Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Eagle1993

  1. 33 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

    If the lawsuit is just over National, would they still not go after HAB's? 

    I expect the TCC will go after all unrestricted assets that National owns.  They have already signaled that includes Philmont & Summit.  The BSA lead lawyer told the AP they expect litigation will be required to determine the outcome of some aspects of the plan.  HABs are the big target/asset National has ... the courts will decide if they stay with the BSA or are sold off. 

    • Upvote 1
  2. 24 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    Which is what Kosnoff wants.

    Partially ... what he wants (and some other lawyers per their submissions) is the following.

    1) Continue to reject all plans from National BSA.  By doing this, you essentially force National into Chapter 7 as they have no other path to exit bankruptcy.

    2) When National BSA goes Chapter 7, argue that since there is no entity left to renew charters of local councils, every local council charter is not renewed.  Per LC agreements, if a charter is not renewed, all assets from the local councils go to National and are then part of the Chapter 7.

    The result is the complete and total liquidation of the entire BSA.  I see 0% chance this will happen but I think this is what some lawyers are hoping for.

    • Upvote 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    I am not a lawyer, so this is a honest question.

    If LCs and COs did NOT file claims against the BSA prior to the November 2020 deadline, then the LCs and COs are completely on their own and cannot sue BSA for breach of contract, or whatever legal term it would be, for not honoring the agreements in the charter agreements from all these years?

    My understanding is part of the charter fees everyone paid was to protect the CO and LC from lawsuits just like this.

    Given that BSA is now saying (in the media & court documents) if the grand bargain fails, councils will likely go bankrupt,  I think they realize and are admitting those claims are likely worthless.

  4. 15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    From my view, and it’s a relative outsider view, they’re throwing everyone but themselves under the bus to get outta Dodge with what they can’t bear to lose.

    I have no idea what those internal conversations are, but this is a VERY tough sell to councils.  

    1) For councils with high likelihood of bankruptcy if this fails ... they will still debate what is restricted vs unrestricted assets.  Having them turn over their friends of scouting funds, most of their camps, etc. with out a court order will be nearly impossible.

    2) For councils that believe they are at a low likelihood of bankruptcy/lawsuits ... why would they want to part with key camps or endowments?

    I think attempting to have a grand bargain is nearly impossible.  I think National would love a deal that includes councils/COs ... but unless a court rules against an entity or that an asset is unrestricted, its hard to give up the amount needed voluntarily.

  5. 32 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

    Interesting procedural arguments.   Doesn't move the ball down the field at all.

    Agreed.  The HA bases are the major asset National has available. Most of this seems like a waste of time until a judge rules on their status.  We are well over a year into bankruptcy and we have yet to be to see any judge rule on the bases.  It’s time to get that moving. 

  6. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886060_2577.pdf

    This one has an interesting footnote (new plan coming in 36 hours or less):


    The Debtors intend to file the Second Amended Plan described herein within the next thirty-six (36) hours unless they reach a resolution as a result of ongoing negotiations with creditors and insurers. The Debtors reserve their rights to file a plan of reorganization on terms that differ from the terms of the Second Amended Plan described herein.


    New plan will be a toggle plan ... from what I can see, the BSA believes that plan (which appears to drop the protection of LCs and COs) will be a worse outcome form claimants than their other proposal.  However, it does seem like they may be offering that plan as well... we will see.


    BSA Toggle Plan will afford the Debtors the necessary flexibility to emerge from bankruptcy on their required timeline even if they fail to obtain approval of a global resolution due to lack of creditor support or otherwise.


    The Debtors should be permitted to fully exhaust all avenues for achieving that objective, to the fullest extent permitted under section 1121(d)(2), before survivors are forced to accept the suboptimal outcome that the TCC is advocating: de minimis recoveries from the Debtors’ limited assets and the right to pursue nondebtor defendants in the tort system—and likely into bankruptcy courts across the country as Local Councils confront a tidal wave of abuse lawsuits.


  7. 52 minutes ago, David CO said:

    To make that work, you would need to have a scouting public who is willing to pay in perpetuity.  I don't think the parents and donors are collectively willing to do that.  They'll quit.


    I would expect the TCC and the future claims rep are not willing to bet on future payments from BSA.  It seems like it would be best from all parties to arrive at a final number, write the check and move on.  

    For future claims, my understanding is that there would be a bucket of money that would pay out for those claims not submitted by the bankruptcy filing deadline.  

    I tend to agree with @David CO that parents and donors (and I expect COs) will want to have a hard line in the sand that future dues, fees, fundraising are all going 100% to the current youth activities and not past sins.  I believe the message being sent right now is that fees and donations are protected, but there is definitely doubt that BSA is able to shield current incoming revenue from the bankruptcy until the bankruptcy is concluded.

    • Upvote 2
  8. I’ve been debating this in our Troop as well. I think masks for shorter outdoor gatherings are pretty easy requirement to comply with but I’m concerned about masks at summer camp within our site.  We did it last year and wearing masks for 12 hours straight, day after day, in the hot/rainy conditions at camp was a bit much.   We ended up strictly enforced masks outside our site and when cooking within the Patrol camp,  but were lax outside those settings.  We are still discussing how to handle this summer. 

    In our town, 78% of eligible people have recipients their first dose, so I expect high vaccination rates by camp.


  9. 30 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt:

    C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule.

    27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debtors have permitted upwards of 30 professionals to bill the estate at over $1,000 per hour, these accumulated professional fees are not some unforeseen act. Further, the Debtors have refused to implement basic steps to mitigate their fees and costs, such as imposing budget restrictions or shifting to an end-of-case holdback.”

    This makes me angry.  Are the BSA lawyers simply looking to suck the organization dry. The judge needs to do something more than sternly scolding everyone to work harder.   BSA lawyers look to have completely ignore the judge’s comments.  If BSA disappears, it might be partially due to her ineptitude.

  10. 10 minutes ago, yknot said:

    I'm starting to get really worried about the Methodist church. Far as I know, they don't have a lot of property like the Catholic church. 

    • BAPTIST CHURCH 2,774

    These are the top 5 COs identified by # of claims.  Now, I expect these numbers to grow and change a bit as many scouts probably do not even know the CO for their unit.  As lawyers are able to obtain roster data from LCs, I expect CO impacts to clarify more.  Note that there are individual churches listed throughout the CO list.


  11. 3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    The Debtor can still ask for a vote on the Plan?  

    I think the judge has to rule on that; however, her last hearing she said the plan wasn't ready.  Insurance companies just filed paperwork to delay the April 29 hearing ... it appears they are stating there must be at least 28 days for review,  before a plan can be approved for a vote.  Given the plan is not ready (per the judge) even now, there is no way April 29 hearing can proceed as previously stated. 

    Note that even though the insurance companies & TCC are both stating the plan is garbage, my guess is that is likely all they agree on.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  12. There is a lot in this document.  I tried to highlight a few key areas I thought were interesting.


    • It appears that the mediation last week was almost worthless.  
    • The TCC's analysis is showing the LC contribution is substantially lower than what they believe they can pay
    • Almost no agreement on payments from any insurance companies
    • Two major religious institutions have been part of the mediations, but have not offered anything as part of the mediation.
    • Major decisions (estimation of damages from district court, decision on HA bases and if they are available for the settlement, JP Morgan debt) must be decided before a plan can even be considered.
    • Based on the above, the judge should reject the plan.

    There is a lot more in the document, but those were my major takeaways.

    I think there is a hearing next week.  I'll be interested to see what the judge says.  I know she raised concern over the spending on the case, but she hasn't taken much action to force closure.  Perhaps she can remove the exclusivity clause and allow the TCC to offer a plan.  I would expect she could rule on the LCs and HA bases (or at least set hearings and close out on these open decisions).  

    I'll reference this article again.  Sometimes you simply need to get decisions made within courtrooms before a settlement can be reached.  I certainly hope she starts expediting any decisions within her control.




    • Upvote 2
  13. 38 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    What is concerning for summer camp is that 12-19 year olds appear more susceptible to this covid variant. State restrictions are being reinstated for school activities - spring sports, proms,... will summer camps be next?

    If the goal is 0 Covid, we will never do anything.  I don't think that should be the goal.  The goal should be to ensure our healthcare system is not overrun and that we don't see massive death.  If we follow "science" we know that the vaccines are highly effective and are effective vs the variants.  A surge and massive death is not going to happen regardless of what we do this summer (based on everything known today).  Ramp up vaccines and work on expanding testing to find hot spots ... otherwise we should be reopening.

    By this summer, I expect every adult who is at any sort of risk has had a chance at the vaccine.  Kids are far less at risk for serious complications with Covid.  It's time to get them back to their activities.  


    • Thanks 1
  14. 1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

    Can it get safer than YP at the unit level? Maybe the changes should be toward reactions to abuse reports. Isn't that what the real complaint is?


    Nearly all of the ideas I can think of is at a higher level (in terms of reporting, etc.).  If a unit strictly follows today's YP, I cannot think of any real changes that wouldn't simply kill most youth organizations.  @qwazse brought up interesting points but I'm not sure how we could change unit level YP policies to address it.

  15. 15 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

    Before we get too far, I should mention that there's already a locked thread and another unlocked thread about substantially the same question.

    I was hoping this one can be specific on specific recommendations that could improve safety.  Those others were more about society.  I'm really curious, in today's (and tomorrow's) society what changes can we make to improve safety.  There will be specific changes as part of the Chapter 11 settlement.  If we are to have scouting, we need scouting to work safely in the society we have today.  What does that look like?


  16. 2 minutes ago, FaithfulScouter said:

    For starters, if our Leaders actually followed YPT we would be in a much better position.  

    Youth protection requires two deep leadership.  I've seen Eagle car washes and project days with NO adult leadership. Our District is aware but they don't say anything. 

    No one on one contact with Scouts.  I've seen leaders give Scouts rides home in their car ALONE.  

    Leaders are not supposed to drink alcohol on trips.  They do, and in fact I know a Leader with a DWI who still drinks on camping trips.

    All written communication from a Scout should have another adult copied.  A lot of our adult leaders say 'Don't worry about it'.  

    The 72 hour rule for registration is a good one and in fact I always required that if you're going to spend a lot of time with our Scouts than you MUST register and get a background check.  My requirement was NOT well received by some adult leaders and was waved off with 'well why don't you just register EVERYONE?!"

    To me, all of these should be reported.  Reporting shouldn't be reserved for actual crimes, it should be any violation.  In EHS, we are expected to report "near misses".  Those are then used to improve training & processes.

    The written communications is a great one.  So many times, I receive an email from a scout directly to me with no one on the CC.  I immediately respond to that scout + parent + leader and remind them to never email me without an adult.  We use Troop Track as it automatically includes parents on all emails (so this only happens when they email me from their personal account).

    I would be fine if BSA says ... please, go ahead and report every email.  It seems crazy, but perhaps if that level of reporting is encouraged, these "minor" issues could identify a systemic breakdown.  

    In my organization, every call to service is considered a complaint.  We have a full time team that looks at every complaint to determine hazard (non, minor, serious, critical, etc.).  Every complaint that is serious is then investigated by engineering, QA and risk management who then determine root cause, corrective actions (if required) and if our overall system is still at an acceptable risk.  These teams process hundreds of thousands of complaints a year.

    It sounds counter-intuitive, but more reported violations of YPT may actually result in a safer organization.  




    • Upvote 4
  17. 6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I just started a new topic about ideas to improve safety.  To me, outside of the camp property loss, is the other major outcome to expect from the bankruptcy.

    I think in terms of the bankruptcy settlement, a long lasting legacy that is appropriate given the large number of victims, is for the insurance companies involved to agree to fund an independent agency like the IIHS but for youth protection.  This could improve safety not only at BSA but all youth serving organizations.  (Note: if you would want to discuss what BSA can do to improve youth protection, that could be in the linked topic above.)


    • Upvote 1
  18. 1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

    The session is probably available on Villanova's website if you want to watch it. I heard nothing constructive on this point.

    I just started a new topic about ideas to improve safety.  To me, outside of the camp property loss, is the other major outcome to expect from the bankruptcy.

    • Upvote 1
  19. Ok .. .that Chapter 11 topic drifts a lot, so I thought one area I struggle with is how we can actually reduce abuse in BSA (and youth organizations).  

    I went to websites of BSA, GSUSA, Trail LIfe, 4H, Boys and Girls Club, AYSO and the BSA is the ONLY organization that talks about Youth Protection on their main page.  I volunteer for sports teams, GSUSA and BSA ... BSA is the only one that required me to sit through 2 hours of training.  

    These are not complaints, they are just brief comparisons as I am attempting to see what is out there that BSA is not doing.  

    My one thought on how to improve safety comes from industry.  In particular, the automotive industry.  Over the last decades, cars have become more safe.  There is no debate ... a crash that would have killed you 20+ years ago may leave you with minor injuries today.  So, how did they do this?  Was it lawsuits ... somewhat.  Was it standards ... a bit.  Was it legislation ... not so much.  

    The number one reason cars are more safe today, is the IIHS. The IIHS is funded by insurance companies who have to pay claims when their drivers are hurt/injured.  The IIHS safety ratings help drive insurance rates of cars ... but more than that ... they are public data that tells consumers which cars are safer.

    Do we need a IIHS for youth organizations?  Essentially, an independent body of experts that can review the training, procedures, etc. for all major youth organizations that buy insurance and rate their safety level and have that publicly available.  

    To be clear, each youth organization is not the same.  Having a STEM team work on computer code is less dangerous than having a patrol go for a hike in a mountain range.  So, it would be good to provide categories just like IIHS does. Think truck, sport car, van, SUV vs Outdoor/scouting, sports teams, STEM.

    I think, over time, this could improve safety protocols across all youth organizations.  Just a thought on something that worked in another industry.



    • Thanks 1
  20. 17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

    Please don't re-word a post.  At no point did the statement include "no changes since."   The year 1990 was used to correspond with the "new version" of YPT.  See "https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/youth-protection/100-years-of-enhancing-efforts-to-protect-youth 

    Your post stated "Youth Protection Training protocols used today were enacted" which is what I quoted.  I did not re-word a post. 

    We use different protocols today than in 1990.   If you stated "when no one on one youth and adult contact started" I would agree.  Youth Protection Training protocols are far beyond no one on one contact and two deep leadership.  For instance, BSA only recently decided that 18 year olds are not considered adults in terms of Youth Protection Training. 


    • Upvote 1
  21. 6 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    Youth Protection Training protocols used today were enacted

    This is incorrect.  The training used today is new (~3 years old).  Yes, that was when 2 deep leadership and no one on one contact started but BSA has been making various updates since.  There was also changes to the background check process recently.  This has been an evolving area for BSA and most youth organizations. Claiming there was a hard line in 1990 and no changes since is false.  

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  22. 21 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

    Agreed. It's unfortunate to lose the HA bases, but if that's a price to keep council camps, then it should be paid. Plenty of wonderful state and national parks and forests to do HA trips in. 

    I honestly don’t think that will be the trade off anymore.  I used to think giving up an HA base may save a local council camp... but I doubt that is true.  If BSA can prove it’s a restricted asset they should keep it.  If it isn’t restricted then it should go to the trust.  

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...