Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by HelpfulTracks

  1. 4 minutes ago, yknot said:

    I think it would have value if anyone bought PR or BSR and attempted to turn one or both into a Disney style family wilderness resort experience. 

    I assume you mean the land (I say assume because the name Philmont is also IP, not sure about BSR). 

    As land, both have value. I was speaking to IP only in the post you quoted.

    I would say it is not likely to be Disney style property with Philmont as contains some historic land marks and borders several very large private ranches as well as state (and I believe federal) protected lands. 

    I can see it being purchased by the state or feds (at a greatly reduced price), al la Carson NF, Valle Vidal and Cimerron SP. 

    Some billionaire pseudo rancher could buy it, like Ted Turner (he already owns Vermejo, which borders PR to the NE). I don't know if Chase Ranch to the South has the cash to buy it. 

    Not sure about how BSR would shake out, there is still massive debt on that property. So it would likely end up with the banks and probably parsed out. 

    I also believe there are restrictions and covenants on both, which would come into play.

    I for one hope we do not get there, ever.

    • Upvote 1
  2. 7 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    Agreed.  That's why I view little IP cash value in the rank system.  The value is in "Eagle scout", the brand.  Or the whole BSA program as a whole.  The rest 


    I view it as worse as other organizations have less.  If scouting continued under BPSA-USA or Trail Life or (another WOSM association), it would have zero starting point.  G2SS is not perfect, but it's a good starting point.  

    I'm not against external YP oversight.  I would love to see a long-standing youth protection organization conceptually like FAA, FDA, FTSA, GAO, consumer reports, etc that is chartered to collect, analyze and report on youth protection through-out the country.  


    I don't see much IP cash value as much is dated / tainted.  Even $100m would be high.  A few items have strong brand value such as "Eagle Scout" and the BSA program.  But without BSA, I question how much people would pay for the IP.   Even at $100m, that's $1,000 for each currently listed victim ... before bankruptcy cost, contingency fees and higher priority debtors.  I doubt anything significant would be returned to victims.  

    Even things like "pinewood derby" can be appropriated as some vendors do "pine car derby racing" and "speed racer".  Like xerox and kleenex, parents and kids will quickly call it a pinewood derby race.  

    OA?  How much will others pay cash for an organization that has cultural appropriation issues rooted right in it's name?   

    Ranks?  They change and others use exactly the same name.  Tenderfoot.  2nd class.  1st class.  And are the ranks ranks or awards or joining levels or ... it changes ...   

    Merit badges?  Others have proficiency badges that I'm really betting parents call merit badges.  

    BSA's IP value is in keeping it together and running.  If BSA were ever liquidated and without the name BSA, I really question the individual brand values.  Heck, GSUSA would be lurking in the woods to assert brand / copy-right infringement issues.


    I don't think they would get anywhere near $100m from it. But that was not the question, it was WHAT IS their IP. And that IP would be sold off for whatever value could be realized. At that point how or if it was used would be up to the new owners. Severed from BSA, I doubt it has much value at all. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. 1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

    I believe if you don't look closely at the motivation of individual lawyers their experience in this arena that you are not doing anyone any good.  I do not know who your lawyers are but maybe you should consider changing representation.

    I know who my lawyers are and what their job is. When needed, I hire good ones, but I am under no illusion they are doing it because they like me or believe in my position, nor do I care. I hire them because they win, they represent me because they can make money.

    7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    In my view, the single operative point and only relevant presupposition to your post is, “I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me.” Why? They charge a legal contingency on outcome. Solution? Go it alone and never hire one again, if you dislike them (us) so. And, to be consistent, never associate yourself with anyone who works on commission. Don’t buy a new car, sell or buy a house, hold or purchase additional insurance coverage or work with other than a fee-based investment advisor, to name a few. I can come up with a more comprehensive list when you need it. Easy peasy. Let me know when you’re ready to engage the conversation with “clean hands and a pure heart.” I’ll be right here.

    Just because I don't like them does not mean I don't see a value in using them. I don't like politicians either, but I still vote. 

  4. 23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    I beg to differ, as to there being no distinction between their respective “cuts,” as you say. This is an attorney with decades of experience representing Scouting child sexual abuse victims. Those other folks are “Lemme get on the gravy train” Johnnies come lately. Night and day difference. Let’s find out how much experience those who used aggregators have. Being funded by outside money, which a number of judges who do mass tort cases do not like at all, cannot be equated to Tim Kosnoff’s history and experience. I have said this repeatedly here, just so I’m not accused of defending him simply because we have concurring opinions. He doesn’t need this case or this money. The other guys want the money and need it to pay off the loan sharks, thus their quick settlements and race to the bottom. 

    Umm. This is not directed at any specific lawyer or even this case. I don't care for lawyers, even the ones that represent me. But when any lawyer starts poking another lawyer in the eye about what he makes and also claims to be in it for the good of their client I am suspicious. Especially if he is taking the same cut, regardless of his experience or skills. 

    If he really wants me to think about believing he is in for something other than the money, then do something like this on billable hours, or better yet at cost of his staff and filing fees or even better yet pro bono. 

    Kosnoff may be the best lawyer in the history of lawyers and is worth every penny, but I find it more than a little disingenuous to say other lawyers are getting too much when he is getting basically the same, perhaps even more. 

  5. 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    Good grief you guys. Did all your teams lose this weekend and your dog pooped on the bed to make it worse? Just a joke, for Pete’s sake. 

    No malice or sour mood intended. I was just stating a post can be named as you wish, it's just up to the mods if that name is left as initially created. ( I left out they can just rename it also)

    FYI - My team won convincingly.  😀

  6. 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    I’m fuzzy on the forum law, but I don’t think that can be a fiat decision by the Moderators. I move for a vote to so name it. Do I have a second? 

    I don't want to call it a dictatorship (its not), but it is not a democracy either. You can name a thread you start whatever you wish, but the Mods can close it, change it or delete it or hide it. 

  7. 1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

    *** IF *** ... the whole BSA scouting tree disappeared, scouting units could partner with BPSA-USA or Trails Life or form a lose association with a standards board.   

    QUESTION - Protected intellectual property? 

    QUESTION - What is BSA's intellectual property? 

    I don't see many if any councils going with Trail Life. More likely to form some type of association. Some units may determine to go with TL but if they haven't already, then why go now. Besides. TL has its own set of issues to deal with. 

    IP is an asset and as such can and will likely be sold off. Probably to highest bidder, which means it could go to someone that wants to shut it down or to keep it going. It is a roll of the dice. 

    BSA's IP includes every program (including Venturing and Sea Scouts, possibly the OA), every rank, including Eagle Scout, every merit badge and every award, other than religious awards. It includes the Oath and Law, Scout Handbook, Jamboree, Pinewood Derby, Philmont name (including bull and arrow head), even the FDL when used in conjunction with scouting activities (though WOSM has some control over that and it could argue for a new organization to use it).

    If OA cannot be detached then it will include Ordeal, Brotherhood and Vigil, the Founders Award, DSA, obligation and song. 

    Real property would include Philmont, Northerner Tier, Sea Base and BSR. Everything left in the museum. 


  8. A “No” reply would have been easy to deal with. 

    A “Yes”, I would ask if your state’s laws recognize him as a guardian. 

    Since this is about tenting, I don’t envy you having to determine this one, as the Cub in question may well look at him as a father figure and might not understand why he (the Cub himself) is being treated differently. 

  9. 1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

    EBay is probably your best/easiest bet, however, if your lodge is having a tradeoree, you might find someone there with a much better deal than on eBay.  My original lodge was Black Eagle and they have put out a lot of neat patches this century - had the same patch for 50 years before that.  I got about $100 in patches (eBay prices) for $50 at our tradeoree.  Guys travel from long distances to trade.  

    As mentioned above, wearing it on your uniform is ok if you are a dues paying member of that lodge.  If not, then you need to ask yourself why you want to wear it.  

    I love many of the Black Eagle flaps.

    Hard to find and expensive on EBay. 

  10. Welcome to the forum. 

    I have a couple of my original lodges old flaps that are in similar condition. 

    Since I am in a different lodge I cannot wear them, so I have never considering "reviving" them. Also, they are some what rare and I don't want to risk damaging them further. 

    However, you might try to use an iron on a low setting, maybe with some parchment paper over the patch. The old flaps did not have the plastic backing so once the threads start to shrink from washing, I am not sure anything will help. 

    If your the idea is to wear a historical flap from your youth, try asking around. Every lodge has thread heads that are avid collectors. Chances are you can find the identical patch from one of them, though they may wince if they know you are going to actually wear it, lol. 

    Of course, I am assuming you are still in your original lodge. If not you should only be wearing the flap of the lodge you are currently registered and dues paid. 

    Good luck

  11. 25 minutes ago, grizzly702 said:

    And which 2 years are you using? With the pandemic and bankruptcy- 2019/20/21 operating expenses are at all time lows due to personnel reduction in forces and lack of program. So do you go back to 2017/18? For the council to survive you will need well trained District Execs and staff to revitalize Scouting. . This is not the time to be cheap and hire rookies that will take 3 years to figure out the job. .  

    True, I had not considered that. The current economy is likely to have an impact as well. 

    It might be a situation where you go back, say five years, and average the cost and revenues. 

    With so many factors, both looking back and forward, it is not an easy task to come up with financial picture that you can have a great deal of confidence in. 

  12. 40 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    Yes. You're right.

    My source. Plan 5.0


    pg 429, total contribution $260,391 Unrestricted Net Assets  $417,106 ...so I assumed the difference was the value of the unsold council property which I assumed unrestricted.

    The one critical piece of the financials I have not seen in these documents is budgets and cash flow. 

    A balance sheet is great for telling net assets, but not very useful to tell what is needed to run a council for 2 years. 

    Also, what is meant by they two years of finances to run a council? Does that mean they have 2 years of operating expenses on hand or does that mean two years based including  two years of projected income and cashflow? 

    Those two numbers would be very very different. And in this given situation, projected cashflow would be very difficult to project. 

    If the 2 year figure means operating expenses are in the bank, then councils may well be putting up all they can. If that number is based off projected cash flow, it is a different story. But it is also a story that is much more difficult to tell. 

    To be clear, I am not saying that a detailed ledger account is required, just a bare bones projection of net expenses (and net income depending on what they 2 year statement means).

    • Upvote 2
  13. 7 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    Yes. It is a word problem worthy of the SAT.

    Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million.

    John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million

    so the two PA councils proposed total is 58-44 million = $14 million

    14 / 23

    Thanks! I glossed over the "serve parts" part. 

  14. 3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

    New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 million are being asked to contribute $14.2 million toward a $600 million council share of the proposed $1.9 billion national settlement. 

    Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million are being asked to contribute another $4 million.

    John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million.

    The seven councils serving New Jersey residents have remained uniformly silent on the settlement. Their CEOs have followed national instructions to focus on each council's "business as usual," sympathizing with abuse victims but offering little if any information on the settlement's local impact.

    However, councils in New York, Iowa and Arizona have begun telling their memberships what their share of the settlement will be, and how it will be financed.


    The assessments are not divided proportionally according to a state's share of the suits. Northern New Jersey Council has 525 abuse suits, or 42.5% of the state's 1,235 total claims, but is contributing only $3.06 million, or 21.6% of the total assessment for the five councils. 

    Source links with more details




    1 hour ago, RandomScouter said:

    So, if I read this right, John Lucas says the NJ & PA councils should be giving over 70% of their total assets?  Will that leave them with 2 years' worth of operating funds?  (I thought that was part of it.)  I would be surprised if most non-profits could survive after giving that much.

    There are many opinions about what percentage of assets should be contributed.  Northern New Jersey Council's proposed contribution is over 30% of their total net assets.  For those who say LCs should give 'til it hurts, I'm willing to bet it's gonna hurt.


    1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

    By his math,  NJ councils 78.6%, 2 PA councils that serve NJ 61%.


    New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million

    Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says.....settlement .......with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million.

    Okay - i understand the New Jersey numbers - 44/56 = 78%

    But the Penn numbers,  58/23 = 252% - Two and a half times their total assets. Which would be impossible to accomplish. 

    Am I misreading something, is there a typo, has new math confused me so badly I can no longer do old math?

  15. 5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

    The larger question remains; how many of the "reported" files from the IVF are actually in the categories other than the two that might actually cover abuse?  There is a strong likelyhood that many of the files the media, and others continue to enumerate "do not" fall into the "abuse" categories.  But, it that suggestion is made, the individual is immediately labeled in some manner as accepting of CA.  Of course, the average person if they see a story, it is likely one written with the intent to ignore all the peripheral things, and to simply dramatize the worst elements.  That is our world in this country, and too many do not have the ability, or so it seems, to separate the chafe from the wheat.


    I can say anecdotally, I have heard people make the assumption if someone is made ineligible that it is because of CSA, even in cases where there is public knowledge of some other crime, like assault. 

    I think that is mainly because most people had no idea the IVF existed prior to the CSA stories broke, so that is their only knowledge/perception of what IVF is, So it is not surprising if someone finds out that an individual is made ineligible they make that assumption, unless they are directly familiar with that particular case. 

    What is more alarming, I have seen people leave scouting for personal reasons (not related to any IVF violation) and at times people assume that it MUST be CSA. Even when in reality, it might be financial reasons, health reasons or just fed up with BSA for some reason. People have a tendency to fill in the blanks and usually with worst case assumptions.  

    If by "reported" you mean the media. I have little doubt that early reports included non-CSA in their numbers. As I stated earlier, the file dump I saw was inclusive. However, I think the numbers we see generally have been cleaned up to only include CSA. Frankly, using a larger number may have better shock value, but could backfire if people realize that the number was inflated by non-CSA violations. Some would just assume the whole thing was bogus and move on. If it were me, I would want the number to be accurate so as to prevent anyone from making that assumption. I am sure the legal teams would say the same. 

    • Upvote 1
  16. 27 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files.

    True. Also, the The "Perversion" files was not used by BSA, at least not officially, and I doubt it was condoned even casually, since it covers a broad range of violations. I am not sure if that category naming list previously was used or if that is a breakdown of violation types that was added by external sources. But if it is BSA categories, it is obviously how the name Perversion Files became the public nomenclature. 

    Given the list of violations it covers, you can easily see how CSA was about one on five violations in the IVF (again an educated estimate).

  17. 10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    80% non CS

    Do you have a source for that estimate?  That 80% of the IVF names are NOT CSA seems to imply that the 80% are what? Victims of political repression? Or what else?

    The next question is if BSA has two IVF lists, those based on CSA, and "Other" (political, troublesome, ???)

    Have the non-CSA IVF files been released through the Oregon case?

    Or are they still hidden?







    Without having quoted the previous post, I am not sure who you are referencing, But I did estimate the 80%.

    I got that number from several places. Initially when the IVF files were made public by the press this list contained more than CSA. The one originally saw (I think it was the LA Times, but I could be wrong) was much broader than the one I have found recently (it is in the LA Times).. Looks like they cleaned with file up to only include CSA as well as adding some additional PDF elements for the  CSA case they list. It makes sense they would clean it up as the point of the article was CSA and the entire file dump made it more time consuming to get through all the other issues to find CSA cases.

    That also is in sync with my personal experience having to deal with some cases. And my personal experience has been validated by others, both volunteer and professionals.

    The "other" offenses cover a broad range of issues. They range from internal BSA issues like lying or omitting information on BSA applications, repeated or flagrant violations of YP or GSS that endangers scouts. And by YP in this case I mean violations short of being accused of CSA,  like repeatedly ignoring one-on-one restrictions. It would also include things like misconduct, frequent or flagrant use of foul language or obscene gestures, being degrading towards scouts or adults, racist acts or language etc.

    External issues would include things like felonies, assault outside of Scouting, white collar crimes, fraud (even short of criminal prosecution), threats made.

    The IVF is not about CSA alone, and never has been (to my knowledge). It captures anything that would get a scout or scouter declared ineligible to participate.

    • Thanks 2
  18. 10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    Another poster waxed eloquent about how he relies heavily on council staff and how they perform wonderfully.

    I do not doubt his experiences.

    In my council, we only need the camp Ranger and a full-time Assistant camp Ranger, and someone in the Scout office to handle recharters.

    The rest are worthless to my Unit.

    Only in the last 10 years did lower level Council folks asked me to re-engage.  I did at functional levels where something is ACCOMPLISHED, not at Board levels where everyone gets mediocre meal four times a year for $1,000.

    That would be me. And yes, I do not want to have to do the many functional jobs I have had over the years without them. They have saved me many hours a month when it comes to working as a Commissioner, Training Chair and training staff, contingent leader, OA adviser, etc. 

    Nor would I want to try to deal with the recruiting elements. The DE's have a hard enough time coordinating to get into schools to recruit. I know some of the schools around here would not be willing to allow multiple volunteers to come in and recruit, especially several different volunteers on several different nights. 

    Not to mention the fundraising they do that pays for the other staff I relay on like the rangers, registrars, program people, communications and printing. As well as not having to pay significantly more for Summer camp, or having scholarships for youth to attend Summer Camp, Jambos and high adventure. 

    I envy those councils who do not need their DE's, I would truly like to know how y'all manage to coordinate volunteers to do all those things the DE's do. 

  19. 10 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    There are two issues here: 


    1.  Ex Post Facto is changing the definition of a law TODAY to make actions prior to TODAY, criminal.  So a year ago, I cut my grass to 2 inches in height-perfectly legal, then.  Now, a year later, cutting my grass to 2" a year ago is a crime!  I had no way to avoid being guilty as I cannot predict what the legislature will make illegal, years after the event.  The Constitutional issue is that citizens are entitled to know at the time they take action whether or not it is criminal.

    This is completely different from:

    2.  "Years ago, I committed a crime.  It was a crime on the books when I did it.  The statute of limitations was 10 years and I managed to avoid capture and charging past the 10 year date."  Well, this issue is whether the statute of limitations can be changed for crimes already committed.  This is not an Ex Post Facto issue.  In my state, "no one has a vested interest in statutes of limitation for civil matters."  I know little of criminal law, and the answer could be different for all the several states.


    Just to help clarify...

    All true. But Ex Post Facto was what SCOTUS used (in part) to strike down retro extensions of SOL for criminals statutes in 2003 for 1993 California law 

  20. 1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

    21, not 26, but 21 is still past the OMG that is too many districts level! It says they serve 36,000 scouts. Really? That seems crazy too. It blows my mind that the tools and other items of the BSA can scale from councils with 300 scouts to councils with 36,000 scouts. 

    Not sure how many districts they have but I have been told that the council for Houston had 60K  scouts (pre-Covid), I think it is the largest, but not sure. Chigcago, LA, NYC have to be pretty large too. Though I have also been told NYC council is broken into councils by borough, so not sure how they count out. 

    And yes, it is a pretty elastic system, but then again the base unit is 6-8 scouts. Not a bad program structure, I would say. 

  21. 2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    I think that if behavior occurred within the parameters of what I outlined I am pretty sure the parent would agree that it was abuse.  

    That is my point. 

    Unless I misunderstood your initial post, the example you gave would not be abuse if both youth were okay with it. 

    But even if both youth were okay with it, the parents would consider it abuse. 

  22. 7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    I have seen postings where casually it is said you really can not eliminate it.  It feels like the posters are saying we must expect some abuse.

    I think it is plan for the best, be prepared for the worst. 

    I  believe anyone here has the goal of zero abuse. Its what we plan to achieve and strive to succeed. 

    But, I have never made a plan of any type that I did not expect that their would be something go wrong, no matter how hard I try. 

    I think it is more the expectation some how the plan will have failures no matter how careful we are. Which I personally think is helpful, if one is TOO confident in their plan, they are less diligent. 

    • Like 1
  • Create New...