fred8033

Settlement trust is money from BSA's bankruptcy. The bankruptcy needs to pay debtors in sequence and some justified percent. ... I am far from an expert ... If I was another plaintiff if this bankruptcy, I'd be saying that the firm's fees are padded to give their client cash out of BSA's bankruptcy. If the firms were not padding their fees, then there would be more funds to pay all the debtors. It's raiding the cash to pay the debts. ... It's the whole problem with kickbacks.

So the TCC lawyers are not members of any law firm that are representing victims on a contingent basis? Really? If so, I did not know that.

I intentionally avoided asking. It makes me ask if it's legal. Effectively, that "fees" kickback gives one debtor more than other debtors are getting.

Is it all money? It can be intentionally vague. Fees? Hourly fees to administer claims and make payments? Court case fees? 10% percent of their share of the award? I'd want to see the explicit wording on what is in and not in the 10% kickback. Say they bill $100m for court case, $100m for administering claims / making payments and 40% of their victim's share of the award ... say $250m. Of the theoretical $450m, are they sharing $45m or $10m? Or something different.

May 2020. Wow. Reminds me. We're way past two years of talking about this. BSA announced opening for girl membership Oct 2017? Shortly after that lawsuits started. GSA. CSA. I was at a council meeting in 2019 (or earlier) discussing the lawsuits and possible bankruptcy. I'm betting we'll be having these discussions for another two years.

Yeah. I'm just going off the larger 8*,*** number. Originally, the prediction I heard was 1,500 to 2000. Perhaps that was wishful thinking with a rumor mill that kept reducing the estimate.

It's called a kick-back. Customer manipulation. A common form of business fraud. I would not brag too much about giving back 10%. We had a local auto glass replacement company that bragged about giving a box of steaks with every job. Insurance companies complained. Because a job that was $200 then became $230. Common hourly rates in the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars. Who will notice the padding. ... I really liked the article that an auditor was hired to look at legal fees in this case. They were able to reduce charges by $200,000 or so. Then, billed the case $200,000 (or so).

It's like war. Plan all you want, but plans fail when the court battles start. This escalated 10 to 50 times larger than originally expected. It's like difference between walking and driving or driving and flying. The predictions drove the planning and predictions were way, way, way off.

It's like summer camp. Our camp has at least 50 troop sites. I really bet that 30+ of those sites are really good. In those sites, I'm betting scouts think their site is the best. They know it. They have good memories. They want to go back next year. So when your troop chooses to stay mostly separate, I'd bet it's more that they like your troop and have had good experiences. They want to avoid change and the unknown. Those same scouts ... if they had joined with a co-ed troop ... they would only know that co-ed troop and would be perfectly happy with it. ... again ... generally ... most scouts ...

Ummm ... The words manage, direct, operate, etc are not explicitly there. What is there are words such as: "The Chartered Organization, as a duly constituted organization that serves youth, desires to use the program(s) of the BSA to further its mission respecting the youth it supports." The CO agreement says CO wants "to use the (scouting) program". By use, it means it's running the program. Further words are similar to that. Then, each leader app requires a charter org rep signature. The charter org selects the leaders and can setup the program as they want. Those unit leaders are effectively CO representatives running the scouting program. Unit failures are CO failures. Units that don't follow G2SS or leaders that don't get trained or ... etc do reflect CO negligence.

Parents can hang out at all the 2 day and 2.95 day camps. It's when a single camp is 72 hours long or the parent stays cumulatively at that event for 72 hours. Cost ... I don't see much of a solution. I know some game it by registering as MBCs. It is significantly cheaper. Free. Most should register as committee members. I say that as having a parent hang-out at camp but register as an ASM causes issues as they are direct-involvement role. They need to be in-sync and coordinated with SM. Sometimes it's better to have parents hang-out with other adults and let scouts be scouts. Only a few SM/ASM should be directly interacting with the scouts.

Yes with the exception that we don't want side-effects of visiting parents to be a structured youth protection mechanism. It's too haphazard with too much variance unit-to-unit and event-to-event. Related ... G2SS explicitly says ... "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders. The BSA does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program" ... This might have a slight conflict with the 72 hour rule. If the parent is to be at the camp longer than 72 hours, BSA wants them registered with a background check. ... My view is ... The 72 hours is a threshold to say "Come on, the person is really a registered leader and not just a casual parent observing. They need a background check". There is no reason units can't register people who only attend for 24 hours. BUT, if longer than 72 hours (a summer camp or extended adventure issue), they must be registered. FYI ... Parents can still drop in for visits ... cumulatively up to 24 / 48 / 71 hours for that event. BUT, if longer, they need to be registered. I view the 72 hour rule as a YP protection mechanism to call units that might game the system on "who is a leader". Parents attending for less than 72 hours might reduce incidents. It's just not a structured / dependable YP mechanism.

Big swing against the BSA, but I'm not sure it helps the claimants. I could easily see a failed bankruptcy resulting in less dollars for many victims. More for some by actions against their specific LC. Only path out seems to be a BSA only bankruptcy exit. The other parties maintain their liability.

... Electing seems to also beg the overly heavy focus on advancement. Adults fear SPL/PL appointing positions won't be fair to kids looking to advance ... which ignores the reason that Eagle scout was originally so valuable. Eagle scout did reflect someone that could work with others and get things done. ... The more I think about it, electing or adults appointing subverts the program significantly.

Our troop elected most positions. In hind sight, I'd like to have gone by the book. It's part of being a leader to select your team; develop the individuals; figure out how to work together; assign jobs and expect results. With electing, it weakens the chain where the SPL asks others to do something. At least if the SPL says "can you be our librarian", then the SPL has started the conversation and the two youth know results are expected. And a scout asking the SPL for a job is part of growing too. IMHO ... more we can get the adults out and let the scouts work together the better. But electing vs appointing is not a do-or-die. I prefer the BSA published method, but that's me. IMHO, the do-or-die is getting out camping and having adventures. The rest supports being an active youth program.

In my 15 to 20 years of following these discussions, I've seen repeatedly the answer that legally the CO owns the assets. It's the right answer. ... But people still argue CO liability; insurance and who really oversees the leaders.

Happy Thanksgiving

Don't use me as an excuse to post a diatribe.

Great quote. Strongly agree. I'm sitting out the G2SS discussion as I've been in too many. Times change. Laws and liabilities change. G2SS is a sign of the times. At the same time, I've thought a lot about this topic. My heros were John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart. Many of my values started there. ... I think we can teach youth to be strong without violating G2SS and taking excessive risks.

Agreed. I'm betting as a LLC, you still have at least annual paperwork to keep your LLC in good standing right? Otherwise, it can lose it's registration. The topic is not hard, but it's not a big easy button that once pushed it's done. There is needed knowledge and maintenance.

You hit on the main reason "friends of" were to be avoided. It does take a bit of extra work. It's easy to become a 501c3 / charter org. The hard part is the small amount of work every year needed to stay as a valid 501c3. Many will fail to file paperwork at some point and put their status at risk. BUT, most scouting units are small and not targets. ... If you wan to keep running, I think it's a good option.

Five / ten / fifteen years ago, I heard that too. BSA wanted to move away from "friends of" COs. This year I've seen several units re-chartered that way. I'm familiar with the potential issues (legal, structural, etc). I'm aware of at least three units lately that have re-chartered as effectively "friends of" or "parents of". I'm betting if it's losing the troop or "parents of" that you will be able to charter as "parents of". I'm not saying it's a perfect answer, but I'm betting it will keep your troop going.

Charter as a "Parents of" ... or "<city> scouting assocation". Then, you are a real troop that would just meet at the CO. No difference than before.

Thought about this a bit more. IMHO, NCS doesn't apply to unit camping. NCS is a document for those running council camps. https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/national-camping-school/ It's not about units not "knowing". It's that NCS doesn't apply to units. BSA has too much contradicting info. I'd argue that statement in NCS was about units not competing with council camps. Now, it's migrated to G2SS. I'm not sure that's a good change that will last long term. It's like the tour permit. Now local councils need to approve units working together? Sounds like providing a LC paper trail for future lawyers.

NCS ... National Camping School ... I'm aware of it, but I know zero unit adults that have used NCS in their unit. That's always about council staff running council camps. Unit scouters use G2SS. If it's not in G2SS, it's effectively not real guidance to units. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new rule introduced since April 2021. Rules not provided to units can't be held as real rules. IMHO ... there is a line somewhere here. The rule intention seems more about units trying to create something that competes with council / district activities. The rule correctly points out that units are not the right level to do that. ... BUT there is something less that should be reasonable. Units should be able to partner to help each other. Blocking that is just not scout-like and not a good idea.