Eagle1993

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

WSJ just confirmed new $800M deal with Hartford. "Boy Scouts are close to a new deal with insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims."

I believe the TCC said in a Townhall that Harford represented 40% of total insurance liability.  Does this mean the rest, combined, would be $1.2B?  My guess is that they would want more, but since Hartford got BSA to sign onto a deal, they have them over the barrel.   $800M seems light for 40% of total insurance liability.

Just now, vol_scouter said:

Those suits are coming.  Colleagues in those organizations are very concerned and are watching what happens to the BSA with great interest.  The GSUSA may have a relatively low incidence because females are less likely to abuse children, especially girls so the GSUSA may not have as large a problem.  The ineligible volunteer files provided a road map to potential clients for attorneys and the BSA is one of the larger organizations that made it first.

The NY window has now closed (August 13).  It will be interesting to compare the various organizations and number of lawsuits/claimants.  

Any update on the hearing today?  I didn't see one but may have missed it.

For the first time since we had kids, both my wife and I were working all summer.  So, we had to do what many other families do ... figure out child care while school is out of session.  While I have been deep in scouting and had an inkling there were some issues with Cub Scout summer camps, it became apparent this year.

My daughter is in both Cub Scouts and GSUSA.  I would have loved to have her attend the summer camps these scouting organizations offered ... but we didn't sign her up for a variety of reasons.

Our Cub Scout summer camp offered programs, but they excluded Fridays ... which means we would have to figure out child care for that 1 day.  They  pushed hard for parents to volunteer.  Most of their offerings required us to drive about 45 mins each way.

So ... what does their "competition" offer. No volunteer requests.  5 days a week of camp.  Local (15 min drive or less + any bus ride ❤️0 mins) ... and they handle all bussing.  We signed her up for 7 weeks of camps from a variety of institutions (JCC, local nature centers, zoo. local museum and the humane society).  The BSA  Cub Scout day camp was simply not competitive.  I hear the same from other families in my area.

To me, summer camps create the major bond between an organization and youth/families.  Even though it is only 1 week long, many times, I see families putting out yard signs, talking to neighbors, etc. about the camp & organization.  I'm not sure how widespread this is, but if BSA is failing to get Cub Scouts going to their summer camps, I'm concerned that we will continue to see less engagement from parents/youth and a decline in the program.

I know locally, there have been some attempts to fix some of the issues, but I really think BSA Cub Scout Day camps should:

• Last all 5 week days (no partial weeks).  I expect a slightly shorter day Fridays would be ok.
• Be located a reasonable distance from kids and require parents to limit commute.  (Offer bussing options for a fee, but kids shouldn't have to be on a bus for hours a day.)
• Hire staff ... don't request parents to volunteer to run the camp.  If you do, offer a discount, but don't use that as your primary staffing plan.
• Have a great, energetic camp director who understands 1st - 5th graders and the scouting program.  Pay them.

If our council fixed these issues, I think I could absolutely sell this camp to families.  Then, kids going to the camp (perhaps for multiple weeks) would really get into scouting (along with their families).  I know Cub Scouts is more than just summer camp ... but I think we are missing a big opportunity with our current offering.

How do Cub Scout day camps operate in your area?  Do you see similar issues compared to competitive offerings?

11 hours ago, Eagledad said:

That being said, what do you propose to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

This is a great question and my hunch is you will likely never have a 100% safe program when youth & adults are involved.  I've seen some proposals that I think could help (more open reporting) and others that I doubt would have any real impact (warning labels).

I would be curious to see proposals from child abuse experts after reviewing the more recent incidents (5-10 years).  

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Probably because they did not keep any records of abusers and alleged abusers to keep them out of the program. Remember, BSA's CSE at the creation of the IVF, James West, was a lawyer. BSA used the technology and legal standards of the day to try ans keep folks out. I worked for the YMCA,  and never heard of any such policy or practice.

However, if there were large numbers of men sexually assaulting kids in those programs, we would be seeing large numbers of lawsuits filed now.  The laws are the same for all organizations ... if there were a massive number of sex abuse claims we would be seeing a flood of lawsuits against these other youth serving organizations. We are not.  Why ... because a combination that BSA was attractive to pedophiles and BSA didn't address the problem sufficiently.  From Scout's Honor, 1991:

Quote

"I went to the Boy Scouts and sought some help from them, thinking we could come out of the sand and get our heads together," said Donald Wolff, then a legal consultant to Big Brothers. "We met a brick wall. . . . The Boy Scouts were pretending there was no problem. We knew the Boy Scouts had as big a problem if not bigger than we had."

Also from Scout's Honor, 1991, the chair of BSA's safety committee never received information about sex abuse.

Quote

In a 1987 deposition, committee chairman Dr. Walter Menniger said Scout officials never gave the committee any reports about sex abuse, although they routinely gave the committee tallies for other injuries. He was sure that if sex abuse was a problem in Scouting he would be told about it, he said.

I think we are seeing the results of that today.  The laws are the same for all organizations, but BSA is one of two that declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse lawsuits.  They have 84,000 claims now.  The other, USA Gymnastics, has just over 500.  Neither should be blaming victims or society.  They should admit their own failings, compensate victims and do their best to prevent it from reoccurring.  Too often, this thread seems to venture into blaming laws, society, lawyers and  the claimants.  

I think there is enough evidence through prior lawsuits and investigative journalists that BSA failed to sufficiently protect youth.  BSA decided to abandon future fights in court and declare bankruptcy.  Given that, we need to pay and do our best to protect kids in the future.

43 minutes ago, skeptic said:

IF the stats are even close, society has a massive problem, and the BSA is not the primary agent.  

I understand the point and I agree there was a broader issue in society.  But right now, BSA is the only organization ever to have anything close to 84,000 claims of sex abuse.   So, if this is a problem everywhere, why doesn’t 4H, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, YMCA, the Boys Club, etc, have tens of thousands of claims?

The reason is that for decades, the BSA was the best organization to join if you were a pedophile.  It is horrible to think of, but pedophiles figured out if you are a scoutmaster you can go out into the woods with prepubescent boys and get away with your sick fantasies.

BSA knew they had an issue and senior leadership hid it.  It makes me sick as I love the program and believe the vast majority of men donated countless hours and upheld the honor of scouting.  However, the information in the Washington Times articles made it clear.  Senior leaders at BSA knew they had an issue, didn’t want the bad publicity and likely thought not much could be done.  We are here not because of victims nor lawyers nor even a few rough employees.  We are here because BSA national leaders took too long to act to protect kids.  If BSA survives, which I think it will and should, we need to make sure that never happens again. 

2 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I think there is still some money out there especially from LC's. Mine has 20 million in assets and is paying 6.5 million into the settlement.  Not all LC's are like this but I was really surprised reading how much reserve funds some councils have. 

National still has HAB's and other small assets.  I feel like it will take more of these assets if there is to be a settlement.

While not fair, maybe the cash rich councils could contribute more to try to get a final deal with CO's covered. If the goal is to truly save scouting for the future, it might take this.

I tend to agree.  BSA should be helping to pay to include CO coverage OR they should exclude LC and COs from the settlement.   To only exclude COs and tell them “good luck” is not appropriate.  I can find no case where a CO had to pay out for sex abuse; however, they will clearly be sitting ducks if National BSA and Local Councils get immunity.  For BSA to do this to COs shows they can never be trusted.  If I were a CO, I would never sign a piece of paper from the BSA.  In fact, I would request the BSA sign my liability waivers.  

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Where the abuse occurred.

Not sure if this is 100% true.  Think of it this way.  A scout in a Troop in an Illinois council travels to Wisconsin for summer camp.  He is sexually assaulted at camp.  Does the SOL is Wisconsin apply or Illinois?  What about the reverse?  This isn’t a black/white situation and individual claimants are giving up their right to sue in state courts.  The judge cannot simply wipe out their claims and if she does expect a decade of appeals.  

Don’t forget that it is BSA National declaring bankruptcy.   They were headquartered in NJ and NY prior to 1978.   
 

When the statements of time barred claims come out, is that per the state the crime occurred or Texas, NJ and/or NY laws?  I legal theory was that National BSA could be sued based on the laws of the state is incorporated in.  I would be shocked if the judge threw out 50,000 claims.  
 

Now, if the claim doesn’t meet NJ, NY, Texas or the state where it occurred… perhaps those could be tossed.  However, the issue is that BSA LCs are attempting to get protection from future lawsuits.  Due to that and the fact thar SOL laws are constantly changing its hard to see those claims being completely tossed. 
 

Perhaps there is a weight vote where certain claim votes are higher dollar value than others.  I just don’t see this as a quick simple issue given the various state laws involved and what BSA is asking in return.

59 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

If you recall the citation, I'll check it out.

Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 2016 IL App (1st) 152406.

The time bared claim is a complex discussion.  If you remember back to pre bankruptcy, the reason BSA faced a major risk was that they were headquartered in New York prior to 1954. 1954 to 1978 they were in New Jersey and post 1978 in Texas.  One argument is that the claims against BSA should follow the SOL rules of those states from those times. 

Then you have an issue where SOL is a bit squishy as argued in the Illinois case mentioned earlier in one of these threads.  The Illinois courts basically said the SOL for child sex abuse are not applicable if there was a coverup.  

So… unless the court plans to go case by case, state by state and determine how state law applies then I think they should be considered valid claimants and get a vote.  Now I agree that SOL could be factored in on payouts; however those laws are changing all the time.  What happens in a year when more states change laws?

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Remember, the insurers are not hiding the fact that they include time-barred claims in the “invalid” category. It is right there in black and white. They’ve beaten that drum harder and louder as this has gone forward. What’s that, 59,000 or some such? I try not to remember the number, frankly. 

To me, I would not include those in the false claim category and clearly no audit is needed for those.  

22 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

This forum has discussed vetting claims at least twice - last summer as a unexpected higher number of claims were filed and again as the bar date was repeatedly moved forward to insure claimants had time to submit their claims following a BSA-paid advertising campaign to remind them.

 

I think many times, in the past, many of us felt that while vetting of claims would be ideal, the delay in the proceedings would have a negative impact AND BSA would not pay out more regardless (as once they hit 5 - 10K claims they would have to max out their payment.

That said, I think vetting does take on importance if there are a high number of fraudulent claims.  Why?  Because I expect many of these will simply take the $3.5K for a yes vote and walk away.  That doesn't seem appropriate if the remaining valid claims are not in support of the deal.  

I think it could be appropriate for the judge to allow a vetting of a sufficient number of claims to determine a failure rate with a reasonable confidence interval.  Perhaps that is 1,400 ... not sure and its Friday and I don't care to break out my statistics book.  It could be a random sample by a 3rd party.  There should be a time limit (perhaps 1 - 2 months).  My concern though, If there is a substantial rate of issues, then what?  Are we going to wait 6 months to clean up the list?  

There are two short term impacts from false claims.

1) They will likely take the $3500 ... so there is a financial impact, taking money from valid claimants.

2) They will lower the required YES vote needed from valid claimants.

Hopefully my math is correct, but at $3500 each and 84,000 claims it looks like the numbers below.  1-5% of the claims being fraud doesn't make a huge swing.  However, if you start increasing that number you see a fairly large financial impact and a drop in the needed yes vote.  

I would argue ... do the audit.  If 10% or less are questionable, move on.  10 - 20% ... tough conversation.  20% or more ... we need to stop and audit all.  

Wasn't there a hearing today?  Outside the August 30 hearing details was there any decisions?

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The BSA is clearly running out of money as they predicted but many on this list were very dubious.

BSA didn’t say they were running or of money.  They said they would be out of cash by this summer.  Most of us believed them at the time. In fact, some felt this was so serious to warn scouts to earn Eagle early. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/11/19/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-abuse/
Now what is the truth?  At the end of December 2020, they had $52.5M in unrestricted cash and $175M total unrestricted liquidity balance.

At the end of June 2021, they have $72.5M in unrestricted cash and $175M total unrestricted liquidity balance.

Even their restricted accounts have grown.  It appears BSA can last, at least financially, in bankruptcy for much longer than they previously stated. 

This appears to have been a negotiation technique. There is no way they accidentally found $72M in cash.  

No doubt they are in trouble, but add this to the pile of BSA not being transparent with their volunteers.  Their recent plans show them lasting until March 2021 in bankruptcy.   It’s great news that they can continue operating that long… but it clearly makes me question their past statements.
 

BSA is one of the worst leaders in change management regardless of what side you stand on recent issues, and their poor communication and lack of transparency during the bankruptcy just adds fuel to that fire.  

Yes … Let’s get this back to bankruptcy before it diverges into Insta Palms.  

2 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

@Eagle1993 - So, we're feeding the beast here.

Appears so. 

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Other councils were sending around the "all funds will stay local; all is well!" emails.

 

Even now, councils need to be careful.  I would think their messaging should flow along the lines of ...

• Apology to claimants, statement along the lines that no amount of money could undo damage done.
• That the terms have not been finalized and there are still unknowns; however, based on the current plan:
• How much we are being asked to contribute.
• Did we agree to pay.
• How we plan to pay that contribution.
• What is the impact on scouting locally.
• How we are making sure we are doing everything possible to prevent the abuse from happening again.
• Again ... plans can change and this is the status as of today.

This shouldn't be a cheerful message. It should be somber.  It shouldn't lead into a recruiting/fundraising pitch.  

57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I am seeing more and more from Reddit, FB groups, etc. that last week's mediation was a failure and that a new directive may have gone out Monday night telling Methodist churches to not renew. Moreover, some churches are simply dropping their units NOW, mid-year, and not waiting for December 31.

To borrow a military phrase, it is turning from a retreat to a rout.

Yes .. the chatter is increasing and several are indicating immediate stops.  It doesn't sound national yet as some are indicating they haven't been informed and others have been told December 31 is the end date.  One individual is comparing the plans to the LDS exit if BSA doesn't change their path on bankruptcy.   I'm still thinking it doesn't get that bad, but clearly some units are feeling the pinch as we speak.

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Further, it seems the consensus that the LC's will spend about 50% or so of their total assets and even a higher percentage of their unrestricted assets.  What company just sends off 50% of its assets and feels good about it? It would be fatal to most businesses.

LCs are spending less than 50% of their unrestricted assets. Per Disclosure, the combined net unrestricted assets are currently $2.4B.  Now, if they have to liquidate, they claim the would only recover $1.7B of that.  They are contributing $600M, about 35% of their net recoverable unrestricted assets.  Now there are fees, etc. that get involved, but on average it appears closer to 15% of total net assets (not 50% as you listed).

7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - Page 323

In any case ... some councils are paying more and others far less.  For example, many NJ, NY, etc. are likely going to pay a lot.  I expect that messaging will be tough (camps sold, program cuts, fees increased, etc.). 

The issue is that many other councils are paying relatively little (and some may pay $0) to get a life time pass for everything that occurred Feb 2020 or earlier.   Yes, that is likely due to current SOLs, etc ... but SOLs can change in the future.  We have already seen councils come out and say ... we don't have to sell camps, touch program funds, your donations, etc.  That is great news for current scouters and scouts.    My point is that this messaging is terrible for the claimants from those specific councils and I wonder how it could influence voting or lawyers representing those clients on the deal.

Again, I understand why, I understand SOLs, I understand the math and risk of taking this to state courts, etc.  I just think the councils that have relatively lower impacts should probably work on their messaging.

7 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

Their intention was to give reassurance that none of the camps would need to be sold and to praise those who had made good financial decisions on behalf of the council in the past, which put the council in a position to meet its obligations.

 

I wonder if council after council, coming out, stating how painless this will be could impact the voting on the plan.  

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Obviously, some LCs saw the ruling in the best possible light pointing to with a reasonably near-term resolution built on the lame duck RSA. Who's communicating that? Also, what's this continuing claim of a confidentiality muzzle when we all know it's been lifted? Inquiring minds want to know...

I would probably take a much more measured response.  Some of these councils are sending out statements as if the negotiations are 100% done and we are now beyond the bankruptcy.  It will be ugly for them if anything goes sideways.