Eagle1993

Just stepping in quickly on this topic as clearly this has tentacles into many aspects of the BSA. While the issues are complex and difficult to clearly communicate in a forum, no one here condones or blames the scouts/children that were abused. The abuse was horrific and has life long consequences. The abusers and anyone who did not act appropriately to protect the scouts/children should be held accountable. What is being debated is what legal/moral/financial liability the organization should have from this abuse. That is not an easy topic to debate given the nature of the crimes. There is a lot of grey area here and when we are discussing losses of camps (or changes to the core program) it is tough on many of us as we see a threat to an organization that has positively shaped ours and countless youth lives. Heck, the first man who walked on the moon brought a world scouting patch with him and he talked to the National Jambo as he was on his way to the moon. So, as there are these back and forths, I hope everyone knows we are not attempting to diminish the crimes that occurred or the life long impact to those children. We are debating the impact to today's program, resources and children and what each Scouter believes is appropriate. If there are concerns with any posting, you can send it to the moderators for review. We will do our best with this tough topic.

@PIETROPon behalf of the scouter.com moderators, welcome.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/boy_scout_perversion_files_off.html For a background on why were are here in bankruptcy, this case is likely the one many will point to. One question I would have is on a case by case bases ... who knew what & when and how quickly did they act. That should determine liability regardless of any systemic issue. The second question ... should the BSA have recognized, through their massive file system and decades of reports, that there was an epidemic of sex abusers within the BSA ranks. Should they have seen that simply removing and keeping leaders removed, after the fact, was no longer sufficient. If they should have realized there was an epidemic of sex abuse, then I agree they are liable for ALL cases. I think many claimants would state that BSA should have realized they had a systemic problem and fixed it proactively (perhaps we better vetting, random checks, etc.). So ... my question ... did the leaders within BSA know (or should have known), at some point, that they had a problem but the solutions were too painful so they didn't implement change? To me, that is the $10B question. If that answer is yes, then we deserve the losses. Unfortunately, our court system isn't great at working these out at a reasonable cost, so we are in bankruptcy. All we are left to settle on is how much & when.

I certainly hope they remain on public display. It seems like rich people like to have at least some of their collections circulate in public museums. Note that the bankruptcy settlement gives ownership of the art to the settlement trust not the money from the sale. They can decide when and how to sell the collection.

Until a decision is made about HA bases, legal status of LCs and an estimate of the abuse claims, the proposals and voting should stop. I'm surprised we are 14 months into this and we have yet to have a single court rule on these critical aspects of the bankruptcy.

Updated Plan (which includes the Toggle Plan) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886292_2594.pdf Redline Document https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886294_2595.pdf

BSA just released their new plan. I figure that its a good time to lock this topic and start a new, part 3, Chapter 11 discussion. Hopefully it will keep these large threads manageable.

We lost all of our 6th graders due to Covid this year. Many of our early outdoor activities were cancelled and we had to go to Zoom as all of our typically meeting locations cancelled reservations. Getting new scouts excited about Scouts BSA is tough in a Covid year. I started following up with their parents this spring and there is some general excitement/interest in returning this coming fall. I pushed a bit about going to summer camp, but many of the kids just want to hang with their close friends in town as they haven't been able to do that for a year. I think a lot of kids are just depressed and/or burnt out on zoom. Hopefully after a reset summer, kids & parents will be looking to reengage in the fall. If your 12 year old is having a rough start, he is not alone. If this was my son's first year in Scouts BSA, I'm not sure he would be sticking with it. The only reason I see the older scouts sticking through is they know what normal looks like (so they are waiting for the reset) + some are working on some merit badges. This has been a really tough year, hopefully as we get back to a bit of normal soon.

I expect the TCC will go after all unrestricted assets that National owns. They have already signaled that includes Philmont & Summit. The BSA lead lawyer told the AP they expect litigation will be required to determine the outcome of some aspects of the plan. HABs are the big target/asset National has ... the courts will decide if they stay with the BSA or are sold off.

Hikes, EBORs, camps, COHs even Troop Meetings are all a great cure to doom scrolling through the Chapter 11 thread(s). Great to hear the good news!

Partially ... what he wants (and some other lawyers per their submissions) is the following. 1) Continue to reject all plans from National BSA. By doing this, you essentially force National into Chapter 7 as they have no other path to exit bankruptcy. 2) When National BSA goes Chapter 7, argue that since there is no entity left to renew charters of local councils, every local council charter is not renewed. Per LC agreements, if a charter is not renewed, all assets from the local councils go to National and are then part of the Chapter 7. The result is the complete and total liquidation of the entire BSA. I see 0% chance this will happen but I think this is what some lawyers are hoping for.

Given that BSA is now saying (in the media & court documents) if the grand bargain fails, councils will likely go bankrupt, I think they realize and are admitting those claims are likely worthless.

I have no idea what those internal conversations are, but this is a VERY tough sell to councils. 1) For councils with high likelihood of bankruptcy if this fails ... they will still debate what is restricted vs unrestricted assets. Having them turn over their friends of scouting funds, most of their camps, etc. with out a court order will be nearly impossible. 2) For councils that believe they are at a low likelihood of bankruptcy/lawsuits ... why would they want to part with key camps or endowments? I think attempting to have a grand bargain is nearly impossible. I think National would love a deal that includes councils/COs ... but unless a court rules against an entity or that an asset is unrestricted, its hard to give up the amount needed voluntarily.

Agreed. The HA bases are the major asset National has available. Most of this seems like a waste of time until a judge rules on their status. We are well over a year into bankruptcy and we have yet to be to see any judge rule on the bases. It’s time to get that moving.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886060_2577.pdf This one has an interesting footnote (new plan coming in 36 hours or less): New plan will be a toggle plan ... from what I can see, the BSA believes that plan (which appears to drop the protection of LCs and COs) will be a worse outcome form claimants than their other proposal. However, it does seem like they may be offering that plan as well... we will see.

Did they announce any replacement strategy? Are the looking to limit sub-committees to the territory level only? I'm curious how they are transitioning from National - Region - Area - Council to National - Territory - Council for both professional and volunteer staff/committees.

I would expect the TCC and the future claims rep are not willing to bet on future payments from BSA. It seems like it would be best from all parties to arrive at a final number, write the check and move on. For future claims, my understanding is that there would be a bucket of money that would pay out for those claims not submitted by the bankruptcy filing deadline. I tend to agree with @David CO that parents and donors (and I expect COs) will want to have a hard line in the sand that future dues, fees, fundraising are all going 100% to the current youth activities and not past sins. I believe the message being sent right now is that fees and donations are protected, but there is definitely doubt that BSA is able to shield current incoming revenue from the bankruptcy until the bankruptcy is concluded.

I’ve been debating this in our Troop as well. I think masks for shorter outdoor gatherings are pretty easy requirement to comply with but I’m concerned about masks at summer camp within our site. We did it last year and wearing masks for 12 hours straight, day after day, in the hot/rainy conditions at camp was a bit much. We ended up strictly enforced masks outside our site and when cooking within the Patrol camp, but were lax outside those settings. We are still discussing how to handle this summer. In our town, 78% of eligible people have recipients their first dose, so I expect high vaccination rates by camp.

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.

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.

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/

I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message. The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that it does seem that he cares about the BSA and sees the value of the program. He has mentioned how impressed he is by what he sees from many of the comments .... volunteers who spend much if not most of their free time working to provide children an experience that is unique and provides life long value. That said, he was sexually abused in the worst way by his Scoutmaster. No one within the BSA prevented it or took action (as far as he can tell). I think its good for us to hear from victims that don't simply say lets eliminate the BSA. It doesn't mean you or anyone has to agree with everything or anything said, but it's not bad to hear the message. Now there are victims out there that are simply saying end the BSA. I would agree with you that there is no point for them to join our forums. @ThenNow doesn't seem to be in that group.

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.

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.