Eagle1993

Not at the unit level. Our schools are discussing if they treat it like the measles vaccine (required) or flu (optional). My town is now at 91% first shot vaccination complete for 16 year olds and older and our Covid rate is 2 active cases out of 14,000 residents. So it works well, but I doubt we would have a mandate as everyone is pretty much getting it on their own. You could require masks for those unvaccinated when they are indoors (per CDC) but I wouldn’t require the vaccine.

I live in a town of 14,000. A few years ago, we had 4 fairly healthy packs (our at 80 scouts, another at 65, one at 35 and the fourth probably around 20. We are down to two Packs. My Pack at 20 scouts (we have lost 60 in the last 2 years) and one around 30. In the past 3 hours, my Pack has lost 3 den leaders. Why? The answer I get is too much work to commit to running a den. The pack of 65 that ended (it was in existence for 50+ years) ... no parents want to volunteer to lead the Pack. The DE is going to try & rebuild it ... So ... one of the top issues I am hearing, right now, is that we simply do not have enough parents willing to volunteer to make Packs run well. There is a second issue I am starting to hear from some Cub Parents. This past 18 months, families spent a lot of time together ... and they are NOT in a rush to return back to their previously overschedule past life. They are being more selective on activities and some are backing away from programs. In general ... sports wins out more than scouts ... so they are more likely to pull or not return to Cub Scouts. The collapse has been sudden and it is actually getting worse as we exit Covid. I'm seeing parents who stepped up during Covid now back away. Again, multiple Packs in my area are seeing this ... otherwise, I would think it could just be a one off issue. I plan a massive recruiting drive (including parents) and hope that will save us this fall. However, I am very concerned that this may be early signs that the Cub Program will not rebound any time soon (if ever). This may require fundamental changes in Cub Scouts.

I think this is a good point if the damage wasn't psychological. If it wasn't psychological, you could simply look at the immediate impact and argue that is what the compensatory damage should be. The issue is that the abuse is psychological and therefore likely life long. At that point, you have to consider the cost and impact in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and on and on and on.... That would be impacts such as lost wages, life long pain & suffering, life long medical costs, etc. Easily hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Then comes the punitive side. I believe that is many times a multiplier and can vary by state. Some I have seen are ten times. So ... even in 1970, if someone could have claimed $1M in damages (from life long psychological damage) and then the jury said BSA should be punished 10x punitive, you could see an $11M verdict for 1 case.

I just mean 1 between the two. I think it would be a mess if various law firms, groups, etc. start filing their own plans. I would say the judge should not allow a free for all ... just 1 plan from the TCC/Coalition.

Kosnoff Law just tweeted the same. He indicated that (he believes) the BSA judge will end BSA exclusivity and allow victims to file a plan and that is essential to progress and BSA's survival. This is the first time, I can remember, where Kosnoff is mentioning that BSA survives. He has been a liquidation or bust guy. The more comments I read from others, I really think we should open it up to the TCC and the TCC alone to submit alternate plans. Clearly BSA hasn't been able to come up with one yet and they are running out of time.

[2] U: Unrestricted - No restriction on the property was asserted or confirmed [2] L: Limitations - Documents support existence of use limitations or sale limitations such as conservation easements which may impact the value of the property [2] R: Restricted - Assertion of or documents supporting legal restrictions including donor restrictions to the sale of property and/or requiring the reversion of property or proceeds to an unrelated party. [2] TBD: Assertion of restriction remains subject to review and/or additional documentation

Scouts UK has 450K "young people". BSA membership is under 1M and even BSA is not indicating getting back to over 1M until 2025. There are about 16M "young people" (from 5 - 25) in the UK so % of them in UK Scouts is 2.8%. My guess is that % is higher when you look at under 18. Now .. BSA is about 1M today and just counting 5 - 18 and younger is about 62M. So, about 1.6%. UK scouts no longer require DoR. They show you can have a successful program without DOR. Now ... I DO NOT think removing DoR will have any real positive impact on the US numbers. I do not believe there would be a surge of applications. I think you might see some minor changes to some groups willing to host scouts, perhaps some contribution changes (could go either way) but this would likely be minimal and rare. I also don't see public schools coming back, even with this change. The only thing it could do is remove a potential future controversy. I think we should only consider it if it is being considered in the future (to get it out of the way now). I think you can operate without it and be successful ... you can also go the Scouts Canada route. In terms of impact on day to day on unit function ... I think almost none if you remove DOR. Troops & Packs that are chartered by non religious institutions are already very secular. Unless you are a hard core atheist, you can easily meet our current DOR. Note that not all religions believe in a God or gods ... but they still fulfill DOR. For example, Buddhist do not believe in any deity, but you can still get a BSA religious medal. So, if I were running BSA, I would probably not make the change and ensure there is no debate about a change going forward.

My understanding is the TCC plan would be a council by council settlement. So, if you are in council Z ... TCC would say pay $YM and the sex abuse liabilities prior to Feb 2020 goes away. If the council doesn't pay, then there would be no protection and lawsuits can begin. I think the benefit is that it really allows each council to individually decide. Risk lawsuits, future lawsuits, future disruptions and future bankruptcy or pay a high fee right now. I think that makes a lot more sense and may be easier to discuss with volunteers. The downside is that the payout is likely to be much higher than what they are contributing to the $450M settlement. What is being proposed now likely won't pass. Sure, if it could pass it will likely be better than the TCC proposal (in terms of council payouts).

I wasn’t on the call, so it’s tough for me to know. He quotes keep bringing up her desire to save the BSA. (I don’t think any judge would want on their record the elimination of one of the largest youth organizations in the USA.) She also wants victims to be compensated fairly. Right now, no plan does both. I would be fine seeing the TCC plan ... perhaps that is her decision. I know she is hoping for a negotiation, I just don’t see that happening until she makes some rulings.

We are a bit of a mixed state. No look back window. Some are pushing, but the leaders who previously support d reforms are not answering questions. The Catholic Church is fighting hard against changes as are private schools. Council has two camps, one worth $2M and one worth $1.5M along with a scout shop in the $1M range. I expect a camp will be sold even though listed as restricted. NDAs. They said the leadership signed NDAs which means they can only share what is public info. They did say the $450M is not equally spread across all councils and councils in better financial health (such as ours) are expected to pay more (there are other factors as well).

This is a copy of the judges final statement today.

During our council townhall, they indicated that our council will have to pay a sizable amount to the settlement. That yes, that is a change from the initial announcement. The contribution is going to be large, it will hurt, but we will still be able to survive. They cannot say the estimated amount at this time, but will when they are allowed. They cannot say if camp sale(s) will be required nor how that would be conducted. That they have a very good law firm that is working pro bono for our council. The council leadership is meeting multiple times a week. In 2020 ... our council ended in the black (barely) which is better than most councils. I was impressed they were open (as much as possible).

If she wants to fast track this, I really think she needs to simplify the bankruptcy. There is no way to fast track a resolution where most councils see limited number of in SOL cases and will be willing to give up the billion+ of assets. COs have not gotten involved and the insurance situation is complex. Add in the DOJ objection and I see no way a fast solution can come if you include councils. Perhaps she lets the global plan go to a vote, see it rejected and accepts the Toggle Plan (but stays the Hartford settlement and decision on HA bases). Those could be litigated after BSA exits bankruptcy. I don’t see another path if she holds to her word that she won’t let the BSA end as we know it.

https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-frets-over-potential-end-boy-scouts-amid-chaotic-bankruptcy-2021-05-19/

One quote from the judge from today’s hearing. "To solicit a plan that has no abuse survivor support is not an attractive option. But neither is engaging in protracted litigation that has the potential to end the Boy Scouts as it currently exists."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e6463ebf-5761-47e7-9e21-2a9358c45549_3857.pdf No evidence ... however, I do believe Century requested Discovery from BSA and others.

Apparently they broke zoom. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f4390fd2-ca3c-457a-bff5-95afa2d61e1e_4686.pdf

Moved the discussion about BSA youth protection vs society and other programs here. Let me know if you need any comment moved back to the main CH11 thread. Thanks!

I'm going to quickly lock the thread and create a new topic. I think the discussion is valid and has been courteous ... but isn't directly linked to the bankruptcy discussion. Plus, we have 2 - 3 separate discussions going on here and it is a bit confusing. Will unlock shortly.

This thread has most of the info in this article. That said, some quotes from BSA including this one about Century Insurance. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/details-on-local-council-finances-filed-in-boy-scouts-case/2635256/ Note that Century has accused the BSA of allowing thousands if not tens of thousands of false claims to remain on the books. Their belief is that BSA wants the false claims as those individuals are more likely to take the $1,500 payout and vote yes to their plan. Century said BSA is buying votes of false claimants. So, Century wants to pause this until the claims are vetted.

Well... LDS just served the BSA. This relationship has soured https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1f0068a3-a7a6-468f-a9a7-9f64b80210e2_4659.pdf

Welcome to Scouter.com. The BSA would absolutely prefer the global resolution plan. It provides protection for their LCs and COs. The issue is that the claimants do not believe the offer is close to enough to give the liability waivers. Why would anyone vote for the toggle? Well, technically BSA is not even looking to get the toggle approved by claimants. They are asking the judge to enforce it through a cram down if the global plan is rejected. There are a lot of moving parts. Hopefully some come to a resolution tomorrow during the hearings.

If you look at National Only ... proceeds from liquidation would be $497M. Then liquidation fees (lawyers, wind down costs, etc.) would be $48M Secured claims (JPM + Pension Termination Claim) would be $337M Employee and professional claims would be $69M That results in $42M for everyone. BSA predicts Abuse claims would be $36.5M best case. If you look at Councils ... proceeds would be $1.8B (that assumes 0 sales of restricted land and a 60% return on unrestricted) ... essentially, that in a flash sale, you won't get much value. Asset Value is actually $4.0B for LCs. Then liquidation fees (lawyers, wind down costs, etc.) would be $210M Secured claims (JPM + Pension Termination Claim) would be $1.14B Employee and professional claims would be $11M That results in $445M for everyone. BSA predicts Abuse claims would be $405M best case. So, National is offering over $100M >> $36.5M if it were liquidated. Councils are offering $450M > $405M if they were liquidated. This is per BSA numbers. This also assumes >$1B goes to the Pension Fund ... which I know is being debated.

I expect the high adventure bases (and other restricted assets) could take years. Even after that initial trial November 17th ... there will be appeals. I do hope that after that trial, it may then allow a negotiated settlement afterward ... though parties may wait until after a round of appeals. I don't plan on knowing if the HA bases remain within BSA until the end of 2022. We have decided to not go to BSA HA bases in 2022 and 2023 given the risk. Note that I expect similar battles at councils. The most valuable camp in the entire BSA appears to be this gem.. https://alpinescoutcamp.org/ ... estimated to be worth $175M and is listed as restricted. I expect a battle.

More interesting tidbits. The BSA also included a possible liquidation analysis for 100% of local councils. Essentially, if the court agrees that all local councils would be liquidated if National must liquidate. The BSA is showing that essentially, the abuse claimants would get <$400M total between National and all LCs if the entire BSA was liquidated. That is their best case. So BSA is saying their current offer is better than what would be provided if the entire BSA is liquidated.