elitts

19 hours ago, yknot said:

I think it's a function of unit/community culture and what it is that you want to encourage. I've looked out over district roundtables and seen plenty of women involved at the cub level as den leaders who camp and do all things outdoors -- some more gung ho than others but still very willing to be part of the outdoor program. Then at Troop most of them vanish to serve mostly in committee positions.  There is a lot of discouragement, some overt but some very subtle and not obvious to people who believe they are otherwise being open to women.  

I agree it's a smaller percentage of women vs. men who are interested in this but to me it appears if there is a lack it is more due to them being an untapped or ill developed resource. Plenty of women happily camp with their packs and then their Webelos/AOL dens was my initial point. Why do they vanish in many units?

I think at least part of the issue is the general difference between Cubs and Scouts and finding women who can leave "mom" at home.  My experience has been that moms have a significantly harder time dealing with the chaos of "scout-led" without wanting to step in to help/comfort/fix whatever problems come up.  At least, that's what a number of the moms in my troop have said about themselves.  Of course, in my old Cub pack, we didn't have many moms going on camp-outs either.  Even when moms were the ones helping at den meetings and doing most of the Cub activities, it was almost always the dads that ended up on the campouts.  Though summer camp was a little different.  I think the male:female ratio at summer camp was more like 40:60 rather than the 20:80 we would get on regular campouts.

14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

This is what she did in a similar case.  It was felony rape, sexual assaults, etc.

https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-542878--,00.html

That's about what I'd expect here too, though perhaps with a higher perp count.  And I don't have any issue at all with scouring the records for abusers that can still be charged.  But it does aggravate me when I see her talking about her investigation "Targeting the BSA".  Targeting the Catholic Churches made sense given the involvement of the hierarchy as a whole in the ongoing activities of the priesthood.  And personally, I find it dismaying that so few Bishops and Cardinals have faced more than public shame for actively protecting priests and recirculating them into positions where they could continue to abuse kids.  But that's vastly different from the situation with the BSA.

On 12/20/2021 at 12:49 PM, Eagle1993 said:

The Michigan AG now has 5 open cases into BSA claims, charges may be coming soon in 1.

Nessel: Five investigations looking into Boy Scouts of America claims (detroitnews.com)

 

That's going to be a big "nothingburger" when it's all done.  Nessel is as politically motivated as an A.G. gets and while she may find someone she can eventually file charges against by twisting and warping the intent of the law, in the end the most we'll see is someone pleading to an inconsequential misdemeanor in order to save on legal fees.  At least as far as "investigating" the BSA, LCs and COs.  Though if she manages to dig out a few actual perpetrators, that would be awesome.

18 hours ago, MattR said:

First of all, it's good that you did hold everyone back. But when will the criminal SOL rules change? We've talked so much about civil SOL laws but not much about criminal. I would have thought those would change first but I don't know much about any of this.

I think the logic on SOL rule changes tends to revolve around "how far back can we realistically go and actually have cases we can prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt?"  The further back you go with memories, the harder it is to have witnesses with reliable memories.

5 hours ago, MattR said:

Another question: why doesn't the doj declare the plan illegal now?

Executive branch agencies don't get to determine the legality of the court's actions.  They can say they think it's illegal, but it's just an opinion.

5 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

If this became a BSA National only Chapter 7 then all claimants will still get their share from BSA National.  It would be less but not nothing.  On the other hand, many local councils will find themselves in bankruptcy themselves and as more states allow claims to filed more LC's over time will face bankruptcy.

Personally, I think the movement has pretty well passed on wide open expansions of SoL laws.  We'll probably see states that restrict the SoL at very short times get widened, but I think the BSA case has shown everyone who's paying attention that permitting 70 years worth of complaints to suddenly be filed isn't healthy for ANY long standing organization.

13 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I respect your dedication to BSA but you have to realize that for a plan to be approved every entity has to be all in. This includes money and future youth protection.  

We are not there now and it will take all entities increasing their contribution and youth protection changes to satisfy the TCC and others. 

This could occur and BSA could go on their merry way. But this is a very complicated case with so many objections by many. 

I agree that a BSA only may be the way to go. Get maximum from BSA and insurance including some HA bases. Then go after LC on a council by council basis. This would likely settle national BSA much faster.

You are correct in some LC do not have much more to contribute, but most do have a lot more they could contribute. 

Except that's not how it will work. 

Here's my prediction if the a BSA only bankruptcy is the final result:

The HA bases are fully encumbered and/or restricted; there's no more money to be had there, so there's no more national money available.  The BSA national insurance policies are going to be tapped out, so there won't be any more funds from them.  And since this bankruptcy has taken as long as it has, every LC that doesn't have it's head buried completely will have had plenty of time to protect any camp they really want to keep from bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy courts can only go back a limited number of years (2-4 in most cases) to recover distributed assets.  So if the LCs have attorneys actually doing their jobs, they started transferring property into trusts the second things ballooned into the massive issue we have today.  If we assume another 6 months or so of national BSA bankruptcy, the LCs will only need to avoid bankruptcy for 6-18 months before they can file bankruptcy without running afoul the look-back windows on the transfers of the camps.  And once that's done, they can file chapter 11 without having to lose more than any cash on hand.

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

So when I am looking at Los Padres (California) with 83 claims with a low range of liability at $31,875,500 and high range at $144,323,500 and $14,453,991 in unrestricted assets contributing $1,834,155 or 12.7% of net unrestricted assets 

VS

Ventura Council (California) with 84 claims with a low range of liability at $30,178,500 and high range at $136,510,500 and $1,437,344 in unrestricted assets contributing $325,108 or 22.6% of net unrestricted assets 

I do not understand the data?  

At a guess, one thing that might be a factor is the LCs source of funds.  If the Ventura Council operates using a general fund derived entirely from annually renewable sources (donations, FoS, fees), that 1.4 million might simply represent a "rainy day fund".  Whereas in units with lots of scholarship youth and minimal fundraising, annual operating funds may be coming from investment interest.  So that 14.5 million dollars might represent an irreplaceable source of income instead of being a usable cash balance.

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

The number of claims can vary greatly.  There are LC's with 2 claims giving a higher % than LC's with 300 claims.  No rhyme no reason.

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.

11 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Please tell me the resume builder did not get credit for a term as SPL??

He didn't actually need it for advancement, he just wanted the patch so he could put it on college applications.  The kid was just about every unpleasant Eagle stereotype rolled into one.  Did a half-assed Eagle project where he brought in a builder friend of the family to actually run the project (I was there, his only actual "leadership" was saying "Ok, go as builder-guy what to do next".  When the SM started suggesting some additions to the project scope to allow him to actually demonstrate leadership he went home and sent Step-dad in to threaten to sue.

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

After the troop matured a couple of years, we didn't see anymore of the SPLs who just wanted the cool experience because the scouts saw how demanding the job was. Only the most ambitious scouts ran for it. In fact, the troop paid for the SPL's summer camp fees because he worked so hard. The SPL is the first into camp to sign the troop in, and the last to leave to sign the troop out. He attends all the adult meetings and makes all the decisions that don't require an 18 or older person. I learned that the other SPLs  in the camp recognize maturity because our SPLs were typically picked as the camp SPL. The SPLs are worn out by the end of camp. But, it is strangely an experience that is highly prized. One scout showed me his 18 month plan to be an SPL. And it was timed for the summer camp experience.

 

When my son was 15 he ran for SPL and got beat, and then became ASPL for one of the resume builders; who of course vanished like a fart in the wind about 2 months into his term.  So my son ended up acting as SPL for 3 or 4 camp-outs.  The second campout he did that on ended up being one where he was the only kid over 14, along with two 13 year old "my parents don't medicate us on the weekends" ADHD pains in the rear and then seventeen 10,11 & 12 year olds in four patrols.  By Saturday night he was just about in tears when he came up to me off in the dark at about 9pm to let me know that "Being SPL on camp-outs just totally sucks!  Nobody does what they are supposed to do, the ADHDers wander off the second there's a pause in whatever they are supposed to be doing and the new kids are such idiots they didn't even know how to boil water." (They were trying to boil water for hot cocoa in a 12" frying pan with no lid because the kid doing it "Couldn't find anything else to use".  I assume because the frying pan was at the top of the cook-box and blocking the view of the complete pot & pan set resting underneath and moving one thing while looking for a second thing still doesn't occur to 11 year olds.)

I was honestly surprised he still wanted to be SPL after that, but 10 hours of sleep seemed to put him right.

56 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

That's when scouting starts getting fun.  The troop can actually start performing.  I've seen troops keep switching people because they need jobs.  The troop never gets out of 1st gear to do anything interesting.  

Yep.  That's one of the reasons I dislike SPL changes every 6 months.  Not that I don't think the elections should happen, I just like it when the SPL serves 2 or 3+ terms.  6 months is just about enough time to figure out what they are doing.  Even the boys think the times (3 I think) over the last 7 years where an SPL lasted more than 6 months were significantly better, though I don't know if they've actually made that connection.  They just talk about "Back when X was SPL".  Of course, most of the rest of the time were SPLs who thought it would be cool to be SPL or they wanted it on their college applications and they all wanted it to be over by month 3 when they realized it's a lot of work and not just "standing up front and telling people what to do".

On 12/7/2021 at 12:44 PM, fred8033 said:

... Electing seems to also beg the overly heavy focus on advancement.  Adults fear SPL/PL appointing positions won't be fair to kids looking to advance ... which ignores the reason that Eagle scout was originally so valuable.   Eagle scout did reflect someone that could work with others and get things done.  ... The more I think about it, electing or adults appointing subverts the program significantly.

Whenever one of the adults in our troop starts making noise about "fairness" because "What about kids who need a position to advance?" I make sure and remind them that other than for Eagle, they can substitute a SM approved project.  I think even among those who know it's an option, it tends to get forgotten about.  And when it comes to the Eagle requirement, well, there's nothing that says there can only be 1 Troop Instructor.

I'm much more interested in allowing the SPL to put together a team that actually wants to do the job rather than picking scouts that the SM says "really need a position".  I had the same Quartermaster for 18 months (now he's the QM Emeritas and helping the newbie) and it was GLORIOUS.  By about month 8-9, getting ready for a campout was as simple as saying  "Everything all set? Need me to buy any supplies?" and then waiting for the answer.

18 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

If YPT policies were followed, it should have been very difficult for something like this to have happened.  

When we did the Protect Yourself Rules adventure with our Cub Scouts, I emphasized repeatedly to them that they can never be alone with any adult at any Scout activity, other than their parents.  Not me, not another parent, not anyone.

The biggest thing YPT related that I hope comes out of this is the elimination of the 72 hour rule.  I have voiced my opinion on this both here, and in my unit, district, and council.  Anyone who wants to accompany us on any outing needs to be registered, take YPT training, and be background checked.  When I have stated this here, I have on occasion been called out, with some stating that there could be many reasons beside CSA that could cause someone to not want to go through the background check.  My view there is simple, and will not change.  I do not care why someone might refuse to register due to the background check requirement.  The fact that they would refuse it is sufficient to say that I do not want them around my Scouts.

Actually, I've been one of the people commenting on this notion, though I don't recall if it was you or not.  What I've said is that there are people who may not pass (by the BSA';s standards) a background check for reasons unrelated to CSA and that would be a problem.  If someone actually refuses a free or very cheap background check entirely, I don't think anyone would argue against keeping them out.  But there could be times when someone submitted to a background check but can't get registered for due to an offense in their past that poses no risk to kids.  The one case I know of personally is a HS friend of my sister who is still on the sex offender registry for statutory rape because he had sex with his 16 year old long-term GF  when he had turned 18 but when she was still 2 months from turning 17 and the Romeo & Juliet exceptions hadn't been written in yet.

But I wouldn't mind if anyone who wasn't registered was restricted from interacting with any scout but their own on camp-outs.  The ability for any parent to observe doesn't need to mean they interact.  They can watch the goings on from the Adult site just fine.

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It seems to me that you answered your own comment.  Other than the paperwork, what is different if the two units, one boy and one girl, actually fly together, as it were?  KISS should be the guide word here.  Too many of us are far too "anal" much of the time.  JMHO

The difference is that if it becomes officially allowed, the adults will take the option of remaining single gender away from the scouts in favor of "easier".

16 hours ago, skeptic said:

I suspect that many girl troops do not choose to be separate.  Depends on the members and the established interactions with a boy troop, or not.  It seems though that separate patrols  would allow pretty much the same thing for much of the time in a coed group.  The thing is, it should be the youth that decide, not the out of touch National hierarchy.  All Scouting is local; remember?

 

But any linked troop can run functionally coed if they really want to, outside of the formal troop structure, so what is really being added by allowing full co-ed troops other than not requiring 5 girls to start one?  If the boys and girls want to camp together under the current system, they can; if they don't want to , they can choose that too.  If "full co-ed" becomes allowable, that choice will go away in many situations as the adults will end up deciding "easier is better" and the administrative hassles of 2 troops will make the decision, not the scouts.

Plus, camping in fully separate patrols (with 300' separation) isn't as easy as it might sound.  If you only have 1-3 patrols it's probably not too hard, but we frequently have 3-4 youth and 1 adult patrol on camp-outs and finding places to accommodate that much physical separation is often quite difficult.  And trust me, when I was Camping Coordinator I tried HARD to get the adults far enough away to get parents out of their kid's campsites.  I could only manage it about half the time.

14 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's like summer camp.  Our camp has at least 50 troop sites.  I really bet that 30+ of those sites are really good.  In those sites, I'm betting scouts think their site is the best.  They know it.  They have good memories.  They want to go back next year.

So when your troop chooses to stay mostly separate, I'd bet it's more that they like your troop and have had good experiences.  They want to avoid change and the unknown.  

Those same scouts ... if they had joined with a co-ed troop ... they would only know that co-ed troop and would be perfectly happy with it.  ... again ... generally ... most scouts ... 

No.  We tried mixed company for almost a year.  They didn't like it so we did separate stuff for another year and when the issue was revisited again, they still said they prefer camping separately.

It's not that doing Scouts co-ed "wouldn't work", clearly the kids are comfortable in co-ed environments since that's what the rest of their life is.  If that was the only option, I'm sure both the boys and the girls would cope and things would cruise along.  But that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not its the best option.  And while I don't know exactly what all the reasons are for our girls troop to prefer being separate, I know that for the boys, a big reason is "we just don't have to stress about there being girls around".

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Welcome to the forum,  @ToKindle96

I agree that dual troops are essentially coed.

I have not seen any of the boys be idiots but it doesn't surprise me. If I were still SM and I did see it we would have a discussion.

I have also not seen the girls take over. They like their patrol. They also like a bigger troop with a bunch of patrols. It's doing more to promote patrol method than anything else.

Our troops are very much separate and for the most part, both the boys and the girls prefer it that way.  For the first 6-9 months after we started we had a bunch of joint campouts (though they always met separately) and when the question was asked of the kids about continuing with joint events they pretty much universally said "maybe occasionally, but mostly separate".

4 hours ago, skeptic said:

This might overlap with the other attempted discussion of what we might like to see, or feel is important for improvements.  

Can they develop some type of background check method that can apply to those sort of "in between" adults?  YP, period, and then background to include proper reference contacts?  

I don't know about places other than Michigan but you can get a clearance letter from the State verifying no child abuse or neglect charges or convictions.  And I know the state police maintain a database that some people can check, but they are really restrictive on who can access it and for what.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

This is one of the several black holes that exist in my ongoing review of YP and YPT. BSA won’t cough up the data or metrics specific to the history of child sexual abuse in Scouting and the full context of all abuse since the implementation and improvements. For example, I’d like to know the full story on the shower camera predator from all sides of the equation. It would help a ton in understanding his vetting, access, supervision or lack thereof, recorded dicey history, anyone ever suspect or notice odd behavior, and etc. It seems like common sense for these things to be made available to LCs, Units, COs and parents. No?

Ugh.. it would be great if something like a hospital's M&M conference could be done on these things, but our legal system makes that sort of thing being open for public inspection horrifying to contemplate.  Who would be willing to admit to a mistake when it's going to be open to the public and would open you up to a lawsuit by distraught parents?  And I'm not talking about situations where someone failed to do part of a background check or skipped one entirely.  I mean stuff like (hypothetically) a Camp staffer who saw the guy fiddling with a bunch of micro cameras but he was in a rush and the guy said something about using them to track animals so he moved along and thought nothing else of it until the reports came in.  Or the ASM who has noticed another leader's behavior is a little odd, but not so overt as to be a blatant red flag.

18 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm not exactly sure what you are stating because I'm not sure what your "not true" relates to. I think we're agreeing that the decline in child death rates due to accidents has declined dramatically since 1970? Far fewer kids overall are dying today than in 1970 despite the youth population being essential static during that time frame. 

 

Your assertion was that the number of accidental deaths among children due to injury has decreased "exponentially" due to safety restrictions that have been imposed over the years, thus justifying the ongoing trend of restricting and curtailing childhood activities and equipment.

I'm saying your assertion is incorrect on its face because the number of children dying from accidental injuries has not decreased by an amount that could be considered "exponential" in any sense and further that most of the reduction in accidental deaths that does exist is attributed to a single source, seat belts in cars. (and probably child seats)  So if you remove automobile accident deaths from the "Accidental Injury" category, the number of deaths hasn't really been impacted much at all by all of the limitations being imposed in the name of "safety for kids".

On 12/4/2021 at 9:05 AM, SSScout said:

Well, yeah,   KE still equals 1/2MV squared.

Pushing the swing (empty), it was possible to  wrap the chain supports around the bar.  With a kid in the seat, pumping, never saw that, but that doesn't mean we didn't try !

https://aplusphysics.com/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/929-can-you-really-swing-over-the-bar/

Anyone else think that the completion of that swing was probably closely followed by a group of boys deciding to compete to see how many revolutions they can do before they vomit?  And then when they realized not everyone does vomit it was followed up with "Ok, now eat/drink a bunch of X and see if you can still do it without throwing up!"

On 12/3/2021 at 4:05 PM, yknot said:

I guess the answer is that a lot more of us didn't get to be adults. Enhanced safety considerations have caused an exponential decline in childhood death rates. I know we get nostalgic about how things were when we were young, but so much of it, like playground wood chips and bike helmets, is just belated common sense. 

That's not even close to true. Per the Maternal & Child Health Bureau, Accidental Injuries represented 49% of child (5-14) deaths in 1970 and was 36% of deaths in 2007.  And since that death category includes automobile accidents, that's going to include the reduction in deaths caused by the seat belt laws passed in the 80s.  Child Mortality Study 1970-2007 

15 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I’m the CC and the SM wanted all positions with 2 or more interested Scouts to be elected vs appointed to encourage a variety of Scouts and make sure everyone is happy with their positions. The SM doesn’t seem to be doing it at all for more control. Maybe to prevent hard feelings? 
 

I too want to have it match the documented program because then it is what it is. But, if it isn’t a “big mistake”, then I am inclined to let the SM decide to have every position voted on as long as the Scouts are ok with it. 

Honestly, having the ASPLs be elected is probably the worst positions to do so with.  The ASPL is supposed to be the SPL's right hand person and stand-in and that only works well if they get along and can work closely together.  As an appointee, you know the ASPL is going to be someone the SPL likes and probably has influence over (to encourage attendance and that prep work actually get done).  As an elected position, you can easily end up with a pairing that can't stand each other or where they butt heads over getting things done.

My experience has been that when you have the SPL working with 1 - 3 ASPLs as a friendly team you get much smoother operations overall as the SPLs work can get divvied up easily.  Usually when I see an SPL with an ASPL that got appointed by the SM, I see an SPL that does everything themselves and an ASPL standing around twiddling their thumbs unless the SPL is absent for some reason.

4 hours ago, scoutldr said:

That's the way it was back in my day...early 60s.  COuld not begin working on a rank's requirements until the previous rank was awarded.  I believe it was changed around the time of "First Class First Year", when they believed that once a Scout made FC, he was more likely to stay.

I always wondered about that reasoning.  It's like it never occured to them that the reason kids that reached FC were more likely to stay was that they were the kids who liked the program enough to have spent 1-3 years working on requirements.  It's not like being awarded FC is going to make the kid that was going to drop out after the first year more likely to stay.

53 minutes ago, MattR said:

Until the BSA develops training for scouters on teaching and supervising scouts using power tools i doubt anything will change.

I got my father in law's radial arm saw and as soon as I found out I could get $150 if I proved I destroyed it, I took them up on the offer. Does fine as a miter saw. Most dangerous thing I've seen for ripping boards. These are a clear no for me. Table saws and lathes in the hands of adults with little training or experience is just asking for trouble. I can see the BSA saying no or really limited use on those tools. Most other power tools I think could be made safe with a well written training program.

The BSA has figured out how to safely put scouts in the water, on rocks and shooting. They can make most tools safe as well.

 

Oh yes, there's definitely some tools I wouldn't even let most adults use unsupervised (or at all) if they were at my house.  I grew up using that stuff with my father and grandfather and even then I didn't respect table saws quite the way I should have.  But now the slightly numb middle finger where the nice Nurse Practitioner sewed my fingertip back together serves as a nice constant reminder about safety.

Yeah, radial arm saws, shapers, lathes, angle grinders I don't think I'd ever allow anyone else to use on my insurance policy.  Way too much risk of mutilating injury through a single moment of inattention as opposed to those tools that are generally safe if you follow a few simple guidelines.

But for that to happen, they have to actually decide it's worth paying attention to and develop rules rather than taking the easy excuse of "OSHA says no" even though anyone who thinks about it realizes theres a difference between being employed to use a 300lb industrial steel cart for hours on end and using a 30lb cart for a 2 hour service project.

26 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Which goes right back to the purpose of the bankruptcy was never about “fair and equitable compensation” it was and is still limiting the amount that BSA would have to pay. 

Nobody has ever argued that the bankruptcy was done primarily for the purpose of compensating survivors, obviously it was done to protect the ability of the organization to keep functioning, like every chapter 13 filing.  But part of the process of a bankruptcy is the legal requirement to notify any potential creditors of the impending case so that everyone has a chance for a piece of the pie, however large or small it is.  So the publications and notices were intended to let any victims who hadn't yet filed suit against the BSA know that if they didn't make a claim now, their ability to do so in the future would be gone.  In this situation "equitable compensation" didn't mean "an amount relative to the pain you suffered from your abuse", it meant "a fair sharing of available funds among all victims".

The alternative to this would have been the distribution of all available funds to only the 181 filers who had already sued the BSA.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

I could trust some of my scouts/venturers with a skill saw more than I could trust myself. Simply put, all of that vocational training was fresh in their minds. Meanwhile a few nicks on my hide here and there had betrayed long lost vo-tech lessons.

Even as a youth, I really shouldn’t have been trusted with a belt sander when I was working on my Eagle project. But then I’m not sure if I asked permission from my folks to use it.

The belt sander in shop class is typically the free-standing variety that you apply the wood against rather than the handheld variety you hold against the wood.  While they have similar risks to a lathe (or anything else that spins in a "locked on" manner), the actually chance of getting tangled up in one is much lower since the opening for something to get snagged is 1/4" wide on each side of the belt as opposed to 30"-60" with a lathe.

55 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

At the time of filing the bankruptcy and the wording equitable compensation was used equitable there was no Hartford deal, no LC deal and no CO deal and BSA offered up 250M so

250M/ 5,000 = $50,000

250M/ 10,000 = $25,000

And that was because they were facing 181 lawsuits at the time and wanted to put those suits on hold.

No, this bankruptcy was never about the 181 lawsuits that were already filed, it was about the hundreds or thousands more they knew would be coming after states started rolling back Statutes of Limitations in the face of the other CSA mass-torts (Nassar, Catholic Church, etc.).  Putting a stay on the existing cases was just an added bonus.  With tort claims of this nature, any settlement, bankruptcy or otherwise, was ALWAYS going to be a combination of BSA funds plus insurance payouts, with the insurance payouts being many times higher than the BSA contributions.  In the individual cases that had already settled, BSA likely didn't pay anything much more than attorney fees; but even just the legal fees on thousands more cases would have stretched the BSA budget to the breaking point. 

At any rate, when BSA filed for a bankruptcy re-organization, it did so with full knowledge that any potential settlement fund would be composed of the BSA's 250 million (of what it viewed as "available cash") along with many hundreds of millions or billions of insurance dollars.  The idea behind Settlement Trust funds like this is that you put the BSA's 250 million in the Trust to get things started, then the Trust takes all the processed claims and turns to the insurance companies and says "Here are 6500 claims, your policy limit is ($1,000,000), so you owe us 6.5 billion dollars". And then the Trust would either reach an agreement with the insurance company or take the insurance company to court using the starting 250 million for legal fees.

So NOBODY, EVER, (who actually understands how these things work anyway) expected payments to survivors to be based entirely, or even mostly, upon the funds the BSA would be contributing personally through the bankruptcy reorganization. 

So if I'm on the BSA's legal team in 2019 and I'm assuming we are looking at 10,000 claims with insurance policies that have $1,000,000 per claim limits, it's pretty simple reasoning to think:

We're going to put in 250 million and insurance companies will probably be willing to settle without too much argument at $500,000-$750,000 for every valid claim in open states, so if 1/3 the claims are both valid and in open states, there will be about 2.5 billion eventually in the trust fund.