vol_scouter

Scouting on the local and national level is volunteer led and professionally guided. So local councils have committees all chaired by volunteers in a hierarchical structure that report to the volunteer executive board. The executive board hires and fires the Scout Executive who is the council CEO. The structure of the national council is just the same with all committees chaired by volunteers who develop the program, policies, and standards for the BSA though many require national executive board approval. The national executive board is composed of volunteers who are CEO’s of primarily Fortune 500 and many Fortune 100 companies. The national council did have a chief scout executive who was a professional but Roger Mosby came from the volunteer ranks and is the president and CEO of the BSA. In addition to Roger, there is the Chair of the national executive board and the national commissioner who constitute the national K3. Hope this helps.

Perhaps the statues are a key to some of the desire to retain the Summit. The statues are of major donors and many are national executive board members. Doubt that if any of us gave a substantial gift would like to see it sold. There are several buildings on site as well that required sizable donations to construct As someone else pointed out, when councils are forced to sell camps for which they have cared and improved for decades, there will be a need for a summer camp. The Summit is within a day’s drive of half of the US population. When Dr. Bob Gates was Secretary of Defense under Obama, he said that it was not likely that the military would allow future national jamborees. That was the impetus for the Summit. I personally doubt that the Summit could be sold for $350 M so it would not be a surprise if more is owed than its value. A last point, the BSA argues that the high adventure bases are core to its mission. If one is offered, the TCC will argue that all should be sold.

BlueandSilverBear, you just revealed the likely end game (by the way, you are right about the local councils though few are as powerful and capable as Circle Ten). The TCC, Kosnoff, and others have been wanting to get to the COs. Suing the CO's will at best force the BSA into a new model and at worst could sink the current Scouting movement because there would be no place to meet if the CO's all pull out. But the real reason is those attorneys are eyeing the previous largest CO in the BSA and the one that the charter was through the LDS church and not individual stakes. The attorneys are after the $100 B of the LDS church. All is clear now.

The BSA was honest. It conveyed to the councils that the goal was to due a channeling motion and to keep them out of the bankruptcy itself. Their advisers indicated that was a likely scenario. The BSA always said that there was no assurances that would work. From the beginning, local councils have known that they would likely have to contribute. The amount of contribution is likely much more than anyone contemplated.

Since negligence is defined in law but is often determined by a jury who sees a victim and deep pockets of the BSA [will not be deep pockets in the future], then the answer is zero and is unobtainable.

Thank you for this update! It is a good outline a to where the bankruptcy stands. This whole process is interesting and maddening at the same time. Some days I am optimistic that a settlement is near with all sides feeling like it was not what they wanted but is acceptable. Other days are filled with pessimism that the BSA, local councils, chartered organizations, and insurance companies are severely crippled. Those thought and emotions are maddening. The process and how law is formalized and performed is fascinating. It is not hard to understand how attorneys really like the practice of law.

So what level is adequate? There are 84,000 cases out of an estimated 130,000,000 alumni of Scouting which is 0.065% {neither number is truly accurate but should at least be order of magnitude estimates}. So that is not good enough. How much better must it be? What is acceptable? Seems like you are demanding an unobtainable perfection. To say that is not to say that legitimate claims deserve compensation so no need to say that again. The problem is that the number of claimants exceeds the ability of the BSA and LCs to pay. Even crippling amounts are not reaching levels that the TCC is saying is what has been paid in prior lawsuits. So either the claimants will get far less than they are wanting or the BSA and LCs will be crippled at best and maybe cease to exist.

As I keep repeating, if this drags outpast this summer, the BSA will be forced into liquidation because it cannot emerge from bankruptcy. The BSA must make the filing but it will be forced nonetheless. The attorneys have said that they are fighting for the most money possible.

CynicalScouter, Please read my post again. No where did I say that the TCC is asking for liquidation. There is an implied expectation of $102 B but because it is so far greater than the value of the BSA and LCs, it is being used to push for more money. If the TCC is making a large estimate, the maximum amount of money is most likely from the liquidation of the BSA and LCs with the insurance companies contributing generously. The attorneys say that they want to get the maximum amount of money for the claimants (just established that it is likely through liquidation) so without saying anything, the TCC is after liquidation. If the attorneys are trying to get the maximum for the claimants, then they wish liquidation of the BSA, LCs, insurance companies, and big payments from the COs. That might not be the most likely scenario but it is the one that maximizes claimant settlement. The BSA will soon be no longer able to present a reasonable business plan to emerge from bankruptcy and will be forced in Chapter 7. Yes, I realize that the BSA cannot be 'forced' into Chapter 7 but it will have no other options. Strang said that he did not care about the survival of the BSA or LCs. Perhaps behind closed doors, the parties are close to an agreement. Based only on what they say, the BSA could be forced into Chapter 7 liquidation and the LCs could soon follow suit.

When the TCC is requesting $102 B, the liquidation of the BSA and local councils seems at least possible and perhaps probable.

Before now, I have read a number of the cases. There are many horrific accounts. Beyond that, I have cared for patients who were abused as children and, like PTSD, the results can be ruin lives and relationships. I have never said that people who were abused should not be compensated nor have ever called them names.

I agree with you on this. Such a change in the law is very likely to occur if it comes to a vote because it is hard to vote against such an emotional issue. My view is that statutes of limitation for civil liability have a purpose that serves the good of the society. In my case, I was in Scouting in the mid to late 1960's. To my knowledge, all of my adult volunteer leaders are dead. The council professionals have long since left Scouting and several are dead. Were I to sue for anything, the local council and BSA have little manner to defend themselves. Memories of all who might be still alive will all be suspect. As several who were affected in Scouting have noted, it is often a very long time before they come forward, if ever. Clearly the two are conflicting issues. My personal bias is that there should definitely be a statue of limitations. Where to draw the line could be determined by statistical survival information so that when it is not likely to have many survivors after the passing of some number of years, that defines the limitation. Conversely, the time could be determined by the length of time that memories can be maintained with some accuracy. It would provide defendants some expectation of being able to defend itself and a long period of time in which someone has to decide to pursue a lawsuit. Such thoughts do not materially affect the current case but could provide a more scientific approach in the future.

So the opposing attorneys have requested the documents but not the judge. So the BSA has not defied the request of a federal judge. Attorneys make requests all of the time for documents and, at times, do not produce them. That is nothing out of the ordinary. If the judge requests the documents and they are not produced, you will have a valid point. Before that time, the BSA attorneys have a reason(s) not to do so.

So far, there has been requests shown in these forums where the attorneys have requested this information but I have not seen a request from the federal judge. Has she actually requested the information. As to the debt payments, one was made in the past couple of years leaving a substantial debt.

The Reuters article said that as much as $429 M had been loaned to pay for the Summit. Where did the money come from - a loan. That loan has not been repaid. Your argument has no validity unless you can explain where the BSA got such a large sum of money.

I truly doubt that number one has any validity as the people involved are honorable. The Summit has had more buildings and development after those articles were written. The valuation at $350 M has never made sense to me as the property as is would only appeal an organization such as the BSA and those cannot afford it. The $42.8 M that the BSA quotes seems much more reasonable. I suspect that the BSA fears that if any high adventure base is considered not to be core to the mission, then all will. Clearly, the BSA is following legal advice that could have to do with issues that none of us have considered.

If you recall carefully, at the Denver NAM, the attorney from Sidley Austin representing the BSA was who confirmed those assertions. Perhaps, all concerned were surprised at the direction that the bankruptcy has taken. All seemed to believe that the process would not require much time and that negotiations would result in a settlement. One could argue that a negotiated settlement was never likely based on the differences seen today but that was not what was believed. The Summit was purchased at great expense and has not been paid off. My guess is that what is owed is near or greater than the assessed value. At that Denver NAM, I had a visitor representing a large national scale organization who was amazed and very complimentary at how open the BSA was in discussing all the issues. Many attribute decisions to all sorts of incompetent or nefarious reasons but having been peripherally involved, that has not been the case. The best decisions have been reached based upon the best information available at the time. Unfortunately, the actual course has not gone as planned or anticipated. In my view, it is, as is often the case, due to many different things that were not anticipated or of the magnitude that has developed. It seems to me that the claimants representatives are publicly advocating for an amount of money beyond the ability of the BSA and the LC's to produce. It is not clear that the insurance companies are contractually obligated and able to pay what is being demanded. The CO's signed a charter agreement where the BSA assumed liability so it is to be determined whether the CO's have actual financial liability. One way or the other, it is not clear that the $102 B is a feasible amount. That is a large impediment. No doubt that both sides are doing some posturing to try to get the settlement that they wish. Hopefully, there will be a breakthrough where the BSA and the LC's survive and legitimately harmed persons get meaningfully compensated.

As someone who personally knows most of the upper management and executive board of the BSA, yes, I believe that they are honorable men and women who have hired the best attorneys to represent the BSA that they could find and are following the advice of counsel. The BSA is paying for the best attorneys available and follow their advice. Why the course is not something that is clear. The BSA would be foolish to not do as they are advised. You cannot provide where the money originated to purchase and prepare the Summit for the first National Jamboree. My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off. Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA.

So you cannot provide a source of the funds to purchase the Summit. At prior National Annual Meetings (NAM), the debt and payments where in some of the documents provided to some committees. While I cannot speculate as to why these attorneys considered among the best in the field are taking this tact, you are not able to provide any reasonable manner that the BSA could have paid for the Summit and reported on debt payments at NAM. Even in shell games, someone must supply the money that is moved around. In this case, it seems to be J. P. Morgan provided those funds that the BSA is trying to pay off.

The BSA attorneys are supposed to be among the best in this area of law so they have reasons. So please let us all know where the money came from and who purchased the SBR because the BSA did not have the funds. The BSA has been making payments on the debt. Why if there was no loan? Please let us know where the money came from and why the BSA is making large debt payments.

Amen! The BSA borrowed an enormous sum of money to purchase the Summit Bechtel Reserve (SBR). There have been some donation and some donations in the form of life insurance and other funds that will go to the BSA upon the death of the donor. The cost and debt of the SBR has been much of the controversy surrounding it. Some lending organization(s) had to provide the money for the purchase and the debt is far from being paid. While I am not certain that J. P. Morgan was the lending institution, I believe that it was. I am certain that the debt has not been paid - not even close to paying it off. It is likely that the BSA still owes over $300 M on the SBR and that J. P. Morgan is legitimately owed that money.

ThenNow, I do not agree. I want to relieve pain and suffering, cure when that it possible - that is maximize the benefit to my patient. Our professions are similar though when patients arrive at the hospital and need care, I cannot turn them down for treatment and must provide the same standard of care to all. Attorneys can turn down any case. The tort system and a sense of trying to achieve justice are not doing well at this time. My attorney friends laugh derisively when I talk about justice - they tell me that the first day of law school they were told that law has nothing to do with justice. I would like to think that they are a poor sample or are not truthful. Sorry for the pain and anguish that you have suffered. I have cared for patients who were sexually abused as children and the problems are often life long. It seems to me that the best justice is the conviction of the perpetrator that seems to be unavailable to you. Financial compensation, in the experience of my patients, brings much less satisfaction. May the end of this process, whatever the outcome, bring you some peace and resolution.

No one is advocating denying anyone their day in court but getting $412 M dollars for the attorneys seems unjustified. They should have the amount that they earn in what is essentially a single case and not make a lifetime of money in a single case. If they are genuinely concerned with the welfare of the claimants, then they would take only the portion of their yearly earnings times the percent of their effort for the year (or whatever the time is). Making many hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions is not right. (This is about their personal earnings - not about paying for research, etc.)

Clearly, you have challenges in reading comprehension. Your logic is simply wrong. Attorneys should not be able to charge such exorbitant fees as in this case 30% of the ~$1.4 B being offered. As a physician, about 20% of the patients that I saw were 'no pay', i.e. they had no insurance or means to pay so I saw them in attorney terms, pro bono. About 60% of my practice was Medicare that does not pay well and sets physician fees. For hospital care, Medicare assigns how many days that the admitting diagnosis allows and that is what one gets paid. So perhaps a patient is admitted for pneumonia and the DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) is 4 days (this is illustrative as I have not seen the DRG's in some time). That is all that you get paid. If the patient needs to be in the hospital 6 days, you still get paid for 4 days. Same for the hospital. So neither of your options are accurate, were implied or stated, and are certainly not Scout-like.

Well the BSA has been making loan payments for the Summit for years. J. P. Morgan loaned the money to the 'BSA' or some other entity that the BSA is paying. The SBR is worth little if anything.