vol_scouter

You assume correctly. My reason is to point out the futility in this exercise. Our initial point of view colors the way in which we view it. Victims want more - I get it and do not think that they are not deserving but those of us who are not victims wish to see a vibrant BSA.

I think that the current BSA is fair and should be adopted.

To the moderators: It seems to me that the views on this thread are so vastly divergent and, for many, the emotions are some what raw so that this will devolve into arguments. It seems to me that fair is largely determined by one's starting point.

My council is contributing quite a bit that will require a long time to recover. The TCC evaluation for my council is not reasonable and the BSA response seems quite accurate.

But the LCs cannot either.

So when claimants attorneys make demands, no matter how large (far beyond the value of the BSA and LCs), they are praised on this forum. When the BSA lawyers do something favorable to the BSA, the BSA - not its lawyers - is castigated. When people criticize the claimant lawyers, they are censored, but, when they slam the slam the BSA for what the lawyers are doing, that is fine. Let us all be fair to all concerned. The proceedings are by attorneys representing what they feel are the best interests of their clients. The results of these proceedings will affect all of us and none of us will

I do not know the likely effect on other councils but from what I know about my local council the effect of that would be to put the council on the brink. Perhaps other councils are different but we raise the money every year to operate the council. There is no two years in reserve right now. The TCC does not understand council operations. The unrestricted are being spent due to this chapter 11 and COVID. I predict that this will significantly harm or force into bankruptcy many councils. The claimants may not care or may rejoice - if I had been harmed as a boy my feelings wou

From the information that I have seen, my local council would be hard pressed to sell properties for the appraised value. People who have given money to the council for specific reasons will be very upset that their donations were classified by outside agents and could be taken. The amount of money that our council is to pay will definitely be painful and will require years to replace. The contributions that Stang is talking about will likely result the failure of many councils as it is not realistic. As many have noted, the BSA and local councils simply do not have t

If this is an issue, why was it not discussed long before now? This process has demonstrated how broken at least this portion of the legal system is. Perhaps it is the best that can be invented but it seems that it could be better.

This is just my point. The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute. If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount. If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less. That would seem to me to nullify the vote. This process seems hopelessly flawed.

My council’s participation is dependent upon being fully released from liability retrospectively. If the council can be sued anyway, why pay into a trust? Most if not all councils will have the same requirement and their executive boards will not approve a deal where the councils are not fully released from liability. The council would need the money to defend itself from non-time barred claims. The TCC request is nonsensical unless it is just a ploy to make it all fall apart.

Who is Patterson? Any idea why the TCC changed it’s support of RSA 4.0 to absolute opposition to the very similar 5.0?

@SiouxRanger Thank you! Very helpful. It is rather arbitrary which is what I had missed before. My home state was toward the more lenient spectrum but my read of the tea leaves was exactly the opposite where the adherence to the statute of limitations would be rather rigid. Obviously, my tea leaves and some other person's could be substantially different. Since predicting even large important elections is tricky, predicting changes in a state is very arbitrary. Your explanation removes the mystery.

So upon what principles did the grey scale originate. It would seem to me that the claimant says that the crime occurred in some state that was statue of limitations barred or not. If not barred, then the claimant could collect the maximum that can be negotiated whereas if time barred there could not be an award. How does a scale apply? To be clear, I am not saying that some group should not receive compensation - just trying to understand how a grey scale could be constructed.

@ThenNow THANK YOU!!!

Would someone with legal knowledge briefly compare and contrast disclosure and discovery?

That would mean that local council of any size in a sol time barred state would contribute some amount of money that would not be paid to anyone because of the SOL. Of course, there could be lawsuits in that state that is not time barred (i.e. relatively recent) but my understanding is that most are time barred. So many issues.

For the councils, if the contribution from the local council is only to be applied to those claimants who accuse them ever contribute if they are in a statute of limitations closed state? My understanding is that the BSA and the local councils would pay into a general fund that a trustee would use to pay the claimants.

This could be devastating to the local councils and to the BSA. Should these predictions occur, I predict the collapse of Scouting in a few years.

Since the plan would exclude SOL claimants, a different denominator is needed. With the 40% equating to $1,967,500,000 but using the number of non-SOL claimants (I remember it being 59,000 SOL so non-SOL = 82,500 - 59,000 = 23,500) which would mean an average per non-SOL claimant of $1,967,500/23,500 = $83,723 per nonSOL claimants. My memory on the number of SOL cases may be in error but the concept does not change.

@CynicalScouter That is clearly understood. It is possible that the TCC could oppose a deal that eventually gets voted upon and is approved. However, the TCC is a big opponent who, as has been pointed, might sway the judge's opinion. So the opposition is a significant obstacle unless some achievable increase in money will satisfy.

That is clear but do you believe that they are planning to return to the RSA 5.0 if there is some increase in the amount of money or that they have little interest in this course?

@CynicalScouter This comment leaves the possibility of a change to supporting the proposal by the BSA. Could this be posturing to get more money added? My thought is no, it is planned to end the BSA exclusivity and propose a much different solution.

This plan would likely doom the BSA. It will embroil the LC's in lawsuits resulting in bankruptcies. This will make any membership growth impossible as the councils will rapidly have to decrease staff to meet the legal costs. Losing membership will doom the BSA and the LC's over a few years. This is disastrous.

All that I have to judge is the attendees. Not implying anything about the official list, just the attendees. I have no doubt that the IRS filing is correct.