ParkMan

19 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Is this not the entire purpose of requirement 6 of the Scout Rank?

 

Fair.  But it's relegated to a requirement for a rank and it's a handout pamphlet in the Scout book.

For leaders, we've got an extensive online training with talks by professionals in the field.  It's very sobering and thought provoking.  For parents, it's a pamphlet that a youth does with his/her rank advancement.  I think for most parents it's a check-box item.

I think this is typical:

• Scout to parent: I need you to sign off on this requirement for my badge.  
• Parent to scout: What is it?
• Scout to parent:  It says we need to talk about abuse of kids.
• Parent to scout: Ok.  You know abuse is bad - correct?   
• Scout to parent: Yes
• Parent to scout: You'll tell us if anyone does anything bad to you - correct?
• Scout to parent: Yes, I will
• Parent to scout: Ok, I'll sign off on it.

It's in the category of - no one thinks it will happen to their child.

YPT for leaders really makes you think if you are paying attention.  I would believe a very sobering version that parents take every year or two would be a good idea.  Make parents aware of the signs that they go over in YPT.  Give parents steps that they can follow to increase the likelihood of catching a problem.

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

It absolutely is:

1) If BSA is forced to pay and big it will be more on an incentive to allow for such lookback windows to compensate victims.

2) If BSA is forced into liquidation and killed, it may mean slowing these effort down. Unlike the Catholic Church/dioceses (which at the end of the day aren't going anywhere) if BSA is liquidated it would be used as the "see, you'll just kill these programs!" warning.

Either way BSA's the test case for the next 10 years

I think we may be discussing something slightly different - but that's OK.  My point was that while this is an important case legally and for public policy, I don't get the sense that this is one of the primary political issues of our day.  People are certainly sensitive to and feel bad for abuse victims.  There are also a lot of people with a Scouting background.  I suspect that if asked 60% of people want to see both sides come out from this ok.

Everyone is on board with helping abuse victims.  Even from comments here, I gather that people assume that somehow the executives at the BSA or insurance companies will feel the brunt of this.  If local kids Cub Scout packs start shutting down because of this I wonder if we'll see a shift in emotions.  I doubt that shift will ever be enough to affect legislation, but I'm guessing that in many people's minds we'll see more sympathy.  

39 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I'd bet that, in most current cases of abuse, there are provisions of YPT that were not followed.

That is, BSA relies on the goodwill of us volunteers to enforce YPT.  And, when one of those volunteers does not have good will, and intends to prey on youth, they find the opportunity to ignore YPT policies and wreak their misdeeds.

So the question is, is there any way, realistically, to enforce YPT provisions other than through volunteers?

Isn't the real truth here that regardless of whether it's the BSA or any other activity, no activity can ever ensure 100% safety.  

1. YPT is a has best practices an individual should follow.  But, it cannot make the individual follow them.

2. YPT has built in checks and balances - but it relies on volunteers to follow them and report concerns.

Yet, no parent should ever assume that their child is 100% safe from risk.  Don't drop your kid off and assume nothing can happen.  Don't place blind trust in the leaders of the unit.  Don't neglect to ask probing questions of your child.

I would suggest that one of the best things the BSA could do is to have a mandatory 30 minute parent YPT training as well.  Just as a volunteer needs YPT to volunteer, so too should a Scout's parent need to sign off that they have completed mandatory parent abuse awareness training.  No parent training, no Scout participation in the program.

19 minutes ago, yknot said:

Here are a few ideas: 

- Don't recharter COs that aren't actively involved in overseeing units and verifying that YPT is being followed.

- Clarify certain vague YPT BSA policies so they are less open to creative interpretation.

- Encourage integration of units to break down insular unit "cultures".

- Streamline volunteer roles/provide better support so units are not so desperate for volunteers that they accept questionable people or are reluctant to confront issues.

    

These are all good ideas.  To this I would add:

- Have the BSA follow a model similar to Scouts UK where units at a CO are integrated.  Have a unified committee led by a single CC.  This will provide for a stronger ability to oversee volunteer activities and ensure good practices.

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

CHILD USA and multiple state legislatures strongly disagree with you on this point. I have spoke with the both groups numerous times about this case and the matter of state by state SoL reform.

Guess it's just me then.

But - I don't think I'd change my point.  I don't think this specific case is enough to drive legislative action.  Sure, the principle may be something that people still advocate over. 

Do you really have groups telling you that they want to expand the SOL to specifically go after the BSA in more geographies?  Which groups are those again?

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'll also state that having separate LLCs does not mean they are necessarily separate.  For example, my company has 100s of LLCs ... but if my company went bankrupt, they wouldn't be able to say certain LLCs are not bankrupt as they are 1 corp.

Given that, I do wonder what is the legal framework.  I think the financial side is concerning.  For example, can a council leave BSA, take the council assets and join a different scouting organization?  Lets say BPSA ramps up and my council takes its camps, employees and assets and redeploys them to generate BPSA units.  Is that allowed?

 If you equate this to the franchise model ... owners of franchises can clearly take their profits/assets they own from one franchise business and use it for other, different franchises.  I've seen this when an owner left a Quiznos to open up a Subway.  This is where the franchise model gets murky in BSA as I don't believe councils have the ability to keep all of their assets (post rebranding).  Is that enough to not call them legally separate, I'm not sure.

I'm looking for some documents that would clarify that.  I found a fairly recent annual council charter agreement.  It's at: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/mission/pdf/523-027_WEB.pdf

I see nothing in here that binds a local council to send assets to national if they decide to leave or dissolve.  

There is the BSA Charter and Bylaws.  A copy is at: https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Charter_and_Bylaws_June_2019.pdf

In the BSA Charter and Bylaws it says:

Quote

Upon termination of a local council charter or dissolution of a council, all rights of management and ownership of local council property shall become vested in the National Council for use in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. Local council articles of incorporation and bylaws shall include or be revised to incorporate this provision at the time of chartering or the next charter renewal

So let's assume that my council had done this and put a section in it's bylaws that says it will send it's assets to national if it dissolves.  Couldn't the board of the council simply just vote and change the bylaws?  

The council agreement is an annual agreement.  As such, a local council could just say - we're not going to renew next year, then change it's bylaws, and move on.

As I see it - as a separate corporation the LC could easily decide to jump from the BSA to the BPSA.  

I see as inherent in all this is an assumption that this would not happen.  Why else would a council exist if not to be a part of the BSA.  But, with all that is going on, I could easily see councils doing exactly that.

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

When I survey the map of "closed states," even considering those with pending Victims Rights Act legislation, many of them have legislatures controlled by BSA and/or RCC-inclined Members. Some of these pieces of legislation have come up years in succession, only to die in committee. I know one state has the legislation parked in a committee controlled by a Representative who is Catholic and involved in Scouting. I am not saying that necessarily inclines him to vote against the legislation, but as a matter of fact he is vehemently opposed.

All that said, as I mentioned several days ago, the current political climate, coupled with the way the claimant side is reacting to the Plan and the amplification of it in the press, I think some VRA legislation could be dislodged in the wake of the case. Maybe. Those who feel totally safe today, may not be in the not too distant future.

Maybe it's just me - but I don't think this case is a big enough deal to influence legislation.  

The BSA is feels the heat and so will be pressured by publicity.  Similarly, this is important to the claimants and so they will feel passionately about it.  Like anything, a vocal minority has enough impact to get favorable articles in the press.  Yet, for your average person I just don't see that they are that inclined to pick a side here and advocate on their behalf.    Everyone is sympathetic to abuse victims.  Yet, few people like lawyers.  Many people were also involved in Scouting as a kid.  It's a no-win situation.

This is why I'm expecting a settlement that makes neither party happy, but leaves the BSA functioning.

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The point is however the National charters these LCs, sets the Rules and Regulations and is the receiver for any/all assets should the LC disband. National reserves the right under the Charter and Rules and Regulations to audit, restrict, and direct LCs at National's will or whim

The plaintiffs argument is that given the above, that LCs are NOT independent (although they may exercise a great deal of autonomy).

Let's see what the judge says.

Agreed - will be interesting to see what the judge says.

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Not knowing a ton about franchises, I have looked at this more like the employee vs. independent contractor scenario, which is more familiar to me and provides a number of boxes to check to see which is which. The BSA and LC's want to say these are completely "independent contractors" who do their own thing, not sufficiently directed and dictated to by National to be deemed an "employee." I know this is apple to oranges, but bear with me.

When you do a test of employee or indie contractor, you look at the factors of control, autonomy and influence on behavior and the overall relationship. The IRS has a 20 Factor Test, with three categories under which the points are sorted: Financial Control, Behavioral Control and Relationship of the Parties. To avoid applying all the factors, which is not the test one would use for this relationship anyway though I found it helpful, I just can't see how the LC's could be ruled independent, legally autonomous and "uncontrolled" entities. The various and specific Charter Rules and Regulations, especially the rights to subsume assets upon disbanding, do not bode well for a finding of independence. I'm not saying this as a claimant, just trying to look at it as objectively as I can.

We shall see, indeed.

Without going too far into a tangent, there are two other factors of why this is so muddled:

1) People tend to look at the actions of the employees and not the board.

The professionals are structed in a high autocratic model.  As such, the culture is one that drives employees to follow the instructions of the Scout Executive.  The SE's career path is dictated by national.  This drives a lot of uniformity in the professional ranks.  

The board, on the other hand, is more independent. 

2) It's a non-profit

It's without doubt that the board signs off on following some national policies too quickly - but it's really just because it's a non-profit and economics are not the driving factor.

I gather the legal definition never contemplated a case like this.  So to your point, while they are separate, they may not fit the legal definition.  I'd submit that the separate legal structure is there - but the professionals in the BSA have really confused it.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think that is one of the debates in the courts.  To me, this is the #1 question on the table.  How liable are our local councils? 

My understanding that if the court determines that LCs are separate and there is no negotiated settlement, lawsuits could start against COs and LCs.  Then, the state court where those lawsuits are brought would determine liability on a case by case basis and results would follow state law.  If these cases then drive LCs into bankruptcy court, that court would take over for each LC.   I wouldn't be surprised that councils in certain states would end up in bankruptcy court if there is no settlement.  

I will be very interested to see how the court rules on LCs being legally separate entities.  Is there a timetable for that decision?

It very much strikes me that the LC are separate - though the BSA's need for brand control and uniformity makes it seem that they are not.  We have our own budgets, build our own camps, control our own programming, drive our own membership.  We just have to do it all according to BSA policies, have to hire BSA trained people, at the higher levels we have to hire people with BSA experience, and have to have our facilities accredited by the BSA.  

It almost strikes me that it would be a court decision on how independent individual franchises are in a franchise model.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Thing is, when a family strongly wishes to have their own "day", and then the event is not well-attended (because the Scout and/or family was not well-regarded), it does tend to make it sour for them.  You can lead the horse to water...

I was the worst at attending these - even as Troop Committee Chair.  There's only so many hours for volunteering and since so many of them were on a Saturday afternoon I was always doing something else.   In our troop of 50+, there might be 5-10 Scouts there.

To me this was another reason to do them at a Troop COH.  Better to have the whole troop there on a normal Scout night to see the event than the 5-10 that knew the Scout well enough to go to their special event.

1 minute ago, Kamala said:

I am overall overseeing the process and helping out with some specifics.  Usually we tag on an Eagle Court of Honor after a regular Court of Honor.  We usually don't have a problem with attendance.   The SPL I agree can help with this.    I have been in scouting now 20 years.  All the troops I have been in with my two sons, the Eagle Court of Honor was usually organized by the parent(s) with guidance from the scout leadership.

It's funny - I don't know where that tradition started.  Our troop is that same too.  I suggested changing it when I was committee chair only to get a very stern "why do you want to mess up our Eagle Court of Honor process."  So I left it alone...

Sounds like you've got a role similar to another troop I am familiar with - a very experienced Scouter served as Eagle Court of Honor advisor.  That made a lot of sense to me.

1 minute ago, Kamala said:

Yes thank you that is the best way although our committee meetings are over Zoom still which makes this difficult as things get lost in translation when looking at people's faces.   I feel I need to have a sit down at the next meeting with the committee chair.

Good luck!

When I was troop committee chair, I used to stress out over getting Scouts to do things.  Then I realized two amazing things:

• Scouts are great at committing other Scouts.  It's a wonderful skill for them to learn
• Scoutmasters have a lot of pull to just say - "I need you to do this at the ECOH".  Parents get that and will respond.

The kicker is that it's exactly how a Scout led troop is supposed to do it.

Bigger picture comment - I've never been a big fan of parents organizing an Eagle COH.  It forces parents to figure out how to put together an Eagle COH everytime and puts a lot of stress on them. In addition, that usually then adds yet another event to the troop schedule.  But that's a different topic for another day.

If in general attendance is good and this is a one-off, then I would suggest that the SPL needs to appoint a scout to each slot. My specific recommendation:

• The Scoutmaster requests a list of positions needed from the mom. 
• Scoutmaster turns to the SPL and says - appoint a Scout for each open space
• The SPL works his/her magic.
• If the SPL cannot fill the spots, the Scoutmaster appoints people
• If the Scoutmaster can not fill the slots, then fill them with older Scouts.

If we take a giant step back - the question I would ask is why?

Sounds to me like the Scoutmaster is trying to fix a problem (helping at the Eagle COH), but using the wrong tool (service hours).  If the Eagle COH attendance is such a problem - why is that?  If getting service hours is a problem - why is that?

There are probably much better solutions to those problems than - use service hours to get the Scouts to help at the COH.  Figure out why kids don't attend the COH.  Perhaps make the COH more meaningful or easier to participate in.  If service hours are the issue, then perhaps schedule service hours during a troop event to prime the pump.

I bet if the Scoutmaster addresses the real issue, it will be better for the troop and the Scouts.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Congressional Research Service did a write-up on this several years ago.

In short, the Congressional Charter is looked on as an award and an item from a bygone era. Nowadays there's a semi-firm rule AGAINST issuing new congressional charters, as the CRS report notes (Ending Charters—Maybe).

The idea is that these are meant to be independent PRIVATE entities that happen to get their business license from Congress and not, say, your state's secretary of state corporations division (where most entities are incorporated).

That said, Congress did try to yank the BSA Congressional Charter in 2000 for the Dale case (refusing to allow homosexual adult leaders in). That effort failed.

Kosnoff has asked for years for Congressional hearings on the BSA and Congress has just as consistently said no, that as far as they are concerned the Congressional Charter is, in effect, meaningless in terms of Congressional oversight. BSA is not a government entity. It is not a quasi-government entity.

As for champions in Congress, think optics. Right now, all the public knows is 95,000 sexual abuse claims against BSA. No one is going to rush in to be BSA's salvation or to try and protect BSA assets (which will then almost certainly be spun as BSA and the bad politician trying to deprive sexual abuse victims of what is due to them).

Once the bankruptcy ends and the new, "rebranded" BSA comes out, maybe. But not now.

 

Understood 100%.

In the world of optics one can be both proactive and reactive.  Yes, in a reactive sense coming to the rescue of the BSA might be a difficult thing - though I'm not sold that's so true.

Let's remember that Scouting is a 100 year old organization.  Yes, the BSA is struggling now, but many, many people benefitted from it over time.  I suspect that there is a great deal more warm feelings for the BSA than many people realize.

Putting that aside - in a proactive sense, there is a story that one could tell about how scouting is a good thing.  The argument would be that scouting today has been left unchecked and as a result has made bad choices.  Congress, by devoting some attention to it, could clean up the issues that concern people and put scouting back on the right path in the United States.  Think less "rescue the BSA" and more "rescue scouting for kids from the BSA".

America loves a redemption story.  Taking something that is motherhood and apple pie and redeeming it can be a win.  

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I don't know the detail or if there is anything substantive involved, but doesn't National present an annual report to Congress on the state of Scouting? (I've often wondered why/how the matter of the abuse has been avoided in that discussion, but that's another point.) Does Scouting have a champion or sponsor in Congress or someone with whom it has a liaison relationship? It seems like there are great options to explore and discuss, if there are such relationships. Scouting has man people in high places and I would think these discussions could be had. That said, I understand no one was wanting/expecting to be in the position of considering "alternatives" for HA and other key properties. Just wondering out loud.

In 2016 for example, 10 US Senators were Eagle Scouts.

I've often wondered the same thing.  Seems to me that it would be in the interest to the US to take this category of organizations and give it additional oversight.  I think we all would welcome an inspector general as well to oversee the operation and youth protection programs to make sure that they are operating in the best way possible.

19 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The outstanding programs at the high adventure bases (HAB) would no longer exist if taken by the federal government.  There are limitations on group size in many of the parks and monuments.  Remember Bruce Babbitt as head of the Department of the Interior under Clinton who banned Scouts from the parks?  His policy was modified but who is to say a ban could not happen in the future.

There may be some possibilities about the NRA designation - but don't know for certain.

I think back to the inclusion of many of the national battlefields.  As I understand it, that designation came into being when the NPS inherited the properties from the Army.  I'm wondering if a similar thing could occur here - call it a national youth recreation area or something like that.  You could even hire the BSA to operate it as a concessionaire.

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In 2012, BSA National insurance was $47,977,628 PLUS $20,469,404 in claims (see page 16) for $68,447,032

In 2019, it was $134,789,765 PLUS $85,436,251 in claims (see page 19) for $220,226,016

And the 2020 numbers aren't even out yet. So, yeah having your insurance load TRIPLE in 7 years is going to necessitate some dues increases.

And this doesn't even factor in local councils and their insurance, which they are now authorized to have up to $12 in insurance premium fees (in addition to $66 for council activities fee) added on.

Thanks for the numbers - this is very useful to have.

Insurance is crucial and critical to what we do - it's unfortunate that a byproduct of so much of what happened is the increases in insurance premiums.  I suspect that in a roundabout way they will impact the settlement numbers as the BSA will need to figure out how to keep dues manageable enough to attract members, still pay these premiums, and also still pay into the settlement.

20 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For Philmont, this could easily fit into the Antiquities Act as a Philmont trek is a recreation of many historic ways of living.  While I love BSA having this property for high adventures, making it available to the nation as an adventure option is a great idea.

My sense is that Philmont is the one HA base that works as a National Monument - though probably not a full park.

There might some argument for others such as Northern Tier as a National Recreation Area.  The Summit you just annex as part of New River Gorge NRA.

It would be a fascinating idea for the NPS to develop some sort of new youth category - be able to use places like Philmont for their intended purpose under the auspices of the ownership of the NPS.  Expand Philmont and the other main HA bases so that they can be used by any similar youth organization.  The GSUSA for example.

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Initially, I thought about it related to the squeeze being put on you guys via reductions in revenue and all. I was hoping, I guess is the word, that it wasn't merely being felt at the street level. I retracted the question as somewhat irrelevant because COVID and otherwise declining revenue are intermingled with the impacts of the Chapter 11, so it's hard to tell which is having an impact on what and whom. Sounds like "hurt" is pretty much widely distributed, by whatever ripples are now in the pond from which rocks one can't say. When a company is going through crisis, laying off workers and freezing salaries, it always galls me when/if there are no such austerity measures being felt in the C-Suite. That's what I was pondering.

Gotcha - thanks.  

Myself, I don't even think about national that much anymore.  I'm a district level volunteer and so I live in the world of unit health.  What national does certainly impacts us, but they more or less do what I need them to do and don't get in the way too much. 

As part of my volunteer work, I've seen enough at the council level to recognize that we really do operate as a council independently of national.  The layoffs we've had locally in the professional ranks have more to do with Covid and membership loss than anything.  No one at national is telling us who to lay off or how big the staff should be.  The board looks at our budget and cash flow and then works with the SE to figure out the staff we can support.

What I'm getting at is whether the BSA execs have meager salaries or giant salaries and drive Ferraris, it really doesn't impact things at the council level.  The only thing it really impacts is how big the dues are that we all pay to national are each year.  It's without question that we all want to pay less in dues, but it's such an abstract number that I stopped sweating how it might be impacted by professional salaries.  My guess is that dues right now are more a factor of insurance premiums than anything.  What's going to ultimately kill dues at the national level is what happens with insurance.  

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

As I've tried to be, I'm going to be very transparent. When I read the press coverage and looked at the Plan to confirm the $6000, I cried. If it had been $50,000 I would've felt very differently. I would've believed they were taking this seriously. 

I'm truly sorry that you felt so hurt by the offer. 

$50,000 for 85,000 claimants is $4.25 billion dollars.  I can't imagine that with 85,000 claimants a settlement that high is even possible.

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...

While I cannot speak to senior executive salaries, I know that several executives have been laid off.  Right now they are thinning the executive ranks as they reduce the numbers of areas and regions.  Both national and local councils have been laying off staff as well.

Why is this a concern for you?

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

100% correct and this is going to be painful.  I want my son to have the experience of going to Philmont that I never got.  I would love for him to go to Summit for a National Jambo. More that that, I want him to be able to go to the annual summer camp at a BSA site, to Klondike (which is held at a BSA camp) and my daughter to have a crossover at a BSA camp.

I believe the only way to get any outcome that preserves any part of BSA is to be 100% transparent and open book.  Get a full accounting of usage of every council property.  Full accounting of every councils financials.   If there are deed restrictions on properties, show them and have them vetted by the court. Then, make a fair offer that is likely a large percentage of available assets.  I think that leads to survival and likely the best outcome for our program.  

I think the BSA is not being fully transparent and that is risking our entire program.  Perhaps it is an impossible ask given the size and scope of the effort required given the timelines that need to be met.  The good news, for now, is the program continues.  We have scouts going to Philmont and a great signup for summer camp.  I have 4 Eagle Scout patches here, waiting on upcoming EBORs.  I just hate seeing these clouds on the horizon. 

I think we're very much on the same page here.

I'm all for finding a level where the BSA and LC can really contribute to a meaningful settlement.  What I fear is that regardless of what the BSA offers, the lawyers will continue to call it shameful.  $500+ million is a lot of money but it's called shameful.  Is 2x or 3x that going to change anything?  Scouting simply cannot get to $1,000,000 a claimant - it's just not there.

I have no idea how one arrives at a reasonable number.  Open every book and have an independent audit of everything and pay that - perhaps that's it.  Of course then we'll get into debates about what is really needed and what is not.  The lawyers for the claimants will always try to extract more and more - it's their job and obligation.

What I worry immensely about is that by making this discussion so abstract (i.e. national and LC having assets of $4 billion or vilifying national and LC), we're hiding the real conversation.  People are picking sides and trying to figure out the winners and losers.  Really - the only winners here are lawyers.  Everyone else here loses.  

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

An organization's lack of oversight led to the sexual abuse of 85,000 youth and they are offering ~10% of their net worth to never have to think about that again.  It would be one of the lowest settlements I have ever seen in a sex abuse case.  Why not $0 and a I'm sorry card?  That should be enough, correct?  I would measure it in relation to their net worth (including all assets).  To me, 75%+ would be close (around $4B) to the correct payment if you really believe the organization ended up with 85,000+ victims.

If you don't like that, then don't say you believe everyone.  Fight every claim one by one.  Identify the real claims and then make appropriate payouts for those where BSA failed to provide proper oversight.  Short of that, you need to make a substantial cut from your total net worth.  Its tough to say .. "yes, we believe all 85,000 were victims, we are sorry, and here is $6K while we walk away with most of our valuation".  

Nice try to spin my statement.

Granted - 85,000 cases of abuse occurred by volunteers in Scouting.  If the organization was more vigilant, it could very likely prevented most of those.  The BSA was not more vigilant and as a result many kids were abused.  That's without question. 

Today, that same organization is trying to put a number on a settlement.  The assets of the organization are almost entirely all program assets. The more of those assets you sell, the less the organization can serve youth.  The higher the settlement, the less Scouting can do it's job.

My point is - let's just be honest about the tradeoff here.  Increased settlement for claimants results in fewer program assets (camps) for kids.

That's the tradeoff - no?

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Thanks. I do appreciate that.

I feel like whatever I say, on this score, is not going to be acceptable (to you). I refer you back to several of your fellow Scouters and their responses to the Plan. They have more contextual credibility than I ever will. As I recall, a handful of them pretty much said the same I did.

The one thing I will say, by way of a sideways answer is: $6000? Seriously? 

Thanks!

I'm curious to explore that reaction:

1. Why is $6,000 bad?

2. Why is $14,000 or $20,00 better?

3. What is the right amount?