vol_scouter

For months, the approval has been set at ~2/3 and that has now been achieved.  Seems to me that the BSA through mediation met the standard.  Clearly, the judge is the final word but Omni confirms that it was accepted. 

9 hours ago, MattR said:

I assume they have as much access to that information as we do. So, they're likely scrambling about figuring out how to deal with losses from covid. I do know that my council has lost staff. Whether they were laid off or found better jobs, I don't know.

The local councils have meetings with the BSA National officials from time to time.  Those meetings are typically informational and might provide predictions or information a day or so before it hits these pages. 
 

Local councils often leave positions unfilled for several months to save money or to increase flexibility in uncertain times.  So your council could just have openings that they have not been able fill or some combination of conserving money and being flexible.  
 

I have heard nothing about the vote except there is hope that the plan is going to pass.  

12 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

^^^^^This

From G2SS:  "Parents and youth are strongly encouraged to use these safeguards outside the Scouting program. Registered leaders must follow these guidelines with all Scouting youth outside of Scouting activities."

What I do outside of Scouting is none of BSA's business.  If my son wishes to have a friend over (with his parents' consent), and my wife is not at home for an hour or so because she is running to the grocery store, we'll be just fine, BSA, thanks... 

And can you imagine this conversation?

"Dad, is it OK if Jimmy comes over after school? We would like to work on our science project together, and then do some gaming."

"Sure son, if his parents say it is OK.  Let me text his Dad real quick to verify...  OK, his Dad says he will pick him up after work.  Will Jimmy be staying for dinner?"

"Nope, he is going out with his parents, and needs to be home by 6."

"OK, fine.  I'll be here working in the yard.  Mom won't be home from work until about 5:30.  Wait...didn't Jimmy join Troop XXX last month?"

"Yeah, why?"

"Sorry, you'll have to cancel.  BSA says I cannot allow that, as we will not have two adults here."

Actually, our humorous solution is that my son and I agree to quit BSA temporarily until the activity is done.  When we are done, we mentally reactivate our membership.  But, we are always Scouts.

This is the kind of stuff from BSA that the average person just shakes their head at...and it kills confidence in the organization, and generates results like the OP.

Oh, and where is the exception for family members?  We have a Scout who just turned 18.  He is a senior in High School.  His brother is a sophomore.  Are you telling me the older brother (now a registered ASM) cannot be at home with his younger brother after school while his parents are at work?  If you interpret the text according to the letter, the answer is, ridiculously, no.

The issue is that if a youth under the circumstances that you outlined were to be abused, the BSA can be liable.  Youth have been abused entirely outside of Scouting with only the initial meeting of the perpetrator and victim occurring in a Scouting setting with the BSA being liable.  So while your points are valid and well taken, the BSA must show that it has made Scouting safer for youth.

I do not know if there is a happy middle ground or what it might be.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

One strategy, which the court hasn't really ruled on, is the following path.

1) Keep fighting National BSA until they simply cannot afford CH11 and they then volunteer to go CH7.

2) Court appoints a group of trustees to run BSA.  Their job, just like all Ch7, is to maximize value for all claimants.

3) That group of trustees then pulls 100% of charters from all LCs.

4) Per LC/National charter agreements, once a charter ends, all LC assets are turned over to National.

5) Bankruptcy court liquidates the entire organization, and has 10B or so in assets.

First ... I doubt the whole LC thing could/would happen, so I'll ignore that.

Second ... with a National only CH7 case, yes, the pension fund would be in line.  The national pension board will ask for $XB.  However, they are an unsecured creditor ... so, they will be placed in other groups of claimants.  They are not necessarily fully funded before claimants.  That is why those with pensions typically see pension cuts post CH7.

I HIGHLY doubt National goes CH 7.  Even if the doomsday scenario above doesn't happen (which I doubt it could), going CH 7 means you lose total control.  Everything is simply sold, including all trademarks.  

It is very doubtful that the assets of the independent local councils would ever go to national.  Our council would not agree to that and our state's attorney general will fight the transfer of any council's assets within our state.  We could pivot to a youth service organization and continue a youth service mission.

The way in which you wrote the above sounds like the court is fighting the BSA which is not the case.  The court should be committed to preserving the BSA while adjudicating the bankruptcy and the judge has said that in her comments.

The state court lawsuits will drag on for many more years and many claimants will see nothing as most are statute of limitation barred.

There is not $10 B in assets in the whole of the BSA Scouting.  

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

This is not an accurate statement.  A NO vote does not necessarily mean that all legitimate claims (time barred or not) will not receive compensation.  It only means that the plan as constructed will be rejected by vote.  Afterwards a new plan most likely the TCC's will be put into play and the TCC is not against the grey state reductions.  In fact if it is rejected and LC's, CO's and Insurance kicks in more money than each individual claimant will get more.  That is if they are allowed to have liability releases within BSA's bankruptcy which is a big question mark after yesterday's Purdue ruling.

Your statement follows along the lines of what the Coalition keeps saying which is full of holes and not backed by facts.

TCC talked about working with BSA in last nights Town Hall.

The fallacy in your view is that the local councils will accept the TCC proposal.  As they have inferred a doubling or tripling of the contributions will not be accepted in my opinion as a local council executive board for over 25 years.  The TCC is not being realistic or reasonable.  Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.  

To me, if the desire is to provide the most equitable compensation to the most claimants, then one must vote approval of the RSA.  This is because my understanding is that most claimants are statute of limitations barred.   The current plan would provide all of them some compensation.  If this goes to state courts, most of those claimants will get nothing unless there is a change in laws that may or may not happen.  So to provide the compensation to all claimants and not exclude most, one must vote to approve the RSA.

49 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'm absolutely certain there is both rhyme and reason, we just don't have the data to understand it.  2 claims in an open SoL state for horrendous abuses is a much more significant financial risk than 300 claims that are all time barred.  It wouldn't surprise me if the assets at risk factor in too.  A LC with no major assets at risk beyond cash accounts has very little reason to be concerned about lawsuits.

You are absolutely correct.   The local council’s exposure is a function of the number of claims, severity of alleged crimes, statute of limitations status, and likelihood of a severe judgement.   There could be other factors as well.  The council’s financial situation, unrestricted assets, size of council and other factors.  The analysis is much more thorough than the TCC.  Additionally, the TCC does not really understand the way councils work and their challenges but fellow councils do.  
 

If the current RSA is not approved, I predict that the average claimant ends up no better than they would have by accepting the RSA though the attorneys will make a lot more money.  
 

This is all very sad.  

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

The LC's are going to have to contribute more for any plan to be approved.  They have two choices,  either pay the victims or pay the attorneys defending them.

The money will go to one of the two groups of people. 

If this plan is not accepted by the court, local councils cannot contribute two to three times the current amount and will be forced into court with attorneys making money but likely little more for claimants.   This entire situation is so sad.  

31 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Some seem not to understand that the turnip is done, and the other vegies have little to offer that is real.  We all know the Catholic Church has its own mess, that is interrelated with this one.  As for the Methodists, the idea they somehow have deep pockets is ludicrous.  Anyone that is a member of the local churchs understands the edge on which most of them teeter.  

Have been a Methodist my entire life and there is no money to be had in the local churches (many are supported by larger churches who are themselves barely making the budget).  

5 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

Even at 800 million, it is only ~3 million per council. Very affordable for them. Some would do more, some less based on the factors established. 

That will likely not fly at all.  My council is a medium sized council who lost about 50% of its members through covid and chapter 11 PR.  This sum would be devastating.  We would likely fight in court and/or file chapter 11.  There just is not the money out there that the TCC says.

13 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I was under the perhaps mis-impression that National dictated the amount each council would contribute.  "Representatives of local councils determining the amount each council would pay" seems a recipe for chaos.  "Fine with my council that YOUR council pays "$XXX."  (And this scenario plays out with 250+/- councils?)

My mind flashes to the scene in one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies where the council of the pirate kings all vote for themselves and the deadlock perpetuates.

Somewhere along all the posts on the many threads, I believe I recall a mention that no one knew how he amount of each council's contribution was derived other than that National set the amount and was unwilling to reveal the algorithm for its determinations.

If you have details, in depth information on the details, I'd be interested.

The representatives of the local councils worked out a formula that took into account size, financial situation, number of claims, and other factors.  The formula has not been released to my knowledge.  It was not promulgated by national.  There has been historically a tension between national and the local councils so the local councils would wish to perform this process independently of national.

6 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I am not giving up on a failure of Plan 5 and the TCC having its say at the table with the added clout of a failed vote on National's Plan.

I am not sure I understand how the LC's have a say in the amount of their contribution, considering:

1.  Scout Executives are beholden to National for their career advancement, not to the local council, so Scout Executives have little reason not to toe the line with National's demands.

2.  If National collapses and liquidates, of what benefit is it to a local council to decline to pay what National dictates if that refusal leads to the lost of its parent?

The Local Councils are independent charitable corporations that are controlled by their executive boards.  The contributions were determined by representatives of the ~250 local councils to meet the total that national needed.  The boards will make the final decisions - not the Scout executives.

If national files chapter 7, the local councils are on their own will likely go down the chapter 11 path that enriches attorneys and provides less compensation than claimants believe as we have seen for the BSA.

5 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Meanwhile, announced tonight is that Nassar's 500 victims will share a $380M settlement, while some BSA victims on the low end of the range may receive $1000, which these days is a trip or two to the grocery store.  Wow.

Far easier to compensate 500 than 82,500.  The entire BSA cannot provide the amount of money that many claimants feel would be fair.  

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

Are we still on track for the TCC to release all the LC dashboards that will tell what they think is fair contribution by LC's?

This could be a game changer if they can get the word out that you can get a significant increase from LC's as they have the assets if you back a TCC plan.

The insurance settlements are peanuts of what they should be and I think people will see that. TCC I am sure has an insurance amount in mind that is significantly higher than offered. 

 

The numbers that the TCC has suggested will likely not be approved by the local councils.  The numbers are far too high and makes other options more viable.  My personal opinion is that what the claimants will actually see in their bank accounts will likely be about the same or less than is being offered.

Just heard on the news that an insurance company who was not named is contributing $800 M to bring the total to $2.6 B.  Anyone have more information?

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Again, if the numbers were smaller (like 5% of the claims) I think it could likely be ignored.  I don't think they would sway the vote and would probably take a very small portion of the money.  I definitely could see a small percent, even after working with lawyers, wouldn't be able to narrow down some details.

I am now very concerned as it seems like this number may be much larger.  I also expect that some law firms didn't do much if any vetting of the claims (or even help fill them out).  A good lawyer would have sat down with the claimant.  Asked questions about where they lived/grew up/went to school/etc.  Eventually, you probably have enough info to add in a council at minimum.  Eventually, even COs, unit numbers, etc.  

The areas I think must be questioned right now.

1) The $3500 payment.  It will be good to see how many are taking that $3500.  Lets say 50,000 take the $3500 payment.  That is $175M.  To me, that is too much.  That payment should be $1.5K or less. 

2) Voting ... I think those taking the immediate payment should be considered a separate class.  I expect those not taking the $3500 are probably more likely  to have valid claims and perhaps indicate where the true abusers stand in relation to the settlement.

3) Law firms with claims without basic info should be questioned and perhaps punished if found to be signing off on unvetted claims.  If you are a law firm with 18,000 claims .... you should be hiring enough lawyers to sit down with every one of your claimants to discuss their case and claims.  I really think some law firms got in over the heads on this and are not managing the case at all ... and now are just looking to get out with a quick payout.

The time to have done this was about a year ago when the allegations were first raised.  Changing the value of a vote, the uncontested settlement amount, vet the claims, or vet the method that attorneys filed claims now is not fair.  I agree that it should have been done but we are now to a vote so it is not the time to change such things.  Seems to me that the process is deeply flawed.

17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

No. They are saying that they looked through all of their rosters and only found 5% of the claimants (number from Baltimore Area Council).  They said they have too many rosters to scan them in.  
 

I think 5% is far lower than the actual end number.  However, one would think those not on rosters may be asked a few more questions.     
 

I definitely believe there are many abuse victims who would not show up on rosters.  However, it seems possible many claims are simply people looking for a check who were not abused.  That is not fair to anyone involved.   If that was 5-10% of claims … probably not worth the time.   However, this data is starting to show that percent of false claims may be a lot larger.   I think the judge is open to those interested in seeing if there are large groups of questionable claims and if they are focused in some law firms.  

The list of claimants was sent to the BSA who then matched names to registrations and councils.  Whenever the BSA did not have a registration, it was sent to the council based on the geographic location of the alleged abuse.  The councils looked into the computer databases and the paper records to try to verify that the claimant was in Scouting.  There are a substantial percentage that could not be identified.  As I said before, that does not guarantee that the claimant was not a Scout.  Paper records could have been lost or destroyed in a flood or fire.  Our council records are intact but there was a good percentage that were not able to be associated with a record anywhere.

Local councils and the BSA have worked diligently to identify all claimants but many could not be found.  

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

What I found very interesting was the following point.  BSA councils are saying that they cannot even find the vast majority of claimants on their rosters.  They are also saying they have so many rosters from that time period they cannot possibly scan them all in.  
 

Century is preparing some big hits during plan confirmation 

The local councils and the national council have rosters of their members that are maintained.  That said, some records can be lost and a few councils have experienced fires.  Our council pays for professional storage and has for many years.  Membership fees, until very recently, all went to national so national has 'complete' rosters.  Youth can come to a few meetings without joining but being sure that everyone is covered by insurance compels units to require official membership.  Once again, in our council there are a substantial percentage where there is no record locally or nationally of membership and the claim does not list a unit ever known to have existed or accuses volunteers that likewise have no record of ever being in Scouting.  No doubt, a fraction of such claims may be legitimate, but one has to doubt that that a large fraction would be when the claim has little or no evidence that can be substantiated.  

My estimation from our council would be 25% to 33% (and maybe as high as 50%) but no where close to 95% as stated.  This is just my estimation.  

Seems to me that now is not the time to investigate the likely validity of the claims.  That should have been done nearly a year ago when there were allegations of poor vetting.  Everyone has proceeded based on the current number of claims.  

6 hours ago, SSScout said:

Waaaay too big. Are these good folks all "volunteer", paid expenses (as many governing boards are), or are any  (if not all) paid a stipend or  a "retainer", etc.? 

I imagine some ( I recognize names) are named "Board Member"  as sort of a reward/recognition for service, donation, etc.? 

They are all volunteers and pay for their travel to go to board meetings (though. since covid, the meetings have been video conferences).  Meetings are often at breakfast that the BSA has supplied in the past.  

48 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

As you are referring to my post I will tell you that I have read multiple post from multiple people discounting what survivors are due under the law. We are due compensation for pain and suffering as would an accident victim would be and anyone saying less is saying we as survivors are due less than others. There is no one throwing money at survivors.  As I have said this is a line of thought I have read from multiple posters. 

As has been pointed out many times, the whole of Scouting does not have enough money to compensate the claimants as they wish to be compensated.

I think that most if not all on these forums are sympathetic to victims and would like for them to receive treatment for their injuries - physical and emotional.  

The proposed settlement will hurt the local councils and the BSA.  It cannot pay what most wish/demand.  I want the BSA to go forward and hope that the proposal is approved.  I respect other views.

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

This was a very smart move on their part and shows all that they are more about survivors than personal egos.

Does it really demonstrate that?  My interpretation is that Stang is a partner in PSZJ and will still receive a hefty fee for the role of the law firm.  It seems that the mistake or possibly a deliberate act with a planned response if challenged does not affect the law firm.  Perhaps Stang's share is slightly diminished but it could well not change depending upon how money is divided within the firm.  

Either these attorneys are not as good as everyone is making them out to be or they made a calculated move that they were prepared for the fallout.

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Please explain. I get the “not [yours] to give,” but your Council is free to release, compare and rebut, no? It’s hard to feel good about refusing disclosure while saying, “They are clearly wrong” without allowing anyone else the ability to see, assess and come to their own conclusion. Simply, it looks like hiding and hiding usually means something is damaging in the report. Just me? 

As a board member, I receive council information.  Since this chapter 11, the legal counsel requested that we not release any information.  Whenever the attorney advises that the information can be released, the council will do so.  My actions are in keeping with my obligations as a board member and in keeping with the Scout Law.  

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yeah! Hey! What he said! I’ve been beating this drum for many months. Glad someone found that log I tossed in the woods after my arm gave out. 

The simple answer is no as that information is not mine to release.  As a board member who knows that we have to raise the money to operate the council every year, the TCC is not reasonable.  The restricted accounts are truly restricted as we have never spent them except for the purposes for which they were given.  The current agreement will be damaging but the TCC proposal will end in bankruptcy soon.

My council is being damaged by the proposed settlement.  The numbers that the TCC wishes are too high and will result in rather rapid bankruptcy.   The councils cannot afford to move all offices from a population center to a camp that is usually remote and an hour or two drive from the current offices.   Wanting the TCC plan is wanting to dismantle the whole of Scouting.   For those who are victims of abuse, this might be a goal or you do not care which are attitudes that I believe most of us understand and accept.   Please understand that there are those of us who wish to see Scouting to move forward with the knowledge that we must make it more protective and must compensate the victims.   For me, I see the TCC as unreasonable and unrealistic.  
 

This is a sad situation where I believe that the victims have been abused by this process.  I am so sorry for all of the pain and suffering over the years and from this process.