Question 1 - how are you involved in scouting
Question 2 - Which scouting value most compelling
Question 3 - Which value least compelling (only 4 listed and not sure how you would pick any of these)
Question 4 - Which trait is most important (honestly, probably the only question in the entire survey that is useful for feedback on program development)
Question 5 - How important to you that BSA survives
Question 6 - Why did pick the rank you did in Q5
Question 7 - How have you supported BSA in the past
Question 8 - Why did you support BSA
Question 9 - How likely to financially support BSA
Question 10 - Why did you answer as you did in Q9
Question 11 - Overall outlook of BSA in future
Name, Email, etc.
Other than Question 4, I don't see any of these questions leading to any input into program priorities at all. This seems to be clearly a collection of data to give someone to make a fundraising pitch in the future. They can use some answers to prioritize and then personalize the pitch based on the rest.
I don't take this as negative, it is probably the right strategy to fundraise. BSA, as part of their recovery meeting, mentioned they believe they need to raise $400M in donations as they exit bankruptcy. This will require both large & small donations and separate from FOS.
To me it read as a survey to understand how to write a fundraising plea. For example, if you have no intent on donating or recommending someone donate then they might ignore your other answers. Given the billions of dollars spent on bankruptcy it doesn't sound nefarious. Yes, there are other problems I'd rather see worked on but if your job is fundraising then it makes sense.
1. I also saw Prof. Jacoby question who would appeal. It is a good question as she said most major parties are on board.
There were a few claimant law firms fighting hard. One was Guam ... well, they keep their insurance for now which was their major ask. The other was about TCJC... well, now they can sue the TCJC. The third was more general. I expect law firms may give up spending more time on appeals and just focus on maximizing recovery through TDPs or independent review.
Non settling insurers will probably appeal.
US Trustee? That is the big question. My bet ... they will fight this. The US Trustee has been clear in every bankruptcy case I could find. Non debtor releases should not be allowed. I expect they will appeal.
2. If you are outside the SOL ... yes you could fight that, but it is likely most lawyers wouldn't have taken the case outside bankruptcy. This was one of Bate's main points. That a large number of the 82,000 would have received nothing outside bankruptcy court. So, I do expect there are many, who will receive more money than they would have outside bankruptcy. Now, is that $10-$20K worth the pain of the trial, wait, reliving abuse ... that will vary. I do expect there are many that could have received $10-$20M; however, technically, the independent review should address those as well. If you believe Bates, which not one law firm provided evidence he was wrong, then you believe everyone will receive the amount they are due based upon our current tort system. This is not to say that is a fair payment. I also question Bates, but nothing was brought up in court.
Thanks. Two comments on the article.
1. I thought the case was going to be appealed. This article says it’s uncertain. I wonder if that’s just because of where the case is or if it not being appealed is a possible outcome.
2. One of the interviewees said “For some victims it’s a great result,” which is something I haven’t heard from anyone. Is there a scenario where someone is getting a great outcome?