS: Online + sleep in a tent in my backyard.

Further confirmation from National Capital Council's training page: virtual IOLS is now the preferred method. https://weownadventure.com/new-adult-live-training-guidelines/

I wanted to pull this as its own topic out of the WB thread. Here's the first confirmed sighting of (National-sanctioned) virtual IOLS in the wild out of National Capital Council. https://scoutingevent.com/082-40623

Here's the first confirmed sighting of (National-sanctioned) virtual IOLS in the wild out of National Capital Council. I am creating a thread dedicated to this (since it is NOT WB)

It's coming. It was announced in that group by someone on the National Committee the same time as virtual ILST/ILSC that virtual IOLS is coming soon/within a week. I know several councils that did improper/unauthorized virtual IOLS and/or allowed for "testing out" of IOLS due to COVID in the spring. That pissed off the folks a Scouting U. (those left after the purge/layoffs) so this is now coming to allow or authorized virtual IOLS.

I would say no. The SM is required to take 1) IOLS which barely scratches the surface of the skills needed (AND guess what? Is being converted into an online course next week). 2) Hazardous Weather: Online 3) Scoutmaster Training: Online And the online scoutmaster training is not even mandatory in many councils. I know some are moving to a "100% position trained" policy but I believe they remain the exception, not the rule. So we now or will in the next week or so people who can be 100% "position trained" Scoutmasters entirely online without having to demonstrate a single step of outdoor skill or interaction with youth.

Exactly. In fact, I get the impression from the folks I've seen that isn't the 1-3 year Scouter who takes it (this may just be my district/Council) but the 5-10+ year person who wants in on the club. Troop Committee training (online and the old Troop Challenge) is a joke. I've had committee members fly through it and still not have a clue what they are suppose to do (position-wise), much less how to be a "leader".

Interesting. Any idea why changed?

Except, it isn't. I've taken lots of leadership development programs. None involve or include open displays of proof of completion (beads) after the fact. None include semi-constant references to the same. Even when the beads are not visible, other things are (jackets, neckerchiefs, etc.) And the main function of post-WB seems to be encouraging everyone to "go to WB". Knots on the chest don't invoke a spirit of belonging to the "club". At worst they are indications you've been around awhile and/or have certain training in position. Whatever. This also is not like University of Scouting of Commissioners Colleges which while they do have in certain physical indicators (badges, strips, etc.) don't carry around the "club" vibe. WB is created like a "fraternity". It can be (I say can be) like a horrible version of OA; a secret club within BSA. That's not a slight on OA. But then there's True, but there's a "bad apples" problem. I've seen it. A small, but not insignificant, percent of WB treat it as that fraternity element. There "us" "real" Scouters who know the True Way (?) and those non-WB amateurs. I've seen more antipathy towards WB than anything else in Scouting when it comes to Scouters. You were OA as a kid? Cool. You were an Eagle? Cool (I will say, just as an aside, being an Eagle Scout does NOT mean you'd make a good committee member or ASM, but it makes it easier. I think "he was an Eagle" has too much weight when it comes to "do they know how to run a committee", but I digress) WB is either looked on as "meh" (at best) or open hostility. I've been asked to do WB. I've been tempted to. But I honestly feel as if I'd alienate more people than anything. If I took it, I'd probably hide my beads.

"Now see, this? This part? That's where the cougar started to gnaw on my leg. Sorta painful, but just look at how amazing the wide angle lens is on that iPhone 12! Amazing, right? That's not a red filter, that's my blood smearing on the phone case, but can I just tell you that the phone never broke? I mean my leg did in multiple places, but the phone? Not. A. Scratch!"

I've found that more often than not it is power mad SM's who are "Gate keepers" and insist on re-testing and reviewing the scout. I've had on several occasions had to remind SMs that the Guide to Advancement does NOT authorize the SM to second guess the MBC and that the solution if they have a problem is to file a complaint with the MBC's council (11.1.0.0 Reporting Merit Badge Counseling Concerns).