elitts

I really think that if the BSA finds a number that truly gets creditors more than they get under liquidation and she can't see a way to strip more out without killing BSA, but the creditors still won't agree, she'll order the cram-down. But in a situation like that, what I DO see happening is that while the re-vamped BSA is now free of liability, because there wasn't an agreement the LCs and COs will still be fair game and we can start this all over again, all over the country.

For a single property or even a few? Sure, I suppose that might work. But I doubt the trust wants to end up with a pile of deeds rather than a bag of cash. I know if I was a claimant, I'd never accept a pile of real estate at Fair Market Value instead of currency because holding and liquidating the property isn't free. There's taxes and assessments to pay, transfer fees, insurance costs, maintenance costs, and then of course transfer fees when it's sold for the trust.

I doubt it. I think before most LCs start down that road, there would need to be a determination that they are NOT independent and that they will be folded into the bankruptcy. And frankly, even then, I'd like to see most of the camps (enough to service all the local scouts) retained as a "central part" of the Scouts BSA program. For the most part, the land hosting most Summer Camps really isn't replaceable. Recreation land anywhere near (within 90 minutes) a major city is already outside the price range of anyone looking to do an affordable camp. So even if BSA 2.0 wanted to start over on developing camps, it's basically impossible at this point because assuming you could even find 100 acres of available land, the cost for it would be so high you could never afford the bank note required to pay for the land and new buildings at current rates without charging mind-blowing prices for a week of camp.

Except you are basically never going to get FAIR MARKET VALUE for most of the properties that get sold for this. These are all specialty properties that would normally need upwards of 12-24 months (or more) of marketing time to find a buyer; but you can be sure the liquidation time-frame will be much shorter. What you will get for these properties is usually going to be the FIRE SALE price. In lay-mans terms: you're price has to be discounted to the point where someone with the cash would be enticed to buy a property that they weren't really in the market for in the first place, which usually means someone who is going to try and flip the property or break it up and re-sell it, and that usually requires a price reduction of at least 50%-60%, if not more. So barring some of the camps that are located within 90 minutes of a major city, with enough infrastructure in place to be able to develop the property, (usually lakefront) what you are actually going to get for the property will be 20%-40% of the FAIR MARKET VALUE. But personally, I think Summer Camp needs to be considered a core aspect of BSA Scouting and so a reasonable agreement should leave enough camps to accommodate all of the current (pre-Covid) Scouts. Of course, if the LCs were being really creative, they would look into ways to trim out some of the really valuable parts of their camps to generate funds, while leaving themselves enough land to have a functional camp. For example: If they own a mile of lakefront within the reservation, they could carve out 60% of that with easements for access and sell the frontage for high end vacation home sites (ecologically friendly ones). It may not be ideal, but it would allow them to strip out a large portion of the value of the property without losing the majority of the usefulness.

Agreed. I'm frequently astounded at the difficulty that organizations tend to have with writing documents of this nature. The only thing I can think of is that they don't have the same person writing everything so you end up with one person writing a rule, then a completely different person with a different understanding of the rules writing the FAQ.

That one makes sense to me, at least as a program rule.. Our linked troop has a couple of parents who have decided that their kids can just go camping with whichever troop has the most interesting outing as long as the parent is one of the supervising adults. It's not a safety issue I don't think, but it is one of "troop integrity". Or said another way, that restriction is to make sure people aren't skirting the rules of "no co-ed troops". But I agree that it's not a YP issue and including it there is bad planning.

Yes, I knew that, but my point really is that Labor Laws aren't where we should be taking our queues from for Scouting. Labor laws are designed to protect workers from activities that could be excessively dangerous in a work environment, when done repetitively, over time. Service projects aren't a work environment; the tools are different, the pace is different and the supervision is different; all of which means things that might be a significant risk in one environment is relatively safe in the other. 4 wheeled carts are dangerous in a work environment because industrial carts are steel, weigh close to 150-250lbs when empty and could crush someone if they over-turn on them. 4 wheeled carts in a service project environment aren't that. And since people can see that distinction where the rules don't acknowledge it, it causes a lack of respect for those rules.

Oh, I know that's where most of that stuff comes from. And when such "warnings" were just a list of stupid crap we could throw out along with the tag on the mattress and the instructions to not "use your lawn mower to trim your hedges", it was fine. But at this point I really do think the incorporation of all those rules/guidelines is actively hurting compliance with the more important rules by creating a generalized level of disregard. (Particularly with rules issued without clear and convincing explanations for their existence) Plus, the existence of rules like that doesn't ACTUALLY protect the organization from a lawsuit over the issue. Because when you have a rule like that, if someone breaks it, all the rule being there does is change the lawsuit from: I'm suing because kid got hurt doing X. to I'm suing because you even knew how risky doing X was, and it was still allowed to happen and my child was injured.

The other issue that I think is less obvious, but still fairly important is to revise the G2SS. The existence of vague, contradictory, and stupid rules goes a long way towards decreasing observance of the rules overall and I think this can't help but to water down some of the impact of the YP policies as well. Not because people consciously think the YP is unnecessary, but because the pervasive idea of "BSA rules are just stupid and inconsistent" can't help but to permeate your thinking. There are two major issues with the Guide at this point that I think need addressing. The first is that the BSA needs to actually implement "Rules" as opposed to calling everything a guideline and then they need to get rid of the word "Guide" anywhere where it isn't applicable. And then we would have rules that must be followed at all times, full stop. And guidelines that should be considered the SOP and followed whenever there isn't some overriding reason making it unworkable. So for example: "No one on one contact" is clearly called a RULE; and "Use the buddy system at all times" is clearly called a GUIDELINE. The nice thing about this type of system is that it allows you to layer protections in a way that people can actually understand. So you have a RULE that says, Every scout function must have 2 registered adults unless every scout in attendance has a parent/guardian accompanying them, in which case only one registered adult is required; and a GUIDELINE that says: Ideally, every group-based scout function will have 4 registered adults to enable a split while still maintaining 2-Deep Leadership. And of course, having someone outside the organization review the wording of rules and guidelines should be SOP since sometimes it's clear that the guidelines have been written with the idea of "They'll know what we're talking about" mentality. The second major issue is that the BSA needs to actually go through the rules and guidelines and get rid of those rules and guidelines that are either patently stupid or completely unworkable with real life. Examples include: Most of the "Guide for tool use". While I don't think anyone is going to argue about restricting a bandsaw or circular saw or table saw to adults, restricting the use of things like a power drill or 4-wheeled cart does nothing except make people roll their eyes and discount the importance of rules in general. YP rules telling people they need 2 adults present to allow their child to have a friend visit their house.

Personally, I don't think there is much left to do on the "active protections" level of things. I think "no one-on-one" is the only tool necessary to protect children as long as it's really being used. At that point, the only way I can see issues coming up are with scout on scout abuse, or with an adult that is looking for opportunities to break the rules. Unfortunately, those are both going to be essentially impossible to shut down entirely. The one thing I can see being useful would be a little more emphasis with the Scouts on their responsibility to help with maintaining "no one-on-one" contact. Right now the "review with a parent" information is aimed mostly at "how to keep yourself safe" and I think it would help to have some additional emphasis on how pointing out situations that might result in a violation help to keep everyone safe. (getting them to speak up to say "No, you can't go to your tent because that would leave only one scout with an adult") I do think requiring annual reporting of incident totals and responses should also be required, though I don't think the BSA should be releasing any incident details or names to the public. They should simply inform the police about anything that could be considered an accusation of abuse and let the police release any details from that point on.

Beyond the kind of program killing requirements like "every group of scouts must be monitored at all times by 2 adults", zero tolerance policies are the only thing I'm actually concerned about, particularly in the area of "no one on one contact". While I certainly don't mind zero tolerance with regard to violations along the lines of "that adult took a scout off into the woods" or something, it's just TOO easy to briefly run afoul the no one-on-one contact rule when dealing with kids when you are doing something either with or near a scout, only to realize that all the other scouts that were standing around have wandered off to their tents or the bathroom or whatever. Obviously when that happens you either remove yourself from the situation or find another person to involve, but in a draconian zero tolerance world with even accidental violations requiring reporting to the SE, I think we'd end up in a situation where the functioning of the troop would grind to a near halt over fears of over-zealous enforcement. Ok, I get that you have a username to live up to here, but this assertion goes well beyond pessimistic and is more like the kind of spurious reasoning I'd expect to see in a political attack ad. While I'm not arguing there's no correlation, that single analysis represents such a small piece of the necessary analysis that drawing any conclusion from it beyond "the drop in numbers probably had some impact on claims" is simply laughable. A quick look at the variance between levels of change in that data-set makes it abundantly clear that FAR more is going on to impact the number of claims than just the reduction in participation. Outside of the first year, the % reduction in claims doesn't even come close to matching up with the % reduction in participation. In fact, from 1995 - 1999 participation actually increased 10.6% from 3.40 million to 3.76 million and yet the number of claims still fell 36.2% from 843 to 538. So if there really is a positive correlation between participation and claims, then clearly there is something far more significant going on to generate a 36% reduction in claims even with the expected increase that should come from a 10.5% increase in participation.

The major problem with that whole conversation is that the current dialog it isn't representing the situation fairly. We aren't talking about victims agreeing to receive a $6100 settlement; we are talking about the BSA contributing an average of $6100 per victim to the "Fund". And beyond that, the primary source of victim reimbursement dollars was always going to be from the insurers, not the BSA. So while I agree that a settlement of $6100 would be a slap in the face to a victim, that was never what we were actually talking about. What we are actually talking about is a calculation that looks like: "Average Per Victim Funds" = $6100 + (X billions of insurance dollars / 95,000) On top of that, I assume there will end up being adjustments to the amounts paid out given the severity of the BSA's failure and the time of occurrence since it wouldn't be fair to compensate a victim from 1970 with the same amount of money as a victim from 2005 since the damages the first person suffered would have been in 1970 dollars. So, while I understand that in the bankruptcy all we can talk about, really, is the BSA's contribution, there is NO number (even with LC being included) that leaves the BSA functional, that will divide by 90+k people reasonably. The only way to get somewhere that would matter would be a complete liquidation of all the Local Council camps and those really are "critical infrastructure" for the BSA program. I'm fairly sure I've seen reports clearly showing that attending Summer Camp is a key factor in scout retention and overall enjoyment of the program. I know that for in my troop, our retention rate drops to something like 20% among first year scouts that don't go to summer camp. That said, I truly don't know enough personally about the BSA's finances to know if they are truly reserving only those things that are fundamental or not. (personally, I think any effort to save Bechtel is still unreasonable) My initial reaction was that this offer was strictly their starting position. In pretty much any negotiation working towards a settlement, the first offer on each side is going to represent "The Dream Number". So the Victim's Attorneys have established their opening position at "We'll take everything", the BSA has now established their opening position at $6100/victim and neither should really be expecting those propositions to be the end result.

Oh, I don't think local government liability will sway public opinion on the issue, I think that when state governments start seeing local Cities and Towns and School Districts being sued into bankruptcy and they have to start bailing them out (because cities going through bankruptcy is awful all-around) they will decide that maybe opening up the window wider might not be a good plan. And while they could pass laws barring lawsuits specifically against government entities (beyond what already exists) the politics of THAT would be so so so much worse than tightening up SoL laws (or not loosening them in the first place).

Well, that wouldn't happen. What I mean is that a cram-down would take anything the judge didn't find critical to the functioning of the organization, but it would leave the organization functioning, not a non-functional shell. But this could easily leave the BSA with significant assets as long as they aren't effectively saleable. So they could theoretically keep Philmont (even independent of any claims that it's deed restricted) if the liquidation price less fees and taxes are less than the amount of the mortgage on it. (but I agree Bechtel is a potential problem given the recentness of the financial maneuvering there) The whole point of a reorganization is that the creditors get more with the organization functioning than they would if it was liquidated because the organization can be required to continue making payments over a period of years.

This is exactly why bankruptcy judges are appointed by Court of Appeals judges that are appointed for life. They don't have any reason to worry about the optics because no one can really apply pressure to them. But, to be fair, a cramdown doesn't mean the BSA's proposal is what carries the day. In a cramdown the judge looks at the numbers and makes their own determination on what the BSA can afford to pay. And while I imagine a judge trying to rope in the LCs would cause even more years of legal fighting, it would be entirely within their purview to order the sale of everything but the trademarks and absolute bare minimum of equipment necessary to keep the offices functioning.

I suspect there will continue to be intermittent successes on expanding SoL laws right up until someone manages tie in government agencies in a big way because of it. As soon as you get some youth Sport League getting sued and the local Parks and Rec Dept gets thrown in for good measure because they sponsor the program, I think you'll see major expansions start to dry up. The fact of the matter is, for as much as some states really need/needed to expand their SoL laws (places where you only had to age 21) These unlimited look-back periods are truly horrible public policy. The ONLY purpose for them is to allow people to file class action suits where there is zero intention to actually litigate a claim in court because in the vast majority of cases, a plaintiff filing a claim on something from 20-60 years ago would ever be able to prove the claim in court.

Perhaps, but as I've mentioned before, the Catholic Church settlements are just not a reasonable comparison for the issue with the BSA. Other than the type of assaults on children being the same, there are orders of magnitude in difference between what the Church did and what the BSA did; so thinking the results would be similar just doesn't seem realistic. While I can't say I'm an expert in trial law involving liability insurance, it most cases I've ever heard of, the liability of the insured doesn't start until after the damages exceed the policy limits.

That's not what the information says; it doesn't address the amount per person of the awards, it only addresses the amount being proposed as a contribution from the BSA and Councils. The lion's share of the payouts was always going to come from the insurance companies and that hasn't changed.

Well, no. The average contribution from the BSA and the Councils was calculated at about $6000 per victim. The actual payouts would include funds from the insurance companies that would increase that amount drastically.

To be honest, I'm surprised the number of Cub Scouts retained was that high. SO many of the packs in my area just kind of suspended operations till Covid is done. I think most of them will come back, but I'm sure they'll be at reduced numbers.

I think the issue of "this could be libel" is much more of an explanation that supporters have tossed out there after the fact. The one recurring explanation I've seen from people involved all those years ago, and the one I find somewhat compelling is: "Who are we to instigate a police investigation into something when the victim (or their family) don't want the police involved?" Now, the view of this issue has changed over time with there being a view today that the victims right to anonymity is outweighed by the importance of getting a predator off the streets, but I still don't think you can hold the idea of respecting the victims wishes to be entirely wrong. Particularly not when evaluating the appropriateness of actions taken before the beliefs changed.

The frequency with which this problem crops up across a system as widespread as the BSA is in the US makes me think it must be rooted in a systemic failure somewhere. Either because the established processing requirements are inexplicably complicated or because the BSA has failed to grasp the fundamental truth that basic competence in recordkeeping is an important reflection on an organization.

I don't think any rational person would find the situation with the Catholic Church as being anywhere close to the situation with the BSA. Catholic Church: Knew for decades that priests were raping kids, actively covered up the incidents, then moved the priests to new communities and put them right back in a position to rape more kids. BSA: Knew that pedophiles were attempting to gain access to children through the program and created a system to eject and keep out pedophiles once they were identified. Functionally, these are completely different situations, and so reasonably one would expect the settlements to be substantially different as well.

Since he has been quite public in his desire to see the BSA ended completely, I have to think it's going to count against him with a bankruptcy court judge. The accepted motivation for a Bankruptcy case creditor is "How do I think I'll get the most money". If his "I want to crush this organization out of existence" desire starts to be obviously in conflict with what everyone else thinks will net the most money for the other debtors, his influence should wane considerably. At least, that's what logic would dictate; but obviously the amount of logic being utilized varies with the judge.

Tetanus is generally considered a "bad one" for immediate side effects. I just got a booster about a year ago and for about 2-3 days afterwards my arm felt like somebody had smashed me with a baseball bat and I had a low grade fever. Fortunately none of my flu or pneumonia vaccines ever did that.