fred8033

53 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I don't want to down play the risks here, but they also shouldn't be over stated.  The whole point of a corporation, of any type, is that they protect individuals from liability and leave it all on the corporation.  Churches may be being sued, but the church elders who run them are not.  The limit of liability for a corporation is the assets that the corporation owns.  I do think an umbrella policy is a good idea for anyone involved in youth activities irrespective of what the over lying organization is; I've had one since I became a Tiger leader decades ago.  

You have the correct answer.  ... The key then is to keep the organization in a healthy state.  i.e.  still registered and running.  

I always wondered if the "Parent Booster" approach might be best.  ... In another words, all parents of scouts should be members of the parents booster club.  Put their name down as boosters.  ... The tangent is if they don't want to be part of the parent boosters, then perhaps they should find another scout unit for their scout.  ... Not trying to be mean ... just trying to get all parents with a piece of the ownership to get it right ... boosters than run election to select the next CC and board members.  

That club if structured right should provide liability protection and shield the individuals. 

9 minutes ago, ScouterDavid said:

I belive the pension plan is a single employer plan, so EVERY LC could be held liable for the pension plan funding. If this were to happen (PBGC takes over hte plan), it would surely bankrupt multiple LCs. Truly a disaster.

We are really extending a tangent.  ... but ... Would LCs be liable for pension?  If McDonalds went chapter 7 and had under funded corporate pensions, I don't think the mom&pop individual franchise stores would share the corporate pension debt.  Similar for BSA &LCs.  ... BUT ... that's a whole massive ugly wart of a debate we've had before.  The legal separation between BSA & LCs.

Nice to see.  Often these situations are where scouts can shine.   Strong expertise.  Special unique experiences.

21 minutes ago, Dixit said:

UMC and BSA agree on new "affiliation agreement" which relies on the Council chartered unit model

https://www.resourceumc.org/en/content/gcumm-shares-new-path-forward-for-scouting-ministry

I read the article.  I'm not fully understanding the second part as the UMC seems to be doing slightly more than providing space and storage. 

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

Question no longer, take a quote from this stranger on the internet and be certain:

First class first year is a lie. The skills therein are difficult to master.

I have seen classes of scouts get to Eagle no sooner if they earn 1st class early.

Argument is beating a dead horse argument that has been done over and over.  

First-class-first-year is about planning.  Troop planning / structure should support an active involved scout being able to get to first class in first year.  It doesn't mean the scouts have to get there. 

It's a reflection that the troop program should be planned to enable a driven motivated scout to achieve it.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

My son just asked his best friend why he dropped out of scouting (from another troop).  He said Boy Scouts is 10 hours of boring meetings for every weekend of camping.   He can just go camping without the boring meetings.  Another scouting friend said the same thing.   I am debating if we stop indoor meetings as much as possible.  

Good reflection that society changed.  Twenty years ago, meetings were a way for friends to see friends and socialize.  Now, most do that on-line.  Kids won't leverage forced structures to socialize anymore.   ... BUT, they still want adventures.  ... BSA would be much more attractive if we focus more and more on the "outing".

11 hours ago, Tron said:

Why would she care if the BSA stops to exist? The overwhelming majority of the program is volunteer and local based and something new without legacy issues will rise out of the ashes. 

I would say the reality Silverstein not wanting BSA to die is not about BSA but about the reality that the vindictive get the BSA at all costs BS that surrounds this case is vastly ignorant of the fact that if there is no pound of flesh to get, everyone gets nothing.

@ThenNow has fairly represented the situation over time.  ...  His above posts are correct and reasonable.

Your statement "everyone gets nothing" has truth too; as the judge's wish that BSA continues reflects other unspoken reasons. 

IMHO ... 

• To avoid a far uglier, larger and more costly liquidation case. 
• To avoid re-starting bankruptcy ... after spending 150+ million ... after 29 months.  
• To avoid opening new huge questions that chapter 11 bankruptcy did not address.  
• To get victims as much money as possible.  There is no guarantee a liquidation would mean more money to victims.  
• To get victims money earlier.  Chapter 11 approval puts money into a trust fairly soon.  Chapter 7 would be an unknown future date.
• To avoid creating many more court cases.  Liquidation would be a BSA only liquidation; not a settlement with all involved parties.
• To avoid asking if BSA can even cease to exist.  BSA is not a normal non-profit.  BSA was created by law; passed by congress; signed by the president.  Though usually an honorific, the law has implications that creates a real mess. ... It's like asking if the federal reserve can cease to exist.  It would probably take an act of congress to take BSA out of existence.  ... Would "liquidation" just put BSA into limbo until a future president re-established BSA, say 10 years from now?  ... Starting fresh with no YP oversight from this bankruptcy agreement?  

                    Short and specific  ...  Index ...  Full document containing 30901

• To avoid a huge number of new questions.  ...  BSA national indebted properties (Philmont, The Summit) and their mortgages ... different debt priorities ... the separation of BSA and LCs ... funding pensions ... etc, etc, etc.

There is truth that liquidation could mean everyone gets nothing.  

2 minutes ago, yknot said:

...  It says Read This First. 

Stop here first ...
 

34 minutes ago, Tron said:

This boggles me a bit; I know there is the "not wanting to relive the trauma" aspect of giving a detailed verification; however, if many are suspected to just take the $3500 why is the majority of this thread, the case, and the debate about the money instead of all of the other factors of the settlement?

This case is hugely about money.  Always has been. 

Other factors such as YP improvements started years ago before the bankruptcy and the bankruptcy settlement additional YP expectations are not really that controversial.  

The bankruptcy questions now are wholly about money.  How much is needed?  What is fair?  How can you pay money to SOL time-barred victims while paying less to victims with open, active claims?  How much should each party pay / receive.  How to control manage the legal process spend rate?

52 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Any particular year?

(By legal convention, construction contract completion dates are specified as "Julember, no year stated.)

That was a running joke where I worked years ago.  Work that would never get done had a due-date of April 1st without a year.  Everyone knew the work would never get done.  It was listed that way so people would not try to add the work yet again ... or they could work to get the priority changed. 

3 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

...  The business plan must show that the BSA can meet all financial obligations for the next five years so it is (#1) more than making payments to the trust fund.  The BSA presented a business plan that I assume the judge can accept or reject.  

(#2) The longer this proceeding goes on, the less likely it is that the BSA can emerge Chapter 11.

Dumb questions ...

#1  Payments to the trust fund ...  Perhaps I missed something.  To get out of bankruptcy, BSA must put money into a bankruptcy related trust fund.  Once out of bankruptcy (aka for the next five years), I did not think there were further payments into a bankruptcy related trust fund.  Is that true?  Would the new post-bankruptcy BSA still have debt to be paid to a bankruptcy related trust fund?  

#2  proceedings duration ...  give BSA can show a viable business plan ... and given there is no dispute to that future business plan and ability to continue ... then how can the cost of the bankruptcy proceedings be the cause to fail emerging from chapter 11 ?  It seems that the money that would go into the settlement trust would be (and has already been) the money to fund the bankruptcy proceedings.   Obviously I'm not a lawyer.  It just seems that the money that can pay past debts has already been identified.  That money should go into the trust to close out the legal proceedings and pay debts.  It is just perverted that the bankruptcy legal proceedings themselves would be the cause of a business to fail. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

... This could lay the groundwork for all sides to quickly address those issues in the plan and get to a plan approval.  

I wanted to jump on this statement, but grammatically thinking about it ... I'm ok.  All sides could quickly address the issues, say three plus months.  That's quick in this process.  "Quickly" modifies "address those issues".   ... When they start updating (July / August)?  Not sure.  How quick an update moves thru other hurdles?  

I wanted to jump on applying it to "get to a plan approval."   ... There is no quick to reach a next decision.  ... Negotiating doors are re-opened.  ... Parties will want a better.  A different deal.  ...  Many law firms looking to somehow re-coup their investments. 

Simply updating who represents who will take time.  ...  Add negotiating and agreeing on procedures to negotiate an update would take a month (July).   ... Multiple parties posturing during multiple negotiation sessions.  New vote?  New hearings on updated plan?  At least a month for judge to review / write a new decision in holiday season (Nov / Dec)? 

January plus.  Six plus months at least if this pending decision is not some type of conclusion.  

4 hours ago, Spatulate said:

Reading back over old posts and found this thread. It was useful for me as I find myself in a similar situation. It’s hard.

My sympathies.  It is hard.  I wish you the best.  ...  My only advice is don't let problems linger as such problems poison others experience and can just lead to more issues.

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Just wondering about this.  I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff.  My obvious question is why the LC contribution is so much lower than that.  

https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/bankrupt-boy-scouts-may-have-10-billion-in-land-and-developers-want-it/article_bfd254e3-6517-5695-b12f-db2fe5b79029.html

I've seen these too.  My paranoia says ... is it an attempt to subvert the settlement?  It would be interesting to see if these articles have a common root, as it smells like another manipulation of the legal process.  

On the flip side ... the BSA bankruptcy news has been quiet.  It could be a simple effort to keep the story alive until the decision.

On 5/31/2022 at 8:49 AM, MattR said:

The problem with the methods is that they don't include what youth are really looking for. All scouts want fun with friends and older scouts want a unique challenge (high adventure, working with younger scouts, service, it depends on the scout). To make scouting work they also need to learn how to create this on their own. That's not simple. It's more than organizing a campout every month.

It includes understanding what motivates the scouts, and that's an age old problem. Most people fear the unknown yet every adventure includes the unknown. 

Agreed. 

Mission.  Goals.  Aims.  Methods.  ...  Those words attempt to box scouting into a formalized structured algorithm.  I'm not sure scouting always fits cleanly though a scouting is not any single objective.  Rather, scouting has always been about getting youth together in an outdoor environment to stretch their comfort zone.  Thru that environment, scouts learn and grow.  

4 hours ago, AScoutIsHonest said:

 At 11, he has 7 years left ...

Calendar wise, yes.  Timing wise so things happen well, no.  There is a short window of 2 to 3 years when habits and the scouting experience is imprinted.

Generalizations ...

• 16 & 17 years old ... lots of distractions ... girls, gas, jobs, school, graduation, applying for college ... for scouting, your son will have "habits" on how scouting works ... few scouts change habits during these years ... most can grow experiences or skill or leadership  ... good time for adventure
• 13, 14 & 15 years old ... executing what you learned ... good time for scouts to show leadership in their troop ... learning to lead, stepping up
• 11 & 12 years old ... this is where those new to scouting are still forming habits.  ... learning how the program works

I've taken four sons through scouting until they turned 18.  The years go quick.  The timing is critical.  If things derail, it's really hard to get them back on track before the magic time window is closed.  I can't say any of my sons had an ideal scouting career through their years, but they all had adventures and grew character and learned skills.  One of my son's friends had his connection to the troop implode when they were 13(??).  Out of support, my son switched troops with his friend.  The journey was very different.  BUT, it was still a great journey.  

It's like high school football.  You can always join in 7th grade or 9th grade or 11th grade, but it's harder to become a starter.  The time window is short.  Most do best by following a common pattern that starts in the earliest of years. 

Sadly, these situations don't have an easy answer.  Scouting is great when the magic mix of friendships, adventure and fulfilling the program comes together.  When two of the three happens, it can be painful.  

My only comment ...  Your son's scouting career is short.

• Help him find the positive. 
  • Perhaps it means you and your son sign up for special scouting adventures you both can find.  It's not the perfect scouting idea, but he can be in the realm of scouting and have great experiences.  EXAMPLE:  Go to summer camp with a single camper program that many summer camps offer.  Sometimes these can be great experiences.  Look for other adventures.  
• Perhaps it means protecting your scout from his own SM.  That's sad, but it might be necessary.  
• Perhaps it means letting your son solve his own problems with the SM.
• Perhaps if your son like the troop generally, maybe it will give him his best scouting experiences.  

I cringe at what you describe.  If your son is already butting heads with the SM, it might grow worse.  I'd hope your son would be looking up to the SM as an example.  If that's not happening, I'd really want to change. 

I'm babbling because there is no clear easy answer.  ... except it is okay to protect your son and help him find the right path.

56 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think legal blame really depends on the case.  There was an example of a CO who didn't register a leader and allowed the abuse to continue.  I think COs are clearly to blame in a case like this.

Most COs would never know if there is a leader that is not registered as most COs never had that level of involvement.  It was the rare exception when the CO knew the leaders in detail.  ...  Taking it further, until recently it was always a gray area if someone was a registered volunteer or just a parent or a leader who's registration never got completed.  

For this reason, I can hold the other unit leaders and the parents much more accountable than the CO.  They saw the interaction.  Someone should have spoke up.

58 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

As to perpetrators, charter orgs and councils aren't ancillary entities, in virtually every law suit they are co-defendants with BSA.  They are in fact the perpetrators.  Given the structure of scouting, it could be argued that they are more responsible as perpetrators.  The Charter Org is responsible for the unit, and in the cases where the abuse was done by a unit leader it was the Chartering Org that selected the leader and then failed to supervise them.  The councils similarly are responsible for not supervising both their units AND their chartering orgs.  

COs ... I can't blame them much ... CO ownership was always more honorific than liability ownership ... all people involved in the paperwork knew that.  BSA professionals.  unit leaders.  CO leaders.   Except LDS, most unit leaders were not chosen by the CO except in honorific terms ... can you sign this form?  It was more signed after-the fact and for awareness.  ....  Even twenty years ago, few believed the liability that the forms are now implying.  ... COs thought they were doing a good deed for the community.  Giving space.  Supporting a good community program.  ...  Similar to opening their building for elections or a community meeting.  

Councils ... I don't blame them much either ... THIS IS MY VIEW.   It might not be popular.  ... From what I've seen, it was the standard of care for the time.  If they removed the perpetrator and tried to track the person to keep them out of scouting, they did more than many organizations.  

I believe the circle of blame is ... #1 the perpetrator ...  (less than #1)  #2 the other adults in the unit (leaders, parents, etc) ... (less than #2)  #3 local community (police, school, etc)  ... police were often involved but could not pursue.  schools were the experts with adults working with kids and where scouts recruited ...)  ....   #2a the experts ... CSA was really not well understood or managed or prevented or educated until last twenty years.  I hate marking this has #4 of the outward radius from most blame as the real issue is CSA was not well handled until recently.  I had #2a as #4 except it was the real cause.  CSA was not well understood until last 20 years.

22 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just know that they tried to pass a law  along those lines here in Michigan 10-15 years ago and the local NRA came out against it like they were trying to cut the trigger fingers off of everyone under the aegis of "who knows what they'll try to take away next!!"

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness. 

No humor, but I've had relatives that did similar.  Older relatives that protected their garden with a BB gun or 22 from the kitchen.  

My natural reaction is to defend any person or group that is constantly beat-up / vilified / demonized by others.  It does not mean I agree with them.  I just hate society lifting itself up by trying to label another group or individual evil. 

Opposition is broader than NRA.  Here are two examples.

• NAMI
  •  https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Policy-Priorities/Responding-to-Crises/Extreme-Risk-Protection-Orders
  • "NAMI supports Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) that focus on specific, current behaviors and evidence-based risk factors for violence. NAMI opposes any ERPO laws that target, single out, or discriminate against people with mental health conditions."
  • "Most people with serious mental illness are never violent toward others and are more often victims of violence than perpetrators. Moreover, only 4% of violent acts in the U.S. are attributed to mental illness. Research tells us that other factors — such as a history of violence, misuse of alcohol or drugs, or prior convictions for violent misdemeanors — are greater predictors of violence."
• The Hill .... biased, but interesting points ... 
  • https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/319859-nra-the-mentally-ill-have-gun-rights-too/
  •  

Any reason on theft?  Recycling value of the metal?  Anti-BSA?  Re-sale of the art?  

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

...  Most of the students that approach him are in pain from loneliness. ...

Hugely agree with this!   Thoreau wrote "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."   

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Are outdoor skills in the vision, mission, oath, or law of Scouts?

Not explicitly.  Rather, it's inherently the key part of scouting and has been that way since scouting was created.  Without that element, scouting is not distinctly different from many other groups.  

On 5/28/2022 at 8:01 PM, Tron said:

So what if OA absorbs venturing to become the new fellowship part of OA and makes people really look at wanting to become an OA member to get the benefit of having lodge based co-ed programing that exists past age 18?

My initial reaction was a mismatch.  OA being an elected selection of scouts across many units.  Venturing being yet another unit type.  Not parallel concepts.  ... Also, OA is very much about giving back; service; often to local camps.  

Perhaps, OA could benefit from a partnership with older scout programs like venturing; a symbiotic relationship.  Venturing would benefit from visibility.  ... I don't think it solves the fundamental instability of specific venturing units.