SiouxRanger

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.

And so, we are all left chasing all manner of smoke. And like the Cheshire Cat-fading reality but really fading lies. And at the end, the Survivors will be left with A Hatful Of Rain.

December 31. 2021. Our charter is now expired. I am currently licensed as an attorney and fully understand Releases, and such. What I do not have is any information on the coverages of BSA National procured insurance, the type of coverage (risks insured), who is insured, policy limits, and deductibles. That insurance may not cover abuse and molestation claims. And if it does, who is insured? Unit leaders (who are not alleged abusers), Units (not likely legal entities), chartering organizations, and the local councils? Thank you.

My unit has entered and uploaded its rechartering individuals' info, but no rechartering agreement of any sort has been signed by our Catholic Parish Priest. The Diocese wants to use its facility use agreement and our Council wants to use BSA's facility use agreement. And there is a standoff. And so, relevant parts of an email to me by my unit's COR:

I agree. From the TCC individual council analyses, some councils are scheduled to contribute a third or half of their unrestricted assets and others perhaps only 20% or so. The TCC analyses would do well to also show the percentage of contribution to unrestricted assets. It roughly appears to me that the larger councils are contributing a smaller percentage, and I wonder if those councils are going to be the survivors with the councils contributing a much higher percentage are targeted for merging out of existence. "We need a war chest in the surviving councils." I understand that there is a map with "150 mile circles on it" which identifies all of the camps in the Scouting system within those circles. Circles with too many camps for the scouts available, will see the sale of camps.

And, in my area at least, from United Ways. Grumbling among other local charities that they were being unfairly shorted because of United Way money going to service phantom scouts.

Formerly (3 years ago) a budget 5 times larger than now, and staff cut in half to about 8. Seems grim to me.

You do understand me precisely and stated it much better than I. No offense was intended. My intent was that "no matter what award survivors receive, YP reform has to improve/bolster/enhance/ensure that such abuse never happens again." (I'd note that I sometimes use non-legal terms in my posts because readers may not be versed in the nuances of legal terms-of-art. I used "compensation" to connote a money judgment/payment. "Award" is technically more appropriate, but more generic and to a non-lawyer, connotes things much more akin to a medal or ribbon-clearly not my intent. To a lawyer, "award" is a money judgment. So, perhaps, "settlement payment" or even something else would have been better. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.) Words are our joy, and our burden-and sometimes, downfall. And I also meant that it is my impression that Survivors see YP enhancement as a co-equal and essential element of any resolution of this, equal with any monetary award. And, I understand that regardless of any monetary award, YP reform is its own issue and to be resolved as its own issue. Clearly, BSA's proposal of ONE Survivor on any YP Board moving forward is a clear statement that BSA cares not one whit about meaningful YP reform. Survivor presence should be a majority. I stand firmly with the Survivors. BSA has to make good on the damage it has caused. Funds accumulated in National's and Councils' war chests (long-term investments) over the past many decades should be used to redress the damage done over those past many decades. Borrowing NOW to pay for the damage of past decades is shifting the burden of that damage to current Scouts and their families. And is not their bill. But is leaves Councils flush with old money to fund salaries. Yesterday, I learned that our scout executive's salary plus retirement fund contribution, for last year was just shy of 50% of the Council's budget. (The retirement contribution was HALF of salary.) Sack cloth and ashes at the ready @ThenNow.