Eagle1993

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?

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

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?

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.

Appears so.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Oh I know and remember his comments. If this was their opinion, then they should have never added girls. There is a great organization that serves girls in a single gender format. There is no need for BSA to enter that space. Also, they should ensure Philmont doesn't allow coed crews, summer camps stop supporting coed acting Troops, councils from advising how to handle coed activities and ending charters of all Troops/Packs that violate this. They won't as they need the dues. So, they will continue to know most units with girls operate as coed but at the leadership level spout they are single gender.

I understand that is not the intent; however, our council, the council of our summer camp and even Philmont is 100% fine with how the Troops are operating. We just had a coed crew (not venturing .. Troop) complete a trek at Philmont. Nearly every girl that participated in Klondike this past February was a member of a coed patrol. I took over as SM of a Troop like this. During my SM conferences, I've asked the girls and 100% of them have said they would not want to be in a separate Troop. I've asked the boys, including my son ... their comments range from threating to quit if we break up the Troops (from one of the girl's brothers) to indifference. Now ... I know that kids don't always tell the SM how they really feel ... they may tell him what they think he wants to hear. But overall, from watching how the Troop operates & how the girls/boys interact ... it works well for the scouts we have. What does it look like? The girls that are athletic play sports with the boys who like sports during down time. The girls focused on advancement work on advancement with the boys that have that focus. The quiet/shy ones find their own space as well. Now, as I mentioned, I 100% agree that for some boys it may not work well ... those who are nervous around girls. I also am concerned a bit long term as several of the girls are more leadership/advancement driven and could take over. I would push back on BSA if they ever removed the option for troops to be all male. That offering should remain. Now ...for the girls that flourish in an all girl environment ... there is GSUSA. GSUSA does a better job than the BSA in an all girl group setting. My daughter does both, and if BSA just offered segregated units she would definitely not be part of the BSA as she can get that (better) with GSUSA. I'm not sure why BSA thinks they could do this better ... I haven't seen it, even with the all girl Troops/Packs.

In my council there may be 1-2 all girl Troops, not linked, doing ok. Most are linked Troops operated in the fashion you state. My Troop(s) is/are one, though, not for the reason you state. No, the boy troops are not doing the girl troops a disservice for operating like a coed. Perhaps the reverse is true. I expect the policy will change but I’m not sure if soon. Struggling girl troops will be like venturing crews. Unless there is a strong girl Cubscout pack, they likely won’t last in many cases. My experience running both a coed pack and linked troops. The issue I see is that GSUSA is pretty good from K5 -5th grade. In Cubscouts the only time we get a lot of girls is when the GSUSA troop for that age collapses. That doesn’t typically happen until middle school …. Which is too late for Cubscouts. So, the girls we get are typically siblings, and fare fewer than the boys. The parents signing them up are doing it so they can join the existing dens. There is simply not enough volunteers to manage 12 dens in most packs. At Scouts BSA level - similar. Since Scouts BSA is really built on recruiting kids from Packs and there are few girls joining Cubscouts (and most of those are siblings) creating Girl only Troops has been very difficult and many are not sustainable. Then you come to lack of volunteers with the linked Troops. Finally, the girls in our linked Troop don’t want it to be independent from the boys. Now I am sympathetic to the argument if the boys are being negatively impacted by adding girls. I’m willing to admit there is an argument there. While they boys in my Troop all say they like the arrangement, I know that may not be the whole answer.

We don’t know the specifics of this case. Perhaps they did discuss this with the claimant. I absolutely agree law enforcement should communicate with victims and involve them in the process. I hope they would include experts in sex abuse victims to handle the discussions appropriately. However, I believe that they need to act on this information. Who knows how many kids are currently being abused by some of these men. I am incredibly thankful that some men reported the abuse. I hope they were treated kindly during the process.

Actually ... that is my point. With Cynical's comment about BSA surviving from their investments & OA fund, I am wondering if the lawyers representing victims have dynamic models to calculate ability to pay. As a claimant, I would want my lawyers to watch for that. How was that $600M calculated? To be fair ... National is feeling the pain. I think we all see that. I also think many councils feel deep cuts as well, especially NJ, NY, IL, California and a few other states. It will be painful. I think the tough message & discussion will be when all of the council details come out and some are getting off pretty light. How will the TCC & claimant attorneys justify that. We know why (SOLs) but it will be a tough message and vote for claimants in those councils. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to cushion that discussion.

Many of these investments could be roughly tied to the S&P 500. When BSA went into bankruptcy, the S&P 500 was around $3,200. Today it is $4,680 ... a growth of 46%. That likely helped most councils & national BSA absorb the cost & settlement more easily. I wonder if asset estimates are being updated with the stock market increase we have seen since early 2020. Now ... if National is selling off their investments, they could run into trouble if this drags deep into 2022...

Allowing multiple parallel conversations in a single thread gets very confusing. The moderators will do our best to keep it tight to bankruptcy and spin off others as separate topics as needed. I simply hope in the end there are more Star Wars films than bankruptcy threads ... but the force is strong on this topic...

Possibly yes. I think any executive board would say yes to pay 10% of current assets to remove 100% of this liability. One lawsuit that hits could cost double what they are paying to avoid 5 - 100+. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I expect some late nights to determine strategy. Does the coalition hold? Time will tell.

May have been my typing ... it wasn't copy/paste but a quick attempt to transcribe a few points between my phone & PC.

FYI ... I just got an email from Bay-Lakes Council ".... One of the biggest pieces of information that we have known and unable to communicate is the total amount that Bay-Lakes Council is being asked to contribute. The attached video, aand this letter, mean that we are now authorized to share this information." ".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust." "... Recentely, our Executive Board took action to commit to funding our portion..." I wonder if councils are being released from NDAs today based on the judge's ruling???