1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

what you have described to us in your original post is the definition of bulllying.  This requires a mandatory report to the Scout Executive or to the YP hotline.  IF it is as you described...

I just want to repeat and reiterate what was stated here and what I posted; if (and I mean IF) the harassment you are describing is accurate it reaches the point of a YP violation. If you are a registered adult leader, you are obligated to report it up to the Scout Executive.

Just now, TAHAWK said:

 Like gamblers - but at a rigged table.

No one is denying that there were abuse victims.

National in its filings admitted it failed these scouts.

That is not "rigged". National screwed up, therefore National via its assets will pay.

What is being debated now is a) how much to settle claims and b) to what extent are Councils and COs on the hook.

1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

Working pro se is that lawyer?   Happy to hear that one of them is not doing it to get rich. 

Works on contingency. No money for victims, no money for him.

1 minute ago, yknot said:

Anyone who understands the BSA organization understands that if there are headlines about COs having liability for these decades old cases it will be the end of scouting.

I know of at least one lawyer that has said the goals are a) money for the victims and b) disbanding Scouting.

2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It's not good for the BSA to add COs to this lawsuit.  But, in a way isn't it the correct thing to do?  If you were the CO of a unit 30 years ago that had abuse going on, isn't it their responsibility too? 

BSA isn't looking to get the COs in. The lawyers for the claimants/abuse victims want them in because (I suspect) they are realizing that the combined assets of National + Councils = not much when divided up among tens of thousands of claimants. So, you go for where the next set of assets/deep(er) pockets are. The COs.

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Except the lawyers...

If things are so "bad" that the lawyers are now targeting not just 200+ Councils but potential thousands (if not tens of thousands) of COs, there may not be much to go around even for them.

And keep in mind: lawyers like this work on contingency. They lose, and they get $0. The entities get liquidated and there's no assets, they get $0.

3 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

I have been a volunteer with a pack and five troops (one of the latter in California).  None was a legal entity under state or federal law at the time. 

My district has 1 unit (92 or so) years that could, might be.

But the trick is this: even if the unit/troop/pack/whatever went defunct DECADES ago, the CO may still be on the hook.

Just because they are asking for CO and roster lists going back to time immemorial does not mean they'll get them.

The fact that they are asking, however, certainly seems to indicate that any hope for wrapping this up by Spring 2021 is fading.

EDIT: Only reason you want the CO lists at this point is that now that the financial statements from Councils have been filed and that the High Adventure properties are being appraised or have been appraised, it is starting to sink in that even with total liquidation there won't be anywhere need the $1.5 billion number that was tossed around. And with tens of thousands of claims being filed, that means no one gets much of anything.

So off to find more assets they go. And that means COs

58 minutes ago, ChristianB said:

I came here seeking some advice from other scout leaders. We have two brothers in our troop that have recently been receiving harsher treatment from some of our adult leadership.

What do you mean by "harsh treatment"? If is approaches harassment, hazing, or discipline that exceeds what is allowed under Youth Protection Training then you need to contact your Scout Executive immediately.

1 minute ago, David CO said:

Two excellent outcomes.  

I don't see how depriving councils of funding is "excellent" unless (as I believe is your position?) all councils and the entirety of Boy Scouts of America should be disbanded which I very much disagree with.

In the meantime, units that are within Boy Scouts of America and that wish to remain so should a) obey the rules while b) advocating for rules changes they want.

Openly and knowingly disregarding BSA rules is no way to demonstrate adult leadership.

Lots of folks assume that if you are not "soliciting" for money you are OK. That's not what the rules state. You also may NOT solicit "gifts" or "contributions" for your units either. Bold in original. This can't be any clearer.

Quote

7. Will the fund-raising project avoid soliciting money or gifts?

The BSA Rules and Regulations state, “Youth members shall not be permitted to serve as solicitors of money for their chartered organizations, for the local council, or in support of other organizations. Adult and youth members shall not be permitted to serve as solicitors of money in support of personal or unit participation in local, national, or international events.”

For example: Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts and leaders should not identify themselves as Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts or as a troop/pack participate in The Salvation Army’s Christmas Bell Ringing program. This would be raising money for another organization. At no time are units permitted to solicit contributions for unit programs.

7 minutes ago, FireStone said:

The game we always have to play is ask for the goods, not the money, but then we can accept any money offered to buy the goods.

You may not solicit "money", "contributions", or "gifts". Goods are either "contributions" or "gifts".

Quote

We can ask people to buy popcorn to fund projects and activities, but I guess we can't ask people to buy stuff directly for those projects or activities?

All fundraising, and I mean ALL fundraising, has to be Council approved.

Popcorn is, by definition, Council approved.

Popcorn is also, by definition, not solicitation. It is the sale of a good/product.

All else needs to be Council approved to ensure compliance with "the Charter and Bylaws and the Rules and Regulations of the BSA."

The Charter, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations (these are 3 separate documents) ALL prohibit solicitation of "money", "contributions", or "gifts" except by a) National and b) Council.

Quote

technically without soliciting anything

Except that yeah, you are soliciting for "contributions" and/or "gifts". So, rules violation.

13 minutes ago, thrifty said:

I can currently only assume that this interview or video would be used in some way to encourage voters to pass the levy.

Nope.

Nope, nope, nope, nope. Nope.

Quote

Policy on Scout Participation in Political Events

Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers’ platform or in a conspicuous location where attendees or viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or with BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind.

Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply BSA favoritism for one candidate over another. Strict observance of our longstanding policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory.

7 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

$0 as in person fired, position eliminated, or ... restructured and filled by a volunteer?

Filled by volunteer. I very much get the impression that many (most?) people in this forum won't be happy if any scout executives receive a cent in compensation.

Of course, the above data does not indicate what these people should make.

I understand there are people here who believe that these execs should make $0, but that's not realistic.

5 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

6 and 7 figure salaries of the Pros.

So, I decided to take a look at this. We don't have National's IRS 990 forms for 2019 year; they have until May 15, but almost every group I've ever known always files for the automatic 6-month extension, so I don't think anything of it. We do have for 2018, which were filed in October 2019 (again, 6 month automatic extension).

12 minutes ago, yknot said:

Maybe someone buys Philmont, Bechtel, and the BSA name and then tries to run a branded national high end resort style, high adventure program out of those two sites and you have to attend those sites or satellite sites to participate in the program and earn the credentials?

They can sell the properties and the U.S. Code allows for that.

Quote

 

(b) Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers.—

(1) The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose.

(2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.

 

The NAME however can NOT be sold and is the exclusive control of Boy Scouts of America.
 

Quote

The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

49 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

And it is exactly what happened in the GM case.  New GM LLC came in with $50B in tax money, bought the best of the assets and emerged from Ch 11 as GM.  The old GM changed their name, kept the less desirable assets, the tax dollars, and the liabilities, then liquidated it all to satisfy creditors.

Except as previously noted over and over (and over) Boy Scouts of America is NOT like GM LLC and is restricted in terms of what it can and cannot do, what it can and cannot transfer, and what it can and cannot liquidate.
 

Quote

 

(b) Limitations on Exercising Certain Powers.—

(1) The corporation may execute mortgages and liens on the property of the corporation only if approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire executive board at a meeting called for that purpose.

(2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.

 

The statute itself declares the corporate entity called Boy Scouts of America "perpetual existence". A bankruptcy judge would have to somehow find that statute void.

46 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

In the purchase of assets alone, liabilities of the seller do not pass with the assets

There is 0% chance a bankruptcy judge and/or the attorneys for the claimants are going to just let Boy Scouts of America, currently under active/pending bankruptcy petition and settlement talks, transfer or sell ANY assets to some other entity.

14 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It is most likely a long shot (and not one I favor), but I don't think it's really that fanciful.  I see two scenarios that make sense:

1. Councils in the US form a new national Scouting association after the current one runs out of money.  It's a legally separate entity to protect it from continued lawsuits.  That entity would want to acquire the IP of the BSA. I can see this has a 20% chance of happening.

2. The GSUSA has the infrastructure to run a national Scouting organization and is currently devoid of any lawsuits.  The GSUSA would like the BSA to not have a program for girls.  So, why not acquire the IP of the BSA when the current organization runs out of money and field a unified Scouting organization. I can see this has a 1% change of happening - but if I were on the board of the GSUSA you can bet I'd be looking into this.

Scenario 1 is not going to help lawsuits since the lawsuits will go after the original councils and national and their successors. The only way to ensure no more liability is for the bankruptcy and global settlement to cover National, the Councils, and their successors. Moreover, as previously noted, the Congressional Charter grants National and National alone the right to the IP. You'd have to change the statute.

 

Quote

The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

Scenario 2 is more plausible from a legal perspective (Boy Scouts of America becomes a separately run entity under the GSUSA umbrella, kind of like how Exploring is for Boy Scouts of America) but as you say, GSUSA might not want it.

Just now, ParkMan said:

I imagine the ranks are somewhat common between countries (except maybe for Eagle) and perhaps some of the requirements too. 

 

They really, really are not.
One of my units did Scouting in Sweden for JOTI-JOTA and Arrow of Light requirement Building a Better World. It is entirely different.

Where we have ranks Wolf, Bear, Webelos, etc. they have age-marks (rough translation) such as Tracker (8-10), Discoverer (10-12), Adventurer (12-15), Challenger (15-18) and Rover (19-25).

There is nowhere near the emphasis on merit badges or the tons of adventures at the Cub Scout level, etc.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

A smart lawyer could argue that BSA is leasing the IP from the WOSM, and cannot transfer the IP to another entity without WOSM consent.  It could also be argued that the federal charter protection does not apply to IP that is "owned" by WOSM.  

First, lease implied WOSM owns the IP. It doesn't. That's why even you had to put the word "owned" in quotes.

Second, any assignment of rights in the U.S. is cured by 36 U.S. Code § 30905. It is owned by Boy Scouts of America.

Quote

The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

This is simply becoming fanciful. No one is going to buy Boy Scouts of America. No one is going to buy its IP either.

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Does BSA have exclusive right to a girls program?  To a "Scouts'" program?

Does the Charter require anything? 

They have rights to

Quote

use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts.

17 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

 Yet, I do wonder if there is still the ability for the BSA to sell it's IP to another entity.

The charter effectively prohibits it. Boy Scouts of America has "Exclusive rights" under 36 USC 30905 to

Quote

use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts.

That would likely make it an exclusive non-transferable right.

In order to get an IP transfer, you'd have to amend the "exclusive rights" statute. Good luck with that.

21 minutes ago, David CO said:

I agree.  The board would have to vote to replace itself in whole (rather than one at a time).  As I said, they would never do it, even if it were necessary to save scouting.  It will never happen.

Don't be too sure. US Gymnastics and its board mass resigned recently.

But the broader point is legal. The board, and the board alone, picks its successors. Your plan of some outside entity naming members of a new board is literally, legally impossible.