Eagle1993

Perhaps the report later today will be a nothing burger. Perhaps BSA YP is strong. I'm not ready to buy into the report until I hear it along with the evidence. If MJ is correct, then BSA's response won't matter as I expect the organization will fade away. It is actually more important they act if they believe there are no issues. This will be a PR crisis and risk the settlement that was already at high risk. The BSA board needs to take immediate action. As ThenNow stated, the truth will eventually come out; however, you also need to deal with the immediate damage. This isn't

Just read this again: Disclose details on former detective refusing to sign NDA, non-disparagement agreement - MJ is a former detective, so this must be him providing details on how he did not sign a NDA, non-disparagement agreement. These are typical as part of layoffs and are tied to severance packages. I'm 99.9% sure it will be MJ later today.

I hope BSA’s board is ready to meet today to discuss: - Validity of MJ’s claims and what action to immediately take in terms of BSA leadership - Hiring crisis PR firm … as regardless of the validity they will need to respond today - Hiring an external agency to investigate the claims To me, those are the three immediate actions and it must come from the board not the current leadership.

Obviously we will need to let this play out. I've seen much, much lower level individuals come out with claims after being laid off including calling regulatory agencies. Most of the time that was just false acquisitions (or misleading statements) made by an upset individual. Clearly other times they are completely legitimate. We will have to wait and see. 1) We don't know for sure who this is and the timeframe it is based on. 2) We don't know what evidence the individual has and if it is opinion based or evidence based (or some combo) 3) If it is someone that recently lef

Agreed. BSA would have to be pretty stupid to fire their youth protection director in the middle of a CSA bankruptcy without a ton of cause. I’m not saying he was fired, but if they did I would think they have some good reasons.

I wonder how he became former. Was he fired or did he resign. MJ’s LinkedIn profile shows him as the current youth protection director. So, I’m not 100% sure it is him. http://linkedin.com/in/michael-johnson-a1a9a737

Split here:

In terms of bankruptcy, if I’m the future claimant rep I’m calling off support for this plan. The number of younger claimants and the value of their claims could explode with this info.

It sounds like they created the role in 2010… it has created the new full-time position of Youth Protection director.

If it is MJ I will be interested in what he shares as it will be current. If any leadership hid abuse they should be fired and possibly prosecuted. I’m not ready to say it will end the BSA, but if it is current and as bad as it sounds, it definitely could.

Ok, I think that is enough. I believe @HelpfulTracks has answered the question. I understand you are looking for a specific amount and the answer was provided in terms of general beliefs. You are clearly at a point where you will have to agree to disagree.

I also think camps near your higher concentrations of scouts is important. Asking a Troop to drive 3+ hours for summer camp is perfectly reasonable. Asking a pack to drive 3 hours for a weekend overnight is tough. Asking a parent to drive (or bus a kid) 3 hours each way for a day camp is not feasible. I could be convinced that there may be plenty of camps in certain areas (for example, one could argue that in Wisconsin, there are an abundance of camps). However, in many cases these camps are far from population centers to the point where they are only useful as summer camps. BSA

Ok, I moved a bunch of comments to the general bankruptcy thread here: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32769-bankruptcy-everything-but-the-legalese/ I also hid a few comments from all sides that just resulted in some generic back and forth arguments. Those didn't really fit in this thread nor the other one. I left in the back and forth that was specific about camps. Camps are a major source of assets for the bankruptcy settlement and also a major aspect of scouting. So, I think it is fair to have a camp specific discussion. I understand all of this ties together, so once this speci

BSA is betting against this. I'm not sure if it is in the current plan, but previously BSA agreed to big penalties if they grow much beyond their current business model (which shows <1M scouts until 2025). BSA had agreed to pay $50 per scout they register above certain thresholds. In addition, they agreed to pay $150 per scout who registers at a high adventure base above certain thresholds. These payments would be made to the trust settlement. Now, they can get out of those payments by immediately paying off the large loan they are giving the trust.

There are many different bankruptcy topics in this forum so we wanted to help map out the various topics below. If you find more to add, send a DM and we can add. Current active discussion regarding the latest on the Chapter 11 case: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32791-chapter-11-announced-part-6-plan-50tcc-plan-tbd/ Active discussion about the bankruptcy and various impacts outside the legal case: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32769-bankruptcy-everything-but-the-legalese/ Discussion about former youth protection director and concerns about BSA: https://www.scouter.com/topic

While I side with the opinion that BSA LCs should provide more funding, to be fair, claimant attorneys that represent 80% of claimants have signed onto this deal. BSA is looking to negotiate an exit and their lawyers are now working with a group of attorneys who believe the current plan is fair. It is now up to claimants to determine if they agree. If they don't, or don't in a large enough number, then it is back to the bargaining table. However, at this time, I don't think we can blame BSA for the offer if the bulk of claimants attorneys agree to it ... if there is any anger against the c

What is Bates White experience in other cases in terms of child sex abuse claims? Claro seems to have a lot of experience in other cases. I wonder if the judge will take that into account.

Let us know when they subpoena scouter.com.

The docket is bursting today with documents. A lot of discovery requests all around. Several now pulling in individual COs (specific churches, etc.).

Subpoena by Zalkin served against a variety of councils and COs including churches, schools, Etc. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/02f5f86d-8578-44db-b1e2-ba2559be6308_6549.pdf

I actually am shocked by some parents. Parents that barely slow down their car to drop a kid off at a park or building not even checking to see if any leader is present. I’ve shown up at meeting places in empty buildings to find a loan scout there who was dropped off by a parent (I told him I had to leave the building until another leader arrived). We don’t mandate YPT for all parents but sometimes I wonder if we should.

Per BSA Rules & Regulations Policy Concerning Political Questions The Boy Scouts of America must not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, chartered councils, Scouters, or members, involve Scouting in political matters. However, this must not be interpreted to prevent the teaching of ideals of patriotism and good citizenship as required to fulfill the Boy Scouts of America’s purpose. Faith-based teachings incorporated into the Scouting program by religious chartered organizations in a manner consistent with the Bylaws are not considered political matters. This po

So a similar timeline for BSA would be April 2023.

Major points that I heard on the TCC townhall. . 1) LCs can pay a LOT more ... 3X current offer and still be fine financially. 2) BSA screwed up with Hartford. Once this deal is rejected, that deal goes away. Hartford risk is >>>>> more than what was committed. 3) This plan sucks 4) 18,000 claims are post YPT implementation. The non financial aspect was watered down in this plan, that will change (focus is on oversight & IV files). 5) LDS offer is too low 6) BSA offer is ok, but only because they hid money all over the place, making it diffic

Very interesting update during the TCC townhall regarding the vote: Per bankruptcy code, 66% of each claimant class must approve the plan. That means, 66% of the voters must approve the plan (not 66% of 82,000, but 66% of the votes). Now the kicker... BSA LCs & LDS are not in bankruptcy. Therefore, the passing floor will actually be higher. In some cases that is 75% and other cases it is 90%. So, the bare minimum is 66%; however, the court will likely need to see a much higher percent vote for the plan if LCs & LDS (non bankruptcy groups) are included. Thi