Eagle1993

30 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt:

C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule.

27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debtors have permitted upwards of 30 professionals to bill the estate at over $1,000 per hour, these accumulated professional fees are not some unforeseen act. Further, the Debtors have refused to implement basic steps to mitigate their fees and costs, such as imposing budget restrictions or shifting to an end-of-case holdback.”

This makes me angry.  Are the BSA lawyers simply looking to suck the organization dry. The judge needs to do something more than sternly scolding everyone to work harder.   BSA lawyers look to have completely ignore the judge’s comments.  If BSA disappears, it might be partially due to her ineptitude.

10 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm starting to get really worried about the Methodist church. Far as I know, they don't have a lot of property like the Catholic church. 

• METHODIST CHURCH 3,443
• BAPTIST CHURCH 2,774
• CATHOLIC CHURCH 2,280
• LATTER‐DAY SAINTS 2,236
• PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1,470
• LUTHERAN CHURCH 1,198
• EPISCOPAL CHURCH 503

These are the top 5 COs identified by # of claims.  Now, I expect these numbers to grow and change a bit as many scouts probably do not even know the CO for their unit.  As lawyers are able to obtain roster data from LCs, I expect CO impacts to clarify more.  Note that there are individual churches listed throughout the CO list.

3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

The Debtor can still ask for a vote on the Plan?  

I think the judge has to rule on that; however, her last hearing she said the plan wasn't ready.  Insurance companies just filed paperwork to delay the April 29 hearing ... it appears they are stating there must be at least 28 days for review,  before a plan can be approved for a vote.  Given the plan is not ready (per the judge) even now, there is no way April 29 hearing can proceed as previously stated. 

Note that even though the insurance companies & TCC are both stating the plan is garbage, my guess is that is likely all they agree on.

There is a lot in this document.  I tried to highlight a few key areas I thought were interesting.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/885873_2566.pdf

• It appears that the mediation last week was almost worthless.  
• The TCC's analysis is showing the LC contribution is substantially lower than what they believe they can pay
• Almost no agreement on payments from any insurance companies
• Two major religious institutions have been part of the mediations, but have not offered anything as part of the mediation.
• Major decisions (estimation of damages from district court, decision on HA bases and if they are available for the settlement, JP Morgan debt) must be decided before a plan can even be considered.
• Based on the above, the judge should reject the plan.

There is a lot more in the document, but those were my major takeaways.

I think there is a hearing next week.  I'll be interested to see what the judge says.  I know she raised concern over the spending on the case, but she hasn't taken much action to force closure.  Perhaps she can remove the exclusivity clause and allow the TCC to offer a plan.  I would expect she could rule on the LCs and HA bases (or at least set hearings and close out on these open decisions).  

I'll reference this article again.  Sometimes you simply need to get decisions made within courtrooms before a settlement can be reached.  I certainly hope she starts expediting any decisions within her control.

https://mediatbankry.com/2016/05/05/dont-let-this-happen-to-you-milwaukee-archdiocese-bankruptcy-part-three-the-in-court-slugfest/

38 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

What is concerning for summer camp is that 12-19 year olds appear more susceptible to this covid variant. State restrictions are being reinstated for school activities - spring sports, proms,... will summer camps be next?

If the goal is 0 Covid, we will never do anything.  I don't think that should be the goal.  The goal should be to ensure our healthcare system is not overrun and that we don't see massive death.  If we follow "science" we know that the vaccines are highly effective and are effective vs the variants.  A surge and massive death is not going to happen regardless of what we do this summer (based on everything known today).  Ramp up vaccines and work on expanding testing to find hot spots ... otherwise we should be reopening.

By this summer, I expect every adult who is at any sort of risk has had a chance at the vaccine.  Kids are far less at risk for serious complications with Covid.  It's time to get them back to their activities.  

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Can it get safer than YP at the unit level? Maybe the changes should be toward reactions to abuse reports. Isn't that what the real complaint is?

 

Nearly all of the ideas I can think of is at a higher level (in terms of reporting, etc.).  If a unit strictly follows today's YP, I cannot think of any real changes that wouldn't simply kill most youth organizations.  @qwazse brought up interesting points but I'm not sure how we could change unit level YP policies to address it.

15 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Before we get too far, I should mention that there's already a locked thread and another unlocked thread about substantially the same question.

I was hoping this one can be specific on specific recommendations that could improve safety.  Those others were more about society.  I'm really curious, in today's (and tomorrow's) society what changes can we make to improve safety.  There will be specific changes as part of the Chapter 11 settlement.  If we are to have scouting, we need scouting to work safely in the society we have today.  What does that look like?

2 minutes ago, FaithfulScouter said:

For starters, if our Leaders actually followed YPT we would be in a much better position.  

Youth protection requires two deep leadership.  I've seen Eagle car washes and project days with NO adult leadership. Our District is aware but they don't say anything. 

No one on one contact with Scouts.  I've seen leaders give Scouts rides home in their car ALONE.  

Leaders are not supposed to drink alcohol on trips.  They do, and in fact I know a Leader with a DWI who still drinks on camping trips.

All written communication from a Scout should have another adult copied.  A lot of our adult leaders say 'Don't worry about it'.  

The 72 hour rule for registration is a good one and in fact I always required that if you're going to spend a lot of time with our Scouts than you MUST register and get a background check.  My requirement was NOT well received by some adult leaders and was waved off with 'well why don't you just register EVERYONE?!"

To me, all of these should be reported.  Reporting shouldn't be reserved for actual crimes, it should be any violation.  In EHS, we are expected to report "near misses".  Those are then used to improve training & processes.

The written communications is a great one.  So many times, I receive an email from a scout directly to me with no one on the CC.  I immediately respond to that scout + parent + leader and remind them to never email me without an adult.  We use Troop Track as it automatically includes parents on all emails (so this only happens when they email me from their personal account).

I would be fine if BSA says ... please, go ahead and report every email.  It seems crazy, but perhaps if that level of reporting is encouraged, these "minor" issues could identify a systemic breakdown.  

In my organization, every call to service is considered a complaint.  We have a full time team that looks at every complaint to determine hazard (non, minor, serious, critical, etc.).  Every complaint that is serious is then investigated by engineering, QA and risk management who then determine root cause, corrective actions (if required) and if our overall system is still at an acceptable risk.  These teams process hundreds of thousands of complaints a year.

It sounds counter-intuitive, but more reported violations of YPT may actually result in a safer organization.  

https://www.ehstoday.com/safety/article/21915434/study-encouraging-incident-reporting-leads-to-improved-safety-culture

https://www.safeopedia.com/help-me-help-you-10-ways-to-get-employees-to-file-incident-and-near-miss-reports/2/6079

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just started a new topic about ideas to improve safety.  To me, outside of the camp property loss, is the other major outcome to expect from the bankruptcy.

I think in terms of the bankruptcy settlement, a long lasting legacy that is appropriate given the large number of victims, is for the insurance companies involved to agree to fund an independent agency like the IIHS but for youth protection.  This could improve safety not only at BSA but all youth serving organizations.  (Note: if you would want to discuss what BSA can do to improve youth protection, that could be in the linked topic above.)

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

The session is probably available on Villanova's website if you want to watch it. I heard nothing constructive on this point.

I just started a new topic about ideas to improve safety.  To me, outside of the camp property loss, is the other major outcome to expect from the bankruptcy.

Ok .. .that Chapter 11 topic drifts a lot, so I thought one area I struggle with is how we can actually reduce abuse in BSA (and youth organizations).  

I went to websites of BSA, GSUSA, Trail LIfe, 4H, Boys and Girls Club, AYSO and the BSA is the ONLY organization that talks about Youth Protection on their main page.  I volunteer for sports teams, GSUSA and BSA ... BSA is the only one that required me to sit through 2 hours of training.  

These are not complaints, they are just brief comparisons as I am attempting to see what is out there that BSA is not doing.  

My one thought on how to improve safety comes from industry.  In particular, the automotive industry.  Over the last decades, cars have become more safe.  There is no debate ... a crash that would have killed you 20+ years ago may leave you with minor injuries today.  So, how did they do this?  Was it lawsuits ... somewhat.  Was it standards ... a bit.  Was it legislation ... not so much.  

The number one reason cars are more safe today, is the IIHS. The IIHS is funded by insurance companies who have to pay claims when their drivers are hurt/injured.  The IIHS safety ratings help drive insurance rates of cars ... but more than that ... they are public data that tells consumers which cars are safer.

Do we need a IIHS for youth organizations?  Essentially, an independent body of experts that can review the training, procedures, etc. for all major youth organizations that buy insurance and rate their safety level and have that publicly available.  

To be clear, each youth organization is not the same.  Having a STEM team work on computer code is less dangerous than having a patrol go for a hike in a mountain range.  So, it would be good to provide categories just like IIHS does. Think truck, sport car, van, SUV vs Outdoor/scouting, sports teams, STEM.

I think, over time, this could improve safety protocols across all youth organizations.  Just a thought on something that worked in another industry.

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Please don't re-word a post.  At no point did the statement include "no changes since."   The year 1990 was used to correspond with the "new version" of YPT.  See "https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/youth-protection/100-years-of-enhancing-efforts-to-protect-youth 

Your post stated "Youth Protection Training protocols used today were enacted" which is what I quoted.  I did not re-word a post. 

We use different protocols today than in 1990.   If you stated "when no one on one youth and adult contact started" I would agree.  Youth Protection Training protocols are far beyond no one on one contact and two deep leadership.  For instance, BSA only recently decided that 18 year olds are not considered adults in terms of Youth Protection Training. 

6 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Youth Protection Training protocols used today were enacted

This is incorrect.  The training used today is new (~3 years old).  Yes, that was when 2 deep leadership and no one on one contact started but BSA has been making various updates since.  There was also changes to the background check process recently.  This has been an evolving area for BSA and most youth organizations. Claiming there was a hard line in 1990 and no changes since is false.  

21 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Agreed. It's unfortunate to lose the HA bases, but if that's a price to keep council camps, then it should be paid. Plenty of wonderful state and national parks and forests to do HA trips in. 

I honestly don’t think that will be the trade off anymore.  I used to think giving up an HA base may save a local council camp... but I doubt that is true.  If BSA can prove it’s a restricted asset they should keep it.  If it isn’t restricted then it should go to the trust.  

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

That organization would have a better chance of being safe with greater inherent accountability and protections established from the jump.

Its disappointing that they are not more specific.  What is missing in today's YPT and B2A.  I have various sport and Girl Scout leaders who have taken BSA's YPT and are impressed.  I'm sure there are improvements, I just haven't heard anything significant that says the whole organization should be destroyed and today's youth should not have access to any High Adventure camp or scout camp.  Perhaps some of these individuals should talk with the hundreds of thousands of scouts that will be robbed of this opportunity.  

So, is she promoting Trail Life?  Is that what she and Kosnoff want?  Destroy BSA and promote Trail Life?  Or Ben Carson is talking about starting Little Patriots.  If I were them, I would take her statement as an endorsement.

Quote

 

This summer is the fortieth anniversary of the International Indian Treaty Conference at Many Point and perhaps we should join again. Certainly, the issues have not changed, and the camp is a scant 30 miles from the Enbridge Line 3 Pipeline. We will have to do a bit of coordinating, however, as this summer, in July of 2021, the Many Point Scout Camp will mark a 75th Anniversary and celebrate scouting. One can only hope that in this moment, they will also begin a new relationship with the Anishinaabe on whose land they camp.

Boy Scout land holdings are important, not only to Boy Scouts but to the people of Pine Point. And, nationally, Boy Scout land holdings represent a tangible asset which may be lost in bankruptcy court. That’s one of the reasons we are concerned.

 

https://thecirclenews.org/environment/the-boy-scouts-land-grabs-sexual-abuse-and-bankruptcy/

Native American News and Arts article ... a bit of everything ... but a big point that if Boy Scout Camps that were native lands have to be sold, they should be given back to Native people.  Example camp listed above.

30 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

For those in the non revival states it's a lot more complicated.  There are several hundred claims attributable to my council (I forget the exact number), but my understanding is none of them are current, and for what may be within the current SOL we're insured and have reserves.  So any contribution we make is for the purposes of a) hedging against a future change in the law, b) a desire to do the right thing for folks who were injured, and c) a contribution to the well being of scouting nationwide because we believe scouting should be available to all American youth not just parochially.

To me, that is why the BSA should be open book and show how much each council will contribute.  If the low/no contributions are all coming from councils that are at low risk, perhaps that is acceptable.  Or, perhaps, those councils are left out of the settlement.  That way, the TCC is not removing future claims from councils with no payment in return.   I'm not sure if that is an option, but I think you hit the real issue in this case which may be why a settlement is extremely difficult if it includes protection for all councils.

13 minutes ago, elitts said:

I suspect they'd have lost that one because the Supreme Court would have denied a hearing and let the two other court rulings stand. 

To be clear to all ... the Milwaukee Archdiocese was appealing.  They won the lower court ruling but then lost on appeal.  The courts ruled the transfer was illegal.  They appealed to the Supreme Court and likely realized they would lose so they settled.

We will likely see an example of this with Summit.  Is Arrow WV a separate organization or is it really a shell organization fully operated by the BSA.  TCC appears to be preparing to file lawsuit against JP Morgan about Arrow WV.

That may be the test case of all of the council property ones that exist.

2 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I was an interviewer for an Ivy League university.  From listening to the PC speak from the Admissions Office (not just professors who aren't part of the admissions process) to looking at the matriculation rate of applicants I interviewed, I'm pretty confident that Eagle rank is no longer a benefit and may in fact be a detriment in applying to these self-ascribed elite universities.  It's one of the reasons I quit being an alumni interviewer.

When did you quit?  I'm talking now, not 2014 and prior.  I would agree that during Dale it probably got rough.

My ASM was clear when we discussed this recently .. it helps.  He has talked with Harvard, Yale interviewers ... it helps.  Notre Dame ... helps.  We have had Eagle Scouts do well at Ivy through mid tier colleges.  We have examples.  That said, it won't help if you can't answer questions.  He has said it show perseverance and achievement of a goal. 

I think parents make the mistake thinking their son/daughter just needs to get Eagle Scout on the resume and they're golden.  If they go to an Eagle mill, I don't see the benefit.  (Yeah, its on the resume, but did they really learn anything?) Now, if while earning Eagle, your son/daughter got over a fear, learned new skills, took on a role they wouldn't have been comfortable with, lead a team, failed, succeeded, etc. ... that is the real value.  Then they  take that value and explain it during an interview and its a winner.  The rank on the app is really just a minor part of the story .. the value is what they did to earn that rank.

1 minute ago, qwazse said:

I'm not sure any one would place a bid on that sort of thing in any timely fashion.

I tend to agree.  The only value I see is that the trademark owner could charge BSA a fee to keep using Eagle Scout rank going forward.  BSA knows Eagle Scout pulls in some recruits.  Perhaps its paid by charging a fee when submitting an Eagle Scout application.  Every ES app is charged $50 which goes to the trademark owner.  That could be a $1M per year annuity.    You might be able to get something assuming BSA survives and there is a 20 year agreement to use Eagle Scout as the top rank.

Assuming a 5% rate of return and $1M of annual payment going forward and a 20 year agreement, the Eagle Scout Rank would be worth about $13M today.  Again ... its only valuable if the BSA survives.  

If that rank transfers as an award for another organization, I think the value drops a ton as it won't be seen in the same light.

10 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

I'm glad to hear about the buyer they did find and the conservation easement that will be on the property

If a camp is sold and its used for camping or conservation, it makes bitter pills easier to swallow.  I've seen a camp sold and all the trees cut for a lumber company.  Yes, I know it has to come from somewhere, but there is nothing more sad then seeing a former scout camp clear cut.

7 minutes ago, MisterH said:

Boy Scouts as "a right-wing, paramilitary hate group", particularly prior to 2014 when the BSA started lifting their official bans on homosexuality.

I have a ASM who interviews for a top 10 school and talks with the interviewers from Harvard, Yale, etc.  Eagle Scout is a BENEFIT.  He is nudging his sons to get there as well.  It can vary how much of a benefit based on the interviewer, but it is a benefit. 

Yes ... BSA organization was not looked on well by higher education when it excluded gay scouts, but for the most part that didn't tarnish the Eagle Scout rank.  Internally we may question age or rigor but externally that is not questioned nearly as much as we may think.

Trying to get this back to bankruptcy a bit ... it is a very valued asset.  There are articles even today as Girl Scouts have yet to amplify their Gold award in the same way BSA has its Eagle.  In terms of value ... how much would a GSUSA or even TrailLife pay for the Eagle Scout trademark?

7 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

IMO, the Eagle brand took a huge hit a long time ago for a variety of reasons.  PC culture in elite colleges appeared to be using it as a strike against instead of for the applicants.  Standards seemed to be lowered in merit badges, projects, etc. in order to increase the success rate.

I personally would still be inclined to give an Eagle Scout the chance to prove him/herself to me even with otherwise marginal qualifications but that's just me and it's honestly a bit of sentiment.

Outside forces have been attacking and attempting to dismember Scouting for their own reasons but I felt like National was diminishing the program for many years.

One my my ASMs is an interviewer for an elite college (top 5 school for business, journalism, etc.) top 10 overall.  Eagle Scout is a benefit on applications.  How much of a benefit probably depends on who interviews you.  I went to a state school, but apparently, elite colleges have one of their alumni interview you and they then tell the college what they think.   I have never heard or seen any evidence it is a strike against applicants.

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Precisely why the judge told them they can't do it and that she would look back to see if they had. I don't recall the detail or timeframe on the second component. I seem to recall something to that effect during the August 2020 to January 2021 scuttlebutt over the Tennessee shake-n-bake activities. This was the filing initiated it, as far as I know. Some stipulation was reached back in January.

I would think most councils knew in 2018 of the financial peril of BSA.  It was documented in their annual report.  

https://scoutingwire.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2017-Annual-Report-Combined-FINAL-App-Version.pdf

Quote

The National Council has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits alleging inappropriate conduct by local council employees or Scouting unit volunteers, including allegations of conduct that did not occur within Scouting and allegations of incidents dating back as far as the early 1960s. The National Council is also aware of threatened and expanding litigation of a similar nature. Most of the cases claim specific amounts of compensatory damages and, in a few cases, unspecified amounts of punitive damages. There continues to be additional lawsuits filed alleging sexual abuse, including claims for punitive damages. The National Council could be required to pay damages out of its own funds to the extent the claims are not covered by insurance or if the insurance carriers are unable or unwilling to honor the claims. Based upon the nature of and management’s understanding of the facts and circumstances that give rise to such actions and claims, management believes the reserves established by the General Liability Insurance Program of the National Council are sufficient to provide for the resolution of these lawsuits. However, in the event the General Liability Insurance Program or its reserves are insufficient to resolve such claims, it is the opinion of the National Council that the total amount of payments to resolve current and future claims could have a significant impact on the financial position or results of operations of the National Council in the future.