Eagle1993

Just now, skeptic said:

 My councill is not on this list.  What does that possibly indicate?  Are these ones that sold property, or just what they are being asked for?  I do not know for sure, but we had a settlement from a wildfire loss during this period, so that may be related?

 

This list of councils are those selling $200M of property to cover some of the fees.  More councils are paying cash.  The linked file has all council contributions.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

The video was helpful, thanks!

One interesting point ... as of April 12 (if there are no delays) ... the plan goes effective.  That means we will start seeing assets transfer from the BSA to the trust.  Artwork, mineral rights, cash payments, council properties, etc.

Council Contribution hitting April 12:

• $300M in cash
• $200M in Property
• $125M Note

The $200M of property must be put up for sale within 30 days of the effective date.

Does anyone know where to find the final property list?  I'm sure some have already been listed, but we may be in for a jolt by mid May.

Found it here

da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Exhibit C

Councils that will likely be or have already sold properties to cover the $200M cost:

Property Value to be sold (already or will be listed 30 days after effective date, which could be April 12).  Again, this was proposed late 2021 so the list could have changes.  All in all, councils must give $500M in cash & property.  The cash comes the effective date (per plan) and property must be listed by 30 days post plan.

One final note ... my council wasn't listed as a property seller, but sold their primary camp.  So ... this list may not tell the whole story.

Rounded #s below:

• Greater Alabama - $1.5M
• Tukabatchee Area - $0.4M
• Black Warrior - $80K
• Grand Canyon - $4.6M
• Catalina - $30K
• Sequoia - $71K
• Southern Sierra - $26K
• Long Beach Area - $2.2M
• Greater Los Angeles Area - $2.7M
• Orange County - $13M
• San Diego Imperial - $2.7M
• Western Los Angeles County $0.3M
• Los Padres - $1.2M
• Silicon Valley Monterey Bay - $2.4M
• Greater Yosemite - $2.2M
• Denver Area - $6.0M
• Old North State - $4.4M
• Connecticut Yankee - $1.5M
• National Capital Area - $3.2M
• Gulf Stream - $1.2M
• Greater Tampa Bay Area - $5.0M
• Northwest Georgia - $0.2M
• Northeast Georgia - $0.2M
• Abraham Lincoln - $0.4M
• Buffalo Trace - $72K
• LaSalle - $0.7M
• Quivira - $1.0M
• Istrouma Area - $0.7M
• Southeast Louisiana - $1.3M
• Katahdin Area - $0.3M
• Spirit of Adventure - $1.5M
• Nothern Star - $0.7M
• Gamehaven - $0.3M
• Andrew Jackson - $0.6M
• Ozark Trails - $0.9M
• Heart of America - $3.0M
• Pony Express - $0.4M
• Las Vegas Area - $0.1M
• Daniel Webster - $1.9M
• Monmouth - $1.2M
• Patriots Path - $1.9M
• Twin Rivers - $0.5M
• Longhouse - $0.8M
• Five Rivers - $0.8M
• Iroquois Trail - $0.2M
• Greater Niagara Frontier - $1.5M
• Allegheny Highlands - $0.6M
• Leatherstocking - $3.4M
• Conquistador - $2K
• Central North Carolina - $0.4M
• Occoneechee - $0.9M
• Cape Fear - $0.9M
• East Carolina - $0.9M
• Buckeye - $0.7M
• Tecumseh - $0.2M
• Simon Kenton - $0.2M
• Miami Valley - $1.3M
• Indian Nations - $0.7M
• Crater Lake - $0.3M
• Moraine Trails - $1.0M
• Westmoreland-Fayette - $0.3M
• Cradle of Liberty - $6.4M
• Coastal Carolina - $75K
• Blue Ridge - $1.1M
• Pee Dee Area - $0.6M
• Cherokee Area - $1.2M
• Great Smoky Mountain - $105K
• West Tennessee Area - $141K
• Buffalo Trail - $1.1M
• Alamo Area - $1.8M
• Crossroads of the West - $1.3M
• Green Mountain - $0.2M
• Tidewater - $51K
• Heart of Virginia - $0.6M
• Blue Mountain - $0.6M
• Mount Baker - $2.2M
• Grand Columbia $135K
• Mountaineer Area - $!11K
• Ohio River Valley - $60K
• Samoset $31K
• Great Rivers - $0.4M
• Blackhawk Area - $1.5M
• Garden State - $1.8M
• Rainbow - $0.2M
• Michigan Crossroads $2.2M

The video was helpful, thanks!

One interesting point ... as of April 12 (if there are no delays) ... the plan goes effective.  That means we will start seeing assets transfer from the BSA to the trust.  Artwork, mineral rights, cash payments, council properties, etc.

Council Contribution hitting April 12:

• $300M in cash
• $200M in Property
• $125M Note

The $200M of property must be put up for sale within 30 days of the effective date.

Does anyone know where to find the final property list?  I'm sure some have already been listed, but we may be in for a jolt by mid May.

BSA is back to $81M of net unrestricted liquidity, or $37M less than end of February 2022.  While I think they would be in serious trouble if the bankruptcy went completely off the rails, they should be fine waiting out any appeals process (even it if takes a considerable amount of time).

Just adding on to the above.  Lujan, insurers & Dumas/Vaughn all filed for an emergency stay.  Basically, if the stay is not issued by April 12, it looks like an automatic stay will expire.  In any case, it seems like all parties are aligned that April 11th will be the last date to issue a stay, or the plan goes effective, and appeals could become an issue as they are equitably moot.

35a6786a-ce37-448e-aeb0-e5d7a2b29666_152.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Quote

The Certain Insurers1 move this Court for a stay pending appeal and for a 
temporary stay while the Court considers this motion. Absent a stay, the automatic 
stay under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8025 will expire after April 11, 
2023, at which point BSA may contend that further appeals by appellants are 
equitably moot, raising a substantial risk of irreparable harm. 

931640e6-44d5-4b85-b697-11a865328923_154.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Quote

The Dumas & Vaughn Claimants (“D & V Claimants”) move this 
Court for a stay pending appeal and for a temporary stay while the Court considers 
this motion. Absent a stay, the automatic stay under FRBP Rule 8025 will expire 
after April 11, 2023. Without extending the stay, BSA may argue that further 
appeals by appellants are equitably moot, which would greatly increase the risk of 
irreparable harm to D & V Claimants.

I would put in a recommendation for TroopTrack.

We recently looked at switching and decided against Scoutbook as only registered members can be in our Troop.  We typically add in potential new scouts (AOL 1 year before cross over) and keep a large alumni group updated on an ongoing basis.  Since Scoutbook doesn't enable these features, we stayed with TroopTrack.

TroopTrack works well for us; however, the performance isn't quite up to where it was in the past (which is why we started looking at Scoutbook).  

2 hours ago, clbkbx said:

That's a good point about the TCC supporting this version plan. I also wanted to note that, at this point, I'd like it to go into effect.

You're also right about history fans: my recollection is that the TCC wailed that the settlements were "historically low" and then started to support the plan after the YPT sections were changed. That's always been a disconnect in my mind. [You've also heard me wail that youth protection had to be negotiated doesn't sit well.]

I don't think what I posted is cherry picking. Both judges leaned on the Bates testimony. It's referenced repeatedly, presented as "payment in full" and then typically qualified, like so: 

"Payment in full... uncontroverted evidence" to "no clear error" that it will "likely provide for payment in full" in three sentences.

I've posted this analysis before but... if you take the at least reasonable claims (no invalid votes, has to show a council) from the last vote (approx 43,000 claims), arrange them by claimed class, multiply by the matrix base (no scaling up or down) and weight by the SOL... the amount is $9.4B. Happy to share this or hear any feedback on the method. 

The Plan says that the "Trust Distribution Procedures’ Claims Matrix, Base Matrix Values, Maximum Matrix Values, and Scaling Factors.., are appropriate and provide for a fair and equitable settlement of Abuse Claims based on the evidentiary record offered to the Bankruptcy Court as required..."

So the Trustee is going to have to find 75+% fraudulent claims, scale down every claim or (as I think most likely) not pay any where near the full value of the claims. I hope I'm wrong!

There was no expert who testified to any value above Bates.  Note that the insurers have no motivation to claim a higher value.  That leaves a few claimants who could likely not afford the experts and analysis to prove Bates wrong.  

I believe in addition to YPT the TCC also got the agreement for the alternative path.  That path technically allows full payment of any claim removing the limits of the matrix. 

I think it is too early to know if it is fully funded.  However, I'd recommend getting in early as possible.

This topic hit the end as the next phase has been reached.

6 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

So, how many paths do insurers have before they run out of appeals, assuming the Supreme Court isn't interested?

I think the big question is if a court issues a stay during the appeal to this decision (assuming there is one).  Without a stay, it is hard  to imagine an appeal not being moot. 

3 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

If you had "Positive Covid Test" in the pool for the next reason why things will be delayed, you won.  Thursday's hearing has been postponed until April, the 19th I think, because Judge Silverstein has Covid.   In all fairness, this is unrelated to the wait for the District Court decision but related to the Coalition's Substantial Contribution claim hearing in the morning and the hearing in the afternoon to get the Trust "seed funding" so some operations can start.  Another month.... 

Any guess as to when District will come back?  It seems like we should be prepared for months, but not sure what the typical response time would be. 

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So if Brad KillsCrow told BSA to stop using NA references in OA, we should stop?  What has his input been? 

 

 This was passed and signed March 2022.  This is where I struggle.  The Lenape elected officials are asking groups to stop.  Now, this document doesn't specifically call out OA, but I have a guess what they would say.

Res-2022-08 (1).pdf

17 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

I've said to just about anyone wearing a sash for several years now- the only group you should need buy-in from is on of the tribes that is part of the Lenape heritage. Every lodge around the country is representing the Legend that is claiming to be of the Lenni Lenape, so we all should be using regalia that fits into a certain standard. At that point, anyone who has issue with what we are doing has issues not so much with us, but with the group that was the inspiration for all of it. 

So if Brad KillsCrow told BSA to stop using NA references in OA, we should stop?  What has his input been? 

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Got it, but you missed the point 😜

 

If National BSA would like to partner with Native Americans, they cannot go to 500+ different tribes.  They would need engagement & agreement from the largest Nations.  If they are on board and see benefit, then I think something can be done on the national level.  If this group isn't interested, then BSA is probably better off just breaking the relationship. 

The easier and more likely path is for BSA to simply stop all NA imagery.  Before doing that, I think reaching out to 10 leaders who represent nearly half of all Native Americans could provide an alternate solution.

51 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

574 recognized tribes in US.  What about native Hawaiians??

https://www.usa.gov/tribes

What qualifies as a "largest nation"??

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Neither the BSA nor the OA has a purpose or mission as a Native American Heritage Society.

I love what the OA is at heart, and it has nothing to do with any real Native American lore.

I say ditch it, and walk away.

Structure it around the colonial period and a call to service for freedom.  I can think my way through that set up easily.

Personally, I think we should go to leaders of the largest nations in the USA and ask them what we should consider doing.  I could see changing Indian Lore to be more about current native Americans.   Perhaps sharing use of camps for Pow wows.  Service projects in reservations.  etc.  Perhaps that could lead to NAs leaders also talking/teaching their history and other partnerships.

I would hate to see a complete break, but I do agree change is needed.

1 hour ago, malraux said:

Rumor mongering, but supposedly the purpose of the survey is to decide how to roll out the incoming changes. IE, should the BSA try to work with official tribes to build something appropriate or mostly ditch the themes. But regardless the changes are coming.

Missed this comment.  Based on the questions it really does seem like these are the two paths.  Ditch the themes completely or meet with tribal leaders to see if something can be worked out.  That could still lead to major changes.  I don't expect status quo will remain.

32 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

LOL, "Chief" is an English word.  And there are/were tribal chiefs (chieftains) around the world in multiple countries/lands throughout history.  It is not "appropriation" to use that word.

The etymology is French...

Very good point.  Why Are Indigenous Leaders Called Chiefs? (ictinc.ca)  

Not all OA lodges have close ties with NA tribes ... in fact, from what I can see, most do not.  Many areas have tribes that were kicked out and pushed into Oklahoma.  Just look at the map of Indian reservations link.  Most of the east coast has very small or nonexistent reservations.  How would an OA lodge in Pennsylvania have a relationship with a tribe?  Head West and there are many more options.  Florida has some options as well.  

Based on the survey questions ... I highly doubt no changes are coming.  My rough guess is they are considering 3 paths:

Path A ... Simply give up on NA references & usage ... just move on.

Path B ... Engage with NA community to strengthen the bond.  That will likely mean eliminating some NA aspects of the program and possibly bringing in others.

Path C ... minimal changes (for example, eliminating council non approved NA programs, but leaving in National programs untouched)

30 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

It was in my inbox when I got home from Roundtable last night.  Not sure if this is going out to every registered adult leader, every OA member, or just a random selection.  I did see that the link is specifically for the addressee and will not let you us it a second time, as it would not let my OA member scout respond.  I will have him monitor his email to see if it is being sent to any youth members.

I am not an active OA member but received the survey.  Questions were about OA, Indian Lore MB, camp names, council names, any and all NA usage.  

Watch your email inbox... Survey is starting to make the rounds.

Dear Scouters,

The BSA continuously evaluates the relevance of its program to ensure that it remains engaging for youth and families throughout the country. Native American traditions have been a part of the BSA program, particularly within the Order of the Arrow, for more than a century. As we move forward, BSA is conducting a broad assessment of what role those traditions should play in the future. 

We’d like you to take the attached survey to provide your perspective on this important issue. No related decisions have been made. The BSA is in the early stages of assessing the issues and your responses will be used as part of that assessment. 

The survey will take approximatly 5 minutes to complete.  

Thank you for your feedback. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact David Verbraska, BSA’s Executive Vice President, Chief Communications and Marketing Officer. 

Yours in Scouting,

Roger Mosby

BSA President and CEO

Chief Scout Executive

53 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The claim form was only to make a claim and allowed the debtor to get a better picture of where the abuse occurred, severity, etc.  In mass tort bankruptcy Trusts there will be a questionnaire that will ask for a ton more detail, any medical records, evidence, etc.  The trust will need to hire professionals with experience in developing this form for sexual assault, then retain professionals to process all of them and wade through the materials....  It's going to be difficult for many Survivors but the closest comparison would be the discovery phase of a trial.  Hopefully the Trust will communicate well with Survivors on instructions and processes.  If a Survivor retained an attorney they are going to find out quickly how much help that attorney is going to be.  Remember as well that Judge Silverstein dictated that she needs to approve the fraud prevention steps the trust will follow.  Be on the lookout for attorneys who scream "we need to get money into the hands of Survivors as quickly as possible."  If I'm getting 40% then I'd want the same.  If you're a Survivor you want awards going to CREDIBLE claims.  The tricky part for the Trust, and why the questionnaire is the first critical step is because at some point it's going to take too long and cost too much money to validate a claim.  The Trust needs to balance speed and validation.  Sorry, probably more than just an answer to what questionnaire construction is.

Will this form apply to the $3500 quick payout option?  I'm curious how that will be handled.

9 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Clif notes.....

BSA is trying to start scrambling the egg so that the certain insurers and other objectors can say "Look court/judge, this is up and operating and the prep is underway so that awards can be made when the Trust is funded.  Can't unscramble the egg now"  That's important pressure and VERY good news for Survivors because if this doesn't get dragged out the time-to-awards will be shortened compared to everything administrative waiting for a start when all appeals have run out.  Interesting.....motion is for BSA to contribute 1 million dollars and TCC's attorneys PSZJ to contribute 2.9 to 3.2 million.  The PSZJ money is coming from the 10% of its fees it pledged at the start of the Bankruptcy to go to the Trust and has been kept in escrow until now.  Oh, and the Coalition's attorneys Brown-Rudnick....support for this motion but NO financial contribution.  What a shame.  Their hearing to receive a 25 million dollar "substantial contribution" from the BSA was pushed to March.  Seems like a missed opportunity to pledge 2.5 million and show the Judge its level of commitment and contribution.  You know, you always find out who your friends are when the check comes and it's time to split it.  The people who really care about you always reach for their wallets.  The others see the check approaching and head for the bathroom.

 

I was wondering when BSA was going to start this process.  I question if it would have any impact on the district court, but I know some professors/reporters on bankruptcy have stated appeals can run into trouble if the court determines the appeal is moot.  As you state, if BSA basically says there is no other path left because everyone already paid into the plan and the plan started, the court (unless it acts quickly) would kill the appeal even if it could have some merits. I guess the risk would be if the court tells BSA too bad, you shouldn't have started, but BSA would be in serious trouble regardless, so it is pretty much 0 risk for starting it now.

I think this might also be a sign that BSA is assuming district will confirm the plan.  With the announcement of Mosby's retirement, start of the trust ... I believe BSA has decided to start implementing their exit strategy.

Finally ... fully agree this is good for survivors.  The alternative to the current plan is endless lawsuits, less money and lack of resolution.  

Perhaps the most important hire in BSA history.  Given BSA's situation, I don't know if they can survive if the get a bad leader.  Any membership or financial buffer is gone. 

I am definitely open to outside leaders.  I also wonder if there is a council out there that is run exceptionally well.  There could be some great internal leaders.

The search for Roger Mosby's replacement has begun.

BSA-Search-committee-initial-letter-final-02-07-2023.pdf

34 minutes ago, Tired_Eagle_Feathers said:

This whole thing reminds me of how strange it is that troops need a charter organization at all.

They should be able to self-charter and just rent a meeting location.

 

Some do through "Friends of...".  I know we did that for our unit for a few years.  However, when we looked at liability (among other reasons) we became concerned and found a CO.   Some entity needs to be directly responsible for the unit.

Feb 8th The Milwaukee archdiocese announced they will stop charter agreements starting Jan 1 2024.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

my troop pays for leaders’ registration fees

My Troop also pays the leaders' registration fees.  We have one primary fundraiser that does very well.  Part of the profit goes to scout accounts.   The other goes to Troop expenses which includes adult fees.  The $0 MBC was really about not charging the local weatherman or pilot who would like to volunteer to be a MBC.  It was never about an end around for those closely associated with Troops. If that local weatherman is looking to camp with the Troop then they are likely not just a MBC.