Eagle1993

Apparently they compared membership rates between packs with single gender dens and coed dens and found coed performed better.

One change announced today - K4 through 4th grade Cub Scout Dens can now be coed.

I believe the final financial statement has been uploaded (see attached).a467cb7b-d708-4574-bf09-af88162f82eb_11230.pdf

A lot of activity on this one as it closes out BSA's immediate cash outlays to the trust.  Note councils have ongoing payments and I believe BSA may have some as well.

BSA leaves bankruptcy with $25.5M unrestricted cash. 

3 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Did I miss a policy change?  My understanding is that councils cannot add a council fee greater than the BSA registration fee currently $75.

 

 

Agreed, but They said that limit doesn't apply to them.  Other councils are already getting around this limit as well.  Sounds like that limit is meaningless.

In this case, it appears the council leadership and United Way are not aligned causing UW to cut funding.   If my council lost UW funding, it would be a $78 per scout deficit.   Don't tick off the United Way without a plan to replace their funding.

7 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is a complicated analysis that could show different stories depending on how one slices it. I think e do of 2022 compared to end of 2021 is an important measure as is April 23 compared to April 22. Comparing April 23 to end of year 22 is interesting, and important, but bakes in some ebs and flows. 

One concern has to be that the >10% increase in Cub Scouts shrunk to 6.5% by April.  Either we are losing scouts at a faster pace or recruiting isn't going as well Jan-April in 2023 as it did in 2022. 

In order to keep up the 10% annual increase in Cub scouts we will have to recruit 228K more Cub Scouts on top of the 410K we currently have ... They recruited 196K last year during the same time period so while a steep target not impossible.

BSA letter to survivors.

BSA-Open-Letter_042023.pdf

Locked as this thread hit its end.  Various other topics spun off, but to continued discussion re: Bankruptcy can be found below.

Sounds like those changes we discussed to Cub Scouts will come out during the National meeting. 

Also, how to bring in the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Very disappointed to see no discussion of any discussion of changes to Scouts BSA (required merit badges that look like High School 2.0 and cooking requirements that make you lose all love of cooking). 

Venturing seems like a hail Mary as well. 

UK scouting removed duty to God in 2013, saw growth and has far more members than BSA per capita.  I'm sure there were many who were upset in the early 1970s when BSA finally desegregated ... upsetting members doesn't mean you shouldn't do what is morally right.  

That said, most kids who are atheist don't see that as a barrier to scouting as many units are already incredibly flexible with the religious component.  I don't see an issue how BSA handles religion today and my guess is any change would result in a negative outcome. However, if the want to make a change, do it sooner than later.

In terms of religion, we have backed off actively doing much.  We had a den leader who taught the religious adventure.  He talked about Roman and Greek mythology and a scout asked why people stopped believing those stories ... he said it was replaced with other beliefs.  Then the same scout asked about what happens when Christianity is replaced by new beliefs... he stumbled and a couple of  Cub scouts ended up questioning their own faith. So we leave that up to the parents now.

Venturing/Sea Scouts... Nearly dead.  12,000  when we nearly had 88,000 in 2017.  I wonder if Sea Scouts are fairing better than Venturing Crews.  

Pack Growth rates needs to maintain that 6-7% for many years to come. Hopefully we see a similar recruiting year.

Troops ... I'm very concerned.  I'm seeing a lower percent of scouts crossing over every year.  I think Lions are burning out parents and scouts before the hit the Troop.  (Hopefully just my experience).  In addition, many Troops, in my area, are down to 1-2 patrols and are in danger of collapse.  It is much easier to build a new Pack vs Troop. 

Overall, less rosy than the year end number (overall, we are growing at just over 1% YOY). 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

 My explanation is in the merger, the BSA might be able take control of some of the councils to be merged and to then sell excess properties (camps, service centers, etc) to help to replenish the loss in liquidity following the bankruptcy.  This is simply my thoughts having no information to support my theory.

Most bankruptcies allow businesses to lower their debts and exit in better financial health.  BSA is exiting this bankruptcy, addressing the debt of the past sexual abuse, but not really addressing anything else.  They are in far worse financial shape than they entered.  They took out massive loans on HA bases, spent their endowment and have far less cash on hand ... this with about 1/2 the registered members they entered bankruptcy.

So, National BSA likely needs to pull in more cash quickly and member fees won't do it.  I see two paths.

1) Direct donations ... in the hearing, there was mention of a need to immediately raise $400M in donations within 1 year (at the National level).

2) Council payments ... I expect National sees councils having funds in endowments & property (even after bankruptcy).  They easiest way for them to access that is to increase the council annual registration fee.  BSA can force council consolidation by greatly increasing that national charter fee (10x, 100x, etc).  I expect that would result in massive consolidation of councils without National BSA having to work through the specifics. 

They had a target of 80 total councils but changed that to a more generic target of council optimization.

These are just guesses based on hearing a year ago, so we will have to wait and see what really. happens.  I'm sure their plans & strategies have been refined over the years.

Local council contributions hit the docket.  I was hoping to get more insights into the property but the file only lists values.  

74cf86b7-00e5-4564-b65e-e2ce974d9c86_11124 (1).pdf

Prof. Jacoby insights below:

"Impact: trust can be implemented. Even if 3d Circuit were to find flaw in plan upon further insurer or survivor appeal, almost impossible to unravel plan under 3d Circuit precedent."

In addition the hearing over the coalition fees occurred yesterday and it sounds like the court is not fully on board but not yet decided.  We will have to wait for a ruling.

Today is my birthday... What a present.

While the process was terrible I'm not sure there was a better path to compensate victims. I hope the trust is able to ramp up quickly and find a way to provide some sort of closure to those abused. 

BSA exits in a much weaker state than it entered.  For it to survive, strong leadership and bold action is needed.  

In the end, I'm glad this forum was a spot where both victims and scouters were able to interact. I hope it helped on various levels. Most of all, I hope child abuser find less and less opportunities to harm children and perhaps this case will help.

14 hours ago, clbkbx said:

The article says "the committed amounts to be paid under the plan total more than $3.0 billion" which is news to me... the last I recall was around $2.5 billion. That two plus years of negotiating with the biggest insurance companies yielded $1.6 billion but "additional funds from non-settling insurance companies could add another $4 billion" always seems laughable. 

A restated conclusion: A payment in full plan—100%—would be impressive.

I hope this plan goes into effect but I think many are willfully delusional about the required level of funding. Again, hope I'm wrong!

Prof.Jacoby questioned the "paid in full" due to valuation issues & cost of trust.  No one really knows, it is a guess.  I think the hope is the non settling insurance companies will pay up ... that is in question as well.  In any case, I still think this is likely the best deal available.

27 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

That's in Art. IX.B(1)(c) of the plan (a condition precedent to the effective date is that "no request for a stay of the occurrence of the Effective Date shall be pending").

That makes sense.  In the town hall, there was some hedging about the April 12th date; however, then I question why there would be a request on District Court for the following:

Quote

The Court should grant a stay or, at minimum, a temporary stay to allow a reasonable time for emergency motions to be filed with and considered by the Third Circuit without the plan going effective. 

It seems like the individuals appealing believe this goes effective April 12th unless District Court acts, but you could definitely be correct that a stay request to the Appeals Court could push it day by day until answered.

7 minutes ago, SNEScouter said:

At the end of the insurer's reply brief, they said something interesting.  "Because their appellate rights are at risk, the Certain Insurers respectfully state that, absent a stay, notices of appeal will be filed no later than 12:00 pm ET on Monday, April 10, followed by an expedited stay relief request thereafter in the Third Circuit." 

Essentially, they are saying that because it is so time sensitive, they can't wait forever for Judge Andrews to rule on the stay requests.  Presumably this is headed for the Third Circuit today barring a ruling in the next few minutes/hours.  Of course it's anyone's guess how quickly the Third Circuit will act.....

There appears to be several different stay requests.  

• District Court stay ... basically, District Court would delay implementation of the plan until the appeals court rules.
• District Court temporarily stays ... District court would delay implementation of the plan until appeals court rules on a stay.
• Appeals court stay ... assuming District Court doesn't issue a stay, Appeals Court could issue a stay.  Perhaps they could make it temporary, not sure.

Based on the townhall, it seems like the 1st option above is very unlikely.  There seemed to be a bit of hedging if a temporary stay would be granted ... so there could be a week or two delay in plan effective date. I don't think that would be a shock based on the townhall.

The big unknown and perhaps big shock would be if the if the appeals court issues a stay until they rule.  If that occurs, we could be looking at a long delay (for example, it has been over a year waiting on the appeal ruling of Purdue Pharma).  Plan goes effective Wednesday if no action is taken.

This was mentioned in the Townhall, but the docket has been updated.

- There was a request into the District court to allow legal arguments to go beyond word limits when arguing about the stay (the judge denied that request ... he wants short filings)

- The judge ordered that all objections to the stay be filed by April 6th and any responses (and responses are not required) shall be filed 1 day later (by April 7th).

- The BSA filed a brief pushing back on the stay.  Several survivors also sent in objections to any stay.

e62a6865-915f-4d79-aa69-4118f2a9a64f_164.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- The Insurance companies, D&V and Lujan submitted a response.  The insurers seem to be asking for a variety of stays ... if you don't like a long stay, 1 short stay or a short and medium stay would work as well.  Just please, please, please don't let this become effective April 12.

15940dca-6a44-458d-ad75-825f825ad427_174.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Now we wait.  If the District court denies a stay we are down to the appeals court ordering a stay pending their review.  If they don't issue a stay, the plan becomes effective April 12th.  Then, the TCC disappears, the appeal will continue but likely be moot and the trust ramps up big time.  Post bankrupt BSA would emerge and who knows what is on the other side...

In terms of claimants, it sounds like they will need to be patient as it will be a while for the trust & claims process to get moving ... but at least it would be one big step closer to some sort of closure.

FYI ... message from Troop Track:

Quote

 

Hello Everyone,

This morning we released four new importers for customers transitioning from SOAR online. You can access them by going to Support -> SOAR Database Importers if you are a BSA Unit. Other units will not see this change. Once you use these importers, you will have all your members, events, and patrols/dens configured.

We will add more importers throughout the week.

We are investigating adding support for custom domains. Please take a moment and fill out this brief survey to help us understand how it will impact our users.

 

@slocumscout Yep, I think you are correct.

Also note, as of April 12 (if the date holds), the Trust takes ownership of the mineral rights & art work.  The head of the trust indicated one of their early jobs will be selling off those as well as they have to turn it into cash. How those are sold (in bundles, separately, auction, etc.) is TBD and the trust will find a partner to help sell those assets.  

6 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I  do not know who did the appraisals, but one camp they seriously undervalued. When I told folks how much the appraisal was for, they were extremely shocked because their nearby properties were a lot less land, and valued at a heck of a lot more.

When they listed the property, it was 5 times the appraisal price. And as i stated, the sale price was more than 10 times the appraisal price because of a bidding war.

I think you are going to see a more property sold than mentioned above.  Councils are property "rich" but cash poor.  I wonder if they just use this as an excuse to sell off a lot of camps and take the excess cash. 

In my council they sold their main camp even though it wasn't on this list.  Their "plan" was to invest in the other camp.  Limited investment so far but I have seen more council staff hired than I have in the last 10+ years ... and few are DEs.

3 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I assume if the council didn’t pledge the land, then they keep the excess as they are paying money. 
 

A more specific question is what happens to the excess of land was pledged and it greatly exceeds the estimate?
 

What if it undersells? 

The Property Contribution shall be structured as follows: The relevant Local Council shall agree to (a) retain title to the property (and pay insurance, property taxes, other associated ownership costs and any yet unremoved debt, all on a current basis), subject to, at the election, cost, and expense of the Settlement Trust, a mortgage in favor of the Settlement Trust, (b) post (and keep continuously posted unless otherwise agreed by the Settlement Trust) the property for sale within thirty days following the Effective Date with a qualified real estate broker that will use standard and customary marketing practices, (c) present any written sale offer to the Settlement Trust for approval, (d) present to the Settlement Trust for its review and approval all final proposed terms of any sale and purchase offers (including price, timing and other terms) (“Proposed Final Terms”); provided that if any Proposed Final Terms would impose additional costs on the Local Council and the Settlement Trust accepts such Proposed Final Terms, at the Local Council’s option any such additional costs shall be deducted from the proceeds or paid by the Settlement Trust, and not by the Local Council,5 (e) remit the proceeds of the sale to the Settlement Trust at closing net of posting/listing/marketing fees, escrow fees, sales commissions, and other typical costs of sale.6 The Settlement Trust may review the marketing and sales efforts undertaken by the Local Council and request that the Local Council make changes to such marketing and sales efforts as are appropriate and lawful; provided that any costs associated with such changes will be paid, at the option of the Local Council, by the Settlement Trust or out of the proceeds of any sale. If the Settlement Trust is unsatisfied with the sales and marketing effort, the Settlement Trust shall have the right to require the Local Council to promptly transfer the property to the Settlement Trust by quitclaim deed. If there is a shortfall or surplus of net proceeds as compared to Appraised Value, the Settlement Trust shall bear the risk of the shortfall and keep the surplus. If the property is not sold on or before the third anniversary of the Effective Date, the Local Council and the Settlement Trust each shall have the right to require the prompt transfer of the property to the Settlement Trust by quitclaim deed. If the Local Council receives a cash offer for the property the value of which is at least equal to its Appraised Value, the Settlement Trust shall accept the offer if no superior offer is made within thirty days (or, if a lesser time is specified in an offer received, then such lesser time) or accept a quitclaim deed for the property.

2 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid question: what happens to the excess money from sales?

I know my council made 10x the appraised value of one camp they sold, and made at least 4x what their contribution from property sales was supposed to be.

 

Here is the funny thing. The unit volunteers were told none of the money from the camps' sales was going to the lawsuit.

A former exec board member, when I told him what the unit serving were told stated "That is not what they told us (exec board)."

(sarcasm on) I love my council (sarcasm off)

In total, BSA councils have to pay $500M plus $150M note.  In the plan, they state some councils may not be able to come up with money and others may not be able to sell the property.. so they over planned a bit to ensure they hit $500M.  

In your council's case, they probably helped take the pressure off another council.