Eagle1993

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Well now things got interesting. Or more so.

The Coalition is now issuing discovery demands on the TCC.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0901a0f7-57a2-471f-8309-f7ba40cf1069_6567.pdf

What, we don't know other than it is for documents.

And Century has now officially subpoenaed Kosnoff

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fd0dc01f-34c3-42d7-9092-345ada49eb63_6565.pdf

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

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I kind of keep seeing that theme repeated.  More talk about it from the BSA side might be a good preventative method.  Discussion from BSA to parent might lead to more parent to scouter talk.

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 policy does not prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from expressing its opinion upon matters of governmental concern when considered in its best interest by the governing body of the Boy Scouts of America. This policy does not limit the freedom of thought or action of any Scouter or member as an individual in a manner not directly or indirectly implying a connection to Scouting.

I think it is great they participated; however, I do not believe they should have associated scouting (by wearing their uniform) on their stance.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I looked. The votes came back in May 2017

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/media-advisory-voting-complete-results-tallied-in-archdiocese-of-st-paul-minneapolis-bankruptcy-case/

That said, the judge STILL rejected both plans, even though 90%+ of the survivors were in favor of their plan.

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Archdiocese-Ballot-Report-Tabulation.pdf

The udge ruled in effect NEITHER were confirmable in December 2017.

• Memo: Denial of Plans
• Order Denying Confirmation of Archdiocese Plan of Reorganization
• Order Denying Confirmation of Unsecured Creditors Committee Plan of Reorganization

My May all sides reached a deal that was confirmed in September 2018

• Confirmation Order

 

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 difficult to get to ... they can last much longer.

7)If plan is rejected, TCC will push to get their plan out for a vote.  

8 If both plans are rejected mediation (and mediation continues)

9) The trust structure currently could give a TON of money to the people who run it ... that needs to be changed. 

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.

This was a surprise to me. 

On 10/6/2021 at 1:32 PM, fred8033 said:

Some posts are appearing with a red x in the lower right corner.  Has a pull down with Hide All Signatures and Hide <user> Signatures.  

What does that mean?  What is the effect?

Not sure.  I clicked the hide all and then Facebook went down for half a day.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Good bets. I will never fathom people who defend the BSA (and LCs) at all costs, no matter what.

I do not believe that is a fair comment.  While I believe some LCs can definitely afford more, there is clearly the FCR & Coalition who believe the deal is appropriate.  So, I don't think this is someone defending the BSA/LCs at all costs.

We can disagree on the amount, but this is not someone asking for a $0 settlement.  It is an offer.  If there is anger by claimants, I would direct it more at the coalition lawyers and FCR. 

Again, I am one who believes many LCs could (and probably should) pay more to get out of this bankruptcy alive.  I think the vote could fail and is likely not a 90%+ slam dunk.   That said, I will continue to say there are legitimate arguments to defend this deal that is not from a defend BSA at all costs stance.

18 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

To the moderators:

It seems to me that the views on this thread are so vastly divergent and, for many, the emotions are some what raw so that this will devolve into arguments.  It seems to me that fair is largely determined by one's starting point.

This appears, at least to me, similar to the debates over adding girls, gay scouts and gay youth.  I generally agree that for the most part, few if any will be swayed either way by the back and forth.  Hopefully it can be done in a scoutlike manner so at minimum you have the benefit of learning where each side is coming from.

This is a tough debate.  There is simply not enough money to go around.  BSA even if liquidated including all of its LCs could not come close to what is really needed to pay victims.  In addition, many of us want BSA to survive and we know BSA was not in great shape before bankruptcy ... so how much funding can truly be provided while still allowing BSA & LCs enough to function & survive is not an easy answer.

 I hope everyone who has an opinion feels open  sharing it.  I would ask to be careful to not attack fellow forum members and allow them to respond or not respond based on their personal choice.

If there is a specific comment that appears to not be scoutlike, please report it by clicking the three dots.

16 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The proceedings are by attorneys representing what they feel are the best interests of their clients.

I think this is true for all attorneys involved, except the coalition attorneys. Perhaps they are, but I'm not fully convinced.

Let's let the forum member respond.  I think there is enough room for many views regarding this topic.  

This document has a pretty good way to help determine "fairness" by council.  Exhibit G is the TCC's summary and Exhibit G-1 is BSA's response.  Clearly fair is a personal opinion, but the two sides make arguments in this document.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

33 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, I am curious... does anyone here think the offer is fair? (I do not...)

Do you believe the LC's can put up more than they have? (I believe they are short of what they could "comfortably" do, and that they should be giving an "uncomfortable" amount.)

Understand this would be nothing but your opinion, because the spectrum of LC finances is wide...

On a personal note, my Troop's summer camp was sold due to this bankruptcy.  At the closing ceremony grown men cried as it was the last summer camp closing they would be attending at that camp.  I have ashes from that camp fire in my office.  So, it is painful in many cases as this is being repeated nationwide. 

I know many councils seemed to have lack of money going into this bankruptcy.  That said, when I see the actual council finances on display, by blood starts to boil.  It is clear that many councils sat on huge endowments/investments, claimed they were poor and sold camps.  So, to be fair, some of my thoughts are influenced by my history of seeing councils abandon what I think is valuable in scouting to save what I think is only valuable to a few council leaders.

• National BSA - for the most part, yes.  I think the offer is fair.  
• LCs - varies.  I think some LCs  are providing more than a  sufficient payout to get their liability waved.  Others are probably about right and still others  the offer is embarrassingly low.  On net, you are probably correct that LCs can contribute more.  As I mentioned earlier, their assets have risen a lot during this bankruptcy.  Some are able to cover with less than the increase of their asset increase since Feb 2020.  
• Hartford - I have no clue.  I tend to think no, but someone in the industry may be able to convince me otherwise.
• Charter Orgs - yes .. I actually think COs shouldn't have to pay anything.  While technically they signed paperwork, I have yet to find a CO ever have to pay for a scout related sex abuse case.   Unless there is a instance where the CO clearly violated BSA policy, I don't think they should have to pay.  My guess is the vast majority of the 84,000 are not due to CO negligence (just a guess, so I could be proven incorrect here).

38 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I cannot image that news coverage with have much effect on those voting, they are going to listen to their lawyers.

BSA is putting the future of BSA in this 1 basket.  When a law firm of 10 lawyers represents 16,000 claimants ... I expect the news can play a bigger role than you think.  But perhaps it is correct that the offer by many LCs is not defendable so why try.

A bit more about LC comments to the media. 

Going back to our 10 largest councils.  Articles in these states will be rough (you can see Cascade Pacific has already appeared in an article, and they were the best out of our top 10 in terms of contributions.

It is tough to argue that claimants who will get $9,000 for being raped as a child is a fair payout when Sam Huston, our largest council, is keeping 95.6% of their assets.

The biggest issue will be local articles in grey states.  I expect councils in the grey states contributed less and the claimants are receiving less in those states.  

BSA probably wants to talk about the total number ... but when you dig in, the numbers are tougher to defend in public.  BSA may need to give LCs talking points on how to defend these numbers.  The LCs will need to say that this money is needed to continue the program, and much of it are in camps, etc.  LCs could say they agree the payouts are less than what we would have liked.  Etc.  Otherwise, just allowing article after article to go out with the financials at the LC level will be tough.

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can think of three reasons why "no comment" is the best of the bad options.

1) Defend the LC offering on its own merits. "We believe this amount is fair."

2) Defend the LC offering based on survival of BSA: We believe this amount represents the most we can offer while still maintaining scouting for young people today and into the future, which is BSA National's official line (“ongoing efforts to reach a global resolution that will equitably compensate survivors and ensure Scouting’s future by resolving past abuse cases for both the national organization and local councils.”)

3) No comment.

Which would you pick?

Probably depends on the LC.  New York can go with #1.  Sam Huston #3.  But expect Sam Huston to get killed in the press (if an article appears in Texas).

3 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Not surprising the councils have not made a statements. It just make sense, from a PR stand point, you don't want 250 voices, you want one.

Not to mention, what do they gain, even taking the abuse cases out of picture, the majority of Scouting stories I receive in my news feeds have a negative stance toward BSA, particularly larger national media outlets. The few positive stories that show up in my feeds are mainly from small market or specialty outlets. 

Then they are about to be killed in the press.  They talked before, all the time.  Each said the same thing… National is going bankrupt there is no impact to councils or units. Now no comment?
 

They need to defend their settlement offers.   If they cannot, then the articles are fair and I think the vote is more likely to fail.  Seeing article after article in local TV and newspapers talking about low settlements, local councils offering low percentages of their net assets and victims talking how this is negatively impacting then with no counter from LCs will impact the votes of claimants.  

I think most adults will be in the same boat.  I would expect self declared vaccinations would work hopefully.   I know some clearances require serology testing to prove vaccinations but that seems a bit much here.

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yes, most of the suggested payouts are accurate based on info we have seen.  BUT, the main gist of the story is that LC's and others are not putting in as much as they can or should.  And that is simply not accurate, other than if they were to liquidate.  Of course, that would make Mr. K happy, as we already know.  

Still, I am properly chastised that I suggest his right to "free speech" should be restrained, and that is not corret.  Though his free speech tends to be a lot misleading and maybe even a little fuzzy.

He got what he wanted though, so he should be pleased, no matter how misleading much of it is.  Just don't expect me, or perhaps others, to not find it to be tainted.

I understand your point and it is valid, but the failure is on the LCs.  
 

I actually don’t have an issue with Kosnoff in these articles.  

My issue is why did the LCs refuse to comment?  The Seattle times reached out.  That would have been a great opportunity to say look what we do for kids today and any further payment would severely hurt our ability to function.  No comment allows articles to be one sided.   BSA better have their LC PR groups better prepared in the future. 
 

Below was in the Times article 

The Chief Seattle Council, Pacific Harbors Council and Mount Baker Council did not return interview requests.

33 minutes ago, skeptic said:

  The financial details, such as they are, are of course completely skewed with Mr. K's opinion, obvious to me and likely those that have read any amount of this over the past month+.  

I guess I ask how are they skewed?  Do you mean he is pointing out the low end of the settlements? 

The numbers published are correct and are similar to other news stories.  (In fact, the Seattle times shows a higher number for rape in a close state than what BSA is claiming.  In reality, the pay outs are historically low and many councils are keeping the vast majority of their assets, which is why so many claimants are upset with this plan and taking this message to the media.

Here are the numbers in the Seattle Times article

• A rape claim against the Boy Scouts might entitle a survivor to as little as $3,300 under a nationwide proposal filed in court Tuesday.
  • In truth, it is actually lower per BSA .. $3,177 for the closed state midpoint
• 82,500 claims
  • I have heard 84,000 unique claims, so the Seattle times is reporting a lower number
• A Washington survivor who was molested unclothed could collect as little as $9,000 under the proposal.
  • Actual midpoint is $8,666 ... so the times is overreporting the BSA#

Every other number in their article appears accurate.  Are you saying the councils are paying more than the article is claiming?  Is your point the councils do not have the assets they listed in the disclosure?  I'm confused. 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

19 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Tim Kosnoff is looking for survivors looking to talk to national media. Read his Twitter account. 

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Hearst owned media based on his Twitter updates.

Is anyone still working with Scoutlander?  I have an issue I would like them to fix and have not been able to get a response.  My Troop doesn't use Scoutlander and the public contact info seems to not go anywhere.

34 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

So, if National liquidates, does its intellectual property go on the auction block?

And, if so, are the potential buyers limited to those who wish to carry on the Scouting Movement, or could someone buy the intellectual property and simply put it on a shelf to collect dust?

Seems to me National is in the franchise business-it licenses its intellectual property, its name, logos, designs, merit badge pamphlets, handbooks, etc.

Some tycoon buy Philmont?  

What is American Scouting without those?

 

My understanding is on the asset side, everything is sold for the benefit of or transferred directly to creditors.  Every HA camp, all intellectual property/trademarks, etc.  Everything. 

So, Eagle Scout rank ... I expect that would be sold.  Possible buyers (Trail Life, GSUSA, some new WOSM org, private company that would want to profit from it somehow).  Philmont would be sold.  Yes, a tycoon could come up with $70M and buy it and save it for scouting (hopefully).

I believe liquidation will not occur, even if the vote fails.  The tone and actions of the judge makes me think this is the last thing she wants.  I bet BSA has a back pocket quick exit plan that they could convince the judge to implement via cramdown.  My guess is the coalition knows what that plan is and would like to avoid it (as it probably means less money immediately and the path to larger payouts will be through insurance fights & state courts which will take time).  The judge will not want to see the BSA liquidate and may determine it is the only exit path.