CynicalScouter

Our Council has a Facebook (updated semi-regular), Youtube (dormant for 9 years) and Twitter (dormant for 2+).

Sorta. While there are a host of reasons why BSA National had a weak PR presence prior to January 2020 I can tell you the big reason since has likely been the lawyers telling National leadership to keep quiet. Why they did a lousy job prior is anyone's guess.

My council has been pushing to local media Scouting through COVID and the female Eagles. All well and good. But there is 0 on social media. Instead they are touting a short article at the bottom of the local paper and a 1 minute clip on local nightly news. Those demographics skew insanely old. Local nightly news audience is shrinking other than boomers (55+) who are watching more than ever. Young people (you know, the people with scout-age kids) are just not tuning in. Ditto local newspapers. So when I heard a district executive brag about the thing they got in the local paper I think to myself "Great! Grandpa will be so proud!" But you want to get parents onboard? Or scouts? They are NOT reading page 1 7 of the local paper. And as for online and social media, my council's website hasn't be refreshed/rebuilt in 10 years. No one knows how to use it and the "Solution" is for one of the board member's recent college grad son to work on it at night after his day job on a volunteer basis.

Exactly. Look at the November statement after the claims window closed. Abuse. Bravery of those who have come forward. Not "Victims". Pain. BSA reached out to "survivors" (that does NOT concede that all those who "came forward" are "survivors") Gut Wrenching "Deeply Sorry" but not specifically for what By this point, even the word "victim" is dropped in favor of "survivor" and again, without conceding all or any of the 95,000 are "survivors". And this is with no doubt a combined review by legal staff AND PR people. Now, put Mosby out there. He is either going to Be limited to patronizing gerealized platitudes that come off as disingenuous Constant repeat of the phrase "There is ongoing litigation and mediation so I can't comment." The idea of Mosby announcing he is "allying" with the 95,000 claimants is simply not going to happen. Is it a defensive crouch? ABSOLUTELY. But for right now, it is the best legal strategy, even if a lousy PR one.

Here's the problem with that from a legal point. While that may make great PR, if they do so it could be twisted by the attorneys for the claimants and a blanket admission that ALL 95,000 claims are valid. This is what BSA said when the claims window closed. Ok, great. But I will absolutely assure you that entire statement was cleared through legal. Multiple times. Putting out Mosby or someone else to "ally" (note the word here) "with the people making the claims" creates two massive problems. 1) The first is what I mentioned: if they "ally" with all 95,000 claimants, that could be seen as a concession that ALL 95,000 are valid. 2) "Ally" against who exactly? Claimants lawyers? Again, while it might be tempting to make this BSA vs. the "evil plaintiffs attorneys" that a) will never be legally cleared by BSA's own lawyers and b) will inevitably be twisted into "BSA vs. victims".

True, how does a court under Chapter 7 order the liquidation/termination of that which Congress established as "perpetual"? Does it somehow find 36 U.S. Code § 30901(c) unconstitutional? The only other times in history a Congressional chartered organization ceased to exist was when all the member died. For example, the Grand Army of the Republic (Union veterans group) ceased to exist when the last Union veteran died. That's why I suspect that what comes out of this is a BSA National that is a hollow-shell. A zombie-BSA if you will that consists of ONLY that which Congress mandated by law An incorporate entity under 36 U.S. Code § 30901 With a board under 36 U.S. Code § 30903 The purpose of the board/entity to "promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916" under 36 U.S. Code § 30902 Said board with certain powers (typically of any corporate board) under 36 U.S. Code § 30904 And the exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words associated with Boy Scouts of America under 36 U.S. Code § 30905 That must deliver an annual report to Congress under 36 U.S. Code § 30908 And that's it. Like I said: nothing left but the staplers on the desks at HQ.

We don't know what this looks like. 1) Never before has a Congressionally chartered organization gone into bankruptcy. Can you even liquidate something Congress has given perpetual life to? 2) We have no idea the number of victims. When John Jay did its study of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church it found 11,000 accusations across 52 years. The 2012 "Vatican Report" suggested closer to 100,000 and a cost of $2.2 billion BSA is looking at 95,000. Even if only 10% are credible, that puts you closer to the John Jay study (11k). That's still horrific given that the Catholic Church is so much larger than BSA ever was. 3) Everything else that's happened to BSA. Even if not a single scout was ever abused a single time ever, BSA has taken absolutely devastating losses in membership. Some of it is society (GSUSA, 4H and all such groups are losing members; this goes back to "Bowling Alone" -Americans just are not social anymore). Some of it is because BSA is "too liberal" (letting girls in, letting openly homosexual leaders in), Some of it is because BSA is "too conservative" (only let in girls and openly homosexual leaders after being dragged kicking and screaming to that point). Some simply look at BSA as old, antiquated, and out dated. Others object because they view it as too soft and safe. Oh, and did I mention COVID, which killed outdoor programming for many places for almost an entire year? Yeah, that too. There are just too many variables to be able to determine what changing one will mean because we can't control for the others. Sure, maybe 10 years ago BSA could have paid out $1 billion to a victims fund and been able to shrug it off. But now? Today? in March 2021 (when the plan is supposed to come out)? And what happens if BSA today pays out $1 billion and the membership declines keep happening. Is BSA just going to be back in bankruptcy court in 3 years anyway? You heard about "Chapter 22" and "Chapter 33" companies: business that in a short span have to file Chapter 11 twice ("22") or even three times ("33"). My concern is not losing BSA in 2021. I've maintained the view BSA National will be left a hollow shell with little to no assets and forced to rebuild. My concern is than by 2023-2025 BSA is back in bankruptcy and this time looking at Chapter 7.

Good lawyer/client advice. Bad PR advice in which the impetus is to get out on front of the story, set the narrative and broadcast/promote your message. From a PR perspective, I want Mosby (and other BSA National leaders) on the air touting the message that BSA is a great organization and that the bad days are behind it (they are not of course because WE ARE STILL IN BANKRUPTCY COURT). From a legal perspective, I want Mosby locked away in a room and as far away from cameras as possible.

I believe it. But there's a word for this: exsanguination. If I take a pint of blood from the average person, no biggie. Two pints? Ok. Three? Er, fine. Four pints? Whoa. Past 4 or 5 pints, you risk the person bleeding to death. And that is the average person. So we have lawyers (and clients), like those with the TCC, who want to take as many pints out of BSA without killing it. Replace "blood" with "money" and "pints" with "millions" and adjust accordingly. So, if BSA is forced to contribute $100 million to a victims fund? Fine. How about $1 billion? Er, maybe if it has a firesale on HA bases and liquidates everything up to but not including the office staplers at HQ. The problem is NO ONE KNOWS THE MAGIC NUMBER. Guess wrong one way and the victims get less than they could have. Guess wrong the other way and BSA's dead inside of a few years anyway because they've lost too much infrastructure to survive. Now, play that same scenario out over 200+ councils. Kosnoff et al. want BSA dead. I'm not talking about them and their ilk. I am talking about TCC and lawyers like them who want to get as much as they can but NOT kill BSA outright, both for their clients and yes for themselves. That's the tricky part here.

He's already made it clear he does not like what BSA has become and has talked (Tucker Carlson) and written about the "Death of the Boy Scouts". And he sure as heck is NOT in favor of inclusion Having Mike Rowe as a BSA spokesperson like Gryllis is would not end well, if it even happened at all, the first time the Guide to Safe Scouting came up. Rowe is part of a generation who want BSA to act as if it is 1974 again, while not fully understanding in this legal environment it simply cannot anymore. Although he comes closer to grasping it than many. Finally this Which sounds great on paper. Until you realize that a) BSA is never, ever going to self-insure which means b) Absolutely skyrocketing insurance premiums which means c) The lawyers and risk adjusters for the insurance companies who write Guide to Safe Scouting are in charge Rowe can "confront" all he wants when he is prepared to foot (or demonstrate how to fund) $138 MILLION a year in insurance premiums.

This too, although I truly wonder what the rebrand would/could be outside of possibly an outright name change. I wonder, just wonder, if even the initials BSA or such is going to be too much. But, that's outside the scope of the this thread.

Yep. Exactly. Which is why I think if you look at the inaugural female Eagle reporting, I do not recall seeing a SINGLE person from the national level. This makes both legal sense (the less camera time you have, the less likely the sexual abuse questions will come up) and a PR sense (same reason). It should not be a PR campaign about going to "War". It should not target attorneys for the other side.

Exactly. Especially a "war" PR campaign that focuses on attacking the attorneys for the victims. Oh, I would just LOVE to see how @yknotand @ParkManthink a federal bankruptcy judge is going to approve expending big money on any such "war" campaign against the creditors' attorneys in general, and the attorneys for sexual abuse victims in particular. Going to "war" against sexual abuse victims? I mean wow. Where is you humanity here folks? I don't like what is happening to BSA either, but declaring "war" on abuse victims? Wanting "war" with their attorneys? My goodness, where is your humanity?

No. What we are saying is that BSA's lawyers are no doubt telling BSA to keep their mouths shut and not go to "war" as you put it with the attorneys for the victims. Can you not grasp this? That no attorney in his/her right mind is going to approve a PR plan that involves that? Can you name a single company in bankruptcy that has ever launched a PR "war" on the attorneys for the creditors? Just name 1. I'll wait.

Really, you would advise your client in the middle of a bankruptcy to openly attack the attorneys for the other side? And you think the attorneys for that Fortune 100 company would sign off on any such attack campaign? Or that the bankruptcy judge would approve any such expenditure?

Not going to happen. A portion of this process is a court ordered (or a least encouraged, I forget which) mediation. There is precisely 0% chance BSA's lawyers are going to sign off on a PR campaign that targets the lawyers for the other side. EDIT: One more point. BSA is in bankruptcy. All expenditures over a certain amount have to be approved by the court. A massive $$$ PR campaign the purpose of which is to trash opposing counsel will never, ever be approved by the court. Not only would it possibly violate the mediation plan/agreement, it would absolutely poison any possibility of a settlement. What might make sense from a PR perspective is absolutely the wrong legal strategy. I would suspect that the reason BSA has been utterly silent is because their lawyers are telling them the two cardinal rules of clients (for both criminal side and civil). 1) Shut up. 2) Keep shutting up. Mosby did push a statement on February 1 A Look at Our History and Our Future. But otherwise, he is not about to start a campaign against opposing counsel. Why? Because it isn't going to change the legal terrain one bit AND could make a settlement LESS likely. It is also absolutely going to be spun as "BSA attacking victims." As for the "big PR check" what was said last year and was repeated recently in my Council was that the minute a bankruptcy plan was agreed to, there was going to be a "massive" "rebranding" campaign. But until that bankruptcy plan is done and BSA emerges from bankruptcy, nothing was going to happen.

And just what the heck does THAT mean? That Scout Executives are trying to bleed BSA? Their Councils?

And what exactly does "war" look like? What does a "win" look like? Let's game that out. 1) BSA, through I don't know let's say Mosby, declares that this bankruptcy is a "war" of BSA vs. the victims (or maybe just the victim's lawyers?) 2) He declares, in no uncertain terms, BSA will...what exactly? Refuse to negotiate or continue with mediation? Withdraw the bankruptcy petition and dare the (thousands) of plaintiffs to sue in court? 3) What does that "win" BSA? A public relations nightmare ("BSA declares war on victims."). A decade, if not more, of lawsuits against National + every Council and CO. It is one thing to demand "War". To demand BSA "Win". Please define the terms.

This is the problem. I truly think that there a lawyers who simply want to get as much money as they can from BSA without killing it. But that's tricky: how much can you bleed out an organization before you kill it? Then there's another crew (Kosnoff) that want BSA dead and are fine with that. I still remain convinced that BSA National walks away from this an empty shell with little to no assets. And in 3-5 years BSA might be dead for good because it got bled out too much.

Back in early January my Council Key-3 had a Council-status Zoom open house. One thing mentioned was this. That a "formula" or "algorithm" was being put together for Councils to determine how much they had to pay. One of the variables: likelihood of the state will reopen the SOL. If there little to no probably that it will happen, that council will presumably pay less.

That has already been handed over. They know all the COs. They know all the Councils. They know it all. One of the reasons why every Methodist church filed a claim against BSA is that they plan on trying to dump all liability on BSA. But yes, the Kosnoff et al crew want BSA, then the Councils, then the COs. They want to lay waste to everything.

I understand. My point is that your specific experience is not going to matter (or matter much) when, in the aggregate, parents and scouts are losing out. I have no doubt yours was/is a horrible experience. I am trying to say that your laying it out will not in anyway provide a response, or a sufficient one, for many/most at this point. What they see is their scout unit is gone. What they see is their CO refusing to recharter them. What they see is their dues skyrocketing. What they see is their son/daughter losing out. And your story, as tragic as it may be, is not going to be enough of a response as to why all these bad things are happening and why SOLs should be extended, up to (and possibly including) the liquidation and destruction of BSA.

And yet, that ship has sailed. Civil litigation in this arena is here to stay.

There's no need. I mean that in the nicest way. 1) People upset at the prospect of THEIR kid having to lose camp or THEIR chartered organization refusing to recharter are simply not going to see why things that happened 3-4 decades ago a) need to be paid for now and b) why the debt is being pay through their kid's suffering. It isn't going to be any comfort to explain that "Well, the corporate entity called Boy Scouts of America is who is on the hook here." All they see is their kid, losing scouting. Sidenote: How much of the catastrophic loss in BSA is due to a) LDS leaving b) general declines in ALL such programs like 4-H and GSUSA c) general disgust at BSA for being "too liberal" (allowing girls in) d) general disgust at BSA being associated with sexual abuse e) COVID and f) the actual bankruptcy is WAY too confusing and complex to explain how each overlapping factor plays out and to what extent. "The lawyers and their clients are lying about events from 40 years ago to get money from my kid." is simple, elegant, and completely (or almost completely) wrong. But it can be explained in under 4 seconds and processed just as easy. 2) Trying to explain, debate, and balance the societal benefits/detriments to extending SOL for sexual abuse claims in general, and for victims in particular, is too complicated and nuanced. If I can't explain this to a den leader in under 90 seconds (which I can't, no one can), they are going to default to item #1: my kid/my scout is getting screwed. 3) The positions are already locked in. Those in favor of SOL windows for BSA are already locked in. There's no "persuadable" here and, because it isn't like this is going to be on a ballot anywhere, there's no need to persuade the general public. Just get members of the legislature to your side, and you get the SOL lookback window. When the corporation is manufacturers of asbestos, or Agent Orange, or something like that, people don't care. It is too far removed (sure, some stockholder somewhere down the line might see their stock price drop. Boo hoo). But what people see now is "my kid's CO refuses to recharter because they are scared of being sued into oblivion," FORGET that even if the CO removed the Troop in 2021, they are STILL (possibly) liable for abuse in 1975. They are in full blow panic here. The Diocese of Dallas at this point has removed ALL BSA units and will now only allow them rental agreements. There are LOTS of units losing, LOTS of scouts losing, LOTS of families, TODAY. Nothing you can say is going to persuade. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

I believe the concern is that it creates an automatic payment system. Based on many interactions with people here and elsewhere, there's an assumption that SOL lookback windows simply mean that 1) Cheats, crooks, and liars will make up stories about events from far enough back (30+ years) that the individuals involve have forgotten and/or dead. 2) That said cheats, crooks, and liars upon filing a suit (or claim) will instantly be 100% believed, unquestioned (or unquestionable since, as noted, all others parties are forgotten and/or dead) and handed a bag full of money. 3) That this weighs too heavily toward punishing institutions vs. individuals. The Scoutmaster who sexually abused a scout in, say, 1954 is by this point 90+ years old and/or dead. BSA, the Council, and the CO, however, because of being perpetual are on the hook entirely and, apparently, eternally. 4) This punishes scouts. Consider the asbestos lawsuits. To this day, they are ongoing. The entities that have to pay are corporations, therefore the only people being harmed are shareholders and investors all of whom are adults (I suppose a child can own stock, but that's a minor point). And the Catholic Church? Sure, the diocese may be hit, but the financial and programmatic damage done is on adults who pay into the collection plate. For many here, SOL "reform" means young men and women TODAY losing their camps TODAY for things that happened 1-2 LIFETIMES ago. They are losing their units (who won't be rechartered after COs walked away). Their opportunities. I had one parent tell me "Why should my kid pay for some pedo 50 years ago?" Now, from a purely legal standpoint you can say "only the incorporated entity called Boy Scouts of America, Inc. is being forced to pay" or "only the incorporated entity called "XYZ Council, Inc. is being harmed". But a) the perception is there that little Johnnie and Janie Cub Scout's popcorn fundraising is going straight to the alleged victims (who, again per item #1 above are assumed to often be liars, cheats, and crooks looking to make a buck) and b) the reality is that with the talk of 95,000 claims and folks like Kosnoff just ITCHING to liquidated BSA National and go after Councils and COs, things are bad and getting worse. Again, if this were a regular corporate entity being forced to pay damages for actions taken 40+ years ago it would be one thing (asbestos suits, Agent Orange, etc.) But BSA isn't a regular corporate entity. The rationale part of me, the part that can work my head around the law on this gets it: because corporations are perpetual they also have to suffer from wrongs done decades ago when SOLs are extended. But the sympathetic part of me is torn between wanting to help victims and watching Councils holding firesales for camps and being forced to make massive payments for actions DECADES ago. It is the same part that can understand when parents and leaders come back and ask over and over: why are WE paying? Why is MY scout suffering? "Why should my kid pay for some pedo 50 years ago?"