SiouxRanger

This is English? "Tom gets 6 marbles, Al, and his brother Art, if the wind is from the Northwest, on the third Tuesday of July, get 5 marbles going to the brother who has the best of three Rock-Paper-Scissors match..., otherwise, those marbles go to..."

I don't think that the financial carnage is over. The judge may end up having to choose which organization the judge leaves hanging-BSA or Catholic Church, or...??? I also suspect that even if the LC's get a third party discharge, if any major defendant is left facing state court suits, the LC's and BSA, though no longer liable for damages due to discharge, will still have to respond to subpoenas in state court cases as occurrence witnesses, endure discovery, etc. All the while incurring defense costs. "Death by a thousand cuts." I think that BSA and the LC's only avoid the role of witnesses if all the major potential defendant groups are discharged. I also wonder if the LC contributions are going to be increased. Per the TCC council analyses, though some councils are barely hanging on as it is (and likely facing death by merger) others are flush. It will be interesting to learn who blinked first. Just some thoughts and questions. No answers here, sadly.

Having 3 sons and having attended at least half their summer camps for the full week, and the rest for half a week, and 4 Philmont treks, Scouting is not inexpensive. It is a very expensive program and requiring a huge weekly time commitment certainly if one gets drawn into District or Council level work. I grew up in the program having an older brother who earned Eagle and went on a Philmont trek. Scouting was all I wanted to be involved in, and wanted my sons to participate in, and I participated with them-virtually every campout but 2 or 3. I did not watch them from the stands for an hour as a spectator, I sat on a stump in the rain and shared their experiences and taught them how to cope as a participant and mentor. It was clear that the time allotted to me, as a parent, to "pour myself into them" was limited and that the best place to do that was by involving them in Scouting and by me participating fully in their activities. And I did. Not hovering, but there, mostly at a distance, but there were many "Teachable Moments" which I used. Perhaps annoyingly so, but not burdensomely so. One Eagle Scout in his speech at his Eagle Court of Honor mentioned that "Mr. SiouxRanger would always talk to us about history, scout skills, nature-birds, plants, and knots...during our rides to campouts, and such, and how it was tiring. Well, perhaps. Let the record reflect that that Eagle Scout got to about 7 months before 18 showing no interest in attaining Eagle, and was missing a number of merit badges not having made progress for half a year. At one troop meeting he announced that he wanted to earn Eagle. "Well, you need to call me and make an appointment and we will work through the merit badges, but I am not calling you to push or cajole. And he did call, and he worked diligently and he earned his Eagle. Every Sunday for months we worked for 3 or 4 hours. A scout of a single parent family of mixed race. No one was in his corner but me. I don't regret a cent of cost or a minute not spent anywhere else where I would not be with my sons and mentoring them and their friends. Isn't this what Scouting is about?

I have always paid full price for my attendance at summer camp not being interested in scouts and their families paying my way. And I am self-employed, and the sole income producer in my business, and it costs me not only the camp fee, but also all my office overhead, and loss of all billable time for a week. About $5,000 a week.

Ah ha! That explains a lot. I cannot imagine any attorney, at any time, under any conditions, recommending that a client not file an objection by the due date unless the "deal is inked." For if the perceived deal falls through, the time to object has passed and client has lost its right to object. I can not imagine that any attorney in this particular case would consider the "deal inked" unless it is the Judge's ink on an Order confirming the Plan, or whatever Plan comes out of mediation. I would expect the TCC to file an objection simply to preserve its ability to object if things fall through. The TCC can always withdraw its objection if things work out to its satisfaction.

The Plan as put to a vote, or as changed so far to date, or are additional Plan changes anticipated? And why no objection by the TCC? Also relying on a prior objection, or does this signal an agreement of some sort?

And the meaning is?

Councils appear to be independently, state-chartered not for profit corporations. I do not believe that they operate totally independently from National. I believe that National dictates major decisions to the Scout Executives and they advise the council president and executive committee of the executive board, and the Council moves in lock-step with National. Apparently, ALL of the local councils agreed to pay the settlement contribution determined by National. Maybe there were battles behind the scene, but 100% agreement? In an organization with so many moving parts?

My small council is already large donor, prominent corporate leader controlled. And they have not a clue. One cannot appreciate the importance of tradition unless one is part of that tradition.

Are Council financial statements prepared in compliance with GAAP? Anybody seen council financial statements prepared in compliance with GAAP? I have not.

Well, the local councils are in a horrible situation, just now with National STILL HERE, so if National goes away...? And National DECREES to local councils, does not "ask."

So, you challenge someone in an adult beverage facility to "Step out into the alley," and get the worst of it. Mulligans are for golf courses, not alleys. Bankruptcies are alleys.

I do not understand your comment. BSA has no PR problem over child sexual abuse? Or something else? BSA filed a bankruptcy over child sexual abuse cases. That is a PR problem to me of monumental significance. And that is likely true, but does not take into account that BSA actively accumulated and sequestered all documents pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse. So, that the 3 G's were public issues, it is clear that BSA worked actively to conceal the biggest, existential threat to BSA; child sexual abuse. Had BSA not concealed the child sexual abuse claims, it would have likely been THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION and the 3 G's would have faded into the mists.

I checked-National Supply does not offer Scarlet Letters. Not uniform approved.

Nobody cares. Sell. They ARE threats. I do not know anyone who responds with sympathy to threats. Threats raise hackles. BSA National, before filing bankruptcy, had the absolute BEST data on the number of abuse cases alleged against unit leaders, scout youth, local councils, chartering organizations, and so on. And all the details thereof-National insisted that all council files on abuse cases were sent to National. And BSA National, in light of, or in reliance on, that knowledge, filed a Chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy. BSA National lit the fuse on the bankruptcy rocket. "They" being National? Well, my understanding is that National does not "ask" Scout Executives. National "directs." Probably subtly, but if a Scout Executive does not follow National's "company line" that Scout Executive does not get promoted-his/her career stagnates or crashes. Consider, that 238 councils, more or less, all fell in line to contribute to the Settlement Trust the amount that National set as the local councils' contributions. And why was that so? "Local Councils are independent corporations," says National. Who believes that? If local councils are truly "volunteer run" and independent, in order to obtain a 100% council compliance with National's Settlement Trust contribution "request," a majority of the board members on each and every council board would have to vote to approve the "contribution." I do not know the specifics, but I know the process and can make reasonable assumptions and inferences from the limited information available. So, what likely happened, is that the Scout Executive advised the Council President that National had set their council's contribution and the Executive Committee (a subset of the Executive Board-much smaller) approved the contribution amount. The full Council Board, many there for resume building, just went along, or perhaps were only told after the event. Or never told. National abhors nothing more that its lack of control. Like the lead bird in a flock of starlings, when National turns, the whole flock turns in unison.

I don't quite know if this fits in here, an important lesson to me back then, so, nevertheless.. During a very stressful scouting time, we had a committee and during meetings, a scouter I considered very astute, upon hearing a comment (likely that he did not agree with) would say: "Could you say that again? I'd like to understand you." A gentle way to suggest a moderation or even an intensification of the speaker's view. Or, at least to elicit specifics with which to take issue. With respect to your post, quoting the post you take issue with would be helpful to those of us who don't follow day-to-day. I'd really like to understand your post.

Yes, Jarts. Loved them. I'd play my dad just about every time I stopped out to his house. Every week or two. He had phenomenal eye-hand coordination. Phenomenal. The typical score was 21-4 or 21-6. I am an accomplished percussionist-I am not uncoordinated. I can play my drum set in complete darkness and hit every note on any part of my drum set that I want. Dad whooped me every time.

Yep. And your most likely defense? That you are not worth enough to be named as a Defendant unless there is strong evidence you did something particularly egregious. If your defense costs you less than $50,000, even if you win, or are dismissed out of the case, you are lucky. The likely cost of defense is so high, and so far beyond most folk's ability to pay, many attorneys would require a retainer in that amount. Lump sum up front. Welcome to the modern Scouting environment. And further, ask your questions in writing and get a written response. If possible, get a written response not only from your agent but from the issuing insurance company's legal department. A written opinion from your agent only binds that agency and the agency he/she works for. No one can obtain insurance coverage for damages for intentional wrongful or criminal acts. A huge benefit of applicable insurance is to cover the cost of a legal defense if accused of negligence as an adult leader in some fashion. EXCELLENT POINT! That you, yes, Y0U, are someday accused has no bearing on your activities. Lawyers sue ("name as Defendants") anyone even remotely likely to be liable for the alleged damage. All on the worry that if they fail to name someone who seems unlikely to be liable, but discovery and evidence at trial points the finger at that person not named as a Defendant, the case they filed turns out to be worthless, and they have to start all over again-if the statute of limitations has not run n the meantime. Lawyer may have to prosecute TWO cases when they could have only had to prosecute one. And, if the statute of limitations has been blown (case not timely filed against the ignored Defendant), the lawyer may be personally liable for the damages to their client. Everybody beats up on lawyers, but lawyers accept a serious level of risk to handle cases competently and may end up paying for their client's damages from the auto accident, for example, because they did not handle their case properly. Lawyers carry errors and omissions insurance (legal malpractice insurance) to insure against liability for negligent actions (mistakes). So, where does one begin with analyzing this? I fully agree, but I suspect there is much, much more to this. Does BSA actually WANT to "educate" its volunteers about these issues-volunteer potential liability, and the magnitude of the financial loss to volunteers (and chartering organizations, and insurers)? Volunteers are a HUGE reservoir of free labor. Many of volunteers have a long-term history in the program, so they are high-seniority, unpaid "employees" of sorts. They KNOW what they are doing. They trained themselves for free (not a BSA cost) by participating in the program as youth and as adult volunteers. The BSA model is that of a small number of paid professionals who "manage" a huge number of adult volunteers-those volunteers who conduct the program. So, is the BSA marketing piece to attract volunteers to be: "Come, serve youth. Kids are great. You may be named a Defendant in a child abuse case which could wipe out your net worth. Campfires are great times. If you lose your home, at least you'll know how to live in a tent." Clearly, BSA KNEW that there were thousands of abuse claims for decades. BSA captured all the records of such claims at its national offices directing that councils retain no copies of any documents pertaining to abuse claims. And the volunteers continued to volunteer not being warned by BSA, which knew the Truth. And the chartering organizations continued to recharter scout units not being warned by BSA, which knew the Truth. And the insurance companies continued to insure not being warned by BSA, which knew the Truth. Aside #1: With respect to "errors and omissions insurance" (malpractice insurance) the insured is required to report to the insurance company any potential claim of which the insured has knowledge of. I have not seen any comment on this issue, BUT the HUGE ISSUE is whether BSA had an obligation to report the abuse claims of which it had knowledge to its insurers so that they could re-evaluate their risk and adjust their premiums accordingly. Apparently, BSA never so advised its insurers. THAT OMISSION provides the insurers with the defense to having to provide coverage, that "BSA failed to advise us of potential claims so we are not liable to pay for any such claims." This is a sound legal argument. Aside #2: Comprehensibility of posts. A. It is common for folks to state facts. Sometimes they omit facts essential to allowing the reader to follow their thinking/reasoning. Rule: Include all the essential facts. B. Personal Pronouns be BANNED. I am talking about ( I, you, he, she, it, we, they, me, him, her, us, and them ). Unless the use of a personal pronoun is perfectly clear. Tom said. Al responded. George had nothing to say. Sandra objected. So they decided to sell the horse. Who was in favor, who opposed, if anyone, ... C. State the significance of the facts stated. Many folks state facts assuming that the reader will understand the significance of the facts that they stated will be readily apparent to their reader. This is rarely true. No greater example is from a Lincoln case (anecdote, or just plain fantasy???)" "So, you saw Tom fighting with Bill?" "Yes sir." "And when was that?" "About 10 p.m." "Nighttime was it?" "Yes, but there was a lantern hanging outside the tavern door." (Lincoln-about 1855.) "And how far were you from this fight?" "About 50 yards." "And you say that Tom bit off Bill's ear-it being dark, and you so far away-how can you say that?" THE question about the significance of "drawing the conclusion for the audience." "I saw Tom spit it out."

And so too would I be offended. Not much of a "marketing piece" is it? But this is the point to which BSA National has brought all of us. The "abuse and molestation" language is from a major insurance company website offering such coverage, though I was advised after my email inquiry that such coverage is not offered to scouting units. In plain English, "that coverage is not available to scouting operations as they pose too high a risk to insure for any premium we believe people would pay-and so not worth our effort to market-we have staff to pay." Essentially, scouting activities cannot be insured against claims of abuse and molestation. Scouting is uninsurable regarding those risks. So, the immutable problem is how do scouting activities continue if risks with monumental liability risks are uninsurable? To my knowledge, there has NEVER been any insurance coverage for unit leaders who sign another adult's application for membership for acts of abuse allegedly perpetrated by that adult after the application approval date. So, how many of us are potential defendants in child abuse cases for negligently "signing off on," that is "approving," an adult's application for membership in scouting who subsequently engaged in alleged abuse? Answer: Every adult leader who has signed another adult's application is a potential defendant. The critical question is whether "every adult leader" has coverage for such alleged negligence through their homeowner's insurance (carried by most folks) or some other insurance. To my humble knowledge, and all correct me if I am wrong, National has provided no information that adult leaders are insured for "abuse and molestation" coverage.

Negligence pertaining to what? The only negligence of real concern is liability for an adult committing some act of child abuse. To my knowledge, National has NEVER provided insurance coverage to unit adults (or alleged youth abusers, for that matter) for abuse and molestation claims. And, I'd note that the "abuse and molestation" language is not of my origin but from a major insurance company's website, which upon my email inquiry about coverage, perfunctorily advised me by email that no such insurance was available for scouting units. (I think a wholly owned subsidiary of Met Life-but I could check my emails if anyone needs particulars.) Scouting liability issues pertaining to CSA or abuse and molestation are pariahs. Does anyone know if any insurance company is offering such insurance to scouting volunteers, scouting units (generally unincorporated associations) or chartering organizations?

I saw that as a 1L (first year law school student). You just never know when something you learn in law school will have relevance. And, apparently, win the favor of the Court.

Just read this again. I can't upvote more than once. You are "right on."

Well, I guess it just it depends on who is doing the counting. And, frankly, your comment is just obtuse. I cannot adhere to rules prescribed for third graders which were written by second graders (National staff.)

Midwest. No troops in our Diocese have rechartered. I'll stay in touch.

Your comment has just enabled my connecting some comments I've heard from professionals and knowledgeable volunteers over the last few years.. The volunteers and some professionals recognize that enhanced program draws more youth to Scouting. They bring their parents, and grandparents to Courts of Honor and Friends Of Scouting presentations. More FOS contributions are realized and with more youth on the membership roles, the stronger the claim for United Way more monies. On the other hand the professionals are targeting large contributions from few major donors. To those donors, the argument is as above: "we cannot serve the members, or advocate for cause 'xyx' without $." The major difference is that when pursuing large donors, no showing of effective or attractive program is necessary. The fundraising pitch to large donors sidesteps the existence or desirability of effective and attractive program, and high youth membership numbers. And therein lies the reason why professionals care little about program other than providing ("tolerating") uninspired program: attractive program lays ("lies"?-I can't figure it out) not on the path to riches and is irrelevant.. In my council, carving knives and chisels for Woodcarving MB are dull or broken-kids can't carve. A volunteer was called before the SECOND week of camp to come sharpen about 80 tools. Rifles with no repair parts, so fewer can shoot. Platform tent frames damaged so fewer tents per campsite. And it just looks neglected. Just so many things that could be repaired, or procured to enhance the summer camp experience are neglected by professional staff. Summer camp fees continue to rise-beyond those of camps with a ton more amenities. Our camp attendance is down by over a third and cut from 6 to 4 weeks of camp.