fred8033

We can only hope.

Perhaps the "Will BSA Survive" should be asked in a different way because I believe BSA has a financial way to keep going BSA has a market to keep going BSA has a purpose to keep going Here's the big question ... will the exorbitantly expensive and purposefully incompetent demented bankruptcy process make enough progress to let BSA survive? Seriously, the patient is on the table bleeding out tens of millions of dollars each month and no one has a clue the when the settlement agreements will conclude. I know it's worse for so so many, but for BSA to survive, this really needs to go to a BSA only bankruptcy now. Put as much in the trust as possible now and move on.

I trust as you say that this is a "explore and see" type of deal. I agree with your wife that this begs everyone to lawyer up. This web site every periodically hosts questions from removed scouters looking to get the situation corrected. Add a publicly visible database. Add broadcasting the info to the world. Add assocation with an ugly, ugly crime. This really does need to be a public database but one managed by the appropriate government or pseudo-gov authority.

Yes. ... Are there two paths? One for criminal activity. One for G2SS violations without actual crime. Will the public database show only actual crimes or also rejected volunteers because they repeatedly violate G2SS? Then, non-crimes are in the publicly shared visible to the world database? The challenge I see is one I have personally encountered (not thru scouting). When I see criminal activity, my mandatory duty under the law is to file a police report. That's the law. Everything else is a nice have and extra hoops being asked of volunteers who donate their time. I hope I get it right, but it's not my professional paid job. I'm going to make mistakes there. My job is to make the police report. Period.

Plus reporting statistics, etc. The volunteer screening database is a huge part of why we are here now. Society wasn't ready. So BSA tracked and excluded problematic volunteers. #13 now expands that and makes it more than publicly visible and coordinates with the rest of society? This just begs a huge new set of issues. The issue is not the database. The issue is BSA owning a national database shared with other organizations. I can 100% guarantee it will become the target of job searches and background checks. It will be a future legal mess. IMHO, BSA should minimize that database and instead focus on the #13 sub point. "The BSA will take a leadership role and re-engage with other YSOs and agencies including but not limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to explore the feasibility of and advocate for a shared national database of adults who have been excluded from working with youths for youth protection related offenses." Such a database is absolutely needed. It can feed statistics, trends, reporting, etc. The problem is BSA owning the database. It's like one company saying they will share their HR employment records with all other companies to let other companies know why they terminated an employee. It would be a mess. When BSA encounters a problematic volunteer, BSA records should show "Membership revoked. See national youth reporting database incident #####."

Short term (10-15 years) COVID has devested scouting. Don't expect a rapid rebound. It's like 9/11. Recruiting nights were killed. It was a measurable loss that tracked thru the years as kids aged. It was consistently measurable. That will be COVID. Those that continued active will continue. A few will return. Most youth though will have found other places to invest their time. I don't see bankruptcy as that huge of a membership issue. Parents are numb to organizations going thru bankruptcy, legal turmoil and having to be structurally fixed. Even after US Olympics ugliness, people continue to support gymnastics. People will continue to attend Univ of Michigan and Pennsylvania. People will still want scouting. If I was 31 again with a 1st grader, it would not have bothered me. Scouting will recover because this country has a story about the rugged outdoorsman and exploring and discovery. It is a unique niche that I don't see filled by any other youth organization. If we say we teach leadership, STEM, etc, scouting will loose to youth sports, robotics clubs, etc. Scouting wins when it's about outdoor adventure, fire, shooting sports, etc. ... It will be 20 years, but it will recover. Parents want their kids outside, off the couch with confidence to have safe moderate adventures. It's a perfect niche for scouting. It's one reason preserving the camps are crucial to scouting. I would absolutely love to brag that my kid went on a 100 mile bike ride like I used to do. Yet, most kids complain about doing a 50 mile bike ride. All my sons are Eagle scouts. All love to camp and I 100% trust them outdoors and I know they love camping and camp fires. ... I think parents will value that.

Perhaps the wrong thread... That is a very useful answer, but not entirely clear or it doesn't really answer the question. Or are you saying, yes the funds in the trust can be used to finance the legal costs to sue the insurance companies to pay out on the insurance claims. Does that move affect agreements that were contingent and now become a fee-for-service drawing cash down? I'm just wondering ... say the fees and contingent services share pulls out 40% of $200m. Now you are at $120m. Of that $120m, would a check be sent to pay the victims? Or, is it all re-invested to sue the insurance companies? I have no right to the funds. But, there is one result that would make me disgusted. I would cringe if anyone is paid their contingent share of an award without the victim actually getting their share too. I would cringe if the contingent monies are paid out, but then the victim share is used to finance the lawsuits against the insurance companies. Insurance rights does not equal cash. It will cost tens of millions or more to settle those claims. If the toggle happened, I'm curious how the finances of the next legal level happens.

Not sure what thread this goes in. It is a question from months ago. If BSA only bankruptcy put cash in trust for victims, is that money then dedicated to go to victims? Or can it be used by victim advocates to fund a next level of lawsuits? I realize the lawyer side could be used as needed. I was wondering though ... say if it was $200m in the trust ... would at least $100m go as checks to the victims? Or could it all be consumed to fund the next level of individual lawsuits?

Well said. That is what I'm learning too. Professor Kingsfield must have an appropriate quote on this.

Asking for clarification. I'll post my understanding to see if it's right. Civil and criminal SOL changes are very different. US Supreme Court decisions establish a line saying that civil SOLs can be retroactive; thus BSA's situation. At the same time, the US supreme court says removing criminal SOLs is blocked by U. S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Essentially, civil SOL changes can be retroactive, but criminal can't be. So, Missouri can't prosecute your abuser unless the abuse happened after the SOL removal or within the previously standing SOL time frame.

Define "end"? BSA exits bankruptcy as a new fresh company? Or approved agreements? Appeals / challenges resolved? Money is in the trust? Money distributed from the trust? If just simply BSA exits bankruptcy ... BSA entered Feb 2020. ... Exit date? ... I have no clue. All legal wrangling? Years. This forum will have a thread on this very topic going still in 2024. I hope BSA can exit bankruptcy this year. ... but it's just hope ...

I'd encourage everyone to find a way to work together. This is stressful and gut wrenching for all. General comments. Your church has a right to be concerned about signing the charter org agreement. It's not honorific. It's a contract. Words matter. ... The agreement says your church would "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies." By signing, it your church is accepting responsibility. Your church needs to have a plan to fulfill that commitment. Maybe it means a board member involved in the unit. Maybe the COR/CC are involved in the church board. Maybe there is a planned staff structure. Maybe there is a reporting structure. ... The key is if the church is not willing to set that up and take responsibility, it should not sign the charter. Your church still owns the unit even if it doesn't re-charter the unit. Chartering is about being active and having members. Ownership is about unit numbers, bank account, assets, etc. If you want to change to another church, you need to work with the current church to release the number and assets. Your church spinning off an independent board with leadership to run the unit and at the same time pursuing a facility use agreement sounds like they want to keep the unit running. It can be seen as good. Getting a tax id is easy. Keeping non-profit records is a bit harder, but not a killer. Youth will notice #1 a new building / facility and #2 adults not getting along with each other. This really sounds like an adult and adult relationship issue triggered by the current chartering challenges.

Hand it to the council and buy the award.

Absolutely. I agree. My pack(s) had to do that multiple times too. My apologies. Too late at night and I probably did not write sensitively. I'm like that. Sometimes I miss being sensitive. I did not mean to put the emphasis on the registration issue. I brought up registration to communicate that you should not penalize the DL because the registrations did not meet the exact award. Often, the registrations are outside the DLs control. My emphasis was on the fill out the award application and get them registered. IMHO, the adult awards are a thank you and should not be treated like the requirements in the scout handbooks.

"need to be registered" is the official answer. The answer I've often seen ... including from our council officials ... is if the person is doing the job, get them the recognition. ... NOW ... it begs why the pack doesn't have everyone registered in the right position. That is very important for training and knowing who works with the scouts. BUT, that's the committee chairs job to get all that straight. Don't penalize the den leader who's often only been in scouts for a few years and rarely has worked with chartering the unit and doing the registrations. The adult recognition awards / knots are about recognizing their investment and saying thank you.

Your situation is horrible and truly unimaginable. I did not imagine it. In my council, there are two more levels between DE and SE. A DE would never be promoted directly to SE. First promotion to a field director. Then, a promotion to a higher level director role. It's a 25-30 year route in my council. I really have a hard time imagining (not saying it didn't happen ... I'm saying I can't envision it) where an SE would give drugs, alcohol and porn. Perhaps I'm just too shielded from ugly things that people can do to each other.

Understood. A personal context is meaningful. The question was about whether someone could be personally liable if the insurance was not properly in place. The DE at the time was probably in his young 20s. Probably first job. Minimal pay. Not an excuse. Just that he was not in a controlling situation. I'd hope he would have prevented the abuse. But as an inexperienced, minimal pay, passing on info he was given, I can't see a court order reaching into the company and having him pay for your victimization. Those held personally liable and asked to pay are more in the Purdue situation (owners, top level executives). I'd expect the DE's boss is in his retirement home and the scout exec from that time is at best really old. No excuses. The question was about whether anyone will be personally held liable. I can't anyone from 40 years ago would be held liable because they were too young or they are in their late years at best.

BSA? National is bankrupt. There is no money there. It's moot. People? The former DEs that were making a small wage at the time? Probably not. They were simply the middle-man for the message they were being given. Negligent medium-level professionals who repeated it in the 1970s / 1980s / 1990s? You need to pull them out of the retirement homes to be sued. The executive professionals who planned / signed the insurance contracts? They need to be dug up to be sued. Local councils? Individually they just don't have the cash to cover the liabilities without insurance. Many would argue the scouting program was happening in the CO's presence; in their facilities; under CO selected leadership. Plus, most LCs could argue they were hood-winked by the insurance problems too. IMHO ... there is no recovery path. FYI ... I forget the thread. A thread said that there are 40,000 to 100,000 COs that could be sued as part of this. I wish I could remember the context. Wow.

When I read this, I think about a single insurance company paying out twice for the same incident. I can't see an insurance company paying out a portion for a BSA claim. Then, later paying a separate portion for a LC claim. And, a separate portion for a CO claim. ... My understanding ... and this is what I'd like to understand ... before the insurance company pays anything to cover a list of incidents, that payment would have to cover the incident as a whole; not just the portion owed by one party. Are we in a multi-billion dollar game of chicken right now? No one can afford never reaching an agreement. Not BSA. Not the LCs. Not the COs. Not the victims. Not the victim's lawyers. As sick as it sounds, the only parties that may do better if an agreement can't be reached seems to be BSA and the insurance companies. BSA because it could go thru a BSA-only bankruptcy. Insurance companies because they can push out, delay and fight liability.

Could suits also face a LC challenge to negligence? If an LC can show relatively few cases and the LC followed procedure to roll them up, the LC could claim it was following trained procedure, doing more than other organizations and was blind to the BSA records showing larger number of incidents? ... I'm not sure it would work, but the negligence tier changes. In some ways, this seems right as it moves general huge level negligence into looking at specific incidents. That seems to be a good thing; extremely painful, but good. I should clarify "good". By good, I mean that I absolutely cringe thinking of someone effectively getting $5,000 to $20,000 for the trauma of CSA. Dealing with the specifics seems to get people their day in court. I doubt it gets more money, but moves away from the hidden abstract and an insulting amount of money.

Great answer. Wrong thread. Perhaps aims/goals/benefits need to be split between where leaders actively invest and where the scouts passively benefit. * Actively invest in camping, outdoors, etc * Passively benefit from character building, leadership, etc. I swear camping overnight in a torrential down pour goes a long way to a new scout building character and far more than almost all scout leaders.

Yet another potential tangent. For revisiting purpose, Let's de-escalate leadership. It's the natural outcome we can brag about. We should invest on fellowship. Youth spending time with youth. Youth working with youth. Leadership will be a natural outcome. Too often the program is damaged by badly teaching leadership. Reviewing this thead. Clearly reflects I need to get back to work.

Absolutely. My youngest son has that on the back of his sash too. I'm not a fan of the metal pin devices to count extra, but it's one way. I'd like to see bragging rights recognition like that. Heck, if for every 25 nights, my oldest could have earned it 10 times before he aged out. My youngest 5 times. ... me ... I've lost count.

Your other points are good. I want to emphasize #1. Originally, Baden-Powell created scouting during urbanization and the loss of scout-craft. Using the military like structure that alienates many. Using archaic skills (heresy, but often viewed this way) that many now just don't care about. I really question "clarity of mission". As a parent, I scream for ways to get my kids outside and getting experiences. IMHO, this aligns with the society valuing "bucket lists"; another version of bragging rights. What items would you like to be able to say you've done? 50 mile bike ride? Swimming? Canoeing? Skiing. Snow camping. Rockies? Zip lines. Horses. etc, etc, etc. Laser tag. Dodge ball. Paint ball. (again heresy). Everyone wants bragging rights. Things to be proud of. ... That's the whole purpose of the merit badge sash. Bragging rights. ... Sadly, today the MB sash is "Look at what I wasted my time doing." ... Remember how I filled out that MB workbook. Remember how we sat in that classroom on Monday nights or that Saturday morning. Look I've got all four citizen badges. I know others might not like it, but the back of a few of my son's sash'es have really cool things they have done. High adventure base patches. National parks / monuments. IMHO, the back of their sash is more about bragging rights than the front. The back tells their scouting story. I really wish the front of the MB sash was for real bragging rights too. How about a stripe (or tent) for every 20 nights of camping. How about another wheel for every 50 miles of biking. Another pear of shoes patch for every 25 miles of hiking. etc, etc, etc. I wish scouting was a great bucket list activity.

Sad thought is the debt may save SBR during bankruptcy. Similar for Philmont with the question of whether the Philmont debt will be challenged. A similar thing may save BSA's IP. BSA's IP value is reduced by BSA's congressional charter that says BSA is a perpetual corporation. BSA can sell assets; such as it's IP. BUT, theoretically a future president (say an Eagle Scout) could restart / reinvigorate BSA. How much would you spend on BSA's IP if you knew that BSA could be resurrected and compete against you? BSA's congressional charter doesn't mean much, but it does mean BSA is perpetual and continues to exist ... even if liquidated. http://www.usscouts.org/aboutbsa/bsacharter.asp That would take an act of Congress to change.