Cburkhardt

Scoutmaster of 48-Girl Troop Responds Q: Does anyone have examples of successful new girl troops that are actually operating independently? A: In our Council, we have a number of unlinked girl Troops that are large, outstanding units. These Troops operate nearly identically to large, successful all-boy Troops. I am Scoutmaster of one of these. We have 48 girl members, 4 patrols a 9-person scoutmaster staff and an 18-person Troop Committee. The Troop is fully youth led. This summer we took 33 Scouts to our council summer camp and 14 to high adventure experiences. We should have three Eagles by year-end and each is achieving this in a traditional and rigorous manner – none of those 18-month concentrated efforts. You can learn about us at: https://www.ScoutsBsaDcGirls.org. Q: Are the boy troops doing girls a disservice by offering the fully coed program? A: As we are all-girl, we do not have this experience. My observation of troops that take the disallowed “girl patrol” approach is that the girl patrols are smaller, less effective and experience an inferior program in comparison to our large, traditional patrols. At summer camp, there were 20 units in camp and seven were all-girl troops. There were no integrated “girl patrol” troops present. The all-girl troops appeared to be functioning well. Q: Do you agree that policies will change soon and that troops are going to go fully coed in the near future? A: I regretfully believe it will eventually happen and that the result will be reduction in the number of all-boy or all-girl troops. Q: If nothing changes, how are the struggling girls troops supposed to improve their quality of program so that it is on par with the girl patrols in the boy troops? Should adult leaders share some of the leadership to help things get off the ground? A. I do not agree with the underlying assumption. All-girl troops that operate in a full and robust manner are far better units for girls and offer them more opportunity than so-called “girl patrol” troops. In our district, we have two unlinked and one linked girl troops. All seem to be working out well. The unlinked Troops are bigger and have better programs, because they have Troop Committees and scoutmaster staffs that concentrate on providing strong program for girls. Girl troops that are struggling need help on the fundamentals from fellow unit leaders and commissioners. The program and organizational structure does not need any change or adaption. Q: GSUSA competition. A. We do not compete with GSUSA in our locality. We are intensely outdoor and they are not. Our SPL and PLC run things. In their local program the adults dominate. It is an apples and oranges comparison. We have several youth and adult members who are former GSUSA members and three girls who are dual registered. The above observations come from them and not me. Q: “My reason against girls in troops is that their natural instinct of organization disrupts the growth of boys learning to organize.” A: I think Eagledad is on to something here. Our girls are highly organized from age 11 and onward. They participate in two-hour planning sessions, sitting still and without losing a single thought. Young boys are less likely to experience natural leadership growth in that circumstance. Girls launch into more-sophisticated leadership efforts at a younger age because their fellow Scouts are at a similar developmental plane. We should not hold these girls back from those kinds of activities if they are ready for it. I think it would be less effective to mix same-age boys into that process, because boys should not be expected to “sit still” and “be quiet” like girls. Boys should be free and encouraged to engage in boy-appropriate behaviors as they discover their own leadership styles.

Dear Moderators and Friends, Last year some of you may recall that I actively hosted three lengthy postings in advance of the bankruptcy filing. My purpose was to prepare the way for a great reorganization filing that I believed would result in a plan agreement and approval within six months or so after the filing date. The discussions were serious and hundreds participated. COVID destroyed that possibility, leading some claimants Attorneys to smell blood in the water. They have gone in for the kill and Scouting as we know it could end. Several commenters joined claimants attorneys by going for the kill as well, primarily by posting one-liner personal attacks and down arrows against commenters attempting to balance the need to provide justice for victims of past with a desire to continue serving youth in the future. They comment in disruptive ways and despise every aspect of our the national, council and district structures and volunteer leaders. They further despise any citizen willing to work for pay to advance Scouting. The monitors of this site have chosen to allow the proliferation of often-abusive commentary. This has led to a diminishment of quality and a need for thoughtful commenters to just take “time off” from the abuse on this site. I regret to share that I have concluded some of these individuals are acting in concert with interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation. If the moderators want to restore seriousness of purpose regarding discussion of the bankruptcy on this site, amid the crisis of whether Scouting will have a future at all, some of us might be willing to seriously re-engage. For instance, the ultimate issue will be upon us in just a few weeks — whether and how much local councils should contribute to the victim’s trust in exchange for a local council discharge. This should receive a thorough discussion in order to inform viewers on a matter they can impact in their local councils. I comment in my own name, am proud of everything I have said and thank Scouting.com for having allowed me to share thoughts during these years of change. However, I encourage all thoughtful commenters to wait for a thoughtful reply from the moderators before investing serious time in posting analysis on this next, existential phase of the bankruptcy. If management of this site wants a serious discussion on this potential “final issue”, it can have it. However, it will need its moderators to directly curtail intentional disruptors. Sincerely, cburkhardt

Too many Americans have been staking out absolute positions and daring others to cross a rhetorical line. Sometimes the rhetoric on even this site has trended in a similar direction, with folks just not showing respect for reasoned but differing views. The divisions that evolve reduce our confidence in our nation's Constitution, and similarly in the fundamental approaches in Scouting. The WWII combat veterans who were the Scoutmasters and Skippers of my youth were not that way. They fought hard in a war to ease my way through life, and Boy Scouts and Sea Scouts helped make me what I hope is a respectful and open-minded individual. They knew they did not have a monopoly on all of the good ideas, and inspired me to make whatever meager contributions to society I have attempted. I like Scouting, I believe in the Boy Scouts of America, and I believe in the Constitution and the future of our country. I hope everyone on this site does also.

Inquisitive: The point is that eroding the confidence of BSA professionals and volunteers regarding the post-bankruptcy future of the BSA by continuing to pound negative PR well after the claims filing deadline has rationality for the claimant attorneys -- at least the ones that favor liquidation. If the core of the BSA were to lose faith in its long-term future, the Judge could take that into account in determining whether to approve a reorganization or order a liquidation.

The future will largely be defined by the result of the private negotiations going on right now. Because it may be extraordinarily difficult to come to an agreement acceptable to all major parties, a principal determinant of BSA's future may be whether there can be a financial arrangement the Judge will deem acceptable to order as a cramdown. She is uniquely empowered to balance all of the factors commenters have posted to this string. She really has in her hands the discretion to make the call here. That is why bankruptcy judges are often thought of as one of the most powerful commercial figures in the business and industrial world. One factor she will consider in approving a settlement or ordering a cramdown is whether the BSA has the ability to continue forward after the reorganization. Claimant attorneys who are seeking a liquidation and destruction of the BSA know this and are taking public relations steps to make the post-bankruptcy operations appear hopeless. They are, very directly, seeking to undermine the confidence of our professional and volunteer core through some of the outlandish things they have been saying.

Here is the answer to the question regarding whether BSA professionals/retirees would have an economic incentive to favor liquidation over reorganization. If the pension benefit guarantee fund were to take over the account, the longer-time and higher-paid employees will have their monthly payouts significantly reduced. Some of the monthly checks would get cut from the 15K-20K/ month range down to $5K/month. So they overwhelmingly favor reorganization. For lowest-paid or short-term employees there is not much of an issue.

The claimant's attorneys want the largest possible amount placed into a Victims Trust Fund, so they have the economic motivation to file as many claims as possible and argue that, within the totality of claims filed, all are valid. The insurance companies want the lowest possible amount placed into the Victim's Trust Fund, so they have the economic motivation to uncover fraud and other facts that would diminish the value of the totality of claims filed. In a way, the BSA is somewhere in-between, because it wants to see justice done for victims via payments, but also wants to retain sufficient funds and assets in order to reorganize post-bankruptcy. The lawyers for claimants and the insurance companies will present effective arguments during the private negotiations from the extreme ends of the case -- indeed this is probably already going on. If there is no agreement among the claimants, insurance companies and BSA, the Court will eventually decide what total amount it believes is required to fund the Victim's Trust Fund and force it on everyone in a process having the delightful technical term of "cramdown". Or, the Court could determine there is a gross insufficiency of funds and the case could be dismissed and converted to liquidation. As I've shared before in more detailed postings, despite the public relations rhetoric of some claimant attorneys, claimants would get less under liquidation because in liquidation BSA current and future retirees are in "first position" via a federal agency. As to CynicalScouter's thoughts on the BSA expressing its views on the degree of fraud in a court filing, the BSA cannot be forced to do so and really would not benefit by doing so. Whatever the BSA thinks about the veracity of the claims in totality can be argued privately during the negotiations. One last item is that individual claims will not begin to be processed by the bankruptcy trustee until after the total amount of the Victim's Trust Fund is determined and mostly-funded. At that point the BSA is more-or-less out of the situation, because it will be the claimant's attorneys vs. the bankruptcy trustee as to whether and how much an individual claimant should be awarded. If the Trustee awards too much to individual claimants, it will drain the trust fund too quickly and run out of cash -- looking pretty stupid in the process. If the trust fund was to run out, the BSA cannot be required to contribute more. I suppose former BSA personnel or volunteers might be accessed as witnesses in those trustee proceedings, but the BSA and councils (only the ones that contribute to the trust fund) will have already had their liability discharged at that point.

Remember, the current process is that all parties are trying to negotiate an overall dollar amount that goes into a large trust. The existence of fraud at this point is a factor that the trustee and judge take into account in determining the overall amount necessary to pay valid claims. If the trustee/judge conclude that a percentage of the claims are likely to be fraudulent, they will order a smaller amount to go into the trust. The insurance companies are just trying to lower the overall dollar amount of the trust at this point. If their allegations prove true, the amount to fund the trust will indeed be smaller. The BSA can simply let the insurance companies carry the burden of making those arguments. The insurance companies only need to make a stastical case at this time supporting an overall fraud level. The resistance on the part of claimant’s counsel is calculated to deny the insurance companies facts to argue fraud in the negotiation. Individual claims will be processed only after the trust is established. The trustee will evaluate the claims for truthfulness only at that time. Those who have submitted fraudulent claims can be subjected to criminal or disciplinary penalties. I once experienced a bankruptcy judge disbar from bankruptcy practice an opposing attorney for having encouraged his client to run up her charge cards just before filing a personal bankruptcy. The lawyer lied about it to the judge. When I brought the bankrupt client into court and she testified the guy told her to do it, he was banned from the court. If the coalition attorneys conspired to defraud the court, they will eventually be held to account. Claimant’s counsel, who hope to make billions and retire afterward, might view professional discipline as a cost of doing business if they are able to generate sufficient fees from their non-fraudulent claims.

Quick answer to CynicalScouter: I think a reasonable funding window could be 1-2 years. That is plenty of time to marshal assets and submit a trust contribution. Just my speculation though.

Looks like the conversation is going in another direction, so I'll end my thoughts by simply sharing that I highly doubt a Victims Trust Fund would be funded by future national registration fees. This would be too unreliable a funding source in a bankruptcy negotiation. Registration fees might continue to increase for other reasons, but not to fund a trust. I remain supremely confident that the BSA will get through this for several reasons. We still have a great purpose and many great supporters. And, the nature of the bankruptcy reorganization will assist us do justice by providing reasonable recompense for the past and continue forward. Economic incentives are there in the bankruptcy process to encourage a settlement here.

The potential method and formula for funding a BSA Victims Trust Fund is the subject of highly confidential discussions at this point, and anyone having that information should maintain the confidentiality of it. Anything I share here is not inside information, but just general bankruptcy information. The normal circumstance is to fund a trust of this particular nature within a reasonable time after a reorganization plan is ordered by the bankruptcy court. That's because we don't have near-guaranteed future consumer spending to rely on (like future proceeds from the purchasers of tobacco). The bankruptcy trustees, their experts and involved lawyers figure out in advance the grand total of what the trust fund should have in order to make reasonable payments to known and (sometimes) future victims. Consultants that assist this work estimate key factors, including the potential presence of fraudulent claims. Then they search for ways to fund the trust from things like insurance, bankrupt party assets and contributions from non-bankrupt parties that desire to obtain a liability discharge. The effort culminates in a negotiation where the various parties commit to funding obligations and how they will satisfy those commitments. The various funding parties use different techniques to marshal and provide their contributions. For instance, allowances would be made for time needed to liquidate an asset, if that were to be a source of contribution.

Very directly put, the claimants and their lawyers should want to see a BSA national and the councils to continue to exist so they can continue to pay into the pension plan. If national liquidates, the Guarantee Corporation attaches pretty much everything. I share this to encourage everyone that there are significant reasons why the claimants will want to agree to a reorganization plan.

The lawyers and claimants are incented to agree to a reorganization plan that includes payments to a victims trust fund. After the trust fund is in place and funded, a trustee would review the claims in detail. She would eliminate the ones she thinks are fraudulent, and pay remaining claims by applying criteria she would develop. More severe claims get a bigger payout, etc. If national liquidates and the Guarantee Corporation takes most or all national and council assets, there would be little or nothing left for either national or councils to fund a victims trust. (The council portion would be the local council contributions to the trust fund in order to receive their own discharge of liability.)

Clarification on Pension Plan Debt All council and national entities participate in the same “pension plan”. If the national bankruptcy “reorganization plan” fails and national liquidates, the pension plan covering council and national employees will immediately terminate by function of law. All available national and local council assets can then be attached by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to satisfy the pension plan indebtedness. The Guarantee Corporation has first priority, including before victim claimants (and their lawyers). National and every council are “jointly and severally” liable for the entire pension debt, so if national liquidates, it will cause council assets to be attached by the Guarantee Corporation to satisfy the “pension plan” shortfall. Liquidation of national is ultimately to the disadvantage of national, councils, lawyers and claimants alike, because very little (if anything) would be left afterward. There are strong economic incentives for everyone to agree to a "reorganization plan." The only people who would have reasons to support a national liquidation are those who seek complete destruction of the BSA nationally and locally – without regard to economics.

We will do our once-a-year contribution that I described, and that is it. If we paid an annual fee that was particularly low (like the $3 one some council charges -- I mean, what is the point of that?), I would make sure it was supplemented with a unit FOS gift to provide a reasonable level of support -- after all, we do need to maintain things at the camp and in basic operations. I just think the old ways of funding the council through multiple asks and inefficient product sales will fade away. Wrap it into a reasonable all-in fee that is transparently explained and be done with all the running around. Let the pros, and Scouts concentrate on program.

I think council fees are the best way for the future in lieu of FOS and product sales. Please hear me out on this. Our Troop approach is to ask families to pay all-in semester dues (this includes everything except campout and summer camp fees) and contribute to our annual coffee fundraising gathering at whatever level they can. We get family contributions ranging from $20 to $500 at that event, and outsiders contribute as well. Under-resourced families pay 50% dues and 50% camping fees (some get more) and this is supported from our event proceeds. Our December fundraiser raised enough so we gave $1,500 to our council as a unit FOS contribution. We had an additional $1,500 individual FOS contributions from people affiliated with our unit who replied directly to the annual council mailing. We do not push individual family contributions to FOS, because we only want to ask families to pay our dues and participate in our single annual event. So, our unit-wide FOS total gift was about 3K for 2020, which works out to be about $75 per youth member (up from $62 last year). Because we are inner-city, we don't do product sales with the council or other things that raise money for them. However, we get a lot of services and benefits from our district and council and believe our FOS contributions are merited and well-used. If our council were to prefer a fee instead of FOS we would be neutral. We would still give at our current level to support our camp and help provide council/district services. A council fee to replace FOS/popcorn proceedings would be a more efficient way to raise funds and take less professional and volunteer effort. It would be a wash for us, but would assure that all units contribute.

I was using the number I have seen that combines the girl registration for Cubs and Scouts BSA. I believe the number for Scouts BSA is around 30,000. We do not have any girls trying to get Eagle by this summer. We purposely did not try to attract any girls (and parents) trying to earn it on the compressed program. Sometime in the Spring I'll share thoughts on how we have done as a Troop advancement-wise. So far, we fit a pretty typical Troop advancement profile. About 1/3 of our Scouts are go-getters who have good chances to earn Eagle around the three year mark. About 1/3 are taking their time and will probably do well in advancement topping at Star or Life with a couple of Eagles. Around 1/3 are less interested in reaching the upper ranks and simply love advancement in a leisurely way. At least in our Troop, the fears that some commenters had that this would all be about "getting there first" or "let's make the boys look bad" has not occurred. It actually feels about the same as my own boyhood Troop.

Merry Christmas, everyone. I was gone for a few hours and just read the latest. I think we have definitely gone over the top, should put this to bed and move on to proposing mandatory wearing of knee socks by all Scouter.com commenters. As your 2-year certified Scoutmaster of a "Boy Scouts for Girls" Troop, I officially declare that there is no actual confusion about what our 130,000 girl members and their families have joined (let's see, with parents that's over 1/4 million people who know precisely what they are doing). Never heard of a girl who was misled and tricked into earning her Second Class. Never tried to go down to the supermarket and buy green boxes of cookies to sell (in fact, we don't sell anything). I further declare that efforts to prove me wrong are money-grubbin' and trouble makin' mistchief! Oh, and Happy New Year while I am at it!

Is it your professional opinion that these admissions make the case for GSUSA?

I should have directly stated that if we had taken the misguided approach of making ourselves appear to be associated with GSUSA, we would have not been successful. The families that joined were not wanting GSUSA programming or whatever other attributes are offered by GSUSA. Whatever the GSUSA “stands for”, our families are not looking for it.

As a Scouter deeply engaged in the roll-out of a Scouts BSA Troop for Girls during the applicable time, I can personally attest to the facts discussed above. The attempt to conflate limited instances of brief over-enthusiasm and uninformed mistakes into a significant problem should fail. The examples GSUSA cites are simply isolated. I am not an intellectual property attorney and don't know the applicable legal standards here. If showing that a possibility of customer confusion is enough, perhaps they will have something. If they need to prove actual and widespread confusion, they have a big challenge. No girl or parent was even remotely confused about what they were joining when they visited and joined our Scouts BSA Troop for Girls. As for the new title, I take it as a simple implementation of the membership change No doubt it was caused by a new look at the legal issues. The girls in our Scouts BSA Troop actually got a kick out of the old title.

Our "Scouts BSA Troop for Girls", which is the term we consistently use for identifying ourselves, has had about 60 girls and their parents visit with us during our open houses at the beginning of each semester. I have met every one of them and none were even remotely "confused" about what program they were visiting. Of the 45 girls who ultimately joined us, only two also continue their association with a former GSUSA unit. Approximately 10 had previously been in Girl Scouts, but affirmatively joined us to associate with the BSA-style program, most often citing wanting to be part of a program they perceived was more outdoor-intensive. They occasionally make critical comments about the product sale emphasis in the GSUSA, but other than that they have apparently moved-on or forgotten their experiences with that program. The balance of the girls who joined us (and their parents) very clearly understand the association with BSA. I have no plan to survey them on why they joined us because they very clearly joined us for the advancement and outdoor programs. They love the fact that our girls operate a $50,000-per-year operation. The suit to me sounds like an attempt to conflate isolated mistakes on the part of enthusiastic unit and district folks in the opening days of the effort into a false allegation of widespread of confusion or misrepresentation.

We recently had our annual Troop no-cost community fundraiser on Zoom to raise our scholarship money for Scouts from under-resourced families (last year we did a live coffee reception). We collected about $7,000 on our site within a day or two. The cash zaps instantly into our bank account. I think we would have received far less if we had encouraged potential donors to “mail it in” or “drop by a Troop meeting and leave some cash”. Instead, we sent them a link to a special donor page on our beautiful web site (the viewing of which encourages them to contribute as well). It is the same basic process for collecting dues and Troop event fees. Unit treasurers need to consider the cash income that goes uncollected from these younger Scout families and potential donors. Most families only write a couple of checks per month and nobody uses cash anymore (due to COVID). By the way, the Scouts themselves now manage our web site and are quite familiar with all of this, although they are not involved in the money management. So, your Treasurers can look the the young people for guidance. I’ll stop talking about electronic banking now, because I do want to wear out the topic!

Your Troop Treasurers have no idea how much convenience and efficiency they are losing by not collecting electronically on a web site. More important, young families today have a better attitude when it comes to paying for something with their debit or credit card at home on a web site or in-person (using one of those devices that your treasurer can plug into his smart phone). Parents today will promptly pay your fees without much fuss if you use a web site. I am no expert about this, but the technology experience of the transaction itself somehow makes the payment seem more secure and “worth it”.

One aspect to all of this is convenience and regularity in the payment system itself. We use our troop web site and collect nearly all fees and dues through it. This is what every parent of a Scout today wants to do. Any unit collecting cash or checks on a regular basis is rubbing against the personal finance practices of young families of today. Another aspect is being really direct and up front with parents and others about the tremendous value a family and Scout get from participation in a Troop activity. Compared to the fees of school, community and athletic groups, which often charge $500 - $1,000 for a single weekend ski, cheerleading, science or other event that requires registration, travel, food and program, we are “dirt cheap”. We all know how to put on a program that delivers great value and program for very little cost. We should not apologize for small fees we charge for a weekend Troop outing. Our Council camps are similarly huge bargains compared to “sleep away” camps that charge multiples of 3 or even 4 times the typical BSA fees. For a weekend event with our Troop, the Scout gets all snacks, meals, equipment use, volunteer supervision and instruction, plus whatever materials are necessary to participate in the theme of the weekend (rope, compasses, whatever). Our grand total for this costs rarely exceed $40 per event per Scout, and we are charging a small extra amount to acquire equipment. Our Troop took a canoe trip in September that even included transportation for a piddling $70 per Scout. Yes, that even included the canoes, because our Council let us use them without cost. I got on a high school web site from a district near the District of Columbia and found a less impactful weekend trip costing participants $345. No kidding. We should all be proud of what we are doing cost-wise.