Eagle1993

I think Venturing may fade away but Sea Scouts will remain fairly stable in or outside BSA. I see almost no value to them staying in BSA. When I talk with our local Ship, the leader spent an hour complaining about the BSA and that it provides nothing. I guess I question why stay in the BSA at that point ... create a stand alone organization without the burden of BSA overhead. On the BSA side, if they are not going to invest or do anything with Sea Scouts ... then why keep them? It is definitely concerning based on the comments above that leaders in BSA don't even know they exist. At that point, it is simply a $50M liability waiting in the wings... Again, I'm 100% pro Sea Scouts and think its a great program. I hope my son joins when he is old enough. The leaders I talked to are great. I just question if the marriage with BSA is the right fit going forward. FWIW, this debate is meaningless as BSA is headed in the opposite direction. I didn't realize it, but they expanded into STEM Scout Labs.

I think the money is not the reason, but spinning off non core programs still makes sense. My personal experience... several years ago my organization had a lot of variety of products with low volumes. Even the low volume products made money, but they distracted our sales and R&D teams from our core products. We ended the non core products, focused our efforts on the core ones and are growing. I don’t expect this will happen, BSA is more likely to fade under a slow moving bureaucracy than take the aggressive actions needed. They are making good choices to reduce number of layers, I just think more aggressive actions are needed. - Reduce offerings to core (eliminate Lions, Tigers and only keep Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA) - Further reduce spending at any layer about Council - Merge councils, reduce leadership spending... focus spend on programs and DEs - Offer more options for training - Eliminate units that are poor performing and avoid new units until there is clear capacity and leadership to ramp up

My bet is there are meetings, discussions, legal and insurance aspects, IT, etc. Heck, they spent time trying to merge with Venturjng and debating age limits... so they are spending time on the program. It causes lack of focus... same with Learning for Life, Explorers and I would argue STEM. Many worthy and great ideas... but we need to get back to basics and have the entire BSA professional and volunteer Corp focused on providing the best 2nd grade through 18 YO scouting program. Again, I love many of these programs, but BSA is in serious trouble and needs to focus.

Agreed. I think these programs should continue, just not under BSA. When in crisis, it’s good to relook at the mission and refocus. Merge councils, let the best take over weak ones. Same with units. With focus, you clarify the mission and improve performance of the organization.

When you see quantities drop like this, it is hard to argue we have a lot of quality units.

Some Wisconsin numbers (not a big LDS state)... 2018 63,283 Youth 830 Packs 652 Troops 128 Crews 18,576 Adults 9,567 Learning for Life/Explorers 2020 33,457 Youth 641 Packs 658 Troops 79 Crews 12,560 adults 2,178 Learning of Life/Explorers The loss of Packs is concerning as is the ratio of Packs to Troops. Venturing is dying. There is no pipeline that feeds the program. I also think that adding girls to Troops likely cut off some of the interest. I hope the 2020 numbers are post recharter. If these are pre recharter ... UGH! We better have a great recruiting this fall.

That was a LONG document. I reviewed the redline a bit ... looks like the major changes $1,500 payout option for those that select it (if the plan is approved). Updated dates Clarified process for firms voting for their claimants. BSA will need written evidence for each claimant that they agree to have their legal representative vote for them or BSA will send the ballot directly to the claimant. (Before, it appears they would have allowed the firm to sign a document stating they have approval to vote). Tight timeline to submit those documents to BSA as well.

I believe the TCC talked about this in one of their townhalls. They said they will get to put in their recommendation. It is common practice in bankruptcies and the BSA will lose that aspect of their strategy. I expect if the BSA pushes and the court rules in their favor, TCC and easily appeal, delaying the whole process. Since I expect this plan to fail (both versions) I wonder what is BSA's next move.

My 2nd dose of Pfizer was really rough ... but probably better than getting the virus. I understand the vaccination hesitancy here, especially with mRNA versions. I hope most will get a vaccine when more of the public is vaccinated (or more traditional vaccines are approved) and we (hopefully) see limited adverse reactions. I don't think we need to hit 100% ... 80% would be big win. I am concerned that if not enough people get the vaccine, more variants will be produced until one breaks through the existing vaccines. At minimum, perhaps we can turn Covid into a mild cold or flu vs what it was or could be. Note that I just got off a call with my team in India. It is pretty bad there with multiple team members having close relatives die from the virus. While our healthcare system is much better than theirs, I really think some of these variants are much worse than the initial strain. The good news is it seems that vaccines help against their variant.

I think the no 1 on 1 is a good idea in life. I would never want to be with a kid that is not my own without someone else around. If my son's friend comes over and I need to drive him home ... my son will come with. Now ... the 2 deep leadership ... I'm sorry, but that is excessive. My son has friends come over (including a scout) and I may be the only one at home. If BSA cracks down on this, I'll drop my BSA membership. I wonder if BSA bans single parents as leaders as it is very likely they would have this situation happen frequently.

BSA looking to settle with someone who got hurt in a fall at Summit. $3M ... primarily from insurance. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee370ded-4028-485a-8e3c-6efe453bac3b_2719.pdf

The people responsible for the abuse goes beyond the abuser. It goes to volunteers, employees and the organization that let it happen. I go back to the Scout's Honor article and book. This dates back to 1991 and shows how BSA knew they had a problem, but kept it quiet. I recommend reading the articles ... it shows why the BSA is where it is today. https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/1991_05_20_Boyle_Scoutings_Sex.htm https://www.amazon.com/Scouts-Honor-Patrick-Boyle/dp/1559583657

Wow ... this volunteer needs to go immediately. I would report him as well. There should be no place for him in any unit or any council. There are some grey areas where someone may be perceived as flirty. This one is clearly way over the line when multiple women are reporting that he is openly asking about sexual activities. BSA is not Tinder.

Agreed ... but if the BSA runs out of cash to pay lawyers, what choice do they have? I can't imagine BSA's cash situation is good right now. I know BSA is using Ch 7 as a threat. Perhaps JP Morgan can keep giving them loans, but JP may get antsy with these other lawyers added.

I think we may look back and see a huge strategic error with the Hartford settlement. Why even go there. I'm starting to see a narrowing window for BSA to escape a Chapter 7. I expect the only chance is give up the HA bases, withdraw the insurance settlement and move on. The other side knows there is likely 10's of billions of dollars at stake with the insurance side. They can be patient, filing lawsuits against National HA bases, LCs, COs and insurance companies. Note that these are lawyers directly representing claimants ... not the TCC ... so they can file suit against LCs and COs. (I don't think the TCC lawyers actually directly represent claimants). Again, I expect much of the focus will be the insurance policies, but the tone is definitely changing here.

I copy pasted incorrectly. There are actually 4 lawyers from Robbins Russell added to the mix. Lawrence S. Robbins https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/lawrence-s-robbins/ Joshua S. Bolian https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/joshua-s-bolian/ Ariel N. Lavinbuk https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/ariel-n-lavinbuk/ William J. Trunk https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/william-j-trunk/

Looks like multiple lawyers added as part of a lawfirm. Also add to the mix one Ariel N. Lavinbuk. Focus on bankruptcy, breach of contract and fraudulent transfer law. He writes for Slate, Harvard and Yale Law Review. Also added is Ariel N. Lavinbu. He is another Supreme Court litigator who has the highlight of winning a $4.6B lawsuit against the Country of Argentina. Is it normal to see major lawyer changes this deep into bankruptcy hearings? I’m curious what the thoughts are from our lawyers in the forum seeing the discovery requests followed by an addition of a fairly major law firm.

Lawrence S. Robbins Added as a lawyer for the coalition of abused scouts. Apparently he has Kosnoff’s approval. He has argued 18 cases in the Supreme Court and testified as a witness in major cases - as recently as Trump’s Impeachment (he was Mary Yovankavitch’s legal counsel). The discovery requests followed by adding a big legal gun makes me wonder where this is headed. BSA’s negotiation with Hartford appears to have blown up in their face. National needs to figure how to get out of this mess... the current counsel seems to be failing.

I believe it is considered grass roots as it is not directed by a council or BSA. The council president is a volunteer role ... so he is a BSA volunteer. I'm actually surprised someone so high up in scouting (a Council President & National Board Advisor) is basically saying BSA may die. To me, I wish more would step up and say this out loud.

I tend to agree with this comment from the site. There are countless news sources and forums (ahem) that blast scouting from all sides. It's great to see a positive message for the tens of millions who benefitted. I believe in scouting which is why I spend my free time leading a Den, Pack and Troop. I haven't been fishing in months, haven't gone golfing in over a year as I spend much of my free time working on scouting. I believe it is a unique experience and greatly benefits those who participate. Can the BSA improve ... sure, but its the best program available at this time. I think our country would be much better off if more youth went through scouting and unfortunately, it appears we are headed in the opposite direction. Hopefully efforts like this can start turning this around.

Similar battles are going on in other cases. Found this article to be interesting ... and perhaps a hint to future battles. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/buffalo-diocese-relies-on-insurance-policies-to-cover-abuse-claims-in-bankruptcy/article_aadfdb85-b90c-548d-9e36-9be79e19f1b5.html

I expect the BSA at all levels knows the CO model is broken. If they truly implemented the model, @David CO is correct. No unit can switch COs as the unit is simply the extension of the CO. If the CO decides to not recharter, they shut down the unit. Now, the CO can decide to be "friendly" and offer to donate the scout equipment to another unit, but it is the CO's property. I'm probably incorrect, but I thought in the past veteran bars required the unit to be chartered with the same CO over the time period. The BSA doesn't run this way anymore. It seems like they are committed to the "idea" of the CO as they can claim that the CO is the owner of the unit and fully responsible. However, they also don't really want the COs to own the units (look at changes they made to how the funds must be used for scouting after a unit closes). DEs know that many COs don't really meet the charter agreement, but they have to sign off or they would see many units simply collapse. That said, if I were this unit I would be doing the same actions they are currently planning. Unfortunately, the units I know that searched for COs recently ended up panic signing a CO up right before charter. They were selective at first, but then realized few if any organizations are looking to sign on BSA units (at least based on what they have told me).

Look at Schedule 2 and 3 here. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/876518_2293.pdf This shows all of the various insurance policies for National and LCs. The question is what is coverage of each of these policies. Then someone would have to see how many claims existed against that specific policy. Then add all of those up. The problem for Hartford (and others) is that have a ton of exposure through multiple policies. I think the TCC is asking (through Discovery) how they came up with $650M. The collation has already concluded the that $650M is not adequate.

I think you are correct that it’s the insurance companies that were served. While Kosnoff is tweeting about BSA and Mediators it looks like he indicated there was discovery coming from the insurance companies. “The mediators Carey, Finn and Gallagher have zero credibility now, if they ever did. They facilitated this outrage in secret and w/o the survivors’ bk lawyers. They simply sold out the victims. They should resign or be fired and no one should ever accept them as mediators again.” “I’m certain that BSA and it’s team of legal vermin and Chubb and Hartford’s pond scum legal teams and even the disgraced mediators are soiling their BVDs today. Discovery a few hours ago propounded on CB and HIG lawyers. No more talking; no more mediation...”

I saw Kosnoff’s tweet yesterday and was wondering why he made the statement about discovery. He mentioned that the mediators were also served. It really seems the judge has lost all control.