Eagle1993

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???

Andrew Scurria - BSA can press ahead with proposed settlement while requiring certain provisions be removed. Status of $650m settlement with Hartford? Unclear A Bankruptcy Professor (Prof. Jacoby) at North Carolina tweeted there was "no surprise that the judge challenged significant elements for the agreement" ... went on to tweet "...probably means a change in direction of strategy for the plan?" @MariaChutchian tweeted that the Boy Scouts got approval to move ahead with a deal but ... "The deal isn't set in stone yet, though, and the fight with insurers isn't over."

One point that I think we should consider. The judge wasn’t sympathetic to the CO objections nor the insurance companies that said the BSA needs COs to function. She basically said it isn’t her job to decide what is best for BSA’s business and she will defer to theBSA. So… I expect she would approve a deal with no CO protection

Kosnoff - Twitter: Ignoring the sexist comment. I also don't agree that this means Ch 7 is coming.

My twitter feed is filling up with articles. They range from: Judge approves $850M deal Just partially approves $850M deal Boy Scouts get conditional approval Boy Scouts get approval but judge rejected two key provisions

She went HARD after those fees. I see no chance they are ever approved. What does this mean? The Coalition will not get the $10M + $900K/month ... likely $15-$18M of fees lost. If they were counting on those, they will need BSA to kick in another $30 - $40M in the settlement. If this was the only issue, then I think there was a chance the Disclosure hearing could be maintained. However, the Hartford deal will give the Coalition cover to abandon the current RSA without looking like they did it because of the fees. My guess ... RSA is DOA and a negotiations will pick up again.

From my understanding of the options now.. 1) Hartford deal is in the plan. Now, it could be rejected and that would meet the Hartford deal. ... But it must be in the plan. 2) Hartford deal is fought in court in an adversarial hearing. Evidence would be presented and the judge would be asked for a ruling on the deal. 3) Hartford agrees to a new plan. What does 1, 2 & 3 mean ... DELAYS! BSA will probably need to determine the path that gets them to the quickest resolution. I expect #3 is out ... so my bet is #2 as I'd have a hard time seeing TCC not object to #1.

No chance Aug 25 holds.

RSA approved - No Coalition fees .. they are abuse victims which the TCC already represents. Are services duplicated? Rule 2019 motion there was discussion on who would pay for it ... and in that filing 1429 "Coalition council is being paid by state court council." The state court council must pay those fees, not trust OR BSA ... only through client pockets (not directly). Relative scale ... not that great (my point) ... it doesn't matter. Coalition must make substantial contribution ... need to see outcome of their efforts. Also no evidence of their role in mediation.. - Hartford deal stays; however, the RSA cannot be used to append other requests (such as releasing the Hartford deal). Basically ... the judge cannot rule on the Hartford deal and she agrees. This requires a different vehicle. ... Basically, kick the can down the road.

It appears there is no issue with the lack of board approval and conflict of interest between LC/National boards.

More coming, but that Harford deal could be a big issue .... I'm not surprised about the coalition fees ... she killed many debates and it seemed like she wasn't going to approve.

Topic includes RSA ruling (see below) and impact on bankruptcy. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cbf4b5e3-c8a1-450e-aa7f-f65e20f40ee7_6084.pdf

All ... we are 30 minutes away from the Judge's RSA decision. I know several will probably be monitoring the hearing and we are already at 108 pages on this topic. So, I'll freeze this one now and create a new one to capture the updates from the hearing and discussions post decision.

The big group is religious, followed by fraternal organizations then misc (PTOs, fire departments, etc.). I think the LDS, Methodist, Catholic, VFW, Knights of Columbus seem to be participating in the mediation. What happens to the VFWs, Moose, Lions Clubs, Kiwanis, PTOs, etc. who don't participate? Who knows? Many of them are dying off anyway and probably have almost no assets and limited insurance coverage ... so probably not a big target for lawsuits. I know our CO seems to be hand to mouth and perhaps has <$10K in the bank with no buildings and likely crappy insurance. If someone sues them, they couldn't even afford a lawyer ... though no law firm would ever sue if they knew the recovery would be so low. That is probably true for many other COs ... outside the big churches. Overall ... good question as the LC portion gives all LCs coverage. I tend to think the CO portion would only cover the COs that pay in.

I actually think National would love the COs to be part of the plan. The problem ... name 1 CO that has ever had to pay a settlement due to a sex abuse case brought against the BSA? There could be a case or two ... but I haven't found any. The big cases were paid out by National, LCs and possibly insurance carriers. So, I'm sure the COs are saying ... why do we have to pay anything? The BSA owned the program and process around volunteers and provided liability coverage. I'm sure the TCC/claimants have no desire to let the COs off the hook for $0 in payment. While they haven't paid (or paid much) in the past, there is nothing stopping future lawsuits against the COs. Oh, and now that there is no BSA, no LC and limited insurance ... the CO will be there, alone, defending themselves in these lawsuits. They could lose and lose big. This is a very tough spot for the COs. I'm sure they are looking for BSA to pitch in more $$ to cover them. They will likely have to pitch in $ as well. While I believe the BSA would love to include the COs, they also know they have time limitations in negotiations and limited assets they are willing to part with. So ... that is why mediation continues. Could the LCs pitch in more plus some payment directly from COs to provide coverage? Is there any other clever solution? I really think if there is a solution, the Catholic & Methodist Churches will continue. They truly believe it is God's work to help youth and scouting. The only way I see them leave is if the financial impact/risk to their entire work is put at risk for this one program. If they leave, BSA can provide facility use agreements, but I think the impact would be large and damaging.

I think the primary reason is they see it as within their ministry. They believe scouting values are important for youth and by serving as a CO, they can help youth obtain these values.