Jump to content

New to Scouting?

Questions and answers for parents and leaders new to Scouting.


  • LATEST POSTS

    • The cheap, quick and reliable background check is a very recent concept ... 2003 ???  Before that, it was fairly labor intensive and costly.  And yes, it would have been very hard for an organization to know if it was the same person again.  
    • I think these are the "Key 3".  IIRC, an early estimate of the claims was in the 8500 range.  If that was an accurate number we would be looking at $60,000 per claimant plus all the insurance.  Maybe that's a number that would get somewhere. I think BSA started this process thinking they could control it.  Pay up about 1/3 of their assets, pass the benefits and challenges of collecting insurance onto the claimants, and come out the other side more or less intact.  I suspect that the idea of losing a HA base just never occurred to anyone, and they are now facing the probability of losing either Philmont, Summit or both, and that's probably beyond their ability to process/accept.   I suspect they're now nearly paralyzed and aren't sure how to move forward.  What's clear at this point is that the case is stuck in the mud and some kind of ruling on one of the major issues needs to be litigated or conceded, or we're just going throw money onto the campfire while producing neither heat nor light.
    • I am pretty much in the “highly interested, but pretty much in the dark” camp, but I will hazard some thoughts. 1) They were completely taken off guard by the number of claims, throwing the entire strategy, whatever it was, into a swirling dive; 2) Pre-filling, they had a notion of what they would contribute to the trust and it was blown out of the water by the claims. Ditto for the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, though less so as to the AHC other than the highly exposed Councils; 3) There is great consternation and disagreement within National about putting up High Adventure Bases and some (all?) decision makers are resisting at all cost; 4) Most Local Councils are have been sideswiped by the target on their back, in light of BSA assurances for the last several years, and now don’t know what to do and have no cohesive voice or inclination among them. It seem clear to me the AHC doesn’t represent the Councils; 5) National didn’t anticipate and has since underestimated the strength, determination and singularity of the TCC, possibly looking for them/the survivors to fracture and concede early in the process; 6) They miscalculated the degree to which the TCC would pursue assets and tunnel their way under facially valid asset protection measures and “restrictions” including on  camps, by National and LCs;  7) Lack of managerial competence; and 😎 They may be frozen in the headlights, not sure whether to dart back into the board room or look plaintively into the oncoming lights. In looking over my uniformed guesses, it comes down to surprise leading to lack of a scaleable plan, underestimation of claims and the tenacity of the TCC/claimants, the mentioned possibility of incompetence and resignation. I don’t think it’s the latter two, honestly. 
    • I kinda of skimmed that document, because I lack the patience to read too much "attorney"  I did ask my wife who deals with legal documents and on occasion mediation if the BSA is just stupid or are they running out the clock.  She thinks running out the clock.  I don't think the BSA is stupid and I don't believe the attorneys are stupid.   So, why does it seem the BSA is throwing up roadblocks at every opportunity to impede the process?  Do they see no way out that BSA survives so they are just going to spend it all till Chap 7 is the only option and no one get anything?  
    • Just now reading this. Having trouble pasting it. I believe it’s the second “here” link in the initial article I posted. Sorry for my ineptitude. It’s a good read so far.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...