Eagle1993

I don't think the 72 hour rule is restricted to parents or guardians.

I was wondering how pack recruiting was going in other areas. Our Pack (I'm actually dropping out but am still involved now) did well (we nearly doubled our size. That said, we are still down 40% from a few years ago, so while great compared to 2020, not great compared to 2018. Our council seems to have done well, hitting its recruiting target. Now, the key is how many reup in fall of 2021. Again, I think good recruiting is relative and probably still will show a decline since 2019.

I also agree, if some of Kosnoff's tweets are accurate (passwords in the clear, questionable eBallots, etc.) those should be raised to the court as well.

To be fair, the official TCC response to the plan is to vote NO and their letter had to be approved by court. Having the TCC send out a state counsel's letter, without court approval, seems to be a pretty big violation. If they only sent it to AIS, it probably would have been ok. BSA is asking that TCC never forward state counsel emails any longer (I think that is fair) They are also asking TCC to notify BSA of any major notification, giving 48 hours notice (perhaps they can negotiate the notice.) Finally, they are asking TCC to send an email out. That email I have an issue as it seems to emphasize voting YES. I think an agreed upon correction is fair, but it should be balanced and correct. I personally have issues with the plan, but regardless of what side you fall, this should be a fair vote with every claimant being informed of the various parties opinions. This letter could have skewed the vote unfairly (by perhaps putting out false information).

BSA is going after the TCC for sending Kosnoff's letter to everyone. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9aace805-eeb0-40bd-bd27-19b2bb835971_7122.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d9144e08-fd27-42bb-ad74-6441d11e1dfd_7118.pdf

I would have youth programs that are run my own organization. I wouldn't have youth programs that I am legally responsible for that are not run by my organization. So, as a church, I would have Sunday school and church youth groups. I wouldn't sign documents to say I approve the adults for separate youth organizations. I would let them use my facilities for a fee. Given how little most COs are involved in units, I'm shocked any sign off on adult leaders and charters. Many times the COR doesn't even know the adult that is volunteering. I haven't seen my COR at a meeting for 3+ years. The only reason I saw my COR in the past as our COR was also our DE. The legal liability could be huge once lawyers figure that out. Mr. COR, please state your name. So, you signed off on Mr. X's adult application. How do you know Mr. X? Did you ever talk to Mr. X? What process does your CO utilize to vet adult leaders that you are approving? Let's now look at the charter agreement that you signed ... how often did you attend Troop meetings? Hmm... very interesting Mr. COR, I think we have heard enough.

It doesn’t but it prevents future ones. We have a local Troop that is not chartered by the Methodist but are allowed to meet there for free. That will likely change as the church wants to make it clear they support scouts but do not want any liability risk (or at least limit it as much as possible). For example, my Troop meets at a school. When I send in the reservation forms, I pay for the rental and sign a form that says we have appropriate insurance and take liability for the event. If I was a lawyer for a CO, I would never have my organization sign an adult leader application nor charter org agreement. Far too much liability going forward.

Hearing in 2 days. Seems like the big fights are over disclosure & an insurance firm asking for state court cases to restart. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1c39536c-af30-438f-9e93-f1eff9166d63_6989.pdf The insurance company believes their policy/coverage must be determined by state court, not bankruptcy court. Given this, they are stating that there is no reason to delay those trials. This, like everything else going on, could simply be a negotiating tactic and bluff. Who knows, but it will be interesting to see where the judge lands. I expect she will allow the stay to continue.

This cannot possibly be true. It’s wrong and will likely call the vote into question. Anyone here get one of these ballots?

For those watching the docket this is an important point. Someone wrote a letter to the judge saying they are represented by AVA. They received their package and it didn’t have a ballot. They called AVA 10 times with no response. They are very concerned they won’t have a vote counted.

New report released. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0fcb0932-c53d-4728-b795-65895a0826df_6901.pdf Total Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA 145,024,000 Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA 78,496,000 BSA had positive cash flow & didn't touch their remaining trust during the month of September. Big increases in income from Registrations, Supply & High Adventure. I expect we will see positive cash in October as more scouts join the organization. Then in December/Jan from rechartering. What will be interesting is that the Methodist Units will not recharter until March/April ... so we will see a late coming surge of recharter payments in 2022.

To be clear, the TCC is the official committee appointed by the United States Department of Justice through the US Trustee. They are paid by the BSA as a cost of the bankruptcy process. The TCC contains both lawyers and 9 claimants who were selected by the US Trustee. Their sole role is to represent all child sex abuse claimants. This announcement is clearly about addressing the non financial aspects of the bankruptcy. To take only Coalition representatives poisons the well. It makes the appearance of giving power to those who agree to BSA’s terms vs giving priority to those who would best represent claimants. There definitely could be overlap but making this solely under the Coalition is wrong. If BSA was truly interested in improving they wouldn’t limit it to the group of lawyers who are attempting to get their current plan passed.

Not clear yet. Someone mentioned it is going to COs that were pre 1976. Another stated they contacted their LC who told them they were not allowed to make any recommendations regarding the packets.

Apparently charter organizations are being mailed something by the BSA asking for donations to the survivors fund. This was mentioned before, but now more and more updates are coming confirming something was mailed out. Some charter orgs seem to be confused as they are sending it to the unit (Pack/Troop). Some have indicated it is asking about Charter Org, Troop/Pack assets. I'll post more info if anyone actual scans in what is being sent.

8-12 members of the Coalition. I’m a BSA supporter but I wouldn’t trust the Coalition to represent victims well. Let’s see the names they add before we say this group is useful. If they add only survivors who support the plan, I question the entire proposal and expect it is nothing more than a marketing ploy to try to get votes as KR has not been able to double the cash as he committed.

Is John and Roger any relation? Why are they not giving names?

Update. BSA now saying as long as the scout completes all requirements prior to July 1, 2022 they do not need this merit badge even if the application wasn’t submitted yet and the BOR completed.

I'm not sure. Mixing sex orientation and gender fluidity makes this very confusing.

The story states the BSA insurance company would pay $3M of the settlement. If it is really an insurance coverage for National BSA (not the LC) then it should be going through the bankruptcy court. Other settlements that included insurance payouts had to be approved the Judge Silverstein.

Maine just opened an SOL lookback window. https://www.wabi.tv/2021/10/18/maines-statute-limitations-cases-childhood-sexual-abuse-lifted-monday/ Revival Law: In 2021, Maine opened a permanent revival window for all previously expired child sex abuse claims against perpetrators, other individuals, private organizations and the government. The window opened on October 18, 2021 and never closes. All previously expired claims in Maine are permanently revived without limitation. For a guide to help survivors understand their rights during the legal process of filing a civil lawsuit under Maine’s revival window, click the survivor tool kit below. The SOL area is dynamic. Now Maine is considered an open state in the plan so not many changes there. FYI .. https://www.wlky.com/article/dollar365-million-settlement-reached-in-lmpd-youth-explorer-sex-abuse-scandal/38126069# How is a BSA insurer agreeing to cover this. Wouldn't this go through the bankruptcy court?

I have a gay non binary scout in my Troop. I was just thinking they are going to be busy talking with a lot of other scouts if I'm not careful. I'll need to talk with them to see how they would want to handle this. (I'm still getting comfortable with using the proper pronouns).

Looking through the changes, I think BSA avoided controversy which is fine. I really question why we couldn't just add or change a few requirements in Citizenship in the Community and call it a day.

John Humphrey (member of the TCC) tweeted out late last night the following…”A no vote is a slight delay. We are making progress behind the scenes.” This is the only Tweet I’ve seen from him about the BSA case. I don’t expect this first plan to pass with enough votes; however, perhaps a glimmer of hope that parties realize what might happen and are prepared for an alternate path.

The article is great. Is clearly stated the minimum and the highly recommended. It seems very clear to me, I don’t understand this back and forth. Our Troop is looking at the recommendations to try and meet those when possible. The one area where our troop doesn’t agree with the recommendations is allowing one adult to take a single scout to the med center. We discussed this and do not allow this even if in view of others as we believe it is too much risk. The the risk we see is either potential grooming or a scout claiming grooming.

What is the deal with AVA? They aren’t talking to the media, I haven’t seen them in court speaking, they have nothing on their website about scouts that is recent (but it looks like they are still recruiting clients) and it sounds like their current clients haven’t heard from them. I believe they are 1/3 of AIS so a bit surprised.