Jump to content

SiouxRanger

Members
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by SiouxRanger

  1. 1 hour ago, Eaglewarr7 said:

    You know the BSA Hates the camouflage because it looks-to military

    There is a provision in the Congressional Charter of the BSA prohibiting military drill, I believe, and that may prompt National's aversion to camo as just skirting too close to the "military" prohibition.  But others here may have deeper insight. I have generally been opposed to camo on that basis that it is too far from the scout uniform that I think youth don't see themselves as scouts.  And I could be wrong. Camo shorts are not so distracting, but a camo shirt undercuts the scouting personna, in my feeble opinion.

  2. No longer sure where to post this, but an update on my Catholic Diocese and rechartering our troop.

    1.  The parish priest signed a traditional rechartering agreement.  Then, soon thereafter requested the original be returned to him. That was done.

    2.  District Executive asked that all data be uploaded as if rechartering was progressing normally, even though the DE knew that the parish was not willing to sign any rechartering agreement, at that point.  That was done.

    3.  Chartered Organization Representative asked DE to provide written confirmation, before Janary 1, 2022, that the unit would be "officially rechartered" without a rechartering agreement from the parish., AND that BSA insurance would cover troop activities after 12-31-2022.  No response.

    4.  Our troop has not paid for rechartering as we figure we don't know what we are getting for the money. We have a concern that BSA won't be able to provide a year's worth of services for a year's worth of fees. The DE has not asked for payment.

    5.  We have no further word from the parish regarding whether or not the parish will recharter at all, or if it will recharter on the traditional basis, facilities use only basis, or something else. So, another 30 days, more or less, have passed, and passed the start of another scout year, and no meaningful guidance from the parish or council. We are not sure if we have a BSA authorized unit, insurance coverage, or whether we have authority to conduct typical troop operations.

    Personally, I don't think these questions are likely to be answered with any authority or certainty until after the BSA Plan is approved, or some successor plan is proposed and approved, or there is an agreed resolution.  Perhaps we will have a definitive answer and known path before summer camp? That is my most optimistic estimate.

    • Sad 1
  3. I can't recall whether I've said it directly or only by implication.

    I recall at least 2 references of mine to George Peppard about loving "when a plan comes together."

    Well, the plan seems to be rotting.

    Litigation is a huge and complex legal process. Outcome uncertain.  As we have all seen in National's bankruptcy.

    "When the waves turn the minutes to hours." Gordon Lightfoot.

    National seems to have hoped to do a "quick hit" and exit bankruptcy leaving all its legal problems behind with the Settlement Trust to pick, up the pieces.

    And the "quick hit" has turned into hours.  And months.

    At the end of this National will likely walk away with a barrel of goo.

    And from that, National will have to fashion a national movement based on the principles of Scouting.

    And who will follow?

  4. 23 minutes ago, yknot said:

    Frankly, I don't think many units try very hard at all to involve women in their outdoor programing. 

    Well, with only the recent addition of girls to Scouting, how many moms have "Boy Scouting Experience?" Likely few.  Girl Scouting experience-likely some.

    So, I have no in depth of knowledge of mother/Girl Scout camping knowledge.  Maybe mom's just haven't put scouting on the radar.

    I would not give up on encouraging moms to go camping. We have had several stay an entire week at summer camp.

    As an aside, I have noticed that scouts at camp, weekend camps and summer camp, will look over to where the adults are hanging out from time to time.  I've wondered whether they are looking to be reassured that their parent is present, (or whether the "window is open" to get away with something). I think they were looking for reassurance.

  5. I'd note that my mom has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from a land grant university and my 2 sisters have 3 degrees between them, and I worked at Philmont when the first two women Rangers were employed there, and then a year later when 5 women were Rangers.  And then on my 4 Philmont treks as an advisor, two of our Rangers were female. And they did a better job than the male Rangers. And one year at Philmont, my responsibility was to train and evaluate everyone on the Ranger Staff but the Chief Ranger and Assistant Chief Rangers. The women set a high standard.

  6. 22 minutes ago, yknot said:

    Why? What's so awful about having women involved? 

    No, not awful.  Just two few willing to be involved. 

    And if they don't have a son (and now daughter), involved they are unlikely to just show up "just as part of their civic duty."  Many parents don't show up even when their child is participating.

    As an aside, not being from the West, I have noted that women in the West seem to have much more interest in outdoor (backcountry) activities (from my personal observation).

    • Upvote 1
  7. On 12/23/2021 at 7:29 PM, vol_scouter said:

    The issue is that if a youth under the circumstances that you outlined were to be abused, the BSA can be liable.  Youth have been abused entirely outside of Scouting with only the initial meeting of the perpetrator and victim occurring in a Scouting setting with the BSA being liable. 

    Just seems like madness to me, that "BSA" ( whatever that means, national, local council, and chartering organization, or all of them) would be liable in such circumstances without some direct and CAUSAL connection between scouting and the abuse.

    The application of YPT to activities outside of scouting activities makes YPT totally unworkable from a practical standpoint.

    For example, how is a chartered organization representative to have any idea whatsoever of the activities of an abusive assistant scoutmaster at soccer matches?

    And BSA (etc.) is liable.  That is a VERY HARD CASE TO MAKE.

    And as to the John Wayne mentality comment, rigidity and thereby certainty, is convenient and comfortable, but reality is complex and fuzzy..  And the defense that "someone dictated my sense of morals and I adhered to them" has not found legal traction.

    • Like 1
  8. 17 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

    The representatives of the local councils worked out a formula that took into account size, financial situation, number of claims, and other factors.  The formula has not been released to my knowledge.  It was not promulgated by national.  There has been historically a tension between national and the local councils so the local councils would wish to perform this process independently of national.

    Thanks.  This helps to establish in my mind a tad bit of independence of local councils from National.

    The mechanism of discussions among the Council representatives remains a mystery to me unless of the 250 or so councils, they selected a small number to form an executive group to formulate the formula.

    As to the mystery of the origin of the formula, I recall it was kept confidential, and perhaps the prior poster did not have it right, or I read it wrong.

  9. 20 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

    The Local Councils are independent charitable corporations that are controlled by their executive boards.  The contributions were determined by representatives of the ~250 local councils to meet the total that national needed.  The boards will make the final decisions - not the Scout executives.

    If national files chapter 7, the local councils are on their own will likely go down the chapter 11 path that enriches attorneys and provides less compensation than claimants believe as we have seen for the BSA.

    I was under the perhaps mis-impression that National dictated the amount each council would contribute.  "Representatives of local councils determining the amount each council would pay" seems a recipe for chaos.  "Fine with my council that YOUR council pays "$XXX."  (And this scenario plays out with 250+/- councils?)

    My mind flashes to the scene in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies where the council of the pirate kings all vote for themselves and the deadlock perpetuates.

    Somewhere along all the posts on the many threads, I believe I recall a mention that no one knew how he amount of each council's contribution was derived other than that National set the amount and was unwilling to reveal the algorithm for its determinations.

    If you have details, in depth information on the details, I'd be interested.

  10. 1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

    The numbers that the TCC has suggested will likely not be approved by the local councils.  The numbers are far too high and makes other options more viable.  My personal opinion is that what the claimants will actually see in their bank accounts will likely be about the same or less than is being offered.

    I am not giving up on a failure of Plan 5 and the TCC having its say at the table with the added clout of a failed vote on National's Plan.

    I am not sure I understand how the LC's have a say in the amount of their contribution, considering:

    1.  Scout Executives are beholden to National for their career advancement, not to the local council, so Scout Executives have little reason not to toe the line with National's demands.

    2.  If National collapses and liquidates, of what benefit is it to a local council to decline to pay what National dictates if that refusal leads to the lost of its parent?

  11. 8 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

    I agree Fred, I  have never heard a kid say that they joined Scouts to learn leadership, responsibility, life enriching lessons, diversity or inclusion.  They want to camp out, play with fire and knives, and go swimming.  If we provide that, the rest will come!

    I have long maintained that the Scouting is in the entertainment business.  It provides fun and challenging times (shooting, swimming, playing with fire (safely), knives,) learning new things, and comradeship with their friends, while those devious adults slip leadership, assuming responsibility, planning, ethics, morals, into the program to be absorbed seamlessly (perhaps with a bit of suggestion now and then).

    • Upvote 3
  12. 31 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

    I just throw this out there...

    @scoutldr's comment just has an interesting perspective to me.  And that perspective relates to the DE being involved in negotiating the disposition of a CO's (troop) assets if the CO is is bowing out of the business of scouting.

    And this is not to counter @scoutldr's post, for I believe that many councils function along the lines he/she has experienced.

    In, and from, my experience, in my council, council staff have no interest in anything controversial at unit level. (And I have witnessed doozies.)

    Nor, would I, with my experience over 25 years at various levels of a council, even think, in my council, to engage a DE to resolve issues on the disposition of a troop's assets. With respect to my council, I do not think the staff could contribute anything useful.

    I have come to believe that councils have markedly different methods of operation, support for units by professional staff, toxic, supportive, assistive, etc. environments...

    Units in my council which have shut down have simply "passed on" their assets (tangible) to other units. Not quite sure what has happened to bank account/cash assets.

    Were my Troop to have to move to another Chartering Organization, I'd contact the Chartering Organization leadership, advise them of the Troop's move and ask it to sign off relinquishing ownership of all of the assets, tangible and financial.

    Frankly, I doubt there would be any objection.  All Troop funds were raised from troop participants, youth and adult, for the purpose of operating the troop.  I'd like to think that most chartering organizations would recognize that and waive any interest in them.

    As a practical matter, most troops' tangible property has no market value, and the cash/bank accounts are a few thousand dollars and just insignificant to most Chartering Organizations.  Not to mention the "black eye" a chartering organization would receive if it bullied a scout troop.

    My troop has been the beneficiary of cook kits, dutch ovens, and such from disbanding units.  No one from 

    (Must have "clicked off) and lost a part of a sentence.)

    No one from the council ever became involved in the transition of tangible assets to my troop.  All fo the stuff my troop received was of marginal value.  We pretty much just took whatever was offered and much of it was useless, and disposed of.

    • Upvote 2
  13. 2 hours ago, scoutldr said:

    Yes, the CO owns the assets, but if they have decided to bow out forever, the DE should be negotiating with them the disposition of the assets.  The charter agreement and Regulations of the BSA state that the assets will revert to the Council if the CO is not going to retain them for future Scouting.

    I just throw this out there...

    @scoutldr's comment just has an interesting perspective to me.  And that perspective relates to the DE being involved in negotiating the disposition of a CO's (troop) assets if the CO is is bowing out of the business of scouting.

    And this is not to counter @scoutldr's post, for I believe that many councils function along the lines he/she has experienced.

    In, and from, my experience, in my council, council staff have no interest in anything controversial at unit level. (And I have witnessed doozies.)

    Nor, would I, with my experience over 25 years at various levels of a council, even think, in my council, to engage a DE to resolve issues on the disposition of a troop's assets. With respect to my council, I do not think the staff could contribute anything useful.

    I have come to believe that councils have markedly different methods of operation, support for units by professional staff, toxic, supportive, assistive, etc. environments...

    Units in my council which have shut down have simply "passed on" their assets (tangible) to other units. Not quite sure what has happened to bank account/cash assets.

    Were my Troop to have to move to another Chartering Organization, I'd contact the Chartering Organization leadership, advise them of the Troop's move and ask it to sign off relinquishing ownership of all of the assets, tangible and financial.

    Frankly, I doubt there would be any objection.  All Troop funds were raised from troop participants, youth and adult, for the purpose of operating the troop.  I'd like to think that most chartering organizations would recognize that and waive any interest in them.

    As a practical matter, most troops' tangible property has no market value, and the cash/bank accounts are a few thousand dollars and just insignificant to most Chartering Organizations.  Not to mention the "black eye" a chartering organization would receive if it bullied a scout troop.

    My troop has been the beneficiary of cook kits, dutch ovens, and such from disbanding units.  No one from 

    • Upvote 1
  14. 4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    the heart of the controversy is the inherent conflict present for attorneys representing more than one client who could - and very often do - end up having conflicting interests in the case.

    Bingo.

    Double BINGO!!

    That is precisely the problem, and as I can't afford the time to follow this micron by micron, maybe someone in the case has raised the issue, but as near as I can tell, no one seems to care (Judge, U.S. Trustee...)

    At its simplest case, any attorney who represents a client from a state with an open statute of limitations and a client from a closed state who does not have a legally enforceable claim, is in an inherent and obvious conflict of interest.  An irreconcilable, ethically fatal conflict of interest. Period.

    • Upvote 1
  15. (I've mentioned goings and doing with respect my Troop's Catholic Diocese in the past-which thread I have forgotten.)

    Ever thus, an update:

    Despite my several inquires of my Troop's Diocesan Scouting liaisons, one never responded and Diocesan legal counsel referred my other inquiry to the head insurance person whose response made no sense whatsoever. (And I am in the business of making legal sense of legal things.)

    So, some month or more later after my inquiries, the Parish pastor having signed the traditional chartering agreement contacted the Troop Chartered Organization Representative and asked that nothing be submitted to recharter the troop-as the Pastor was awaiting Diocesan direction.  (Be Prepared, in this case means STOP, the unprepared are still unprepared.)

    So, my inquiries started in mid-September are still not answered in early December.

    Meanwhile, just tonight, an adult scouter associated with my Troop and serving as a Unit Commissioner (with whom I spoke for 2 hours and have known for over 20 years) said that the word from the DE, for our District, was that our Council was NOT willing to charter units.

    And so, our Troop is likely an orphan, by all appearances.  (And, by extension, so would be all Catholic sponsored units in our Diocese.)

                        (Space here Moderator, new topic follows-thanks).

    All of which raises the question of which entity owns the Troop's $4,000 checking account balance and the Troop trailer, and the tents, dutch ovens, fire pails, and such?

    TROOP REMAINS OPERATIONAL BUT CHANGES CHARTERED ORGANIZATION.

    1.  Troop remains operational but moves to a new Chartering Organization.  One line of thinking is that the Chartering Organization owns the Troop's assets.  And, at that, even if the Troop (being all the people, scouts and adults) leaves for another Chartering Organization, the original Chartering Organization can retain all of the Troop's Assets. (If it wants.)

    2.  A second line of thinking is that the "Troop" owns/controls the assets and can move them with the Troop and that the initial Chartering Organization has no claim to them.

    I don't know what the rules are. I would expect that most Chartered Organizations would acquiesce with whatever the Troop leadership desired. (Even if there are rules to the contrary.)

    Another issue is if a Troop completely ceases operation.  There will likely be some bank account balance and tangible equipment (tents, dutch ovens, stove, etc.)  In my experience, those troops have simply donated the tangible assets to other troops.  What happened to bank account balances, I have no knowledge.

    I believe that National's approach is that if a unit ceases operation, its assets revert to its Council, and if a Council ceases operation, its assets revert to National.

    Just some thoughts, and if anyone has comments, I'd be interested in their experiences or analysis.

  16. On 11/24/2021 at 4:28 PM, yknot said:

    I thought it was an instructive post. The last point bears repeating. I was on the board of a nonprofit that was sued by a member over something fairly frivolous. While eventually dismissed, it dragged on and required taking time off work to attend court proceedings at inconvenient times and places. One thing to realize is that operating as part of a well regarded nonprofit community organization provides some cover that is weakened if you are just XYZ nonprofit. People who might be reluctant to risk community censure by suing a local church or volunteer fire department have no such compunction about suing what is essentially a group of parents they may have a personal beef with. 

     

    Thank you @yknot.

    And, your last point "that bears repeating" does truly bear repeating.  Loud and boisterous fools and idiots can cause a world of pointless, expensive, and damaging rampage.

    My totally unscientific, statistically unsupported analysis, (having Aced my 300 level statistics course) is that the typical spread of forum registered folks compared to unregistered folks on the forum is about 5 to 130, so about 90% to 94% of the folks viewing the posts on this forum are not registered (and that is fine).

    And so I say again, chat and discussions among registered posters is not a MOVEMENT.

    If this forum does not create a political force which affects National bankruptcy, then why have we all bothered?

    95%± of the folks who view this forum do not comment and their views are unknown, and I encourage them to register and let us know what they think.

    (And @Mrjohns2 and @qwaze, perhaps you might consider stating the basis of your downvotes, to which I will respond.  And please mention the law school of your J.D. Degrees and state of license, mine being the University of Illinois, College of Law, Champaign, Illinois, licensed in Illinois since 1977.)

  17. Gee, a downvote for merely stating the "blackletter" (default, basic) rules of law pertaining to the formation of not-for-profits, related tax issues, and the liability protections and risks.

    No opinion.  No position taken or advocated.  Just the mechanics of it all.

    Like a downvote on a YouTube video explaining how to replace an oil filter on a truck.  Hmmm.

    Never been a legislator, so don 't blame me for the rules.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 2
  18. By way of background:

    States issue corporate charters to folks who want to incorporate not-for-profit corporations.  It is analogous to a birth certificate-it establishes the legal existence of the not-for-profit corporation.  There are state fees to incorporate.  Check with your state's secretary of state's office for the amount.  There will be an annual renewal fee, also.  Factor that cost in to the annual budget.

    Corporations, including not-for-profits, should have written By-Laws (about 30 pages of rules governing the corporation's operations-generally only prepared once at the time of incorporation) setting forth the rules of operation:  election of directors, election of officers, establishment of bank account(s), corporate meeting schedule, etc. "Housekeeping" stuff.  The By-Laws should be in conformity with the state's not-for-profit statute.  Those statutes can be different from state to state.

    Not-for-profit corporations should hold corporate meetings, and should keep corporate records of those corporate meetings which would include recording any major corporate actions taken by the Board of Directors, elections of officers and such.  It is important that those meetings be held, minutes kept, written up and entered in the corporate minute book. Failure to observe the "corporate formalities" could result in a court finding that the corporation existed only in name and not in fact, meaning that a claimant suing the not-for-profit might be able to "pierce the corporate veil," and hold the directors personally liable for the legal obligations of the corporation. This result is precisely NOT what folks want when incorporating a not-for-profit to serve as the chartering organization of a scout unit.

    Applying for a tax exempt status, 501(c)(3) status, is a Federal income tax issue and separate and apart from incorporating.  It is a separate form of some length because everyone would like to be tax exempt-the form is long to ensure that tax exempt status is warranted.

    The cost of all of these initial steps, were an attorney and accountant to be hired to do the work, along with the state's incorporation fees could exceed several thousand dollars.

    Some folks do their own incorporations without professional help.  That is fine if doing it solely for themselves because if not done correctly, only they suffer the consequences.  But, if done for others, aside from practicing a profession without a license, if not done correctly, and others who would have been protected had it been done right, have no protection because done inexpertly, the person who undertook the work may be held liable for the damages suffered by the person who would have been protected.  Typically, when someone undertakes to perform professional services but is unlicensed is held to the standard of performance of someone who holds the proper license.

    Some states may provide some statutory protection for directors of not-for-profits.  It may depend on whether the director is uncompensated for their service, or the type of not-for-profit.  Exemption from liability for officers of the not-for-profit is another legal issue to investigate.

    Generally, statutory exemptions from liability extent only to negligent acts.  Intentional acts or willful and wanton acts are not exempt from liability.

    Another huge problem is that a person is generally liable for their own actions.  So, someone signing off on an adult application of an adult who they know is suspect, runs the risk of being held accountable, even if they are also a director who may have an exemption from liability for other actions taken in their capacity as a director.  This a practical issue with respect to scout units because active adults generally hold several positions simultaneously. The issue then becomes was signing off on a suspect adult application their act as a director (which may afford protection), or as a unit leader (which does not afford protection)?  And further, is it an intentional or willful and wanton action that is not entitled to any protection at all?

    Finally, there is the question of a unit obtaining errors and omissions insurance for as many adults and positions as possible.  Even, to the extent available, such insurance may not afford blanket protection.

    As plaintiffs' attorneys' mantra is: "Sue everyone with even a remote possibility of being held liable and let the judge sort it out," means if you hold a position and there is a claim, you will be named a defendant will become entangled in a lawsuit.  If you are a named insured of a policy affording coverage for the claimed loss, you likely have coverage for the cost of your defense-your attorney's fees.  If no errors and omissions coverage, your attorney's fees are your expense.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  19. 1 hour ago, elitts said:

    However, without the qualifier "Available", that statement isn't very useful.  Regardless of what many folks would like to believe, many of those assets are restricted (certainly not all of them though).  And even where they aren't restricted, they often wouldn't end up on the table in anything but a liquidation. 

    Quite frankly, even among those assets LCs have been selling, I suspect if you actually looked into the past you'd find out the properties were donated on the condition that they be used as scout camps but they've managed to skate by and get them sold without the families involved finding out to file court cases. 

    I know it's happened around me at least once or twice.  I think it was Owasippe where they had the whole sale written up in the back room and basically signed when someone popped up and said "Uh.. You can't sell that."

    As with all of the "legal paperwork" relating to National and the local councils, it is a mess.  Either intentional or by neglect.

    Had folks donating property for the use of Scouting truly wanted to limit the use of their donation to that as a scout camp and no other.  And to prevent the sale of their donation, the legal path to do so is ridiculously simple, but apparently rarely used.

    The deed of conveyance of the donated property to the local council should have contained all of the restrictions desired by the donors.  It also should have included was is called a "right of reverter," that is, which essentially provides that "if the property ceases to be used for the restricted purpose, title 'revert' to the donors (or their heirs)."

    Then, that deed is recorded in the public record and thereby puts the whole world on notice (actual, or constructive = presumed notice).

    Any prospective purchaser of the restricted property would have a title search conducted, find the deed of conveyance with restrictions and the right of reverter appear in the title commitment (a title company's written list of the documents adversely affecting title to the property), and require the local council to produce a document terminating the right of reverter before purchasing.

    (As a practical note, the more time which has passed after the original donation, the greater the number of heirs, in the usual course of life, and the greater the number of folks from whom the local council will have to obtain consent.  Some may waive their rights, some may demand compensation, and other may outright refuse.)

    No buyer in their right mind would buy a property subject to a right of reverter without that right having been fully terminated, because, if not terminated, the heirs could file suit and seek a declaratory judgment that the heirs are the owners due to the operation of the right of reverter.  The heirs would not have to pay any compensation to the buyer.  That is a bad result for buyer.

    So, that there are "restricted" properties that are being sold without such adverse consequences to buyers (at least none mentioned so far in this forum), indicates that either:

    1.  all the heirs agreed to terminate the right of reverter,

    or,

    2.  the "restrictions" were a non-public agreement between the original donor and the local council (the buyer had no notice of them at the time of purchase) leaving the legal battle between the heirs and the local council.  The buyer is in the clear,

    or,

    3.  the buyer had legal notice of the right of reverter, and is just taking a gamble that the heirs never show up to complain.  (This is a horrible idea, as the deed from the council to the buyer is a public record available to anyone who wants to see and copy it.  It will be public forever-and pretty clear evidence the local council violated its private agreement with the original donors.)

    And, for all of that, a legal structure much more protective of the donor's interests is to create a trust, transfer title to the trust, provide that the local council can use the property for so long as used as a scout camp, and that the local council's rights END when it is no longer being used as such.  The heirs of the original donors would be the "remainder beneficiaries" of the trust and would be entitled to direct the trustee to do with the property as they see fit.  In this scenario, title to the property would NEVER be held by the local council, and thereby, the local council would have nothing to sell. A title search would show that the trust owns the property and any buyer would require a deed signed by the trustee who will not do so without express, written direction of all of the remainder beneficiaries.

    • Thanks 3
  20. 14 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

    I don't know what to do about WB.  My bad experience was detailed last year.  After that year, I am still not inclined to try again.  I have come to believe WB is successful for only certain personality types.  People that are excited and engaged to attend that type of training I think are more likely to have a good experience.  Honestly, I have almost zero tolerance for role playing, and games,, and songs, etc.  I would be more than happy to sit through a couple of days of the leadership training itself.  In fact, in January I am signed up for UoS with almost an entire day of Troop Committee admin type stuff.

    Now... I have been involved as an adult leader for 5 year, (this year).  I have been a DL the entire time, I was CM, ran camp cards and a fundraiser on our own, did memebership one year.  I have led the effort to create a new Troop for Girls that is very successful right now.  I will be CC for the Boy Troop at the first of the year.  I was a Cub Scout and got Arrow of Light and was a Boy Scout for a time, so I feel like I kinda get the program side of it.  :)

    I don't feel like I am a bad leader because I havent finished WB...  I just cant get past all the silly stuff that is required during the course.

    I too have zero tolerance for role playing, games, and such.  I really don't need that to motivate me.  But, nearing the end of my scouting career, the wife of a great, life-long scouting friend of mine-both of them are strong Wood Badge folks, (4 leaders:) looked at me at a scouting dinner and asked, "Why haven't you taken Wood Badge?"

    Well, I have a lot of Scouting experience and just didn't think it would help me or that I would fit in.  I said, "I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DISAPPOINTING MRS. XXX, (her) I SAID I'D GO." 

    And, I just resolved to go along with the 2 weekends and then the Ticket.

    The weekends were a bit corny, definitely very high energy, and tolerable to fun.  Made some great contacts.

    But the critical value was the Ticket.  I have posted earlier, that the purpose of the Ticket was not made very clear but I finally figured it out.

    You need to complete 5 Ticket Items.  Put 8 or 10 in your Ticket. If one or more becomes impossible, and they can, you have others you can do.

    Your Ticket items should be things you'd love to see implemented in the level of Scouting where you volunteer.  I am largely at Troop level, so I had Ticket Items regarding improving Troop Meeting agendas, and campfire programs..  The kids loved it.

    The Big Question is "What Can I FIX?"  Then make those items Ticket Items.

    And on the other side of the equation, most of my adult career has dealt with ugly, so 6 days of "corny," well a break.  I had a good time.

    And trying a Wood Badge course in a different Council is also a viable idea.

     

     

  21. On 11/11/2021 at 7:38 AM, elitts said:

    Nah.  He gets basically zero credibility in my book.  A fired/laid off person making lots of accusations and claims without any support or verifiable explanation isn't a reputable source.  In particular, the claim that someone in the BSA or COs is deliberately letting known abusers continue to have access to kids seems wildly unlikely.  Has it ever happened?  I mean, clearly we already know the Catholic Church did this and they sponsored some troops, so of course it did.  But if he was truly the beleaguered champion of youth that he's trying to portray, I'd have expected him to have either dealt with this already or have resigned in protest right before he forwarded all the data concerning it to the FBI.

    Plus, several of his statements make me wonder if he ever actually understood the point of Scouting.  The only two things he mentioned that could be the basis of actual rule or policy changes to reduce risk to scouts were:

    • Older supervision of younger scouts is a problem;
    • Overnight trips may represent an unreasonable risk to scouts.

    That would be like the Safety Director for the NCAA opining that "sports involving direct contact between players is unreasonably risky".

    I find Mr. Johnson's appearance on the stage of this situation to be a bit problematic.  I posted early on asking if anyone had any idea what was his motivation.  I don't recall any replies.

    I can see the arguments on both sides.

    That he was laid off or fired, is not very persuasive to me.  Organizations tend to lay off or fire senior, knowledgeable managers who come to conclusions contrary to the company's preferred line. "Hire an expert for expert advice, and when the expert contradicts the company's, the amateurs look for another expert."  "We can't let AAA continue as head of BBB, as AAA's conclusions will embarrass the company." And heads roll.

    I also have mixed emotions about whether the typical laid off/fired employee is likely to take to the national stage to vent.

    Frankly, most people are cowards.  And not unjustifiably so.  Most live closely tied to their paycheck and benefits and pension and are highly reluctant to take any action that would jeopardize their employment and income.  They have families to support and careers to nourish.  And, most folks are not inclined to make a sacraficial example of themselves for a cause that will not feed them or their family.

    Surely, it has crossed Mr. Johnson's mind that if he comes forward about the BSA scandal, his prospects for employment with other employers is dramatically diminished as employers are not looking for trouble makers or whistleblowers, but compliant, silent employees who do as they are told.

    And yet Mr. Johnson came forward and spoke.  Why?

    He might be financially stable for retirement, not looking for another job, and can afford to speak his mind.  Very few people are in that position.  Many posters here, as one suggested are "old" and probably retired, and with the anonymity afforded by this forum have two levels of insulation from the brutal social media retaliation seen so often in the news.

    Mr. Johnson, however, stood up, put his name and face on the stage.  

    I just can't summon the path for Mr. Johnson to convert his forthrightness into profit.

    Will anyone escape from National's bankruptcy with financial gain?  Well, the claimants' attorneys at 40%, the TCC attorneys who I think are compensated on an hourly basis, with a voluntary contribution to the settlement, Claimants-something, but how much is unclear.

    But Mr. Johnson?  Surely no big movie deal about this mess.  Can't think that a few minutes of interview in a documentary about the collapse of BSA National pays well.  A book?  Who would read it?

    That Mr. Johnson reportedly declined to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is significant in my book.  Essential an NDA is an agreement offered to a laid off/fired employee wherein the employee is agreeing to accept a sum of money, continuation of benefits, whatever, for their agreement not to disclose information about the employer, the employer's business, or the employee's work for the employer.  It is a bribe. "You shut up, we pay."  And a threat: "You don't sign and take the bribe, we may sue you-oh, and you won't have the bribe money to pay your lawyer to defend you."

    Strangely, employers rarely seem to obtain Non Disclosure Agreements when an employee is hired.  And when a new employee would likely sign without an after thought.  NDA's are generally offered after the employer wants to dispose of the employee-but then the employer finds itself at a significant bargaining disadvantage.

    I know an individual whom I greatly respect who declined to sign a council non disclosure agreement.  A person of calibre.

    Two more points:

    FIRST.  Many employment agreements, just guessing but highly suspecting, that Mr. Johnson signed before employment, provides that upon termination of employment all documents, records, memoranda, books. pamphlets, computer data, (you get the drift) are to be returned to BSA National, the employer.

    The point is that Mr. Johnson was contractually obligated to return EVERYTHING he received, saw, produced, or touched to BSA and if not he would be in breach of his employment agreement with BSA, and perhaps liable to a charge of criminal theft.

    So, were Mr. Johnson to do a "data dump" after his employment was terminated, BSA could not only brand him as a "disgruntled, non-performing, inadequate" employee, but also as a thief.

    There is a book in this:  "The Art of the Smear."

    SECOND.  My second point is that Mr. Johnson walked away from some amount of money by refusing to sign the Non Disclosure Agreement offered to him.  Almost no one does that, my good friend excepted.  And it was probably a significant amount of money.  Probably more than $100,000 just judging from his position at National and could have been much more than that.

    So, most of my comment is pro Johnson, but I still wonder about the bona fides of the roll out of his appearance. If he is at the top of the food chain in his life, he can afford to speak out, but if not, then there are other considerations involved. And I do not know that they are.

×
×
  • Create New...