SiouxRanger

I think we are essentially on the same page. What should be done, ought to be done, and would be done in a normal business organization, at least in my council, has not been done. My information is only anecdotal, in-depth knowledge of my council, and incidental information of other councils. And even from incidental information, it is beyond clear that other councils operate in a much more efficient manner than my council. I once asked the second in command in my council for some statistical information about a council-level program I was working on. The second in command pretty

Tell me about it. We are on our 5th SE in 20 years. Volunteers and staff report to me that the 3rd one was good. I left direct involvement at the official council level a couple of decades ago because it was clearly a pointless effort. I put all my energy into my unit and the scout camp. Now that I am back at the council working committee level, I am reminded of why I opted out long ago. Nothing has changed.

No one regrets more than me that I have more ill-formed questions, than half-baked answers.

And so, let's take this ON. First, I am not talking about audited financial statements. (You have made the legally objectional assumption of a "fact not in evidence.") I am talking about MANAGEMENT reports to its Executive Board provided by management; "stated" in accountancy parlance. And pumped out routinely from the council's accounting software. And if financial statements are given to Executive Board members, but are of no meaningful use to assist those Executive Board members in managing the financial aspects of the council, then please tell me why anyone bothers to provi

In all my reading and study of history, that which governments fear most is the citizenry taking to the streets. It is a simple question of math: Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation -- till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving. And so, now we have not only individual CO's, but large blocks of CO's "taking to the streets," figuratively, and refusing to stand in the line of compliance and a

Well, I can speak only for the shower houses and restrooms at my council camp and the separate show and restroom stalls are simply sterile-cinderblock walls to a ceiling. NO place to mount a camera, even concealed without being obvious to anyone looking for a concealed camera. That all being said, I do not know if my camp's shower houses and restrooms were built to National standards, or something else. So, perhaps my council camp's buildings are unique. But I agree, virtually every building is unique, wherever located.

As I keep reading bankruptcy posts, I keep thinking of the post about the attorney who was "spitting nickels." There are many aspects of this whole proceeding which are bizarre. (Failure to comply with discovery, failure to file complete Exhibits (National-many times), seeking Ten Million Dollars in attorneys fees never having produced a bill??? (And $950,000± a month thereafter??? For what?) A payment without substantiation to a group who controls the vote to approve National's Plan??? What would one call that??? And I truly agree, this is a long way from over. And the gr

(Gee-not a word about ban......ptcy here-ahhhhh.) I've owned Gore-Tex, coated nylon rain jackets, plastic cheepie rain jackets, and ponchos. I've camped extensively with the Troop in the midwest, winter at 10 below and hot summers, muggy, rain. Worked at the local scout camp a couple of summers, and on the Philmont staff 4 summers, 3 as a Ranger, and taken 4 Philmont Treks as an adult advisor. (over 40+ years). So, what I've learned and what I do: My Gore-Tex rain jacket and pants were very expensive and not serviceable as they did not breathe, leaked water, and were heavy

Well, I recall a previous post speaking of 53% of total assets and 73% of unrestricted assets, if I got that right. If that is not the case, but truly 15%, or paid from a year's passive income, well, certainly nearly painless. I doubt that the Bay Area Council is a typical council. On the other hand, based on information from a source considered reliable (by me), my council's contribution is at about 50% of unrestricted assets, and 32% of total assets-assuming National's financial statements for each council are accurate (which I don't necessarily accept). It seems that my council i

I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless. As I recall, National's standard was to report a 2% membership growth year-to-year. Recruiting new members was a DE's job responsibility. Now we have a 40%± drop in membership. Further, it seems the consensus that the LC's will spend about 50% or so of their total assets and even a higher percentage of their unrestricted assets. What company just sends off 50% of its assets and feels good about it? It would be fatal to most businesses. Precisely. And they won't. The non-disclosure agreements have

"Fraud in the inducement" and "fraud in the execution." It raises the question: "The statutes of limitation were reopened so that abuse claimants would have enforceable claims, but were the statutes of limitation reopened so that the CO's and LC 's, who may have liability on account of National's acts or omissions, can assert their claims against National for indemnification?" Probably no one considered that CO's and LC's would be claimants in their own right. Ooops.

I do hope decisions are coordinated and sooner than later. I don't know what our unit would do if we had to find another location. It only occurred to me the other day how dependent we are on having our meeting room adjoining our storage room. It would be inconvenient to have to go to, or meet at a different location to prepare for a campout, and then go to the meeting location. It would be OK to meet at the storage location the night of the campout to load up, but gear is typically returned over several troop meeting nights, and that gear would have to be ferried to the storage lo

Roughly appears to be about 17,000 Latin Catholic Parishes, 144 Dioceses, and, 32 Archdioceses in the USA.

Possibly parishes and dioceses announcing different rules at different times. Surely, the guidance or directives will be coordinated at some level, not only to prevent initial confusion, but to avoid having to retract guidance or directives at some point.

Well, then there should be a mosaic of treatment in the Catholic Church.

A "preference," at least in a Chapter 7 case, is a transaction that provides a benefit to a particular creditor to the exclusion of other creditors in the same class and it prejudices those other creditors. At one time, (and maybe still) preferences were defined as occurring within a certain time window preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition, or was entered into with certain other classes of individuals, such as, principals, owners, spouses of principals/owners, and such, which had a longer time window. The Trustee in bankruptcy could void those transactions and pull the assets

Well, if the Catholics don't have staff assigned to open the mail in Irving, someone is and likely has permission. Parishes answer to Dioceses, Dioceses to Archdioceses, and they answer to ? Papal Nuncio? The vow of obedience obligates the clergy to answer to whom? The Catholic Church has an impressive body of Canon Law, last time I looked online. It is difficult to discuss matters in "executive session" when the subject of the discussion gets your mail-perhaps not all of it. And maybe the National Catholic Committee of Scouting has no responsibility for anything except re

Why is the Hartford sweet deal not a "preference?" That doctrine is not applicable to Ch. 11 bankruptcy cases?

In accounting, I believe it is a technique to separate certain functions to prevent fraud. Such as, the department responsible for sending out bills, does not collect the money. A different group collects the money, and a third group compares the bills sent by the one dept., to the funds received by the other dept. If the two lists don't match, something is amiss. One would think, given National's track record on lack of disclosure of abuse claims received by National, that insurers will insist on having a role monitoring future reports and claims.

I have checked the website for the National Catholic Committee On Scouting and cannot find any mention of National's bankruptcy or rechartering. Curiously, the address of the Committee is in Irving, TX. Implying some measure of being an extension of National? Certainly not able to conduct its business if National opens its mail-I don't know if National staff does open the Committee's mail, but seems strange that the Catholic Committee does not have its own office with National having its own liaison staff to the Catholic Committee. Do other religious groups have such connections to Nation

Having sons, could you enlighten me about "girls' natural organization instincts?" Thanks.

On another matter of a council's plan fund its Settlement 'Fund Contribution, briefly: My council's indicated the other day that our council was looking to obtain a loan to cover its Settlement Fund contribution. Our camp is probably a restricted asset. I did not ask any questions-not the time or place. But what lender is likely to make a loan to an organization whose future is so murky and tenuous? And, though camp may not be sold now, it wll certainly be mortgaged-we have only one. So, if membership remains low, the likelihood of mortgage default is higher, and the council may lose i

My understanding of "mandatory reporting," at least in my state, is that only certain classes are mandatory reporters: physicians, counselors, etc... Lawyers are not. Which raises the question, is anyone in the Claimant claim process a mandatory reporter? I don't know. It is like walking down a path: Claimant calls a law firm about a Claim. Speaks with a receptionist, then an info intake person, that information is passed along to a somebody (firm case manager, junior attorney, etc.), then ultimately (maybe never, according to some) by the lead attorney, then filed, with the Court, and

Pretty sure I understand the meaning of "terminate." I also understand the principle of de minimus non curat lex, but that has broader application to matters beyond mere semantics. The issue is: resolving this discussion so that a single post clarifies and clearly states the issues relating to insurance for the benefit of all the posters and guests, namely: 1. The significance of National's apparent position that its interests in the policies somehow end up in the Settlement Fund as assets. It is my understanding that when a debtor files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, A

@cynicalscouter. Your first sentence " you do not have access to BSA insurance policies" sounds a bit like "terminating" to me. But if you read it as "You've got access to BSA policies, but that access (benefits to you CO's) is not what you thought it was, and your coverage is pretty thin, because:" 1. "You CO's have no coverage before 1978, regardless what you assumed. Where did you get that idea?" 2. "There are aggregate caps and per occurrence caps, some of which we, National, have already accessed, leaving less for you CO's to cover your liability. Coverage/benefits will run