Eagle1993

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.  

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t Twitter, Tweet or twiddly deet. What’s he sayin?

Since he made it public, if you are interested:

• text him at 425-830-8201 with "yes" and your phone number/email address
• You do not have to be a AIS client; however, if you are not you should clear this with your lawyer first.

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

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

Kosnoff is reporting a slew of texts and has a media coordinator.  It appears they will be working on going out to local media (and in some cases national).  

Per Maria Chutchian (Reuters Bankruptcy reporter) Judge Silverstein said that individual claimants will have the opportunity to raise any concerns they have about the plan during a January trial if they would like.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

16 million pages.

Or 1,920 trees ... but I digress.

Here is another

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/09/07/boy-scout-leader-ronald-rowcliffe-has-faced-child-sex-abuse-allegations-before/2245186001/

This one is interesting as the man was charged in court in 2000 over abusing teenagers but got a plea deal.  That was an a leader of an Explorer unit ... so how could the BSA let him still be a leader in 2018/2019?

Quote

In August 2000, Rowcliffe was charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child in connection with incidents involving three boys — two 16-year-olds and one 15-year-old who he'd met through the Explorer Program of the Holley Fire Department. At the time, police said Rowcliffe gave the three boys haircuts at his residence and then had one of them shower and allowed him to view pornography on the internet.

This man pled guilty in 2020 to CSA at a scout camp.

So ... multiple red flags over several years including one within the BSA.  

I think this is where there are questions if BSA can really handle this.  This isn't from 1965.  Why was this guy a leader after all of these issues (including one within the BSA)?

4 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

What I would like to understand, and where the failure of BSA transparency is so acute, is how abuse occurs today in light of YPT rules.  I doubt it's in background check failures, there are actually few convicted abusers who are slipping through those cracks.  Can anyone give an example that they know of how the abuse occurred despite the YPT rules?

 

I think this is difficult to answer as many victims may not indicate the abuse until years later.

Here is an example:

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/byers-beat/interview-with-parents-of-victims-former-boy-scout-leader/63-4b5013af-4d8b-4164-a92d-78bdd5093eeb

Quote

 

Boy Scout leaders assured him his son would be taken care of.

Their policy did not allow adults to be alone with children at any time, during or away from scouting events.

In his son’s case, that policy was not followed.

His son slept in a tent with only Baker and Baker’s son.

And, Baker had scouts over to his house where others were molested.

 

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

I also want to point something out and this brought up several times: there is 0% chance the BSA will be forever end child sexual abuse.

The point is can BSA demonstrate to a judge and jury that it was not NEGLIGENT. Broadly speaking (and I mean broadly) the accusation against BSA in the lawsuits that were filed were

1. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND DID NOT DO ENOUGH
2. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND ACTIVELY TRIED TO HIDE IT
3. BSA knew it had a child sexual abuse problem from the start (the IV files existed in some form back to the 1920s) AND FAILED TO SUPERVISE VOLUNTEERS

All of these things (modern YPT, adopting whatever the outside group recommends) will weigh against these three claims. But whether in THIS particular case involving THIS particular victim and THIS particular adult volunteer, was BSA nevertheless negligent? TBD.

I actually expect COs to become the target of future lawsuits.  I think the weakest link we have is the approval of adult leaders.  In some cases, I would not be surprised to see adults working with units beyond 72 hours and are not registered leaders.  In other cases, they are registered ... but remember the only signature on the form for unit leaders is the COR.  So the COR will be brought into court and asked what he/she did to review/approve the leader (call references, etc.). In many cases, I expect COs could be found negligent in their role in youth protection under the current BSA system.

I'm honestly a bit surprised any CO would sign up for this level of liability.  Note that going forward, national BSA has almost no net assets (so probably not that attractive for lawsuits).  Many LCs are drained.  COs may be the ones targeted and many are paper only meaning they could be found negligent.

Agenda for today's hearing released.  See below.

Debtors’ Motion For Entry of Order (I) Scheduling Certain Dates and Deadlines in
Connection with Confirmation of the Debtors Plan of Reorganization, (II) Establishing
Certain Protocols, and (III) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2618, filed 4/15/21).

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/48fd773c-aa99-43cc-ad9e-ccd83cd9e142_6475.pdf

Brutal article in the Seattle Times.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see this repeated nationwide.  The payouts are so low … then simply show how much assets the councils are keeping.  

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/bsa-settlement-proposal/

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.

It’s painful to see,” said Jason Amala, a Seattle-based lawyer whose team represents more than 1,000 claimants, including Thurman and about 50 survivors from Washington. “These numbers are so low because they’re letting the council keep so much of their money.”

The settlement isn’t anywhere close to the gravity of the perpetration,” he said. “Should they come out of bankruptcy solvent? In my opinion, no. They gave that right away long ago.”

1 minute ago, PeterHopkins said:

I am actually a GSUSA volunteer. There are background checks renewed every two years, but there is no specific youth protection training and no training at all that needs to be renewed on a continuous basis. The huge advantage GSUSA has in this realm is that the adult leaders are overwhelmingly female, and there is scant participation from fathers of the girls. When I attend monthly service unit meetings (roughly district roundtable equivalent), the attendees are typically 20 to 25 women and I. In the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases, the perpetrators are male.

Little League Baseball has a centralized parent organization. If abuse has taken place there on a wide scale, I would expect to see several class-action suits. The publicity would wreck their television contract with ESPN. The paucity of overnight trips in Little League Baseball means far less opportunity for evildoers to abuse children. That's true of all sports. So, if the abuse rate is truly higher, then Scouting has protected its youth much better, even if much better isn't really enough.

I volunteered for GSUSA and 100% agree.  I was told I could run cookie sales & I declined.  At overnights, I have never heard of a man attending.  I know one dad that attended an overnight and he had to sleep in his car in the parking lot far away from the girls.  

My son is also involved with NICA.  The adults go through training on youth protection and ensure 2 deep and no one on one. Overnights, parents attend and camp with their kids. 

BSA seems to be unique to have 11 - 13 year olds (the prime years of abuse) to be without parents camping with adult males.  I believe today we have appropriate YPT but I can see in the past why BSA could have a higher incident rate (in terms of youth hours per incident) than many other programs.  

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Uh actually no. BSA is the first and only NFP I have seen that does NOT list its Board on its website.

I wonder why?

P.S. The "vast majority of NFP's out there" are not facing down 82,500 child sexual abuse claims. The only one comparable vaguely is the Catholic Church, and I can find their information for both the national and diocesean leadership on their respective websites.

BSA? Nope.

Hiding, hiding, hiding.

This topic is all over the place.  That said, the BSA hasn’t listed it’s board for years … well before this bankruptcy.   I expect other reasons are driving that.  (I do agree that BSA should be listing their board).