SiouxRanger

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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 much confides in me, and I him-a good friend. He asked a third tier professional staffer for the information and the reply was, "Who wants to know that information and what will they use if for?" I never got the info. The subordinate refused to give it to his superior. Hmmmm. The program was never happened. I do hope other councils operate better.

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 provide them? "Last month's Cub XXX lost its 'donkey'-third year in a row..." (And what went wrong and how can we improve???) "Last month's Cub XXX did twice as well as last year, and the changes that made the big difference are..." Why not just give the Executive Board members a report of the local river levels, or pollen counts, or a bird census. Or local parking ticket fines, or any other manner of drivel? If the Executive Board is not intended to be provided with reliable data on the operational performance of the council and make policy decisions based on that data, then the Executive Board is a sham. (And that is precisely my view.) Financial reports are presented by council management presumably to INFORM the Executive Board and empower it to make sound management and financial decisions about the future operations of the program. Are you saying to me that the members of the Executive Board of a Council are NOT ENTITLED to know if major programs of the Council are losing their "donkey," month-to-month, year-to-year? Seriously? I have served on my council's Executive Board, I have seen our meetings cut from monthly to quarterly, and I KNOW that the financial statements, of management, are worthless as far as providing meaningful information to the Executive Board in aiding it in its duty to manage the Council. I was the lone voice on the Board to point out, some decades ago, that my Council was insolvent, that is, incapable of paying its bills as they fell due, and that the council was about a quarter year behind paying its bills, at that. Board members were being asked for $1,000 donations to cover payroll. Every two weeks. And they paid, and paid. And no one on the Board knew of this precarious financial situation, board meeting after board meeting, quarter after quarter, until I and another non-Board member, figured it out, and there was h***fire to pay. Council professional staff WILL NOT MAKE INTERNAL FINANCIAL DATA AVAILABLE TO ANYONE NOT A SENIOR PROFESSIONAL STAFFER. That was confirmed to me, just 3 days ago, by a Scout Camp Site Manager who said, "You will never get that data." And that site manager is on the volunteer side of the equation.

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 acquiescence dictated by National regarding National's bankruptcy.

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 greater the talk, the longer it takes, and the darker the forest becomes for National to realize its Plan. (And I do not think that National will realize its goal of a "quick hit" solution, namely, put $850M into a Settlement Fund, quickly get a pat on the back for "A Job Well-Done" and move on to membership drives and Recharters.) I think that hope is toast. I have not been able to watch but a few minutes of Zoom hearings. I cannot tell if the Judge is oblivious to the "spitting nickels" aspect of this, or is paying out enough rope for parties to hang themselves, only to draw it tight at some point-a comeuppance. What is happening here is an "awakening." It is the typical response of persons affected by a program affecting them being rammed-through: they awaken (usually slowly) to the consequences of the ran-through on their interests and raise their voices, singularly or collectively, but soon enough become a force affecting the process and outcome. National's quick-hit Plan is now being pressured by insurers and CO's. The LC's role in this is likely that of the lap-dog. "Whatever National says, we do."

(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. Used the set only a couple of times and never again. Coated nylon rain jackets. This is my "go-to" rain jacket. But not perfect. In rainy conditions, one spends more time sitting out the rainfall, yet rain jackets rarely are long enough to cover that which you sit on. I may well add about a 12" skirt around the bottom of my current rain jacket so I can sit down on something waterproof instead of soaking my shorts on a stump. I always buy oversize rain jackets to promote better ventilation. "Sweat management" is important. When the rain slackens or stops for a bit, unzip the jacket to ventilate. Keep "pit-zips" open if possible. When it rains very hard, just find shelter and wait it out. Particularly at Philmont, where rainfall will generally move on in 30 to 45 minutes. Rain Skirt. I ALWAYS carry at least one larger, heavy duty garbage bag-generally 3 to 4 mils. Contractor bags are too large and too heavy. I make my rain skirt out of one heavy duty garbage bag. Slice along the bottom of the bag, but smaller than your waist. Step through the slit and pull it up, slightly stretching the bag to fit your waist. (This will help help it snug around you and hold in place.) If necessary tuck the top of the bag into your belt to hold it in place. It should hang down around your knees or a bit lower. In heavy rain, sit down and cover your boots with the skirt. If push comes to shove get out the Philmont crew dining fly and drape it over as many as will fit under it to shed the heaviest rain. A rain skirt can also be used as a "chair," that is, placed on the ground and against the tree or log you are sitting against for lunch. Protects you from pine sap from trees, and such. Also, when unpacking one's pack at Philmont put the bag skirt on the ground and unload stuff onto it. Keeps your gear clean, and collected in one place so you don't lose things. Make as many uses of it as possible. Rain skirts provide great ventilation. Rain pants are not good in my view. I never slit my rain skirt bag until I need to because it is a bag until you do, and after you slit it, it is a tube. Cheepie rain jackets. One can get by with these but not very durable, and generally too heavy for backpacking. Ponchos. Hard to make work well as rain gear, but possible with a waist belt or rope. A poncho fluttering loose in the breeze is a nuisance. What I know and do.

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 is credited with considerably more net worth than anyone I have discussed it with believes to be the case. And I also don't believe my council has the net worth attributed to it. But, from my years on the Executive Board, I felt that the council financial statements handed out to us intentionally obfuscated content. It was impossible to determine if the camp made a profit or lost money, or Cub Day Camp, etc. Not GAAP, I think. We NEVER received any kind of profit/loss statement for any program or camp. All smoke and mirrors. Regardless, my council is planning to obtain a loan, per the SE. I think the camp is restricted, so, perhaps an unsecured line credit as we have scout office which is worth about 1/7th the loan amount. Or the phantom net worth, whatever it is, will also be collateral. What lender makes an unsecured loan to a business that lost 40% of its customers in a single year? And, if the Claimant Voters ever get good information, and 15% is the rule, then they can vote the Plan down.

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 put the lid on mobs of irate peasants (us) storming the Lord's castle (National). The peasants have some facts and much conjecture. It does not seem to be enough to spur the needed numbers of peasants to take to the digital streets. There is no grass-roots movement, much less opposition, to the implications and growing consequences of National's bankruptcy plans. The consistent posters on this forum number 24 to 36 people. There are a number of guests, but still not typically more than 250 or so at any one time. Just not enough to get the attention of National. The guests are not motivated to register and make their voices heard. 5,000 folks sending a daily email to National for a month. Well, that's a start, perhaps. Some Claimants may be paying attention-either on this forum or other forums. There is another problem. Even educated, Scouting folks (non-claimants), at least in my orbit, are paying virtually no attention to the bankruptcy. The COR, Troop Committee Chairperson, SM-none of them seem interested and know very little about it. True, but probably of little practical importance as those voting will be voting on the Plan as a whole. Arguments for and against the Plan will be based on an aggregate analysis, not the facts pertaining to a single or limited number of LC's. For example, those voting might reject the Plan if it is shown that only 5% of LC assets are being paid into the Settlement Fund. That a council or two is paying 99% means little as the total Settlement Fund contribution is miniscule in the aggregate. Conversely, a Plan which proposes that 85% of LC assets be paid to the Settlement Fund would have a better chance of approval, even though a council or two might be paying 0%. We will be handed a fait accompli. Our choice will be to accept what is left of Scouting and soldier on, or leave in disgust (or for any other reason).

"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 location. Just one more step in the process.

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 bestowed on the privileged/ortunate creditor back into the bankruptcy estate to be divided amongst ALL the creditors of that class. I've seen no discussion of this, so it must not be applicable-statutory, or time-barred. I don't know. Conceivably, the business judgment rule may be an exception to the preference rule, that is, "Normally, this would look like a preference, but we had a sound business reason to make this deal, and here is why it is sound..." If this is the case, then until the Judge rules on this, Hartford is still on the hot seat. One would think that National has no reason to cut a sweet deal with Hartford, because National's liability will be discharged, whatever that liability is and no matter how much Hartford and the other insurers have to pay, unless the deal provides a benefit to National, which, appears to me to be to obtain Hartford's agreement with the RSA., thereby greasing an easier approval of National's Plan. Likely, that Hartford was chosen for the sweet deal because its vote would swing RSA approval. Maybe all this is garbage. "I did not have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one." Pascal (I think).

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 religious awards. But somebody must have that responsibility. And so far, not a word have I been able to find pertaining to my unit. I believe there was a report that the Archdiocese of New Orleans issued direction on rechartering.

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