T2Eagle

I don't have any specific ideas at this point. I do think that similar to the various safety agencies there should be specific published reviews that show where things went wrong. We have a fair number of rules in place, and while none of them are unimportant surely some of them are much more critical than others. Looking at Faithful Scouters examples, all are good rules, but how critical are they? Eagle projects with no adults. Easy to argue that adults make the activity safer, but how directly would an Eagle project run by scouts lead to the abuse of a scout by an adult? Scout leader giving a scout a ride home alone, that's an easier line to see so maybe we should really emphasize how bad that is. Background checks, a necessary and good idea, but how many already convicted child molesters do you think those catch? We should have access to actual incidents with detailed professional analysis of not just what went wrong but why something went wrong. What were the critical decision points along the way where either a poor decision, a bad decision, or a non decision allowed something terrible to happen.

I agree with her about the trade off between compensating victims vs HA bases. A small percentage of our scouts go to a HA base, but virtually everyone of our scouts, Cub and Scouts BSA spends some time at our local camps. There are plenty of ways to do HA for the number of scouts who do it, reproducing summer camps and Cub day camp is much harder.

I was specifically referring to the Ineligible Volunteer files that were made public by court order back in 2012. I'm sure they keep records on members against whom they've taken some action since then. I'm just not sure how or whether they would keep allegations about someone that they received years after that person was no longer a part of the organization. If I understand correctly, you were a scout in the 70s. Although it's possible, it's unlikely that your abuser remained in the organization for much past that time. I'm not sure they would have any computerized record of his membership. So when you sent a letter where would they record it? Start a new record for him based on the letter? Try to resurrect a paper file that's likely moldering in a warehouse somewhere? I genuinely don't know what they would or could have done with it.

Out of curiosity, was your abuser still in scouting then? I'm not sure what anyone could have done with that letter if he wasn't. The ineligible files, as I understand them, were lists of people BSA or councils had taken some action against. And I believe they stopped maintaining the lists as such prior to 2008.

I think it's really important to distinguish between the two types of LCs, those in the revival states and those not. Those in the revival states know that at a minimum their non restricted assets are gone. A settlement that involves monies from the other LCs might save some camps and allow the downsizing to be rational. For those in the non revival states it's a lot more complicated. There are several hundred claims attributable to my council (I forget the exact number), but my understanding is none of them are current, and for what may be within the current SOL we're insured and have reserves. So any contribution we make is for the purposes of a) hedging against a future change in the law, b) a desire to do the right thing for folks who were injured, and c) a contribution to the well being of scouting nationwide because we believe scouting should be available to all American youth not just parochially. If you look at just (a) as a business decision than how much really is that worth? The probability of a law change is low, and the probability of the current litigation pulling in our assets is low. If you ignore (b) and () altogether we might be better off shielding our assets and spending some money lobbying. But b and c matter and so I know we're planning on having to make a good size contribution. I don't think many councils are telling people this will cost us nothing. But the balance between a, b, and c is going to vary across the 250+ councils. I wish councils and BSA were much more transparent in general, but the unfortunate tendency among many organizations is to be stodgy with info and accentuate positive rather than negative info. ,

It's hard to decide where and how to jump back in to the discussion after the big slow. I think it's still better for everyone, especially the majority of claimants if some universal settlement is achieved. If settlement talks collapse, that really shuts out claimants from any state other than the current states with revival or extended SOL periods, which I believe is somewhere between six and twelves states depending on how you count things. Within those states, filing suits against the LCs will probably lead to bankruptcy proceedings for just about every council. It's true that fully litigating an individual case is still really difficult, but as Eagle 1993 noted the verdicts of a few or even one case are probably more than any council can cover. But these bankruptcies will be less complex than what BSA is trying to do. Each council will have assets that are either restricted or unrestricted. That is assets that can be gotten at by creditors and assets that cannot be gotten by creditors --- no matter how worthy their claim. Lots of camps will be lost, and lots of endowments defunded. But not all camps will be lost, because some of them simply are beyond the reach of any creditor. There will be some painful and difficult challenges with reorganizing councils within those states because the losses will be arbitrary, some of the best operating camps in the councils with high membership will be gone, while some of the smaller less developed camps far away from population centers will remain. COs will be all over the place in terms of what happens to them. As I mentioned in an earlier post, neither of the COs that sponsored my units as a kid even exist today. For COs like the Catholic dioceses, suits from their scouting program are probably just a subset of suits they'll face because of the SOL changes, so they'll be pursuing their own strategy. For some other COs, I think about the other units in my hometown and they were sponsored by the local Elks club. The Elks are still there, but much smaller than they once were. They own a clubhouse, which may or may not be available to a creditor, and are probably lucky if they have three months cash in the bank. Any suit against them is going to settle pretty quickly because there's just not enough there for it to be worth fully litigating. And all of this is again only for those claimants who live in these states. For all the talk of pending legislative changes, I looked at the list, and most have failed or are failing. I can't speak to all the jurisdictions, but I do know both OH and MI politics very well. In both those states the bills have been introduced by members of the minority party without any cosponsors from the majority. Those bills have zero chance of passage absent a sea change in the control of both houses of the respective legislatures. If the current BSA settlement charges collapse, it would almost be a breach of fiduciary duty if councils in non revival states don't act aggressively to shield their assets from any potential future claims. I'm dismayed by the time and especially money that's been spent without some agreement on basic facts, like how much of national's assets are restricted vs. non restricted, but I think that too many claimants may end up shut out of any compensation if a settlement isn't reached.

The party that will be named in a lawsuit is the CO, that's who the Directors and Officers of the troop are. Whoever is running the CO should certainly have D&O insurance of some sort.

A couple of points for clarification. Although SOLs can be extended, for criminal offenses they can't be made retroactive. So if a state today removes the SOL for criminal prosecution of child abuse that doesn't mean that every abuser in history can now be retroactively prosecuted, it only means that crimes that are today within the SOL will have that SOL extended going forward. Things are, as we see, very different for civil cases, SOLs can be retroactively extended, hence the problems facing BSA and others today. Where invoking the fifth amendment comes in is that if in a criminal prosecution the state wants to compel testimony from someone who has invoked their right not to self incriminate, and use that compelled testimony against another criminal defendant, than the prosecutor has to extend immunity for any associated crimes to the person whose testimony is being compelled. Regarding civil cases, a person can invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify, but that isn't treated the same way in a civil trial as it is in a criminal trial. In a civil trial the jury or judge can then make adverse inferences about the the plaintiff based on that refusal.

The thing that has bothered and challenged me for a long time is that scouting where I live doesn't even look like our local high school or the local sports leagues, drama clubs, high school bands, etc. in terms of diversity of membership. I live in a pretty median mid-west suburb. If you go to the local high school you see a fair number of kids whose ethnicity is clearly Middle Eastern, Asian, Indian Sub continent, Hispanic, et al. But if you go to our district camporee the ethnicity is almost uniformly white. There's no reason to think there is any disparity between their parents in terms of perceptions of costs or safety, since these kids are all pretty much in the same socio-economic class and other wise are participating in all the same other activities. When I bring this up to my fellow scouters, pro and volunteer alike, I get a shrug of the shoulders and "well I guess those kids just aren't interested in scouting" which is nuts. These kids all wear the same clothes, listen to the same music, play the same video games, consume the same media, and otherwise are pretty uniform in their activities and likes, but somehow "they" just aren't interested in scouting. I don't know the answer to how to change it, but I'm pretty sure the problem lies with us not them because pretty much everyone else that eithers serves or markets to young Americans has figured how to keep their groups and products a reflection of America, while we serve an ever smaller and less representational slice.

Ask a different agent, or ask the agent again. The whole point of umbrella policies is that they cover things not covered by your homeowners policy. If being involved in youth activities as a volunteer was really that risky you would know about a lot more claims and be offered insurance as part of every kid activity you're involved in. So you probably don't need it. But it's relatively cheap and brings some peace of mind, so I have it.

LCs clearly are coming to the table as we're seeing camps being sold even in closed states. The decision to sell a camp is a very emotional and fraught action to take, and is fought tooth and nail to the extent in can be even under the best circumstances. That LCs are contemplating it and moving forward actually is a sign of real seriousness. I'm in a closed state, and we have two camps that in normal years are financially self sustaining. I know we have cash assets and I know we'll be in a position to make a reasonable contribution. But I doubt we'd get to the point of selling a camp until there is a compelling legal decision that says we must --- and it's still unclear to me that such a legal decision is a sure thing. As to the COs, certainly any organization that has served youth and is in a look back state is aware that their state laws changed. But how deep is their legal jeopardy is a very different question for them than for either BSA or even an LC. If we're talking about claims from decades ago, for any individual CO there are probably only going to be one or two at most, and they're going to be difficult to prove even in a friendly state court. Assuming a plaintiff can find a lawyer willing to take on one individual Elk's club or single Methodist parish, that case is going to settle out pretty quickly. And you have to find a CO to sue to begin with. Both the COs that sponsored my units in the 70s are simply gone --- they don't exist, there's no one to sue, and nothing to pay. For COs in closed states, they're really not a party to this. They face no legal jeopardy unless their state changes its laws, and it's hard to imagine a church or service organization deciding to pay today to hedge against some hypothetical future legislative change. I don't know how much more "acceptable" the plan is going to get. Restricted assets are restricted, there are real limits on how much is actually available to pay claimants no matter how worthy their claim.

I'm going to assume the "crossbows" mentioned in the article are actually the compound bow(s) in the original posting.

Have you read the new one? I haven't seen it, but my own council sent out an "all is well but with a subtle message that we're going to have pay into the fund" note. Usually these things are circulated boiler plate that every council uses a version of.

You've posted that Black Swamp article twice recently. It's not from two weeks ago, it's from two years ago --- before the bankruptcy was even filed. You've also mentioned that BSA keeps talking about "ask" and "voluntary" when talking about LC contributions. That's what they will be, there's no mechanism today that would force LCs, especially LCs in non look back SOL states, to make a contribution. My council has been up front about the possibility that we'll need to make a contribution, but the devil is in the details, how much and in return for what. I don't know what the message has been in look back states, clearly they're going to be on the hook more because the same people who could file against BSA national can file against them. But even there the devil is in the details, as soon as lots of suits are filed locally the local council will go into bankruptcy and all the same issues will apply: what assets are restricted what are non restricted, what's actually available to a creditor, etc. I agree that transparency and forthrightness has been lacking in some cases, a characteristic of BSA that has always frustrated me, but it's also important to remember there are still a ton of unknowns in this case.

With few exceptions a non profit cannot be forced into liquidation. These can be long drawn out court battles, years even, if everyone wans to fight rather than settle. And the issues aren't at all clear how they'll come out, so everyone would be rolling the dice with no surety of the outcome. So settle, IMHO is going to be what happens. BSA is going to have to sell some big assets --- more than they want to, LCs, even those like mine that have no SOL change, are going to have to pay --- more than they want. Claimants are going to get paid --- less than they want. But the least likely outcome is BSA shutting down.

I'm really curious how you arrive at that conclusion. Walk me through, step by step, how you think BSA shuts down. There are tremendous issues of both fact and law at play here. BSA has literally billions in assets, not a single dollar of which has been awarded to any creditors or claimants. I can't even conjure up a series of events that results in BSA, let alone your local council or troop, shutting down this summer.

One thing I've been puzzling through, and haven't seen a good explanation of is whether or how a universal settlement now prevents currently unknown time barred claims in non look back states from being opened in the future if a state changes its SOL and does a look back period. If anyone has seen a good explanation please share it.

A couple thoughts on some of the previous comments. I'm curious what YPT violations folks have seen that they think should have been acted on but haven't. Compliance with YPT rates should be taken with a grain of salt. BSA's record keeping, especially with respect to training has long been atrocious. I'm not even sure today that training and membership are actually the same database, rather they are in different databases and then some reporting function tries to tie them together. Making registration and recharter contingent on up to date training, which has been the rule for a couple years but is hampered by poor IT, should solve that fairly easily, although that may require prioritizing some systems upgrades to really make it reliable.

If everyone has to have a valid for the charter year YPT, than pretty soon doesn't that just end up with everyone having their expiration date become December. Mine expires in June, so if I needed to follow that rule I would have had to redo this past December then I would be good until December 2022. And then every other December I would renew. Of course this is almost what happens now. Anyone who hasn't renewed when theirs expires ends up renewing before recharter. So at this point there are probably more than half a dozen leaders who have expiration dates in December.

I'd really be curious to see any actual data on YPT. I don't know that I've ever actually seen any. i've seen plenty of assertions that it's among the best, and as I mentioned above it seems pretty standard to the other training I've received. Has anyone on the boards here ever seen any actual stats?

Many, many moons ago my old Contracts professor told me never assume things will go right. It's what happens after a breach that matters. Assume everything has gone wrong, ask yourself if whether, when everything has gone wrong, the parties are where they want to be when everything has gone wrong. If so, you have a good contract.

Vested means owns and agreements are legally binding. What is VESTED? Accrued; fixed; settled; absolute ; having the character or giving the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. See Scott v. West, 03 Wis. 529 <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/vested/" title="VESTED">VESTED</a> What is AGREEMENT? A concord of understanding and intention, between two or more parties, with respect to the effect upon their relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances. <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/agreement/" title="AGREEMENT">AGREEMENT</a>

So the triggering event for all the assets to vest in National is the end of the current charter if it's not renewed. 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. Assume your LC's charter expires 3/31/21. If your local council doesn't renew than 3/31/21 is the "termination of the local council charter" and that's the day "ownership of local council property [becomes] vested in the National Council". You can't revoke or disavow the agreement/contract after its provisions execute. It's akin to saying I'll pay you $100 when you finish painting my house, and then when the house is painted you say I've decided not to pay because my house doesn't need painting any more. Your council as a corporation could continue to exist, but at least in theory it would need to do so without any property or money because that would all belong to national. This provision is probably pretty enforceable if a council really does just decide to quit and join BPSA, the question is whether BSA radically changing the terms of the Charter, like demanding millions of dollars for a renewal.

I live in Ohio. For something like the VRA to pass would take a massive change in the political landscape. Just a few years ago we tightened SOL rules for even basic contract cases. For a state like Texas the shift would have to be even larger. The incentive to pay to settle, and I know my council anticipates that as a very real possibility, is that the current situation is bad for everyone, it's always worth some money to reduce uncertainty and this could act as an insurance policy against VRA laws, keeping your own assets at the cost of BSA going down in flames is pennywise pound foolish, and as I outlined above being independent is not entirely settled so even winning that argument could cost you as much as you're going to be asked to pony up now. The statement TAH posted above certainly lays out the view that the councils want to have, but it's not any kind of new or renewed stance that you can read anything into. It's from two years ago and mirrored what pretty much every other council stated at that time.