SiouxRanger

What is your precise objection/point?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but lawyers work FOR their client, they are not the client. Lawyers give advice based on their evaluation of the law, and just about any other factor, legal or not, they believe relevant, limited only by their creativity and wisdom. (The "other factor" component of the lawyer's advice is immeasurably more complex than mere legal reasoning. The law part is easy.) What a client actually does, that is, what we see them do, is not a reflection of the quality of the legal advice given. The client could have followed lousy legal advice, or rejected superb legal advice.

Gives the impression that mom, dad, and all the kids are welcome, regardless of age, to attend a picnic. One of the consumers of BSA program graduates (Eagles) is the US military. We will see if its preference for Eagle Scouts continues or fades away. I have not been impressed with the scout craft skill set of Eagles, or any lesser rank for that matter, for the last 30 years. Few scouts know their knots, can build a fire, sharpen a knife, navigate with a compass and map, etc.

Our unit has almost exclusively conducted BORs at or immediately after unit meetings. Eagle BORs, being District volunteer level chaired events are held as their own event as befitting its significance. Committee members are canvassed to assemble a sufficient board to conduct the BORs. I don't recall any BORs at a committee meeting, nor even any discussion about conducting a BOR at a committee meeting during my 31 years with the unit. It is interesting how different units have different policies and procedures.

Can't a BOR be scheduled outside a unit meeting?

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