SiouxRanger

Thanks-looks like the right rule to me.

Where does one find this rule? Thanks.

Sounds like a modified version of a Christian song with these lyrics: Lyrics First version Jesus, Jesus, Can I tell you how I feel? You have given me Your spirit. I love You so. Second version Jesus, Jesus, Can I tell you what I know? You have given me Your spirit. I love You so.

Is this to say, that there is an initial shipment of 1,000 sets, then 4 weeks of 3,000 sets a week for a grand total of 13,000 sets of Eagle credentials--in arrears? Or, you could read it as the 1,000 constitutes the first week's shipment, and 3 weeks of 3,000 each for a total of 10,000 Eagle Scouts cooling their heels. Either way…beware the mother that eats her children.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller

My analysis is based on the facts presented. The parent's intent is pretty clear: Dupe their employer into making a MATCHING charitable donation, all the while the parent intending to effectively retract their donation. Why, oh WHY would the parent not just pay for their scout's expenses straight-away without involving their employer??? To obtain $$$ from their employer AT NO EXPENSE to the parent. They never made a donation for their employer to match. My analysis is always subject to reexamination if further facts are presented. Stick to legal analysis and skip the name-calling.

I practice law for a living. Over 45 years now. Legal analysis is not a beauty contest. I stand by my analysis.

So the company's program is to make 50% of a donation, but is actually making 100% of the donation. The employee/parent reported a donation (which the company/employer is matching) but in fact, the employee did not make any donation as the Troop is being asked to redirect the donation to the benefit of the employee/parent by using the employee/parent's contributed funds to pay the scouting expenses of the employee's/parent's scout which the employee/parent would otherwise have to pay in addition to the contribution. The company may well see this as its employee defrauding the company. The company may well see this as an offense warranting termination of employment. Fraud is a civil wrong (as contrasted with a criminal offense). The State's Attorney's Office might just see this civil fraud as the criminal offense of Theft. In my state, criminal theft over $300 is a felony the last time I looked. The employee/parent has further complicated the situation by assuming the role of ringleader by recruiting (or at least attempting to recruit) unit leadership into taking an active part in the scheme. Conspiracy? The State's Attorney may well examine whether unit leadership's participation rises to the level of being accomplices. Return both checks.

I agree. And with counting "nights…in shelters not provided to the Scout" our unit has a firm rule that those nights are only counted if the Scout at least to adjust the thermostat AND they get their own ice from the machine down the hall.

“A knot is never “nearly right”; it is either exactly right or it is hopelessly wrong, one or the other; there is nothing in between. This is not the impossibly high standard of the idealist, it is a mere fact for the realist to face.” – Clifford Ashley, author Ashley Book of Knots

As the many months of this whole process have laid bare, there are many counter-intuitive results. National and insurance companies escaping largely unscathed, while the "totally independent" local councils, say what, "volunteer" to a council, to pay the bulk of National's debt. With respect to attorney's fees, another contra-intuitive result obtains: attorney's fees are the result of a private agreement between client and attorney and not part of the bankruptcy proceeding, per se. I am not a bankruptcy practitioner, much less an expert, but I recall a local bankruptcy judge mandating maximum fees for individual bankruptcies. But that was many years ago. If bankruptcy judges have the authority to limit attorney's fees, either the judges are not inclined to do so on their own initiative, or no one has filed a Petition/Motion and asked the judge to consider the issue. Being an attorney (I am hoping for a better outcome in the next life) under the circumstances, 40% is obscene. Just my $250,000,000.00 worth.

Bingo! The only way to insure councils won't sell it off some time in the future is to never let councils have legal control. Period. And further, never permit anyone who has ever been a professional scout serve as a trustee or board member, and prohibit any direct donations or sales of assets has no to a council or any entity controlled by a council. It should always be the council pays the trust. If the council has no use for the camp at some point, the trust should provide for a "gift over" to some other entity, not the council or council affiliated, so that the council has no incentive to upset the donor's plan and acquire control. And, beware the doctrine of cy pres. The cy pres doctrine is a principle of law that courts use to save a charitable trust from failing when a charitable objective is originally or later becomes impossible or impracticable to fulfill. IRS (.gov) This doctrine would allow a judge to "determine" (technically, "find") that Clarence the farmer who donated the land to the trust for use by scouts "really intended that if things got dicey, the land ought to go to the council." So, for example, the trust burns through its endowment, needs higher rent from the council to maintain the camp, and the council refuses to pay higher rent. The trust is on the verge of financial collapse and the council rides in as the white knight to rescue the camp by seeking ownership of it. Thereby giving the council legal control and the power to sell it. Of course, Clarence is deceased, perhaps even Clarence's kids are deceased-no one is left to speak for Clarence and his intent. Well, the council's attorneys are speaking for Clarence. Clarence's kids, and likely no other entity has the legal right to become involved in such a lawsuit-called "standing"-but there might be someone who can become involved; it depends on the precise wording of the trust. The trust needs to be drafted such that the doctrine of cy pres never becomes a legal issue. Every future possible path, foreseeable or not, needs to be provided for, either specific rules for specific conditions or events, or a generic result should be specified for the unforeseeable, such as, "…and in all other events, the trustees shall deed the land to my descendants in equal shares…," or "to charity xyzzy…."

I totally agree. The ready-at-hand ad hoc rescue team of scouts were instructed by the person in distress to abandon the situation? Seriously. NEVER leave anyone behind, even if not in distress. (Makeshift stretcher anyone?) And just read the directions that accompany the map. First, the names of the two mountains have been switched in the description of where one is headed at the junction at the end of the .6 mile leg. Nice. (No, not really.) And then the junction on the return trip, between the 2.3 mile leg and the .6 mile leg is not mentioned at all. Go left there and you are headed up Mt. Flume again. Yeah, they should recognize the junction…but if dark, raining and howling wind… (Hey, one serious error had already been made-a wrong turn is just frosting…)

I had to look it up. A National program to allow the formation of new units with 3 adults and 3 youth. Essentially a "quick start" path to unit formation-minimal start-up requirements/machinery. No committee requirement; Council custodial account. Council acts as the unit's committee. Initially intended to be a Council "chartered" unit, all with an eye to growing into a traditional chartered organization unit.

In my reading of WWII materials/research, I recall that studies were done to determine WHY so many fighter pilots died after successfully getting out of their planes and safely into the English Channel. Heat loss-through the back of the neck and base of the skull. Life preservers were redesigned to elevate the neck and skull from the cold waters of the English Channel. Huge life-saving improvement. So, yes, cool one's neck and entire head if can be done. Soak your hat-let it evaporate. Evaporation is what cools. High humidity limits evaporation, and limits cooling. Breeze/air movement increases evaporation.