SiouxRanger

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

A copy of the 1976 document, then known as the "Procedures For Maintaining Standards of Leadership" can be found at https://whyy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Procedures-for-Maintaining-Standards-of-Leadership-197223.pdf

The current BSA refers to it by slightly different name ("Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Membership and Leadership") but I believe it is all the same document.

A Death Warrant by any other name...

The BSA has a Death Warrant process.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Purely anecdotal, but I've heard three people say that very thing. Effectively, "Wait to give so you don't end up contributing to the take of a bunch of lawyers."

Significant donors in my council have walked away from making any donations.

On 8/29/2021 at 1:55 PM, swilliams said:

Husband said I shouldn’t have sent it, but what are they going to do?  Fire me?

"Fire me?"

 (The very, very short answer is YES, National can "FIRE YOU." And it has fired volunteers for non-sexual abuse reasons (political), fired units, and sanctioned councils.)

I came across your post while looking for something else.  But I have returned to respond-as I must.

 My conscience will not permit me to pass by your post without comment. Everyone should know the things that I know.

"But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career." --Liam Neeson playing Bryan Mills in Taken.

 In my case, substitute "knowledge" for "skills." And then you have it.

 [What follows is from my personal knowledge of the treatment by National, Region, Area and local council of several of my long-term, highly distinguished in Scouting, friends. I know these things to be true.]

 [Seat belts, please, this ride is violent.]

There is a document published by National entitled "Standards of Membership and Leadership."  It is a restricted document-distribution being limited to National staff, council scout executives, and select senior council staff who have a "need-to-know."

I believe, though could be wrong, that National concealed even the existence of this document for decades, though there is mention in the current bankruptcy of "standards of membership and leadership," I am not clear whether those references are to the particular publication of which I am aware, or some abstract concept of "standards."

(Some time ago, when the need to have a copy of this document would be helpful, a copy appeared in the mail to me, anonymously. A volunteer who knew someone, who knew someone, etc. seems to be the source of the document being sent to me.)

If one offends a Scout Executive, or Council President, ENOUGH, (and perhaps there other individuals in a council's hierarchy one can offend to trigger such a result), one may receive a letter (approved by National, as I understand it), stating, in effect:

"Membership is a privilege and not a right."

"The Boy Scouts Of America has determined that you do not meet its standards of membership and leadership, and is revoking your membership in the Boy Scouts Of America."

"You have the right to appeal this decision within 30 days of the date of this letter.  Send your appeal request and any pertinent documents to ...."

 You will receive a refund check in the amount of the dues you last paid.  (Insult to injury.)

 No statement of the grounds for your dismissal will be provided. Ever.

 And thereby, you will be BRANDED as gay, atheist, or a child abuser in your own hometown, church, community, family.  "What did Tom do???'

Conversation in church pew: "Where's Tom (or Mary) they are always here with their kids?"

"Oh, Tom (or Mary) was thrown out of Boy Scouting."

 "Why?"

 "No one knows.  He (she) won't talk about it. He (she) have just fallen off the radar."

 "Gee, Scouting is such a wholesome program, how could Tom (Mary) debase it so-what horrible people he/she/they are-has a criminal case been filed against Tom (Mary)?  Not taking my kids over there for our usual Friday's sleepover."

(I have no problem with gays or atheists-everyone is just trying to get through the day.  Those folks are not my life, but as I won't let anyone think for me, I ask not that anyone let me think for them.)

 But branded as a child abuser? People tend to think the worst of things, so get thrown out of Scouting, folks will think you are a child abuser.  Even if you are a CPA questioning some accounting issue?  Lovely.

 Does not "Trustworthy" apply to National?  (Well, that it has filed bankruptcy on account of its decades of lies about child abuse-so, apparently not.)

What is the point of the principles of an organization if not to be followed by not only its adherents, but also the organization?

 And expulsion all because you questioned a council budget item that embarrassed some pea-brained volunteer or Scout Executive. And because you volunteered as a scout leader to help your child.

 If you think that a long scouting career of distinguished, meritorious service will protect you.  It won't. I know this to be true.

 The BSA is a Congressionally chartered corporation.  That is rare.

 National titles itself as the "Boy Scouts of America."

 One would think that between "Congressionally" and "America," a banished scout volunteer would be accorded the rights accorded in the Bill of Rights:

To know the charges against you. Nope

 To present evidence (You can, but as you have no idea of the charges, what evidence do you present to rebut unknown charges?  Dutch oven recipes? A list of great restaurants in Gatlinburg? The phone directory of Lower Manhattan?)

 To appear at your hearing and confront witnesses?  Nope.  Can't do that.  You won't even know when or where the hearing will be held. Or who constitutes the tribunal. Or even if they ever meet or read anything you submit.  (Read Arthur Koestler's Darkness At Noon, where the accused are taken into a basement, but shot in the back of the head on their way down the steps to the basement. The accused don't even get the benefit of torture.) And scouting volunteers whose membership is revoked also won't get the right to speak a single word in their defense.

 To confront your accusers?  Nope. You will never know who you offended, or why they were offended.

There is NOTHING in National's "Standards of Membership and Leadership" which accords you any legal rights whatsoever.

 So, if you receive such a letter, get a copy of Franz Kafka's The Trial.  Read it twice.  I have.  It accurately portrays just what you are up against.

 National has structured the "membership game" that, win, lose, or draw, National always WINS!

"Let them hate, as long as they FEAR." (Some French King whose name escapes me.)

 "Work for free, send money, don't question."

Compliant and complacent volunteers, donating money, are welcome.  The troublesome, well, National has its ways.

 I expect that  if the same group of National staffers now employed retain their jobs after the bankruptcy, there will be membership retribution against identifiable posters on this forum.

 It seems to be National's way.

 (As I write this, I am looking at two Banker's boxes of files pertaining to the membership revocation war in my council from some time ago which my spouse wants me to cull. Now they are all so relevant again.)

And they will not be culled.

 It is a question of "finding one's backbone."

 Most folks avoid conflict and dissention-it is unpleasant-but for some, when their line is crossed, they stand up regardless of consequences, and thereby become the leaders National espouses to create but also crushes if their efforts are just too successful toward National.

 Can National FIRE ME?  Yep. And it won't care a whit.

All I can say: "Beware the Mother that eats her children."

And so, National lays down another layer of "Scouting Tradition."

Deceit.

Considering the focus brought to the CH 11, Act 5, thread today by a mere court ruling or two, were the judge to so oblige...daily...the problem would be solved.

(Sorry-not even worth 2 cents.)

28 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Heck, I'll sign on...full time...at $100K per year.

Knowledgeable folks in my council, for over 20 years, have discussed how we could run the council with only a Registrar, and save about $3 million in payroll.  Our SE earns is paid out about 10% of the entire annual budget.  The rest of the council staff is paid about another 10%.

Think of that ratio. Our SE is paid to supervise a minimum wage person that the minimum wage person is paid to do their entire job.

And to whom is the SE beholden?

National.

National determines whether the SE is "offered" to a particular council for employment (big council means better salary-not play ball with National and you'll be sent to a smaller council-and financially punished).

National determines the amount of salary (I understand that National sets that, or perhaps "suggests" to the volunteer senior officers).

National sends its "commissioned" SE's to councils where they have no family ties, history, or inherent loyalty.  SE's go where they are sent. This ensures the SE is beholden to National for the SE's professional life.  Behave, and you are sent to a beautiful location, sound finances...fall out of favor and you are sent to Illinois or Iowa (sorry, Illinois and Iowa-but it is just corn).

And thereby, National maintains control of the "independent" LC's.

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

If BSA doesn't make it out of this... I'll file 501(c)3 paperwork, start "Scouts USA" the next day, and then turn it over to the folks in Texas... that is how committed I am to scouting.

I draw distinction between Scouting (the Movement of Baden-Powell and Hillcourt), and the "commissioned," senior administration of National (running a business franchise operation out of Irving).

Many of us are deeply committed to Scouting. And hope it does survive.

I have nothing but contempt and disgust for those at National who have brought Scouting to its current plight.

I have little doubt that were National's business conducted more like a typical business, instead of the secretive, low transparency organization that it is and has been historically, things would be different.

But it is clear now, that senior National staff have failed to carry their responsibilities to the near destruction of not only National, the business, but Scouting itself (as there is only a remote possibility that Scouting, as we know it, will survive post National's bankruptcy).

As to the specifics of your post, all of the registered trademarks, service marks, copyrights, etc, National's intellectual property rights are assets of National, and if a Ch 7 is the final outcome, those intellectual property rights will be sold to raise funds for distribution to creditors.

One would have to purchase the rights to "Scouts USA" to be able to use that phrase.

So, what can the buyer of National's intellectual property do with it?

Well, considering the practice of "catch and kill" in the news recently, the buyer might just put all of it in a file cabinet, never to be used again. Or, some of it might be used by a group espousing the joy of RV'ing by creating local RV clubs under the banner of: "Travel the roads with Scouts USA."

And so, handing it back to senior National staff?

The same folks who, by inadvertence, negligence, or willful and wanton conduct lost it all ONCE?

Why?  What duty do those of us who love Scouting have to entrust its life to those who have nearly killed it? (And, not by a single idiot act, but by generations of senior staff over decades implementing a policy that has brought us all to this.)

Why?  Because they have learned their lesson and will get it right next time?

J'Accuse.

National's senior staff need to be ushered into the night with their pensions and just go away.

 

The Second World War, Vol. 6

Triumph and Tragedy

Theme of the Volume

How the Great Democracies

Triumphed,

and so

Were able to Resume

The Follies

Which Had so Nearly

Cost Them Their

Life

--Winston S.  Churchill

 

How much more Folly can Scouting withstand?

7 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It took me a long time to get to the the spot of agreeing with this, but the forum was a big part. I am not sure if it was @ThenNow or just a combination of others and my thoughts, but I got there.

This is how I think of it. BSA starts and moves along through time. We can see the cases of CSB and IVF file dates. So, at first, they get word of people that should be in the IVF for CSB. Ok, they fill out the form and put it in the file cabinet. Then, they get 10, then 100, then 200. Soon, the file cabinet is full. 

They didn't step back and say "something is up". 

Then they have to buy a new cabinet, they fill that one, they get another and another and another.

They didn't step back and say "something is up". 

When they get to 10,000, then 20,000, then require a new room for the file cabinets. 

They didn't step back and say "something is up". 

It did start out small and just a bad thing to happen a few times. When it got to the hundreds upon hundreds and thousands upon thousands, they needed to say "somethings rotten in the state of Denmark." It was a chance to find out what draws the perpetrators, the volume of abuse, etc.

It would be the same if there was a string of scouts cutting off a finger or 2. One would think when they got to 1000 fingers amputated, they would think something is wrong with the system and take action.  

This is just a d*mning analysis.

And, upon the move to Irving, someone had to point to a set of plans and say, "This is where the IV files go." 

And was that room a key-card access only room?  "We have to make this a secure area."  "Why?"  "Can't tell you."

"Oh the tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive."

6 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Back a few pages in this thread, I recall the Methodists were at the top of the list of number of cases.

 

Methodists:  3,670 cases. At the top of the list.   I guess the question is whether there were only 3 Methodist cases in the last 10 years, as was stated in the article.

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

Then what are they worrying about. They’ll do just fine in state court, right?

Back a few pages in this thread, I recall the Methodists were at the top of the list of number of cases.

 

Has Steven Scheid's April 28, 2021 article in United Methodist Insight been noted or discussed here?

https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/local-church/sexual-abuse-in-um-scout-troops-is-nearly-non-existent-let-s/

One paragraph particularly caught my attention:

The fact that one in six males have been sexually abused increases the perception that there must be thousands of incidents of sexual abuse within Scout units. However, the cumulative rate of reported sexual abuse within United Methodist sponsored units over the past ten years is 0.001 percent. With more than 300,000 youth involved annually, there were only three claims. Of course, even one incident is too many.

Is this correct?

On 8/28/2021 at 10:41 AM, UKScouterInCA said:

Nalgenes are a little heavier and I don’t like the super wide opening.

I don't like the weight of Nalgenes either, nor the wide mouth as it is too easy to spill too much if bumped over, however, some have noted that they are easier to work with in winter if water becomes frozen or slushy.

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

The reason time barred claims are being allowed, indeed solicited, as part of the bankruptcy, is that the intent of this, or any other bankruptcy is to discharge all of the organization's debts, even if they haven't completely ripened yet.

In the case of the time barred claims, they not only ripened, but expired. The purpose of bankruptcy is to discharge valid, enforceable debts.

For individual debtors, virtually all their claims are known as of the date they file bankruptcy. These are claims known as of the date of filing.

For corporate debtors, such as a manufacturer of trucks, there is a greater likelihood of claims arising in the future based on facts existing prior to the date of filing of the bankruptcy.  I think these would be based on warranties extended, or a tort theory, like negligence or products liability.  The buyer of a debtor's manufactured truck before the bankruptcy filing, cannot know as of the date of the bankruptcy filing that the axle will fail a year after the filing causing an accident, can hardly be expected to make its claim a year in advance of the accident.  Some provision for those claims must be made in the bankruptcy proceeding but I do not know how that is handled. These are a class of claims likely to arise post-filing, and though the identity of the claimants and amount of the claims is unknown as of the filing of the bankruptcy, the liability is statistically known and reserves are carried on the debtor's books.

Time barred Claimants in National's bankruptcy are a whole other type.  These claims arose from facts occurring prior to the filing, and those Claimants' rights were barred by Statues of Limitation prior to the filing.  Apparently, these Claimants are included on the chance, or in the expectation, that some day, the statues of limitation applicable to some or all of them will be reopened.  I think that happening is extremely remote-but yet it happened in some states.  I cannot recall a situation where a statute of limitations was reopened for potential claimants.   There may be cases others here are aware of, but I am not.  I think it is rare.

National's strategy may be that "if we include the time barred claims in the bankruptcy and they recover something, the likelihood of statutes of limitation being reopened is even more remote, and the Discharge Order will bar their claims."  There is some merit in this argument.  And it even serves as a rationale for insurers to contribute to a procedure that compensates time barred claimants. But it only goes so far.  Insurers are the keepers of the country's statistics.  Their interest will stop when the cost exceeds their projected cost of fighting tooth and nail.

To the extent that time barred Claimants are afforded a vote, it should be a weighted vote.  Claimants with legally enforceable claims against wealthy LC's,  and CO's should receive a proportionately greater number votes relative to time barred Claimants.

At least that would afford a balance between their differences in position.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Then you have an issue where SOL is a bit squishy as argued in the Illinois case mentioned earlier in one of these threads.  The Illinois courts basically said the SOL for child sex abuse are not applicable if there was a coverup

I am not familiar with that case having come late to this forum, but it sounds like the court held that the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of concealment.  This is a common doctrine, applicable in cases of  those out of the country, in military service, minors, and where a cause of action is concealed.  I doubt the court held that the the statute of limitations was no longer applicable.

If you recall the citation, I'll check it out.

 

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

If you remember back to pre bankruptcy, the reason BSA faced a major risk was that they were headquartered in New York prior to 1954. 1954 to 1978 they were in New Jersey and post 1978 in Texas.  One argument is that the claims against BSA should follow the SOL rules of those states from those times. 

So, consider the case of a scout abused in one state, whose council's office is in another, in 1955.  Perhaps 3 potentially different statutes of limitation are applicable:  1.  the scout's home state SOL to the abuser and CO, the LC's home state's SOL to the LC, and, New Jersey's SOL to National.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

So… unless the court plans to go case by case, state by state and determine how state law applies

That is exactly what should be done because that approach follows the actual law in effect as applicable to each scout.  There is no justice in denying an Abuse Victim the benefit of a favorable SOL relative to him because National managed to find itself charged by so many that it is too troublesome and cumbersome to figure out the actual applicable law and accord that Abuse Victim the benefit of that law.

The other problem is that we have a court just making up a rule.  Every Supreme Court nominee faces the gauntlet of questions about whether the judiciary "makes law" or "finds the law."  Those hearings are intense.

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now I agree that SOL could be factored in on payouts;

The problem with that procedure is that it is post vote, and if applying the applicable SOL at that point results in no recovery for that Claimant Voter, it will not undo their vote, the die already having been cast.

This would not be such a concerning issue were the suspected number of Claimants with potentially time-barred claims some small percentage of the total.  But some posters have expressed/speculated perhaps as many as 40,000 or more.  That's about 50% and likely will drive the election.  And further, they will be voting based on their hopes of turning a phantom recovery into cash.

6 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

it's not entirely accurate to say the attorneys' job is to maximize the amount their clients get.

 

6 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

if a client wants his attorney to advocate for a settlement that awards compensation equally regardless of the SOL differences among claimants then the attorney is duty bound to advocate for that irrespective of their view of the wisdom of it or what effect it might have on the attorney's well being.

 

6 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

An attorney's duty is to zealously represent their client. 

This is entirely accurate. It is an attorney's ethical responsibility to understand the legal aspects of a situation, the client's circumstances, and then advise the client regarding different courses of action, the consequences of those courses of action, and the range of typical results.  Sometimes the attorney recommends a course of action as the one most likely to coincide with the client's known interests.

And then let the client decide how they want to proceed.

A client who directs an attorney to take a course of action that the attorney does not recommend, or which is significantly more adverse to the client's interests (as perceived by the attorney), will likely trigger a CYA letter to the client stating the essential and controlling facts and law, the course of action recommended by the attorney, a statement of the course of action client has directed the attorney to pursue, and a discussion of how the client's desired course of action compares to that recommended by the attorney, highlighting what the client is giving up.   The purpose is not only to put a statement of these matters on the record with the client, but also fend off heirs of the client who surface some day claiming that client was not adequately represented.  (Clients don't live forever, and the attorney won't have their client as a witness to defend them.)  The greater the deviation of the client's direction from the attorney's recommendation, the more such a letter should be considered.  Client should sign a receipt at the end of the letter to show proof of delivery.

But the really big problem here is representing multiple clients who have adverse interests.

It is a breach of professional ethics for an attorney to represent simultaneously two clients with adverse interests.

Exceptions exist where "full disclosure" is given to the adverse clients, and they sign an informed consent (and perhaps varies widely from state to state).

How does one "give full disclosure?"

"Well, YOU didn't tell me THAT!!!"

"Had I known THAT, I NEVER would have agreed to YOU representing both of us!!!"

 

And yet, we apparently have a number of firms representing Claimants with legally enforceable claims, and Claimants with unenforceable claims.  And those classes of Claimants are competing for the same apple, and thereby have conflicting interests.

Seems like an inherent conflict of interest to me.

 

So, back to the initial premise:  duty to represent one's client zealously

How can an attorney make diametrically opposed arguments for these two clients?

"May it please the Court:  Your Honor, my client, Claimant A is entitled to the whole apple, and my client Claimant B is entitled to half that same apple.  I have no further argument."

Whether the attorneys involved are paying any attention, or consider the risk to them of adverse consequences to be low, CLAIMANTS should be paying a lot of attention.

And therein lies the near inevitability of Claimant classes opposing each other.

8 hours ago, David CO said:

I not only think that this is the compassionate thing to do, I think it is also the smart thing to do.  If claimants start turning on each other, they will lose much of their public support.  They will convince the general public that it really is all about the money.

It is the compassionate thing to do, no doubt.

It is the smart thing, in slight defense of National, as it can make the claim that it is trying to (equitably?) compensate victims by including a class with no legally enforceable claim in the settlement.  But National does not need to be successful in this attempt, just make the attempt to claim that it tried. (As I've posted, National definitely seems to want those folks voting in favor of its Plan.)

With respect to claimants "turning on one another," my read is that that is unavoidable.

I find it highly unlikely that a Claimant with a claim against a wealthy LC, CO, backed by sound insurance coverage will want to share their recovery with a Claimant who is less fortunate.  And even less so, share with a Claimant who should recover nothing.

That may not be the whole story, however, as the voting process is a bit murky to me.

If each Claimant actually casts their own vote and is knowledgeable about the degree to which the Plan (and Settlement mechanism) will decrease their recovery below or inflate it above what their individual circumstances might yield, we should have a truly meaningful vote.

If those votes are cast by their attorneys, en masse, then Claimants will get what they get.

And even at that, if Claimants with no legally enforceable claims get to vote, from all I've heard here, those folks vastly outnumber Claimants with legally enforceable claims, and may well vote themselves some of the money that would otherwise go to folks with legally enforceable claims.  The Claimants with the greatest legal entitlement to recovery will be short-changed.

 

7 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

They shouldn't.  They absolutely shouldn't.  But, the debtor won't support the months and more it would take for complete validation.  That's why work continues to remove duplicates and more importantly, figure out what attorney is representing each claimant.  Sadly, this is why bankruptcy is the WORST mechanism for dealing with sexual abuse claims.

I agree that someone with a time barred claim should have no vote.  And because they have no right to recovery and no path to have a right to recovery.

The law does not tend to favor those who "sit on their rights."  It is why we have statutes of limitation.  Courts do not want to be in the business of adjudicating stale claims, where documentary proof has not been retained (discarded in reliance of the existence of a statute of limitations), witnesses are dead, can't be located, or their memories faded-because these factors tend to diminish the ability of the court to assure both sides a fair process. Society wants people to feel confident they can rely on the stability of the law in conducting their business affairs.

National's "lack of support for months and months for complete validation" should have no significant bearing on the decision.  National lit the fuse on this whole process-that it may take a long time to do things correctly-that is a reason to do them incorrectly???

Sometimes, it is helpful to analyze situations by looking at what we don't have.  We don't have anyone proposing that any registered scouter over 6 feet tall gets a vote.  Why not?  How are they different from someone who once had a legally enforceable claim but no longer does?

Were the law to be applied properly, neither the over 6 footers nor those who have time barred claims would recover nothing.

But, National has elevated those holding time barred claims to those entitled to "something" in a legal world where they would get nothing.

National is attempting to create a class of stakeholders and thereby create a class voters which should not exist.

And why would National do that?

National desperately wants its Plan to be approved and that happens only if approved by claimant votes.  The more claimants who vote for the Plan the more likely it will be approved.

So, "Let's just invent a class of voters who have every reason to vote for the Plan-and let's create lots of them."

They'll be predisposed to vote for the Plan because they will very likely get nothing if they don't.

And so the ballot box was stuffed.

 

And, just for insurance, if the attorneys representing this new class of voters truly will be voting the ballots of these claimants (by proxy, of sorts), we'll pay them $10 million to get their attention, and thereafter, nearly a million a month, though we have no invoice, don't know what they've done, nor benefit provided, time expended...

 

When one strikes down (ignores) the law to achieve a result, there is no law.  And that is a bad place.

 

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

If you claim is time-barred under state law, the bankruptcy court isn't suddenly going to make it so.

I agree, but think the court "can't suddenly make it so."

Not without authority in the bankruptcy code.

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, after the voting takes place. Why should someone with no valid legal claim (time barred) get the same vote as someone with no time bar?

what is the legal argument for that? How is that fairness?

etc.

 

I absolutely agree.

I cannot conjure up even a hint of a wisp of a legally sound argument to support a time barred claim recovering anything.

16 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Is your Committee appointing the COR, or is the IH? 

Generally, the first to volunteer for the job is the only one to volunteer, and the committee then generally acquiesces in the volunteer taking over the role of COR.  We have a small troop;  the active adults is 8 to 10, and most attend troop meetings, so we know each other over many years. The IH's participation or involvement with our Troop is minimal and largely limited to signing the charter application and that is about it.  As Pack and Troop Committee Chairperson for about 20 years, I never had any substantive discussions with the IH.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

FYI: Here's an annual troop charter from May 1953-1954.

APPLICATION OF INSTITUTION
The [Institution Name]
ADDRESS [Institution Address] HEREBY MAKES APPLICATION FOR THIS ANNUAL TROOP CHARTER AND APPROVES THE TROOP OFFICIALS WHOSE SIGNATURES APPEAR BELOW

DATE 5/26/53 SIGNED [EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF INSTITUTION, ORGANIZATION, OR GROUP] TITLE [Within the Institution]

 

Once upon a time the two were the same. The split was I think in the 1950s?

That answers that.

"Ancient" = "the memory of man runneth not to the contrary."

1 minute ago, David CO said:

IH and COR signatures were required.

Both IH and COR, or just only one?

I seem to recall obtaining the IH signature years ago, but not sure if the IH signature is still required.

In my unit, the COR has always been a volunteer.

And so, with every signature on an adult application, perhaps the COR has signed on to liability if the adult abuses. And National knew this was a problem, created risk, and gave no warning?

Trustworthy?

11 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

When did BSA Adult applications start requiring COR or IH sign off? 

My adult involvement goes back to 1996± and I believe COR or IH signatures were required then and ever since-and were pro forma at that.

It is a question of finding one's backbone.

11 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Nope...does not put a damper on it.

A mentor of mine pointed out long ago...yes, there is often a price for telling the truth, but there is also a price for not saying anything when the truth needs to be spoken.

And there times when one must speak the Truth, to be true to one's core beliefs, or remain silent and die a little bit in spirit and soul-and forever regret one's weakness.

One never stands taller when one shirks from one's beliefs.