Eagle1993

Very interesting document.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/881153_2391.pdf

From what I understand, the claimants are asking the court to estimate their total damages (bottoms up) year by year.  So, for example, if an average sex abuse claim should be paid off by $500K and there are 84,000 claims the total amount would be $42B.  Then, that would be broken into year by year.  Then they can figure out what National, LC, CO and their insurance companies could pay to hit the $42B.  (Not necessarily $42B, but you get the idea).  Don't forget, the insurance is complex as there are different policies for different years for different groups and each policy has max payouts.

Interesting ... I wonder if the court will support this method.  It could help set a top down target that the BSA & insurance companies need to meet bottoms up (or at least target).  

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Yeah.  It's not realistic to represent a massive bankruptcy as an opportune moment to open up.  This is when companies remind employees that each and everything they say and publish can become part of the legal case.  This is far outside corporate leadership and marketing.  It's now a legal game.

 

IMHO, the ONLY way a settlement is reached is if there is trust from the TCC and the claimants that the offer represents a significant portion of local council available assets.  The only way the BSA LCs can establish this trust is through transparency.  Without transparency, I see no way the TCC recommends approval EVER.  Without their approval, there will never be a settlement that includes LCs.

36 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Well, yes and no.

Yes, they wanted to girl membership fees without loosing the boy membership fees.

No, my experience is that until puberty, the female's instinct of "organization" runs all over the male's "lack-of-organization" instinct. 

Once through puberty, growth is more equal and gender competition isn't such an issue. At least from a scouting perspective.

Barry

I think it varies by individual.  We have a coed girl Troop that works alongside our Boy Troop.  

1 - Quiet, very quiet.  Parents pushing her to get Eagle quickly.  Currently star rank and will likely earn Eagle with no PL, ASPL or SPL experience.

2 - Loud, physical.  Plays sports.  Been to the BWCA every summer of her life since 3.  No desire for leadership roles so far.  Going to Philmont.  Does have some push for Eagle as her older brother just missed out, but primary focus has not been advancement.

3- Somewhat quiet, balanced between advancement and hiking activities.  Covid slowing her down a lot (parent concerned).  

4 - New girl, very vocal.  Still getting to know her.

5 - Quiet girl, heavily involved in other activities.  Will likely not have many leadership roles unless she cuts back other activities.

If I had to generalize where I see boys vs girls prioritize.  Boys, in general, seem to prioritize outdoor adventure, then leadership, then advancement (MBs).  The girls, in general, seem to prioritize advancement, then outdoor adventure, then leadership.

So, I do expect girls to have a higher rate of Eagle Scouts, but I don't see them taking over all the leadership positions in a coed Troop.

I hate saying this as there are examples of boys and girls that break that generalization.  I will say boys get much more advancement focused at age 17.5.

4 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

It wasn't about fear of competing with women - I think the leadership missed the mark when they said that.  But having a male-only space allowed a more relaxed atmosphere, I think - it's hard to articulate - because I wasn't worried about being judged by the opposite sex. 

I think this is a better argument for single gender.  The strong male leaders will do fine when competing against the girls.  

The truth ... they want the girl membership fees without losing any boy membership fees.  So .... they are attempting to create a solution that simply doesn't work.

12 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Makes me wonder if we never had the abuse lawsuits if the BSA would allow more things like this.  I imagine that with all the abuse suits, the BSA is a bit gun shy on more suits.

When I started, a leader reminded me that the most dangerous activity in the BSA is biking.  Even with helmets they have seen more and worse accidents from biking than anything else.

BSA needs to separate the bumps, bruises from the serious injuries, death or life long psychological scarring.  

Laser tag, dodge ball, cordless screw drivers, etc. .... I highly doubt these result in significant injuries.  I've seen worse injuries in my Troop from a stick and a pot of boiling water. 

Equating water guns,  paint ball and laser tag to actual guns is weak.  I think we can teach gun safety with a  .22 riffle while allowing kids to use water guns on a hot day.   (Side note ... my mother in law forbid play guns in her house.  Her son is now probably the biggest pro NRA guy I know and as kids they made EVERYTHING into a gun.)

Put the real high risk items in G2SS and sex abuse/bulling in YP/B2A.  The rest ... let the scouts have fun under they eye of trained leaders.

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

The ruling on the insurers' discovery requests are on the top of my interest list, though it's full day (per RS's link).

My guess ... deferred.  TCC gave the BSA until July? before they push for lawsuits against LCs.  In return, councils must provide details on membership roles, summer camps, units, etc.  TCC can then use this data (and time) to help clean up the claims list.  I wonder if TCC self audits (as they already seemed to have) and identifies possible issues with some claims.

I don't see the judge allowing discovery during that process.  She may just say, lets see where that list is at in August and see if discovery is warranted. 

Too many moving parts otherwise.

Just a guess....

Hearing scheduled tomorrow.  Does anyone know what will be covered?  Any "BIG" decisions or are those coming in the April hearing?

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It's an excellent piece, in terms of covering the breadth of issues and delving into the asset valuations. I'm surprised other pub's didn't do that analysis. 

I believe the Wall Street Journal & NY TImes have done similar stories.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-roiled-by-suspicions-about-asset-transfers-11594325864

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/us/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-assets.html

2 minutes ago, elitts said:

It's not a safety issue I don't think,

Then it shouldn't be in the Youth Protection FAQ.

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So I don't duplicate, has the 3.7.21 USA Today piece been posted here? I had not read it through to the end and found their research on assets and values to be helpful. I hadn't seen it anywhere else, though I certainly could've missed it.  

It was ... probably 50+ pages back.  It really goes to the heart of the issue.  Lack of transparency and trust.  BSA's #1 goal should be building the trust of the TCC & court through full transparency.  Unfortunately, National BSA has issues with transparency & trust so I expect we are headed to a cliff.

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nobody supports that [coed troops]

I can find a few that would disagree with this statement.

I've been in coed activities in high school and college.  I was elected president of NHS in High School.  I was president of my engineering honor society in college.  In my company, I've passed up many of my female colleagues for promotions.  There were girls/women in all of these organizations.   I have never feared competing with girls/women for leadership roles and have managed and reported to women.  I've fired women and hired women.  If boys are to compete in the world, they need to learn this.  The workplace does not look like it did in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s or even early 2000s.

"[coed troops] is not happening." FYI .... coed Troops are happening in the BSA.  He has no clue what is going on in the field.  Go to any camporee, Klondike, summer camp.  Perhaps he needs to be replaced with someone who knows what is actually going on.   

Also ... “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.”

47 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

Following a few of the other Scouting pages on FB, there are MANY Scouts BSA units flagrantly violating the Co-ed policy.  Units separate on paper only, and they are adamant about it..."this is what works best for us, so bugger off."  Meeting together, camping together, same PLC, same Committee.  Reminds me of the early days of YP...units ignoring it because "that just doesn't work for us."  If this is so important in terms of safety, liability and optics, why do the Councils permit it?  And don't tell me they don't know about it.  THey will still look the other way if it means retaining members and units.  That's how we got in this mess.

Currently BSA would  say my son having his best friend come over (who is a scout) when two parents are not home is a violation of Youth Protection.  I'm sure that has happened (his friend has been over and my wife went out on errands when I was home).  So ... I guess I violated YP and should have reported it.  The BSA has expanded YP/Barriers to abuse so broadly, most Troops/Packs/Adult Leaders likely run afoul.  To me, that waters down the YP/B2A and we run into actual risks.

In terms of girls, nearly every girl Troop in my area operates as coed including the one my Troop is associated with.  Councils know it, districts know it and they don't care.  Over half the girls in the Troop have siblings and parent volunteers who were involved with the Boy Troop.  Now ... if BSA really does care, they would crack down, close down those girl and boy Troops who operate that way and be willing to lose volunteers and scouts to other organizations that have implemented fully coed scouting.  

Is having a girl Troop and boy Troop a youth protection concern, a program or a PR concern?  We have a girl from our Girl Troop going with our boys from a Boy Troop crew going to Philmont.  So Philmont, councils, districts and units all ignore the separate gender aspect.  Either take it out of YP and put this into the program FAQs or enforce it and deal with the membership impacts.  YP/B2A must be a non flexible set of rules.  If there is any sort of flex, G2SS, guidance documents, program, various other areas are better for communicating.  Keep YP/B2A lean and enforced.

8 hours ago, Treflienne said:

This seems to address the issue of tag-a-longs. For example the boy (who is a scout in a different troop)  who tags along to his sister's troop's camping trip because (a) his parent is going on the trip, (b) the boy is not old enough to be left at home overnight by himself, and (c) there is no other parent at home or relative living nearby that he can be left with.

Inviting experienced scouts from a different troop (same or different gender) to a meeting or outing, because of their skills or experience, in order to help or assist in some way, seems quite a different kettle of fish. 

If only the FAQ were a little clearer it would be helpful.

The issue is they put this under YPT. A scout BSA youth is at least 10 but likely older.  If they said Cub Scout I wouldn’t have an issue or if they out this FAQ under program that would be fine.  This is a YPT FAQ.  

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is their offered solution - rent a room from SOMEONE and your Council is now your CO.

• Short Form Facility Use Agreement
• Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement

Who is the COR in this case?

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

"We thought we were just letting them use our space." Yeah, well, oops. That's not going to stop the abuse lawsuit. Your COR signed it, that means you are on the hook.

Our unit went from public school to PTO to friends of to fraternal organization over the last 20 years due to various concerns.  The school prevents us from recruiting (they even took our yard signs from a public right of way and threw them out).  I expect the fraternal order will end the CO soon (once their leadership evaluates the risk vs return).  What is left?  We have no organization that will be willing to sign even a "we provide meeting space" document?

BSA better be ready with an option of no CO charters .... 

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Q. Can a leader bring their Scouts BSA son or daughter to an opposite gender troop activity?

A. No. Scouts BSA program integrity requires single gender units and single gender buddy pairs. 

Why is this youth protection?  They are mixing up "integrity of program" with "youth protection".  So if a Scoutmaster brings his Scouts BSA daughter to a Boy Scouts BSA Troop meeting, then that is a YPT violation?

OA election ... so how does a girl Troop hold an OA election if there is no girl youth in OA?  A boy cannot go to their meeting?  So no youth OA can be present at a Girl Troop meeting election until there is a girl in OA and then she will be the only one allowed at future Girl Troop elections?

No coed buddies .. fine, file that under YPT.  The other half of this is crazy to put under YPT.  

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

This was something that I saw came up in the Office Hours video and in FB.

The only people who have been allowed access to even a DRAFT of these are

1) Scout Executives

2) Handpicked volunteers/yes men and women who are simply going to nod their heads up and down and do what National tells them

When people asked during the video (via Zoom chat I would guess) if they could be part of the review team or even see a copy, they were told no.

I would love to see the requirements.  If they are reading our comments, I would highly recommend not making it Eagle required out of the gate.  Release it and let MBCs and Scouts ramp up.  Adjust requirements after a few years.  If it really adds value, then make it required (but I would ask to relook at ALL required MBs before you do that).

I'll hold off judgement on the actual requirements until I see them.  I do have a lot of questions.  If you allow too much flexibility, would you allow someone like my Uncle be a MBC who believes blacks should not marry whites?  Would the badge be pointless?  Or, if it is too inflexible, how do you deal with different belief systems that are considered acceptable within today's society?  Also, how do you adjust as society changes? For example, my uncle's view against interracial marriage is not considered accepted today, but it would be considered the majority view in the in 1950s and 60s. 

My grandmother would refuse to eat in a restaurant with a black man present ... but my sister is married to a black man and has interracial children.  Clearly society changes in these areas and in general, we trend to more acceptance of diversity and inclusion, but there are always controversial areas.

These are very tough topics for adults, let alone 11 year olds attempting to earn Eagle by 12. 

53 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Even if they read it, I doubt it changed a single mind.

There are some that read it.  This site has been mentioned in the past by Surbaugh (not in a positive light).  I believe Richard Bourlon reviews content and he has responded to various topics.  While many on the site may not agree with all of his responses, I think its great that he pops in from time to time.  I would welcome other National leaders.

I'm not sure if anyone involved in the DE&I MB look at this site, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.  They should look at scouter.com and the FaceBook page comments from scouters.  That doesn't mean they should be paralyzed by the comments nor never proceed with controversial changes.  They should use the feedback to get a better idea of lay of the land that may get filtered by professionals. 

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

ou guys deal with the application of YPT and have now seen the number of claims filed since it was put in place, such as they are. Do you see/have specific ideas on how it can be improved without choking the life out programming and the routine interactions with Scouts? Has anyone National or otherwise, done an assessment and review?

The real best way is to look at those 11,000 - 13,000 claims and see where a policy difference could have prevented the issue.  Essentially, find common root causes and see if any are systemic then look at possible policy changes.

I think I have speculated that perhaps greater oversight to ensure COs are doing their job ... but I don't know if that is a systemic root cause of the abuse that is currently occurring.  Perhaps it is more transparency to share with the volunteers incidents and how to avoid them.  I expect there are some changes that could come in that would not negatively impact the program and could help.  Others could either not reduce risk or negatively impact the program.

We need a strong group of scout leaders who understand the program to review proposals from child abuse risk management experts to come up with recommendations.  If that occurs, I think we could be safer without negative impacts.  If proposals just come from risk managers, we will either not see a risk reduction or see the program suffer.

6 hours ago, elitts said:

it's just TOO easy to briefly run afoul the no one-on-one contact rule when dealing with kids

Agreed.  I do think there is a chance that the non monetary changes could have negative consequences.  They only real way to avoid one on one is adults must be with an adult buddy at all times.  Im not advocating for this, just indicating some possible non monetary impacts of bankruptcy.

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

Just curious, is there a competition to see who is the last eagle? The boys could play this game as well.

This is pretty funny ... sad ... but funny.  Dark humor my friend...

8 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

With few exceptions a non profit cannot be forced into liquidation.  These can be long drawn out court battles, years even,  if everyone wans to fight rather than settle.

This is what I see happening; however, National has been clear. If this takes until fall they will go into liquidation.  If they are being honest (I don’t think they are) and I expect 0% chance the bankruptcy is done by fall, Eagle Scout rank will no longer be owned by BSA.  It will be sold along with all National assets. Perhaps during liquidation the GSUSA will be given Eagle Scout trademark as part of the settlement.  Who knows.

I expect the most likely outcome is a 3 - 4 year settlement battle.  Cases may spin off about HA camps, LC individual assets/camps.  CO property and assets.  National will find some sort of income stream to live in bankruptcy for half a decade.  Perhaps by charging councils very large fees so they help fund the legal battle.  Councils could then end up selling camps just to fund the bankruptcy lawyers.

We will survive but the news and financial aspects of scouting will be about bankruptcy.  As long as my unit has a local summer camp to go to and parents who volunteer we will be ok.

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My Council lost its camp years ago due to financial mismanagement.

My council also does not have a summer camp. They should, but saved Cub Scout camps and sold off their summer camp.  

26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's true for any business in a Chapter 11, not just a not-for-profit. The company (or not for profit) must retain enough of an operating business model to be able to survive post-bankruptcy/Chapter 11.

I question that in this case.  If the claimants continue to vote against the offer they can essentially force the BSA to part with core assets. They only way out is the judge enforcing a cram down but when has that every happened with a sexual abuse bankruptcy?

33 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Also, it has been said that a non-profit cannot be forced to give up things that are core to its mission. 

I’ve never heard this before.  What law enforcers this?