vol_scouter

When National Scouting Museum was next door to the National Service Center in Irving, Texas, I was able to tour it a few times.  I was told that the collection was only the Norman Rockwell paintings of Scouting that had been on the cover of Boy's Life.  Some were later used in calendars.  From what I was told, the BSA has never owned any Norman Rockwell paintings other than those commissioned by Boy's Life.  Unfortunately, I cannot claim to have definitive information, but I have been told the same multiple times by people who are knowledgeable.  

As to the ownership issue, I believe that the BSA believed that they had the ownership of the paintings.  If the ownership is claimed to not be solely the BSA, it might be contested.  I sincerely doubt that the leadership would have concealed that fact.  

It is a shame for the BSA to lose the paintings for future Scouts to see and it is a shame that the paintings will likely be worth less sold within a short time of one another rather than over many years.  What must be must be accepted and we must move on.  It would be difficult to make the case that the paintings are essential to the core mission of Scouting so are an asset.

Hopefully, this will be settled quickly.

The last I knew, the BSA owned all but one of the Norman Rockwell paintings that were on the front of Boy's Life.  There were volunteers trying to secure that last painting and I do not know whether they were successful.  

That said, the Rockwell paintings were acquired over many years as gifts and, I think, a few were purchased.  They did not come as a set.  Where Brown and Bigelow fit into this scenario, I do not know.  The Rockwell paintings are on loan to an art gallery in Ohio right now.  So maybe Brown and Bigelow have a role in loaning the collection.  If Brown and Bigelow have an ownership stake, I have never heard about that.  So that does not mean that they have an ownership stake, but it is not clear to me how it came about.  It would be an interesting story.

20 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Well waters have definitely muddied now with the Bankruptcy Trustees objection. What do you think Hoochie Coochie Man @ThenNow

What is the basis of the objection or another place holder?

@ThenNow  Sorry that this happened to you.  Don't let it get you down or discouraged.  Good luck.

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I know. Just give the guy a Monday morning chuckle.  I am not saying these shouldn't wander and I've stated a number of times how little I envy the job of moderating this forum (or any forum). What I'm trying to point out is that on/off-topic is kind of subjective, regardless how important the thread. There seems to be a hairtigger when it comes to a few of us. Not understanding someone's humor as it is woven around a substantive post should not be grounds for deletion. Personal annoyance for lack of appreciation of the brand of comedy is one thing, but I'm not sure if deletion on that grounds is an appropriate act of moderation. But, then again, moderation is also subjective and relative. I'm just amused as I see what stays, in the full light of what of mine goes. My question always ends up being the same. "Should I stay or should I go now?" (Nod to The Clash.) 

All true.  Most of your humor, I follow and enjoy and appreciate.  Some references I do not understand so miss the humor which is annoying since it is clear that it is to be funny.  

Some things that have been pulled I do not understand while someone else seems to do something further afield with no action.  With several moderators with different points of view, it is of little wonder.

I believe that most all of us appreciate your comments and insights.  We all are sympathetic and horrified to your experiences.  Personally, I hope that you are a long term poster here providing wisdom and insight.

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I'm just pointing this out for my own amusement and that of some of my fellows. I have been Wack-A-Moled many times for being "off topic" on a thread. Here we are at Christmas trees, wood chippers, chainsaws and churches. What's the name of this thread again? That would be a great name for one. Just sayin.   Ha. (Let's see if this gets deleted for being off topic.)

The moderators have a tough job and have been much tighter on controlling the information in the bankruptcy threads due to the importance (I am inferring).  Often, topics go various and sundry places, but all is good if about Scouting in my opinion.  

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Do I think the end of the bankruptcy will go beyond February 2024?   While the trust will definitely still be open (per plan I think it goes until 2036 or so), and large payments may not be paid by then ... BSA will likely have emerged.  I'm not 100% sure, but with TCC & likely other major law firms talking it sound like we may have a plan that can go through confirmation.  Yes, the courts can definitely disrupt this ... but I still don't see it take until beyond Feb 2024 for BSA to exit.

I do think there is still chances for major setbacks.  For example, I would not be surprised to see the DOJ push back on any attempt to confirm a plan without sending it out for a revote.  Perhaps the judge disagrees but district court agrees.  Then you are talking perhaps May timing when the case comes back to bankruptcy and another 4 months or so for vote, tally, etc.  Even assuming everything goes smoothly, that 1 issue could push the bankruptcy back until October 2022.  Now what happens if district court rejects CO coverage ... that is a much bigger deal and could push this thing into 2023.  I just struggle to see paths to get this all the way to 2024, but I'm sure they exist.

 

That is a bleak outlook for the BSA.  It cannot continue to pay $10 M per month in legal fees.   If that bill is drastically reduced and the membership increases, then it might be able to continue.  
 

This process has been very traumatic on victims and has been trying on all Scouters as well as those who work in Scouting.  So though you are likely correct, I am hoping for a quick resolution. 
 

30 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The Plan as put to a vote, or as changed so far to date, or are additional Plan changes anticipated?

And why no objection by the TCC? Also relying on a prior objection, or does this signal an agreement of some sort?

That would seem to be the implication from the TCC comments earlier that an agreement has been reached, but I am not in the legal profession.   The update from my council executive board meeting was positive but there was emphasis that there was still much to be done.

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

He made restitution, was quickly back into the same industry and remains there (to the best of my knowledge). 

Unbelievable.   He deserves to be punished.   

@ThenNow  Well he at least got some punishment for his crimes.  Still, should have been convicted for not protecting you.

9 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Sorry. I’m being unclear. He was DE of our small council and became SE of the entity resulting from the merger of several. He got “bigger” as the council did. Thus, “SE in transition.” The council office location even remained the same.

So it is hard to know what happened.  My guess is that this DE was well liked by board members and had not alienated board members of the other councils in the merger.  So he was a peace maker.  Technically, he advanced to a 'new' council that had not existed before.  In some ways, these details are not important.  What is important is that he at the very least was not trying to protect youth and at worst was involved.  He should have been investigated and possibly tried for crimes.  Wish that had happened.  Wish even more that he had not only done his job but had done what is right - protecting children and youth.

@ThenNow There are several possibilities for what you describe.  As others have said, the usual hierarchy for most councils is Scout Executive, Director of Field Services, Field Director, and District Director.  I believe that it has been a policy that one could not advance beyond Field Director in the same council so that one changes councils from Field Director to Director of Field Services and then another council change from Director of Field Services to Scout Executive.  The HR department at national determines who is qualified to apply for a position.  So it usually takes a few years at best to go from a DE to SE.

Some thoughts about this are that some very small councils might have only one or two DE's and an SE.  That DE (could also be a District Director) could have duties and responsibilities that overlap with a DFS so the person could be allowed to move up.  Alternatively, there could be extraordinary circumstances where a SE is needed quickly and the DE (or DD) has some or all qualities and they are allowed to move up.  The Executive Board of the council may request a particular person and hire them though national does not agree.  The DFS may have had to function as a DE due to no DE and the look would be one of a DE moving to SE when it was really a DFS.  Finally, there could be some misunderstanding in the designation.  Could also be some combination.

Seems to me that the key facts are that a professional was at least enabling bad behavior that led to child abuse.  The professional transferred to a more authoritative position in a nearby council and the behavior continued.

We must all be vigilant so that such episodes cannot happen now and in the future.

It is terrible that such acts have damaged your life.  My prayers for healing.

@Eagle1993  That sounds really hopeful that we might soon see an agreement that will be approved.  We can all begin to move forward from this difficult two years.

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

As I said before if they were named in the original policy they will still have that coverage. 

First, I do not know how they are designated, by name or a group (councils) that is defined as charter holders.

Second, if the liability policies are part of the trust, then I would imagine that the value of those policies belongs to the trust.  Policies are usually written to provide some amount of coverage per incidence and a lifetime maximum for the policy.  So say for a particular year the policy was $1 M per incidence with a $20 M maximum for the year length of time that is the period of the policy.  Say that there were 3 cases that year settled for $500,000, $1,000,000, and $500,000 for a total of $2 M dollars for the covered period.  That would mean that the trust would have $18 M.

Third, let's say that the chapter 11 is for the BSA and that LC PQR gets sued for $2 M and loses.  So then this state court could compel the trust to pay $1 M from the $18 M leaving $17 M in the trust from that insurance company.  

Fourth, the implication is that the trust will decrease with time.

Is that what I am to understand?

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The insurers will not be paying anything under a BSA only bankruptcy rather the insurance policies themselves will be part of the trust. 

So then the LC's will not be insured as almost none (maybe none) had their own liability policies.

38 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

If the LC’s were insured in the policies it does not matter who paid for them. 

So if the National Council contracted and paid for the policies with ABC insurance company who then pays into a trust for a BSA only Chapter 11, then a local council gets sued the insurance company is still liable?  It is true that the BSA can pay to cover any part of the organization that it is mutually agreeable to the BSA and the insurance company.  However, when ABC insurance company pays into a chapter 11 and the BSA effectively ceases to exist (it is a 'new; entity free of debt), ABC is no longer insuring the BSA or any part of the organization.  When an LC gets sued, will it not be on its own?  Otherwise, insurance companies could be liable far beyond what they agree to insure as far as total amount of claims.  Not trying to be argumentative but this seems wrong but that does not mean that it is not the law.

The National Council contracted and paid the liability insurance in past years.  Local councils had some accident policies but typically did not carry liability insurance.  So if the insurance companies were in this current bankruptcy with the corporation that contracted and paid for the liability insurance, I don't believe that it will be available to local councils or CO's.  The local councils will be unlikely to have liability coverage.  The CO's might but will argue that the liability lies in Scouting and not the CO's. 

8 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid question, but here it goes.

If BSA does a BSA only Chapter 11, what happen when LCs and COs get sued? How will the insurance that both LC's and CO's paid be handled? Will insurance companies say "not our problem" or will they be brought into the additional lawsuits? 

Interesting question since I believe that the National Council contracted for the insurance coverage.  The insurance companies will likely maintain that they will cover claims against the National Council but have no obligation to the local councils.  I am not an attorney and have not seen the contracts so take it as what it is, second or third hand.

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

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.  

That is an interesting possibility.  
 

8 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

We shall see. 

I certainly hope not because the current proposal or a modified plan is accepted so that we all can move ahead.  

Just now, johnsch322 said:

If there is a one year delay in this bankruptcy more and more states are opening up. Yes local councils and insurance will fight but will ultimately have to pay much more. 

You will be surprised that they do not have the funds that many assume.  Attorneys, witnesses, depositions, etc will chew up much more money.  My crystal ball sees little for lots more time and distress for claimants.  Several lawsuits will cause local councils to file for bankruptcy where they will contend that camps and offices are core to their mission.  Their restricted accounts will be found to be restricted in nearly all cases.  They are non-profits and cannot be forced into chapter 7.  There just is not much more to pay.

Local churches tend to have no assets other than the church itself so those will not be taken.   Insurance will claim that they paid in the national suit.  Some councils may have some extra coverage but I doubt it.  Churches will say that they were no responsible for the volunteers and their insurance companies will say that they are not liable.  Those issues could go either way but will be contested making the investment to sue larger.  
 

I might be wrong but I see little likelihood of significant payout.  

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I think you may be mistaken. It would not be a having to start over situation and would make what ever the state courts decisions are as restitution. For many that would be much more than is in this plan. 

So for those who are in statute of limitations barred states, the current proposal is the best resolution unless the governor is about to sign a change to the statute of limitations into law.  They will go from something to nothing with only a slight chance that the laws will change to their benefit.  For those in the minority where there are no statute of limitations barring them, they might get more but the local councils will defend themselves and the extra will be less if any more unlike many here think.  Just my view from my knowledge of many councils.  
 

Like the previous posters, I see the Scouting movement continuing.  What happens to the BSA and local councils will determine how Scouting in the USA is organized.

As to the fate of the BSA, please factor into my comments that I am not an attorney that means a lack of understanding of the details of what is occurring (I thank the legal professionals for posting here to help us understand).

My feeling is that there will be some agreement that includes the TCC through mediation that will result in approving the Chapter 11.  There will likely be some more money added to the trust in the process.  It seems to me that the agreement being offered is near the maximum that would likely ever be available in a trust or other method of distribution.  I know that some disagree on this but it is my opinion as someone with institutional knowledge.

In this scenario, Scouting will recover in a few years with a smaller and less able to fund large projects BSA.

From my council experience, putting the Chapter 11 and COVID behind us will result in strong growth for a few years until near where we were before COVID and bankruptcy.  The BSA plans to have a rebranding campaign after Chapter 11.  If that campaign is successful, there will be more growth.  The campaign would have to be spectacular to achieve the projected growth in my opinion.

It seems likely that small councils will want to merge with neighboring larger and healthier councils.  However, I do not see this as widespread as some here. 

Councils will be challenged financially so volunteers will play a larger role in the council functions.   The tight financial situation will spur the Executive Boards to scrutinize their Scout Executive more than usual resulting in better performance in some whereas some will find themselves looking for new jobs as the EB will replace them.

So I see a Scouting going forward though financially strapped.  It will have to assess needs more closely. The SBR might need to be sold if a solid business plan cannot be adopted.  Otherwise, it will drain an organization that cannot afford it.  The problem is that there is enormous debt on the property and it is hard to know who would want to buy it.

Supply division warehouses are part of the proposed settlement so I expect local Scout Shops may be replaced by online.  Pure speculation. 
 

Just my thoughts as someone involved for decades locally and nationally.  

@ThenNow  OK, got it.  I know that there were some disagreements that were handled in some manner.  Remember that the Scout Executives are all from professionals and historically could not compete for upper council management (usually above Field Directors) positions in the council in which they are serving so Scout Executives in large councils have likely served in three or more councils.  So the ability to conceal the local situation is not always possible.  Also, there is a lot of camaraderie among the Scout Executives as one sees at Top Hands each year.  So it is likely that there was some cooperation knowing that all had to work together to achieve the requisite result.  No doubt that some discussions were 'spirited' but, somehow, they found a solution that all were able to agree upon whether smiling or not. 

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

 

Someone is violating Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. 

The local councils are independent 501(c)3 corporations that voluntarily formed an ad hoc committee to carry certain functions including determining how much each council should contribute to a claimant's trust.   The governance of this ad hoc committee must have been transparent to the councils but the details the formula was developed has not been released.  The information that was used has been made available to the Scout Executives but not how it was weighted.  There was general agreement with the methods and the formula was applied.  To my knowledge, all councils approved their share to go to a claimant's trust.  

Does that clarify my comments?