SiouxRanger

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.

??? ALWAYS behind the circumstances human minds can concoct. Statutes always have gaps in their coverage, and that is why we have courts which try to fill those gaps

Oh, well, yes.. I have long made the observation that the law is totally unable to conceive of the infinite varieties of situations the human mind can create. The law is ALWAYS

From a different point of view, I was only addressing a number of posts and did not want to get bogged down in answering each at length, repeating myself, losing whatever audience I have (maybe only you, faithful friend). I wasn't addressing legitimate solutions to sheltering assets. They exist, are legal, and maybe even acceptable to National.

Yep, agreed. I have always held the position that the law (legislation) is inherently incapable of imagining all of the possible combinations and permutations of human behavior, and so laws never "comprehensive'," that is, covering everything. And THAT is why we have courts-to apply laws (inherently insufficient) to situations the laws just don't quite cover. (Trust me, NOBODY likes to pay legal costs. For any reason or any purpose. (smile))

Your's is a good point. The American system of jurisprudence is based on the idea that opposing parties in a case, present their opposing positions and arguments in support of them in open court or documents, and then the judge "adjudicates" by making a judgment and rendering a decision. The judge's decision will tell you about the judge's thinking. You'll have the decision before you'll have insight into the judge's thinking. Not so helpful, but it is our law. A judge rarely just pontificates from the bench (during a hearing) about how the judge is thinking. But people being people, there are ways a judge "signals" their leaning on an issue, or whether they think a party's position is shakey. (They rarely signal that they think a party's position is strong.) They ask pointed questions or make comments on the evidence offered or arguments being made during a hearing. And the tone of that will be a big clue of the judge's thinking. Or, they will suggest an in camera conference in the judge's chambers, where the judge can be a bit heavier in the judge's comments (not wanting to make the same comments in open court and perhaps embarrass an attorney in the presence of their client-if the client feels that the attorney has lost the confidence of the judge, that attorney may not be able to persuade the client to compromise, and the judge is not in the business of crippling legal counsel so that pending matters cannot be resolved.) It is complicated. And subtle. Reading tea leaves is easy, and just as about as reliable.

Your comment just strikes me. The "flip side" is that there are some survivors who are not interested in "burning it all down." And why would that be? (I'd understand if 100% of survivors wanted to burn it all down.) I suspect because one of the goals of the TCC-that "YPT be enhanced and upgraded so that abuse never happens again." Essentially, a tacit recognition that there is not enough money to adequately compensate us, but we can demand ONE THING that compensates us for the pain in our souls-that it never happens again to other children.

Omni is merely in the business of doing "ministerial' acts. It posts documents, indexes, tallies votes. It is a clerk. It is not making policy. Judges make policy, sometimes consistent with other judges and sometimes not.. It sounds as if the only % on the books and contained in bankruptcy law is 66%. Omni is merely reporting that the vote it tallied exceeds the stated statutory requirement. We've heard of judges using anywhere from 75% to 95%. Omni, as a clerk, is not in the position to "pick a percentage." Judges do that. Omni's representation of "approved" is irrelevant.

All of the comments about various arrangements to transfer camps out of local council ownership, essentially for free, to protect them from creditors have not mentioned the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, updated in 2014, and renamed the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act. It has been enacted in about 45 states. The purpose of the Act is to render transactions voidable if done to shelter assets from present or future creditors (by transferring valuable assets, in our case a local council, without receiving comparable value in return which comparable value could be used to pay claimants). Almost certainly, any such transfer after the Oregon case verdict in 2010 would be suspect as that case was the proverbial handwriting on the wall. Were it to be shown that Scout Executives had knowledge of substantial settlements, not in the public eye, that date could even be earlier. By the time you know you have a problem, your knowledge is the problem, as any action you take to shelter assets once you know they are at risk makes the sheltering suspect and perhaps voidable (that is can be reversed). Catch 22. Were a council to transfer camp(s), then manage to stave off filing bankruptcy for the requisite period, one gets into legal discussions of the interplay between bankruptcy law and state law. I don't have any current knowledge on that topic. And then there is the problem of the Scout Law, Rule 1: Trustworthy. Not seemly for scout councils to connive to conceal assets to avoid a financial reckoning for its activities. Then there's the embarrassment of council board members who might take exception to being a co-conspirator in such machinations.

That is an excellent question. The answer should be posted here if someone knows, and hopefully, either the TCC has that info posted somewhere and makes it known at its Town Halls, or the need to post it is brought to the TCC's attention. And THEN, there needs to be some mechanism to flag those disparities to OMNI so they can be tallied.