elitts

On 11/24/2021 at 8:10 PM, johnsch322 said:

"Equitable compensation" to survivors has never been the goal of the BSA in this bankruptcy.  The only goal that the BSA had was to escape from underneath the liability for the least amount of money possible.  The upper limit of 5 to 10K of potential victims was arrogance on their part.  If that truly was the amount that they had to pay it still would not have been 150-300k payment on average just do the math...225K (average of 150 to 350) X 10,000 = 2.25 Billion.  Initially BSA told LC's and CO's they would not have to contribute and they negotiated with Hartford for a max of 650M so where was that money coming from?

"Equitable compensation" are just public relations terms trying to make the public feel for the BSA.

1.5 billion (no LC payment) / 5,000 = $300,000

1.5 billion (no LC payment) / 10,000 = $150,000

Of course, it's entirely possible when they meant "equitable compensation" they were talking about "making sure everyone with a claim got something" rather than "making sure every victim gets enough to feel satisfied (for lack of a better term)".

As opposed to "the first few hundred victims who file court cases get settlements and everyone else gets nothing".

23 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Returning to OP,  G2SS. We need to journey back to teaching and trusting, If high schools teach students the safe use of power tools so can we. In 2022, lets educate scouts in the safe operation of dremels, drill presses, scroll saws...check some boxes in Boy Scouts column on SAFE Project Use Chart.

I find this reference useful

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-101/pdfs/safe.pdf

My $0.02,

Hell, my shop classes were all in middle school. The only pieces of equipment we absolutely weren't allowed to use were the table saw and the power miter saw.  Even the band saw could be used, but only if the cut you needed to make allowed you to keep your hands 6" away from the blade and under the teacher's direct observation.  The belt sander, jointer, planer, palm sander, drill press and lathe were all fair game.  Though the lathe was only allowed for 8th graders and only with special dispensation from the teacher.  I didn't understand why then, though I do now after seeing videos of lathe accidents involving hair, loose clothing and improperly held tools.

On 11/24/2021 at 4:10 PM, 5thGenTexan said:

I can get a charcoal chimney just fine with some paper.   Probably faster than lighter fluid.

I wont even let my Webelos and AOL start a fire with a match.  When I do fires in camp, I dont even use a match.  

Its a sore spot for me to see lighter fluid in the world.  😁

I mean, I get it lit fine.  I just get frustrated because by the time the whole stack of briquettes is going good, the ones at the bottom are half burned up.  so then I have half size briquettes that make it harder to keep a constant specific temperature in an oven.

On 11/24/2021 at 4:45 PM, Armymutt said:

I try to teach mine to use natural sources of tinder and we use the flame wands to light that.  My favorite is reindeer moss, which grows well on the edges of the pine forests here.  Our fire rings are very deep and very small, which makes it really awkward trying to use much else to start a fire.  Not enough enough room to do decent DO cooking without pulling coals out of the fire ring.    Then there was that one dad in another pack we got jammed in with during Cuboree.  He had something that looked like an incendiary grenade.  I try to teach mine to make small fires.

Yeah, I am starting to have a burning hatred of the new  two foot tall "fire rings" with the 6" thick concrete sides that are worthless for doing basically anything except standing next to and warming your hands.

On 11/21/2021 at 7:05 PM, DJ72 said:

 When a car salesman says, ‘This is a great deal’ my first thought is ‘For whom, you or me?  Same here.  The ‘best’ path forward for the BSA is the current proposed plan.  Great deal for BSA.........and The LCs make out like bandits in the current plan with releases granted , even to LCs in open states. These Open state LCs should not be given civil releases. They should have to fend for themselves in court.

The proposed plan is absolutely NOT the best path forward for survivors in open states with high value cases. 

I think that's pretty standard with any mass-tort type situation.  Those with the most best cases and best documentation (therefore the most likely to win in an independent suit) end up subsidizing the people with the worst cases and less comprehensive documentation.  But even for open states I don't think it's as clear cut as some folks do.  If you have a strong case against an LC with relatively few cases, you are probably getting hosed by any nationwide deal, but if you are in an open state with a LC facing hundreds or thousands of claims, you wouldn't be in a much better scenario than with the national settlement.

On 11/21/2021 at 8:18 PM, Eagle1970 said:

 But I really can't allow myself emotionally to even care anymore.  I'm just pissed off that BSA indicated we would be fairly compensated and the reality is that we will likely see pocket change.

This is one of those issues that a number of people seem to really be hung up on.  I understand being frustrated that what you thought they meant by "equitable compensation" isn't what's going to be happening here, but it's not like the BSA wrote that with the intention of misleading people.  When this all started, they thought 5k-10k was the upper limit of potential victims.  That would have meant a 150k-300k payment on average. 

15 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

  There were Scouts showing Cub Scouts....   squirting lighter fluid into a charcoal chimney.  I am unsure what they were "teaching", but I hope and pray none of ours were paying any attention that day.

Hmm.. I've been known to say "Ok guys, this is not the way to do this, so cover your eyes" when I'm using lighter fluid with the charcoal chimney.  I probably need to look up tips on getting all the coals hot at the same time.  Fortunately, the scouts aren't supposed to use liquid accelerants anyway. 

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yeah, that is a bit odd.  Though there are no gaga pits at the schools in my area (at least town) and the one at the scout camp we went to was removed.  However, they appear to be more common than schools playing dodgeball.   I'm not sure why gaga is considered safer than dodgeball.

Because in Gagaball you aren't allowed to throw the ball, only hit it while bent over, which means the amount of force that can be exerted is severely limited.  Plus, the space is limited, which means the chance for the ball to arc up high enough to hit above the waist is low.  In 10 years of Cubs and Scouts, every injury I've ever seen in Gagaball is either from someone just getting jostled and falling down, or someone trying to jump/climb out of the pit and falling over the wall.  (or banging their hand into the ground or wall trying to hit the ball)

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

You hit on the main reason "friends of" were to be avoided.  It does take a bit of extra work.  It's easy to become a 501c3 / charter org.  The hard part is the small amount of work every year needed to stay as a valid 501c3.  Many will fail to file paperwork at some point and put their status at risk.  BUT, most scouting units are small and not targets.  ... If you wan to keep running, I think it's a good option.

Just to be a little nit-picky.  "Non-profit" is not the same as "a valid 501c3 organization".  I am the sole member of a Non-Profit LLC in my state that exists for the purpose of "owning" a set of canoes for youth group use.  But since there's no money coming in or going out, I haven't bothered obtaining the 501c3 designation from the IRS.  So, all 501c3s are non-profit, but not all non-profits are 501c3s.

You could theoretically have a non-profit chartering a troop that simply filed taxes as a non-exempt entity.

On 11/19/2021 at 2:56 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

My biggest pet peeve is councils logging their Scout camps.  Our properties could be crown jewel conservation examples, but nearly every camp I have been to over the last decade has had a large swath timbered (for cash, of course) with major impact to local wildlife and soil and water resources.  Every Scout camp timber operation I've seen would be better described as "Devastation for Currency."  In our last four summers (four different camps), we've had an environmental planner who works for the state with us, and he has really opened my eyes to the extensive damage councils are doing...

 

Yep.  Even when the logging companies only take 1 tree out of 4, (which is generally a low percentage) they never mention the collateral damage that the remaining woodlands will take from the machinery they are going to bring in.  I mean, some timbering can be helpful for the forest, but if they really wanted to be "conservation minded" they'd contract with the low impact loggers like the Amish/Mennonites or require logs to be skidded out in singletons with a log arch rather than allowing them to bulldoze roads to get the massive skidsteers and log trucks back in.

1 hour ago, SSScout said:

..... up to a point

At IOLS, I always mention the The Three Words No Scoutmaster Wants To Hear:

"" HEY !  WATCH THIS ! ""

Or worse yet...

Hey! Record me!

13 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I have heard that some councils have that rule, but that is not what the text says. It just says registered leaders. "All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive."

If there is a Council officially advertising that as a rule, I bet they aren't actually implementing it since it effectively eliminates the ability to have OA or Council contingents to HA bases or Summer Camps.  I hope it's just yet another instance of some Council Commissioner or DE misunderstanding a rule and giving bad explanations.  (Like the Commissioner I heard telling a group at a Roundtable that if you must have 2 different bathrooms available any time there are females along.  Even if the bathroom in question is a single person, individually locking stall)

2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

As with all of the "legal paperwork" relating to National and the local councils, it is a mess.  Either intentional or by neglect.

Had folks donating property for the use of Scouting truly wanted to limit the use of their donation to that as a scout camp and no other.  And to prevent the sale of their donation, the legal path to do so is ridiculously simple, but apparently rarely used.

The deed of conveyance of the donated property to the local council should have contained all of the restrictions desired by the donors.  It also should have included was is called a "right of reverter," that is, which essentially provides that "if the property ceases to be used for the restricted purpose, title 'revert' to the donors (or their heirs)."

Then, that deed is recorded in the public record and thereby puts the whole world on notice (actual, or constructive = presumed notice).

Any prospective purchaser of the restricted property would have a title search conducted, find the deed of conveyance with restrictions and the right of reverter appear in the title commitment (a title company's written list of the documents adversely affecting title to the property), and require the local council to produce a document terminating the right of reverter before purchasing.

(As a practical note, the more time which has passed after the original donation, the greater the number of heirs, in the usual course of life, and the greater the number of folks from whom the local council will have to obtain consent.  Some may waive their rights, some may demand compensation, and other may outright refuse.)

No buyer in their right mind would buy a property subject to a right of reverter without that right having been fully terminated, because, if not terminated, the heirs could file suit and seek a declaratory judgment that the heirs are the owners due to the operation of the right of reverter.  The heirs would not have to pay any compensation to the buyer.  That is a bad result for buyer.

 

I understand how it should happen.  But if you don't work in the field, you'd be absolutely amazed at how often people make incredibly stupid and uninformed decisions when it comes to buying property. (like a local developer that bought a 30 acre tract without realizing that the Seller's father had granted all development rights to the state for another 45 years)  That includes people buying multi-million dollar properties without surveys, inspections, lawyers, or even checking with the local municipality to see if there are outstanding issues.  The single biggest saving grace for most people is that if you want a mortgage on a property, you are going to have an underwriter insisting on title insurance who will insist on checking everything out. 

But if there's no mortgage involved, all bets are off on whether all the documents are fully completed or filed correctly.

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

The LC's offer is 600M.  If the plan passed that would get all LC's off the hook now and if other states open up their SOL's they won't be affected (essentially bankruptcy protection without paying the price).  The TCC's and many of the law firms say that is to little to get those protections and have sent the LC's BRG dashboards that show larger amounts that could be contributed.  

I meant I'm uncertain on the suitability of the offer.  I knew what the amount was.

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

No matter what the LC's offer was much to low and the and the BRG analysis of the LC's show that. On top of that the only people who will decide on the low ball offer will be survivors.  It is a far stretch of imagination that even 75% of survivors would vote yes and more that that would more than likely have to.

I'm uncertain on the (suitability of the) amount of the offer.  I suspect it's too low.  My feeling on numbers like that in situations like this is that if one party quickly agrees, they're probably getting a deal.  But I also think the fact that the settlement is pulling in funds from LCs that face little to no risk is a significantly balancing factor.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

My experience that I am seeing are assets that are listed as restricted by the BSA and LC and TCC but are going for possible sale anyway. TCC did consider restrictions.  That said, I’m sure LCs don’t agree with what the TCC is saying.   
 

I think the main point of the article is that LCs or COs shouldn’t be part of the National BSA bankruptcy.   If there are CSA claims, they should proceed in state court.  If they lose cases or believe they don’t have enough money, then they should enter their own bankruptcy.  

Having worked with non-profits for a while I know that generally speaking they frequently do a very poor job of actually tracking purchase agreements, endowment restrictions and even just segregating restricted and open funds.  Plus the level of specificity required on property transfers (to be upheld in the courts) has changed over the years.  So where today if you were going to do a restricted property transfer you'd file a Covenant Deed for the transfer and maybe even a separate Deed Restriction in order to enforce your wishes, 50+ years ago the intention to donate land solely for the purpose of a camp may only have been included on a purchase agreement, or might just be mentioned on a line or two within the deed.  Or it may have just been an oral agreement at the time the land was conveyed.  It doesn't make those restrictions less binding, just harder to prove.

And of course, as you've noted, restrictions are only as binding as the remaining donor families want to make them.  If no one tries to enforce a deed restriction, it's basically worthless.

Personally, I agree that they ideally they shouldn't have been included.  But it becomes murky given the insurance situation since BSA was carrying policies intended to cover everyone.  I don't know enough about insurance to know if that was an insurmountable problem or not though.

On 11/16/2021 at 7:16 PM, johnsch322 said:

The TCC. Even the BSA says combined the LC’s have over 2 billion in assets. 

However, without the qualifier "Available", that statement isn't very useful.  Regardless of what many folks would like to believe, many of those assets are restricted (certainly not all of them though).  And even where they aren't restricted, they often wouldn't end up on the table in anything but a liquidation. 

Quite frankly, even among those assets LCs have been selling, I suspect if you actually looked into the past you'd find out the properties were donated on the condition that they be used as scout camps but they've managed to skate by and get them sold without the families involved finding out to file court cases. 

I know it's happened around me at least once or twice.  I think it was Owasippe where they had the whole sale written up in the back room and basically signed when someone popped up and said "Uh.. You can't sell that."

I haven't been to Summit, but if it's in the budget, make sure you do the New River rafting trip.  I did that a couple years ago with my son and it's an absolute blast.

My pack always operated with the requirement that no child could attend any function without some adult taking personal responsibility for the scout.  It didn't have to be that child's parent after Tigers, but there had to be someone.  You couldn't just drop your kids at the door and drive away.

13 hours ago, yknot said:

On youth protection, maybe start with what the former BSA director of youth protection Michael Johnson had to say on the subject:

1) Recognize that scouting is a high risk perhaps the highest risk youth activity as far as youth protection and other aspects. 

2) Recognize that a significant percentage of current abuse cases are youth on youth. Older youth supervision of younger youth is a problem. 

3) Remove NDAs that prevent other youth protection experts who have contracted with the BSA from speaking out.

4) The CO structure is dysfunctional as far as supervision of units and scouts. Some COs still allow known perpetrators to have access to youth.

5) Release files that have names of perpetrators who have not yet been reported by BSA.  

6) BSA's focus is more on protecting the brand and protecting the COs that are at the core of its business model and not on youth protection. 

 

Nah.  He gets basically zero credibility in my book.  A fired/laid off person making lots of accusations and claims without any support or verifiable explanation isn't a reputable source.  In particular, the claim that someone in the BSA or COs is deliberately letting known abusers continue to have access to kids seems wildly unlikely.  Has it ever happened?  I mean, clearly we already know the Catholic Church did this and they sponsored some troops, so of course it did.  But if he was truly the beleaguered champion of youth that he's trying to portray, I'd have expected him to have either dealt with this already or have resigned in protest right before he forwarded all the data concerning it to the FBI.

Plus, several of his statements make me wonder if he ever actually understood the point of Scouting.  The only two things he mentioned that could be the basis of actual rule or policy changes to reduce risk to scouts were:

• Older supervision of younger scouts is a problem;
• Overnight trips may represent an unreasonable risk to scouts.

That would be like the Safety Director for the NCAA opining that "sports involving direct contact between players is unreasonably risky".

4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I'm curious, what controls do you think would make youth safer? Do you have experience with the program as an adult? I was involved with several youth program as a youth and adult raising kids, and none of those other program came close to the youth protection policies of the BSA. Since you mention stricter controls would make youth safer, I'm curious of the controls.

Barry

Just now, johnsch322 said:

How about no non registered adults on any overnight campout? As the previous poster said how does litigation make it safer for I will ask you if there had been no litigation against youth organizations would it be as safe as an environment now or would we have less controls. I have experience with youth as my daughter was a competitive swimmer for about 8 years. 

Bzzzt!!

Implement that rule and you can no longer maintain "All aspects of the program are open to observation by parents".  Parents who are not register-able for reasons unrelated to child sexual abuse would therefore be unable to observe the program. 

Besides, that whole argument is a strawman.  Have we got a problem with unregistered adults molesting kids on weekend trips? I haven't heard of one, the standard abuse case profile I've seen is that "a trusted official Scouter" is the abuser.  So what problem are you attempting to solve?  Is the problem adults in proximity to scouts on over-nights?  What about other unrelated groups in the immediate area of the campout?  There's bound to be some problem adults in say, a state park campground.  Is the problem unregistered adults interacting with scouts at all?  What do you do about every unregistered adult at the various facilities that scouts visit?

I don't mind beadings at a Court of Honor (or other youth events) as long as it's kept to a very brief 1-3 minutes, but often times the overzealous beador drags things out to 5-10 minutes with songs and all that jazz and it really isn't appropriate at a ceremony designed to celebrate youth accomplishments.  I watched one (unwillingly) at a Scouting University that dragged on for nearly 15 minutes and you could tell that every scout and pretty much every non-WB adult was bored out of their minds.

If you don't have a current troop, I wouldn't worry about waiting for a CoH.  Beading ceremonies should be about celebrating the awardee, not advertising; and if it were me, the obligatory clapping of people I barely knew wouldn't mean very much.

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

By that logic … if you were a CO … would you have a youth program AT ALL?

That's where the wide open SoL laws are going to go.  Regardless of the motivations of the lawyers in the BSA case, at some point, some of the law firms that see success in this case are going to get hungry again and they'll start targeting other programs with broad memberships.  When they could only find a few plaintiffs at a time I'd imagine the financials on pursuing a case were problematic.  But when you can go back through the entire life of the program, I have to think it starts looking more workable.

All of the comments regarding rules over un-paid advertising in threads has been moved as it was a fairly significant diversion from the purpose of this thread.  Please take any further comments regarding it to that thread.

32 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I do not believe there is an average survivor.  We have all had different courses in life. Being on the TCC does not make you a bitter spouse.

I believe that someone like John Humphrey who had a successful career before the bankruptcy and is passionate about CSA would make a perfect candidate.  He appears to be quite rational and clear headed. I think that his tireless dedication with the TCC is outstanding.  

I get it.  He's your champion.  I'm not impugning him or his dedication and I wouldn't expect someone who views the TCC that way to feel otherwise about him being a member of a committee like that.  But to be clear I wasn't talking about someone "being bitter" after a divorce or after serving on the TCC, I'm talking about the emotional and mental fatigue and damage one suffers while going through a "bitter divorce" or something like this bankruptcy.

And "average survivor" in the context of my previous post simply means "one that hasn't spent 2 years winnowing through every document, pleading, brief or anything else to do with this case".

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

If what you say is true I would think that would rule out pretty much any survivor.  

There's a big difference between the average survivor and one that has spent 2 years fighting an active battle against the BSA.  Kind of like the difference between a divorced spouse and a divorced spouse that went through 2 years of bitter divorce proceedings.