CynicalScouter

On the tower issue, someone recently in a FB group posted the exact OSHA rule that BSA adopted for no-towers-over-6-feet. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.502

The point is pure liability; the lawyers will simply swarm if/when a scout falls and injures themselves with something over 6 feet (the OSHA standard).

Towers is actually a safety rule. BSA (or their lawyers) adopted the OSHA standard for workplace safety, namely, you cannot have a situation in which a person can fall more than 6 feet without a fall restraint system or something similar.

This is the rule. Now, I would guess enforcement at the unit level = 0%. I know my unit obeys, but otherwise, 0%

Family camping reiterates that while parents and siblings may be present, they still tent alone. YPT remains in effect. And if there's no Cub Scouts present, then Family Camping doesn't apply. Family Camping is explicitly LIMITED to events with Cub Scout units or Cub Scouts. Since the original poster talked "Troops" this doesn't even apply. https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/safety-moments/family-camping/

The official answer from BSA National is this: NO (unless the scout is in Cub Scouts). There is no gray area here. Source: https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/ https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/yp-faqs/

The reason why the standard is 33% is because of the nature of contingency. The lawyer who takes on a client takes a risk that they will not be able to recover at all. Remember: if the lawyer takes a case and loses, they get 0%. In pursuing a case, the lawyer takes all the risk. For every "windfall" case, there's literally THOUSANDS in which the plaintiff's lawyer LOSES. But this gets beyond the issue of Chapter 11 and BSA and the reasons why attorneys use contingency at all.

And yet the councils will have to contribute to the victim's fund and if Kosnoff et al can convince the courts that the Councils are really just appendages of National, all Council assets go on the table.

Nope, they are still fighting over it. There's never to my knowledge been a final report on the value of the HA bases. And Plaintiffs are claiming BSA has $667 million in assets it needs to put on the table

1) No one was required to have a lawyer to file a claim. Many people however opted to do so. So because they hired and attorney, that makes them what, evil? Liars? Not victims? As for why hire a lawyer, because a) they have every right to (are you saying now people shouldn't have the right to hire their own lawyers?) and b) they are not at ALL familiar with how the legal process works. 2) Then name your number. What do you believe is the "correct" amount for a lawyer to be compensated in abuse cases. 1%? 3) That's not how abuse cases (or any tort case in general) works. Money may not be the perfect remedy to the abuse these people suffered, but here in the U.S. it is what they are entitled to under law. Saying "we'll offer counseling, but nothing for your pain and suffering" isn't going to cut it. It is called compensatory damages.

That's what the court (or the victim's compensation claims adjuster approved by the court) will determine: claim validity AND claim severity. Are you somehow under the (mistaken) impression that anyone who filed a claim is getting money, no questions asked? The point is that the court will create a victims claims fund and that the claims will be reviewed/vetted to determine validity. Now, how about you answer my questions. 1) Are you saying victims should not be able to hire a lawyer to press their cases or claims? 2) That all lawyers in abuse cases should work pro bono? 3) That victims can hire lawyers and press their cases but should receive no compensation?

So, anecdote. OK. And that is not as you claimed "Every settlement". It was what one person/firm told you one time. But ok. As for the rest, yes it is a horrible tragedy what was/is gong to happen/has happened to BSA financially. But it was a bigger, more horrible one that the victims went through. But let's game this out. 1) Are you saying victims should not be able to hire a lawyer to press their cases or claims? 2) That all lawyers in abuse cases should work pro bono? 3) That victims can hire lawyers and press their cases but should receive no compensation? What is your desired end state, given that at least SOME if not MANY of these people have valid claims?

Source? The HIGHEST I ever, EVER heard was 40% (complex civil litigation). The standard is 33%. I'd love to know where this 50% number came from

That has sorta been what I figured the outcome will be. BSA National is left a hollow shell. Not quite liquidated, but awfully close. It will then take another generation (or two?) to even get back to half of what it once was. But the thing I still cannot figure out is: how much will the Councils be on the hook for? At they going to be gutted, too?

Let's be absurdly charitable here for a second. Of the 95,000 claims, let say only 25% are valid and actionable. 23,750 claims at a "mere" $10,000 per is $237,500,000 (hundreds of millions). Ok. Fine. That is workable. BUT According to BishopAccountability.org, the average settlement for clergy sex abuse victims is approximately $268,000. Now we are talking 6 BILLION. Even for something like Hartford (70.82 billion in assets), that's not pretty.

And that's what the next question/defense would be from the insurers "Your Honor, if we have to pay $5 billion, we are going to be filing bankruptcy next." And that's why Kosnoff et al. push for seizing Council assets.

Right, we are still a year in and, to my knowledge, there are some major questions still pending 1) I do not believe the court ever ruled on the question of whether Council assets can be considered National's for purposes of the bankruptcy. The argument (that the independence of Councils is a fiction and that National controls) was I don't think ever settled. 2) The number of victims. As the article noted, at the time of the original bankruptcy filing there was only ~1675 claims ("275 lawsuits and told insurers it was aware of another 1,400 claims"). Obviously with 95,000 claims we are light-years beyond 1675. But that leads to... 3) The Insurance Companies. How much are they willing to pay? Able to pay? If they can get the judge to agree in/around April to the terms of an agreement, then May's Annual Meeting becomes the roll out of the "new" BSA. They've already said many times they plan on a new marketing and branding campaign, etc. Of course, the other possibility is this drags, BSA keeps losing cash, and by summer is out of money.

https://scouting-org.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAkdO2hqzwuHt0JdFsDL7FlbWU5Qqvi76pM This Q&A session is great for all Scouts BSA leaders – including Senior Patrol Leaders – to focus on implementing the Methods of Scouting in your Troop. We will cover the following topics: • Local Council Time extension request • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion status • Troop operations during COVID-19 • Preparing for new Scouts To give your questions top priority, please email them to family.scouting@scouting.org by February 22nd . When submitting question please identify yourself as a youth or adult. All questions will be answered, either during our live presentation or later. Space is limited for the live event; a recording will be sent to all who register. We look forward to hearing from you and speaking with you soon Time Feb 25, 2021 07:00 PM in Central Time (US and Canada)

I will tell you that the one place this came up for me was American Red Cross First Aid and the First Aid Merit Badge. There are instructors in our area, registered as MBCs with Council, who will run the scouts through the American Red Cross First Aid AND pick up the few items not included in ARC that are required for the merit badge. THAT is fine because the merit badge counselor is seeing for himself/herself the "demonstrate" and "show". Two birds, one stone.

The answer is: MBC decides whether the scout has met the requirements or not and they would be within their rights to ask for a re-demonstration; there are NINE different references to "demonstrate" and TWO "show". If the MBC says "demonstrate TO ME" or "show TO ME" they have every right to do so. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/merit_badge_reqandres/lifesaving.pdf

First, welcome and thank you for your support of scouting! Second, the rule is that the BSA Field Uniform may be worn a) by any registered adult or youth with Boy Scouts of America or its programs (Scouts, BSA) b) during activities that are meant to advance the Aims and Purposes of Scouting. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33066/33066_Excerpts_From_The_Rules_And_Regulations_WEB.pdf So, if you are only volunteering, no. If you are volunteering AND REGISTERED, yes.

One tid bit worth noting. BSA has made it clear they are NOT going to mandate a vax.

I have watched in shocked horror as Scouters post to Facebook and elsewhere their units running around without masks. When it is pointed out that BSA has as an official policy masks must be worn, they laugh. "Fake News"

Either its legit and we are going to get DEI announced real soon... Or they are jumping the gun and National's going to be clipping some wings way, way back. Especially with something this sensitive that they already had to delay once. If that is the case, I would NOT want to be that SE.

https://www.scoutingevent.com/620-mmbmdi Looks like it is official now.