SiouxRanger

3 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Correction: “Nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” 
 

I know for a fact that people supposedly dead on the statute in bad states are getting 50-100k. The cost and risk to the carrier isn’t worth litigating the issue with the plaintiff. 

I would have to see this to believe it-all of the facts and circumstances, applicable statutes, contracts, etc..

My favorite is the divorce client who claims his buddy at the shop "got to keep his house."

Insinuating that the guy always gets to keep the house, or that the buddy's lawyer was really good.

Well, generally, it turns out the buddy gave up his pension plan benefits in an equal value exchange, or some other asset the buddy is not bothering to mention. "Always got to look like a winner."

Statutes of limitation are pretty much made of granite.

28 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In state courts one usually follows the other. This from my Utah courts friends

Disclosure and discovery are mixed in time, in approximately the following order:

https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/courtprocess/disclosure-discovery.html

• initial disclosures;
• fact discovery;
• expert disclosures;
• expert discovery; and
• pretrial disclosures.

"Approximately" is doing some heavy lifting here, but you get the idea.

Document discovery (letters, memos, reports, contracts, etc.) and discovery of tangible things (a failed valve, for example) is generally done first. 

THEN, depositions follow, and the witnesses are questioned about those documents and failed valves, so you can learn what they will say in court about those documents and failed valves. 

If the depositions were done first, there would be little to question the witness about.

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

One is an element of the bankruptcy Plan. That’s the Disclosure Statement. The other, discovery, is a general element of litigation, taking various forms, that is one party going on a spelunking expedition to mine data and statements from another party. Let’s call it legal “Go Fish.” Each in turn:

The disclosure statement is a document that must contain information concerning the assets, liabilities, and business affairs of the debtor sufficient to enable a creditor to make an informed judgment about the debtor's plan of reorganization. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics

This is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they'll present at trial. Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. ... Depositions enable a party to know in advance what a witness will say at the trial. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/

 

One of the significant differences between disclosure and discovery, is that the disclosure is "crafted" by the debtor to show what the debtor wants to reveal-and in whatever light the debtor believes will present a favorable view of the disclosure and elicit votes approving it.  Something akin to lawyers taking over the marketing and sales departments.

Discovery, on the other hand, allows a party to a lawsuit to request documents, computer data, nearly anything even remotely connected to the litigation, so that the requesting party can examine it, and draw their own conclusions  regarding its relevance to the case.

In one sense, discovery of documents, computer data, etc., the requesting party receives unaltered historical data-that is, it is backward looking.  The documents were generally created in the ordinary course of operations-in the -heat of battle.  They were not prepared (usually) with litigation in mind.

Another type of discovery pertains to depositions of human beings after a lawsuit has been commenced.  Its does allow the requesting party an opportunity to hear what the opposing party's witnesses will say at trial.  (And, if they change their story between the deposition and trial, to impeach them and undermine their credibility as a witness.) But, contrary to discovery related to documents, etc,, the witness knows litigation is in progress and may be able to shape their testimony to be more favorable to the party who calls them as a witness. Generally, a deposition witness is questioned about documents which were discovered through document discovery.  This type of discovery is both backward-looking (pertaining to historical documents obtained through document discovery), and forward-looking, in that the witness has a chance to shape their testimony in the deposition to cast the best light.

(Asking for a brief explanation was smart.  Volumes have been written on this topic.  "Trial attorneys" spend 95±% of their time requesting, reviewing, analyzing, and interweaving discovered materials into their trial plan.  Actual courtroom time is minuscule compared to trial preparation.)

Perhaps others have more to add?

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For years, units would go into banks and an EIN wasn't required.

I think that is still the case with my unit. I've been the Troop treasurer for 10 or 15 years now, imposing an actual accounting and record-keeping system that took our Troop from bouncing 2 checks a month to about $4,000 in the bank-all due to collecting camping fees, donations, and fundraising revenues.

I am not sure what EIN is on our account. (I try to keep my scouting volunteer hours to something less than my day job hours.)

I believe it was ThenNow who mentioned that he was famous.

I think Warhol was mistaken. We won't have 15 minutes of fame, but 15 minutes of incarceration-and for scouters, most likely on account of EIN violations. 

37 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Especially when a unit has its own EIN,

Just an aside (which I may have mentioned before but just to demonstrate the depth of ignorance).

My unit does not have an EIN.  Some years ago, in an effort to avoid paying sales tax of about 10%, I asked the CO for its EIN-a Catholic Parish.

I went around and around over many days' of phone calls with a senior layperson in the Parish.  (Not the Parish Priest who has official authority-I guess it was not important enough to be brought to his attention???).

"What do you want the EIN for?"

"Uh...food, equipment..."

"Well, we wouldn't want the troop to use it for food, camping fees, or for anything for an overnight activity, (you gotta sit down for this...) because the Parish would not want anyone to think the Parish sponsored such activities."

(Have YOU read the Chartering Agreement???)

Fine, I said, we will get along without it.

Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.  --Friedrich von Schiller

On 9/19/2021 at 1:34 AM, fred8033 said:

QUESTION #2 ... Inheriting CO liability from another CO

If a unit moves charters ... and this is very common ... does the new CO inherit liability? 

Reason #1 Purchasing companies inherit the liabilities of the purchased companies. 

Reason #2  Often material possessions are transferred when COs are changed.  (bank accounts, tents, stoves, trailers, etc).  

"Purchasing companies" generally involves two legally recognized entities engaging in either an asset purchase, or a stock purchase, pursuant to written a written contract wherein the retention or assumption of existing liabilities is provided for.  Consideration is paid or not, depending on the amount of liquidated liabilities, or the risk of known unliquidated liabilities and unknown liabilities.

Even where a company assumes the liabilities of a selling company, that assumption does not relieve the selling company of its liability to the person or entity to whom it was-and remains-liable.  The assuming company is agreeing to indemnify and sold the selling company harmless.  The third party creditor/claimant can pursue the selling company.

I think it would be a hard case to persuade anyone that the assets transferred to the new CO are in any way commensurate with the amount of potential liability assumed.  Several thousand dollars of equipment and cash-all used to just barely cover unit operations-was intended by either the old CO or the new CO to cover abuse claims.

My bet is that the new CO has no liability for claims arising before it was the CO.

13 hours ago, gpurlee said:

The only instance that I can think a new CO would be at risk in assuming sponsorship  of an existing unit would be  if they were negligent in some way in screening and signing off on the leadership or failed to maintain appropriate future oversight. 

I agree.  Unless an entity assumes past liabilities of another, an entity is only liable for its own acts and omissions-present and future.

14 hours ago, David CO said:

I never liked the idea of transferring units and CO shopping.  This adds one more reason for me to dislike the practice.  A new CO should always start out with a new unit.  New number and everything.  No inherited baggage.

I've been hearing that some councils don't want to take on the charters of these old legacy units.  Do you think they might know something about this inherited liability question? 

My comments above notwithstanding, starting out new across the board is safest:  new CO and new chartering agreement, with the new CO actually vetting unit leaders.  It establishes a date at which the new CO became the CO, and the date on which its responsibilities and duties commenced.

As we have seen, the last thing one wants to do is be in court talking.  It is very expensive, surrenders control over decisions that may potentially destroy the business to a person that cannot, by the very nature of the process, have a complete picture.  National, like so many entities that have fled to the expedient shelter of cover-up, faces potential annihilation.

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And herein lies the problem since at least the 1920s not only the annual charter renewal document but what would later evolve into the Adult Application made it clear that "Institutional Head" (which later split into the CO and IH) was approving those adult leaders and agreed to exercise oversight.

This isn't about incorporated entity; this is about the idea that the scouting unit for legal and other purposes was considered a part of/program of the chartered organization.

The equivalent would be if the Pastor of the local church approved a parish member to be the volunteer head of the youth choir and signed a document saying the Pastor had reviewed the person's character and vouched for him/her AND agreed to exercise control and oversight. The head of the youth choir is then found to have molested members of the choir. Clearly, the pastor took on the role and responsibility in his capacity as pastor to oversee that program.

That the COs failed to read the documents put under their noses is neither here nor there. The fact is they bound themselves to these units, agreed to approval of the unit's leaders AND signed documents that they had reviewed those leaders (at least annually re-approving them). They have two choices:

1) Admit they had no idea what was going on in that unit despite the signatures. That's literally the definition of negligence.

2) Admit they had an idea but did nothing. Now we have willful indifference/deliberate indifference. That's actually WORSE from a legal standpoint.

I am with you on this.  

National postures the unit as part of the CO through the rechartering agreement, though in practice, may CO's do not fulfill their role.  And yet, unlike the choir teacher, or even members of the choir, NATIONAL has its "Standards Of Membership And Leadership" by which NATIONAL can expel a member of the unit theoretically under the control of the CO.  So, National delegates responsibility to the CO, yet retains authority to to meddle in the unit's internal operations.  And to terminate a unit's charter.  I doubt many or any church choirs are subject to such third-party control.

I doubt any franchise model (something akin National's model) allows the franchisor, to hire and fire a franchisee's staff.  "Hello-your fry cook there-they've got to go."

National has a hybrid "franchise model."

7 hours ago, gpurlee said:

The term "ownership of a unit" is used very loosely. 

This is precisely the correct observation.

Years ago, I reviewed many of the governance documents pertaining to National, Districts, and units.

They are a study in vagueness, ambiguity, and unworkable incompleteness-not a comprehensive governing plan.  I was unimpressed.

So, units, 100% in my experience, have no formal, legal. structure.

They are "unincorporated associations."

My state has laws pertaining to the formation, operation, governance of business corporations, not-for-profit corporations, professional corporations, banking corporations, general partnerships, limited partnerships, and such. ("Such" being villages, townships, soil conservation districts, park districts...all manner of legal entities.)

Those statutes provide for the creation of a new legal entity:  corporation or partnership.  Importantly, those statutes also provide rules pertaining to governance of the entity.  If the rules are followed, one can determine which individuals have legal authority to authorize actions in the name of the entity, and who is responsible for those actions.

Legal entities can own assets, incur debts, etc.

Unincorporated associations on the other hand are not a legally recognized entity.  It can be difficult to determine who (humans) are in charge and can make decisions that bind the association.  One typically sees this in small churches which never formed into a legally recognized entity.  They frequently end up in court battling over who "owns" the church, who is liable on the l.ease of the church meeting place (many are rented), who can hire or fire the pastor, and who controls the church bank account.  Typically, "Solomon splits the baby" and the losing faction moves on with some to none of the cash to lease another facility, paster in tow, or left behind.

So, does a CO "own" a unit?

One has to look at the many "incidents of ownership."

Governance:  CO's, by virtue of the Chartering Agreemednt have the right to designate or approve unit leaders.   My unit's CO has never spent a second troubling itself with designating a unit leader, and probably not a second actively "approving" a unit leader, but rather just signs off on the Chartering Agreement.  Unit leaders are generally selected by acclimation and their term of office is indeterminate.  Sometimes retiring, or being encouraged to step down to make way for new blood.  Corporate law typically provide for the designation of defined officer positions, define their duties and authorities, and provide for election procedures and terms of office.

Finances.  My unit makes all revenue and expense decisions, more or less by acclimation, or consensus. No particular vote.

Continuation of existence. National and perhaps an LC, can decline to renew a unit's charter for any or no reason.  Not so for corporations and other legally recognized entities.  It is not consistent with the concept of CO ownership of a unit that another entity can simply terminate the unit's existence.

Ownership of assets.  Who "owns" the unit's assets?  Bank account, camping equipment, and unit trailer?  I understand that if a unit folds, that is, does not renew its charter, or its charter is not renewed by BSA, that all the unit's assets become property of the LC.  So, if the CO "owns" the unit, why don't those assets remain with the CO? And for the CO to use them for scouting or any other purpose, scouting or not.  By what authority would those assets be restricted to scouting purposes only?  If by virtue of the Chartering Agreement, then the CO looks a whole lot less like it "owns" the unit because it does not have control of the assets the CO allegedly owns.  I've seen the current leadership of a unit, dissatisfied with a few trouble makers, who stirred up the CO, just up and leave the CO with all the equipment and bank account.  After a fair amount of table pounding, the CO just let it drop.  Does that fit the rules?  Who knows?  But the point is there ought to be rules that govern common situations that arise in CO and unit relations and governance.  

National's model of its relationship with CO's and units does not fit into established legal statutory schemes, leaving many open questions. And it may well lead to an unintended result, depending on the decision of the Judge, who may very well advise everyone wha the rules are.

When things are going well and unit assets are being used to make the model work, no one seems to care what the rules are.

As there are 50 states, some states may have either statutory law applicable to unincorporated associations, and almost certainly a body of case law wherein courts have decided cases such as the church splits.

There is NO WAY anyone will persuade me that the title "Just Ku Kluxin Around" is anything but shining a jovial, light-hearted touch on racism.

I have represented clients who spoke of their family documents pertaining to their family's ancestor's enslavement.  Or tracing their family tree back to when their ancestors who were slaves and no records exist, to their knowledge. A sobering moment in the course of an office conference. Well, for a naive white boy like me, though slavery was a part of their family history.

Get an education and a copy of "Treblenka" by Steiner.  Learn.

Or, extra for experts:

Can It Happen Again, by Chartock, et. al.

Quiet Neighbors, by Ryan

Five Chimneys by Lengyel

Eichmann In Jerusalem, by Arendt

Minister Of Death, by Aldouby
 

The Abandonment Of The Jews, by Wyman

Anything by Simon Wiesenthal.

And, if none of those:

Babi Yar, by Kuznetsov.  This above all, read this.

And when you find yourself in the bottom of an inescapable canyon of despair, read:

 A Night of Watching.

And remember this from Rev. Niemoller, Protestant Minister during Nazi times: 

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.

And then volunteers of the BSA craft arguments that support the Ku Klux Klan?

Anyone here have ever heard of a slight-framed guy named "Korematsu?"

(All of the titles above are from my library, which I have read.  Babi Yar twice.  And there are many more not mentioned.)

8 hours ago, qwazse said:

Let’s all stop thinking the worst of one another and roll back the last three posts.

@SiouxRanger’s wishing contagion on the innocents among an adversary’s family is unacceptable ad hominem (even if no such man exists), and as we see, opened the gate to taking umbrage in kind.

1. Think well of one another.
2. Read twice before replying.
3. Ask clarification rather than denounce.
4. Make only one point, send, sleep on he other.

ad ho·mi·nem

/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb

1. 

in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"

2. 

in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

So, I don't think the "ad hominem" fallacy criticism applies.  I attacked the position of the poster, Forrest, and then applied my approbation to his family tree.

This might bog you down for a bit.

Exodus 34:6-7a

6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

Pox:  "small" or "cow?"

Are you "Forrest" of "Nathan Bedford Forrest" fame?

16 hours ago, forrest747 said:

Your description of “ruthless killers who feel empowered to kill the defenseless” perfectly describes a recent drone attack that killed the ENTIRE family of a U.N. worker in Afghanistan who brought home water bottles for his family.   BTW,  not done by the Ku Klux Klan.  That was done by the good old U. S. of A. who were “Just Ku Kluxin’ Around,” I guess.

Try selling that slop to the family of Emmett Till.

That there is even a thread named, "Just Ku Kluxin' Around" is extremely offensive and totally unacceptable. Period.

That slaughter is practiced elsewhere, does not make slaughter here acceptable.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, what would you propose on the subject of voting: review all 82,500 claims NOW and those with a valid claim not prohibited by a statute of limitations gets to vote?

Yep.

Or, let everyone over the age of 3 in Uruguay vote also.  They have as much legal interest in the outcome of the vote as claimants with expired, legally unenforceable claims.

And, I also want to vote on your next pay raise, as long as I get 10% of the raise I vote for.

I agree with acema606.

On 8/26/2021 at 8:43 AM, GrubKnot said:

It's not yours to erase or destroy."

“The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it. -- Omar Khayyam.

And to whomever has the poster name of "Just Ku Kluxin Around" you have a beyond offensive poster name. The Ku Klux Klan lynched innocents, yet your name makes it sound like the Klan is a light-hearted, jovial, carefree organization-except they are ruthless killers.  And they made themselves feel empowered by taking on the defenseless.  A pox on your house.

46 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

They were actively recruiting clients in time-barred states, which is not logical if the awards are reduced to little or nothing.

This one puzzling aspect of the bankruptcy:  time barred claims being given any consideration whatsoever.

I don't believe that the bankruptcy judge can make time-barred claims viable again.  If the SOL has expired, time-barred claims are barred, and that is it, that is, at least as a matter of judicial compulsion.

Having no legal interest in the bankruptcy proceeding, they do not have standing, and should have no vote. (Hence, my belief that claims should be vetted for viability prior to any vote.)

Insurance companies won't support any payment by them to time-barred claimants.  Insurance companies rely heavily on statues of limitation and whether the policy coverage type is claims-made or occurrence, and set premiums accordingly.  To change policy terms after losses have been incurred (AFTER the result is known-vision is 20/20 in hindsight) and thereby obligate the insurers to pay claims which could never have been in the the formula for setting premiums and policy levels in the first place, is an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, in my opinion .  Judge:  "You agreed to build a 300 foot chain link fence for $5,000, but now that your customer is in bankruptcy, I am ordering you to build a 1,400 foot fence for the same money.  Welcome to bankruptcy court."

On the other hand, from a marketing perspective from National's point of view, National wants to appear that it is working to "equitably compensate survivors" it includes time-barred claimants in its Plan.  "Hey, look- National is fighting for us-we are included in the Plan!"

Well, there are several aspects to this:

1.  National does not care how many claimants end up receiving an award.  National's interest is in how much does National have to pay.  Whether paid to one claimant, or 82,500 is of no concern to National.

2.  The cynical view is that time-barred claimants were included in National's Plan and given a vote in order to constitute a huge block of voters who, having already learned that their claims are worthless in state court because they are time-barred, and thereby having nothing to lose, would vote to approve National's very "National favorable Plan," and coincidently very favorable to the time-barred-claimants who could turn worthless claims into cash with their vote.   "We National, are really bothered by how long this is taking-let every claimant vote so we can get on with getting away from bankruptcy and let the Settlement folks sort it out later."

As I have posted before, the law works on two principles:  compulsion and agreement.  The "grease" between them is threat (that is, leverage-"pressures" to my way of thinking. There can be many pressures and counter-pressures present at any given time, and each party involved can have their own evaluation of the degree of threat or pressure and counter-pressure.).

So, there are two aspects to including time-barred claimants in the Plan.

1.  On a compulsion theory:  States that have not reopened their statutes of limitation, just might do so in the future-perhaps in response to the proceedings in National's bankruptcy.  Claimants in those states would suddenly have valid, non-time-barred claims.  I don't think that the insurers would be liable for those claims. I just don't see how a bankruptcy court can rewrite contractual obligations. That statutes of limitation were opened in any state amazes me.

2.  On an agreement theory:  Time-barred claimants are included in the Plan to receive a payment, on the hope that non-time barred claimants will approve (by agreement) the payment of some award to time-barred claimants.  This still assumes that time-barred claimants have no vote, for the voting claimants will be lowering their recovery by agreeing that time-barred claimants receive a settlement.

Letting someone who has no legal rights in a matter vote and control the outcome, particularly when they can vote a benefit to themselves with no legally enforceable right to compel payment of that benefit to themselves is legally absurd.

8 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Outside of a mass resignation, the NEB isn't going anywhere.

And the "senior" management have convinced themselves that "Well the abuse happened prior to MY tenure, therefore we are fine".

I have no doubt that you are right on both counts.

The "bloated NEB" is likely right in line with BSA's "pay to play" for the distinction of being named to the NEB.

In my council, no decisions of any consequence are ever presented to the Council Executive Board-at least in my day on theExecutive Board.  And decades later, a senior professional with true talent asked me to go on the Executive Board to counteract the large number of Executive Board members who had no idea what was going on and lend direction and power to the Executive Board.  I declined having 4 years of Executive Board participation and another 20± observing and always keeping a finger on the pulse.  The Executive Board model, in my council is simply hopelessly ineffective. (I tend to spell out the "alphabet shorthand" so that folks who are not conversant, forum guests, can follow along more readily.)

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Exactly. The LCs would be on their own, but then again, legally, they are on their own NOW. All BSA's trying to do is use the BSA bankruptcy to leverage a "global" settlement.

That said, a BSA only bankruptcy means dozens of LCs go into bankruptcy the next day, but some walk away without having to pay a dime.

So, an LC goes it alone.

No suits are filed, so it "wins."

Or, It gets hit by lawsuits in state court and after the usual preliminaries, decides to file bankruptcy.  Its territory gets absorbed by another council, and Scouting continues.  If the camp(s) and office lost are camp(s) and offices that should/could/ought be lost anyway-not much of a downside.  The SE retires or is moved to replace a retiring SE, the DE's remain to serve the council's former territory...

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO I see little real organizational change in the BSA. New boss is the old boss.

I agree 100%.

I've been mulling your "Bankruptcy will not end Scouting" tag for a long time.

Existing (and prior) management, they may well kill Scouting-unless they go.  The corporate culture that got Scouting to this point has to change-and that is only accomplished by a clean sweep.  Will the shamed senior management remain in place to shout down junior level management's "we-told-you-so's?"

National's management has been a catastrophic moral failure. That alone is reason enough for the clean sweep.

Never mind the disastrous financial consequences, and the gutting of relationships with active volunteers (who understand all of this), CO's, and insurers.

"You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"  Attorney Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Time for retirements and resignations.

But the greatest damage done is National's denial and debasing of the principles it espouses.

8 hours ago, skeptic said:

I continue to find it odd that Mr. K. continues to post on Twitter after being indirectly chastised by the court.  

In 1946, Dr. Louis Slotin, while demonstrating how to assemble two spheres of fissionable material, which together were enough for critical mass, slipped.  He was using screwdrivers on a lab bench to keep the two spheres apart and thereby prevent a sustained nuclear reaction. When he slipped, the spheres connected, and he received a lethal dose..

It is called "tickling the dragon's tail."

Mr. K might read "The Strange Death of Louis Slotin."

Judges have very long memories.

On 7/19/2021 at 3:22 PM, mrjohns2 said:

and actually had 7 ideas. Based on more thought and the course, I winnowed it down to 5.

I took Wood Badge a few years back.  I did't get much guidance on designing my ticket.  Staff was leaving it all rather vague-I think as a way to encourage participants to be creative and devise a ticket that wasn't influenced by WB staff (they did suggest refinements to my ticket items).  It wasn't until into the second weekend that an off hand comment from a staff member finally showed me the reason they encouraged more than 5 ticket items though only 5 had to be completed to fulfill one's ticket.

What if you only had 5 ticket items and for reasons beyond your control, it could not or ever be completed?  Then you fail because you don't have a 6th, 7th, 8th...fallback item(s).

Such as:

"Form 5 new units in Americas 52nd state."  That's great if 2 more states are added to the Union.  But if not, you are done.

"Have your troop's cub feeder pack Webelos attend 5 troop meetings (in preparation for crossover)."  What if you invite the Webelos and they never show up?

"Conduct a Klondike derby with sled racing, igloo building, ice fishing..."  And you don't get sufficient ice or snow? (Plus there are only so many winter weekends, and even those are reduced by weekends available to the units you seek to invite. Just lots of conditions beyond your control.)

So, your ticket ought to include more than 5 ticket items.

Include the 5 "Grand Slam" ticket items you really believe will advance that part of the Movement in which you volunteer-and craft each item to reduce or eliminate conditions controlled by others and over which you have no control and which might cause you to fail to complete them.  (Such as, "Help Tom put on 3 Round Table presentations."  Tom gets run over by an errant Klondike sled and laid up.  Hmmm.  Better:  "Assist with 3 Round Table presentations."  Now, you are not limited by Tom's availability, nor are you limited to Tom's Round Table in Tom's district.  You can assist with ANY Round Table in any district in your council, and any Round Table in the country for that matter.  Not entirely what you had in mind, but at least can accomplish a ticket item doing something useful-and that's the point of it all.)

Also include 4 or 5 items that, though they may not be as dear to your heart as your Grand Slammers, but which you can clearly complete without relying on anyone but yourself.  Such as, "Write out a complete Eagle Scout Court Of Honor Ceremony and make it available to 5 troops."  You write, you photocopy, you email or hand deliver it to 5 units and you are done.  If you add the element of "and have it performed at an Eagle Court Of Honor," now you have to persuade a unit to actually use it-that is out of your control and adds a huge measure of uncertainty.  What if the 5 units don't have an Eagle who needs a ceremony during your ticket window?

Finally, a word on complexity and difficulty of ticket items.  Your "Grand Slammers" should be items you know in your heart-of-hearts, will advance the Movement.  Things that make a difference.  That doesn't necessarily mean dozens of hours, or lots of expense.

Your backup ticket items, No. 6-10± could be items that are less time-consuming, less complicated, involve fewer folks having to get on-board, perhaps even simple compared to the Grand Slammers.  You'll have to obtain your WB staff approval, but having a simple ticket item or two in reserve is reassuring.

Try to do all your Grand Slammers, but if you can't get them all, fall back to an easier one.  I am sure WB as a concept would rather have an enthused, successful Wood Badge graduate than a disappointed and unsuccessful Wood Badge candidate. After all, this is a volunteer organization, and nothing is perfect.

By way of examples:

One of my items was to help my troop have better troop meetings, so I prepared a troop meeting planning form, put several dozen forms in a 3 ring binder clearly labeled, and then worked with the senior scouts to plan 12 meetings.  Each month 4 meetings were planned.  The scouts recorded their plan on the meeting forms, and then executed the meetings.

To coordinate with meeting planning, one of my ticket items was to devise a number of troop activities (this reinforces my other goal of troop meeting planning by providing some of the activities to be used at the meetings they planned.

 For the disability awareness ticket item, I devised some games involving "impaired" scouts.  I bought a bunch of safety glasses, then taped the lenses with electrical tape to restrict vision.  Half the glasses were somewhat obstructed, and the other half were very restricted.  So, I'd tape off a pair of glasses to leave a very narrow horizontal slit on one lens, and a very narrow vertical slit on the other. the scout would have to use the horizontal slit to watch things moving left and right, and the vertical slit to watch things moving up and down.  Another pair I completely covered the lenses with tape, except for a single paper punch hole to look through-however, I intentionally offset the holes so that the scout could only look through one at a time.  And there were other patterns.

So, thus outfitted with these glasses, the scouts formed up into buddy teams and played a number of games involving tossing and bouncing tennis balls between them, their performances being scored by a couple of scout scorekeepers.  The first set of games were played with the somewhat restricted glasses, and scores tallied, and then the games were replayed with the very restrictive glasses, and those scores tallied.  The results were discussed with the scouts.

The scouts had fun-pretty much chaos.  Perfect.  They were challenged-did something hard they could not have practiced for.  Data was taken and discussed: scientific method. And they experienced a disability, safely, and learned how valuable good vision is.

(I used to be a Bobwhite...")

2 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Not sure how it operates without chartering orgs. I’m sure they have a plan for that.

Or maybe the mountain of blunders, bad legal advice and rank incompetence make the situation not resolvable.

I’m just not seeing the path, just the Road to Perdition

Just about says it all, doesn't it?

8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

QUESTION - I do have questions about victim's being able to sue COs.  I'll raise this in the main bankruptcy channel, but can victims sue the COs now?  Is the previous deadline gone?  Many of the victim's didn't know the CO or the troop number or the council.  So, the CO was probably often not named in the claim.  Even then, the claim was put to BSA.  Can the victim extend to other debtors?  ... I'm asking because the bankruptcy exists as a legal item, but I'm not sure the claim exists without an actual lawsuit.  Or can the bankruptcy claim be converted to a lawsuit claim? 

Things happen in the legal realm either by agreement or by compulsion. One leverages an agreement out of the opposition by presenting a strong case of compulsion.  

Only National has filed bankruptcy, so when it filed bankruptcy, it was the only "party" to the proceeding and thereby subject to the compulsion of the court.

Creditors (holders of business type, claims of a known amount), and Abuse Claimants (holders of claims of unknown amount) who receive notice can agree to become a party by filing a claim or can decide not to file a claim. Either way, they will be bound by the orders of the court.

Where Creditors and Abuse Claimants of National are legally postured if they are not notified until after critical dates pass (the claim date), escapes me a bit.  Assuming they have not received notice, if they are bound by the court anyway, it is a denial of the fundamental elements of due process and equal protection embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:  notice, and an opportunity to be heard.

National is attempting a sophisticated finesse.

The LC's and CO's are not parties to the bankruptcy and thereby neither bound by court rulings nor directly entitled to the protection of a bankruptcy discharge.

Except on account of National's finesse.

Clearly, if a good measure of LC's and CO's are pushed into bankruptcy the chaos will be extreme as it would involve thousands of entities.

So, National's finesse is using Nationa's assets, LC assets, CO assets, and insurer's assets to assemble a basket of funds so attractive to Abuse Claimants that they will AGREE to release the LC's and CO's from their abuse claims  even though those entities have not filed bankruptcy.

"Attractive" can mean any or all of:  an acceptable monetary award, sense that all responsible are paying something, avoidance of state court proceedings on a case-by-case basis, resolution now instead of years from now, etc. 

The LC's and CO's not being debtors should be liable to suit being filed against them despite National's bankruptcy.  When a petition in bankruptcy is filed it operates as a stay of legal proceedings against the debtor. The stay should have no bearing on the LC's and CO's which have not filed their own bankruptcy. 

Abuse claimants may be forbearing suit against LC's and CO's at the moment awaiting the outcome of National's bankruptcy.

16 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Yes.  Several new traditional units.  Dens, Packs, Troops, Crews, and Labs. STEM Executives have started about 30 new units a year.  

In a single council?  Nationally?

14 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

and celebrated with champagne the news he was leaving.

That comment triggered a spontaneous chuckle.

It is sad however, that individuals who have risen to the SE level are so deficient.So man of them.  Of my council's last 5 SE's, 3 of them evoked the "Champagne Kill Goodbye."  And, just anecdotal, for how many councils can any one of us experience in any depth, but enough anecdotes posted here can show a trend.

14 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Would a former DE actually creating 4 new units count for you?  Starting a new unit following all of the 10 or 12 steps ( sorry old age is getting to me) is a long,  stressful process. Most of the time if you follow the process step by step, your units are successful, but sometimes there is failure.

Well, this is actually encouraging.  I don't think any of my council's DE created units were anything but phantom.

I would be very interested if you could post the 10 or 12 steps a DE was to follow to create a new unit. That there is a "process" is encouraging.  At least someone has thought it all through.

And thanks for your contributions to the Movement. It lives irrespective of the BSA.

My recollection is that there was huge BSA membership fraud. Way back to A. G. Barber's day.

The United States Postal Marshalls raided Circle Ten's offices seeking membership records, and the Atlanta Council, I believe, agreed to strike somewhere around 14,000 names from its membership role.  Mames aybe c. 2000±?

Whichever council it was, struck more names than registered in my council.

A huge scandal.

And BSA gets a "pass."

"Well, anyone can make a mistake."

The day of BSA getting a "pass" has passed.