CynicalScouter

One item that my unit's exploring with the new Scoutbook change is the practice of having summer/winter camp or merit badge mills cross-checked. I should start by saying my SM doesn't say no (any more) when scouts indicate they want to go to the merit badge weekends after it was pointed out that SM's cannot veto MBCs ahead of time. Still, he hates them with the passion of a thousand suns. Too many times he's asked scouts at the SM sign off what they did/learned and he gets blank stares. What he is considering after I told him of the Scoutbook change, however, is that starting February 1 he is going to run the name of the MBC against Scoutbook. If they person's not listed, he's filing GtA 7.0.4.7 recourse claims. That should end the practice of some of these camps/weekends of people who are not even registered as MBCs (or MBCs for that badge) from signing off. Of course what I suspect will then happen is that councils and camps will just register all the camp counselors to be MBCs for all MBs offered, regardless of whether they are qualified or not.

Many councils are moving to this: not only must MBCs be YPT/registered they also have to be position trained (the 35 minute course on training.scouting.org) I expect that will be the next wave of unregistered MBCs going below ground (or staying there). But it also upend MBCs. MBCs are suppose to be a) district positions that are d) district recruited and c) subject matter experts. Not already burdened unit leaders pressed into service. Of course, that ship already sailed...

A partial update to this: So, this caused a mini-panic in my council as dozens of unregistered MBCs started coming out of the woodwork. The result was two fold. 1) MOST people I've heard from are trying to do the right thing and get registered/get the paperwork in. Of course Council is already flooded trying to do unit recharters, this won't help. But hey, at least they are trying to come into compliance. 2) At least two units I know of are taking the "Screw National" approach and either a) going to keep using their unregistered MBCs and use paper blue cards or b) the MBCs themselves are balking at having to fill out the paperwork/take YPT ("takes too long/I have no time for this"). So, yeah.

Yep. Kosnoff and his folks want BSA dead and if they can't get the court to order it (liquidation) they'll get the court to gut shoot the organization and let it bleed out over the course of the next 2-3 years at which point BSA is right back in bankruptcy.

Right, and I suspect the court is going to consider that. It may very well be this ends in liquidation. I just don't know. I do know it is in no ones interest (except as I said those like Kossnoff who simply want BSA dead).

Here's why liquidation hurts plaintiffs who want money, not vengeance. Folks like Kosnoff want BSA dead, liquidated, and gone. That's great on the "vengeance" side, but it is lousy in terms of maximizing the amount of any Victims Settlement pool. Let's play with some numbers. Right now, there are $4.3 BILLION in claims against BSA. BSA has total assets of $600 million to $1 billion (depending on who you ask and how you count it). In the event of liquidation, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is first at the trough and eats whatever of that $600 million is needed for the pension (which according to the latest 990 is about $9 million a year) To fully fund the BSA pension might take $270 million ($9 million a year for 30 years). $600-$270 = $330. So, almost half of whatever the plaintiffs want in terms of a victims compensation fund walks out the door. Much better for BSA to survive and fund a victims compensation fund for $100 million a year for a few years.

No, either way their pensions are covered. BSA liquidates: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation steps in, gathers up whatever money is needed to fund the pensions, and the plaintiffs and their attorneys fight for scraps. BSA reorganizes: The pensions remain insured by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Plaintiffs try to figure out how much of BSA they can carve out without outright killing it.

No. It means that in the event of liquidation, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the federal agency responsible for insuring pension plans) goes to the top of the list of creditors and will be given/assigned sufficient money to fund the pensions of current and former BSA staff. Whatever is left gets picked over by plaintiff's counsel.

Right, this is why my Council Key-3 told us: the plaintiffs (or most) WANT a settlement that leaves BSA alive. Liquidation means Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation comes to protect the BSA retiree/pensioners and they re first in line and plaintiffs/their attorneys get the scraps of whatever is left, which won't be much.

I think and I'd want clarity here there are three options. 1) BSA stays out of this, files nothing for or against insurance companies motions. The problem is that the media can and already has tarred BSA with "Denying victims" when it is the insurance companies making the argument. 2) File briefs in support of insurance company motions to reject/disqualify claimants. 3) BSA is somehow compelled by the court to file its statement for or against. I know sometimes the court has the power to ask for other party's input generally.

No. It is an honorific, nothing more, as the Congressional Research Service alluded to. And it is an anachronism All a Congressional Charter does it authorize the entity to operate/do business. This is like arguing that you should be able to sue the Secretary of State of Delaware anytime a Delaware incorporated entity is a defendant in a lawsuit. Today we think of incorporation as this easy thing to do. In early U.S. history corporations had to be chartered by the legislature one-by-one. (There's an old story about how Alexander Hamilton pulled a fast one on the New York legislature when he incorporated the Bank of New York and included language "or for any other lawful purpose" and use that as an excuse to build a water system that would never have otherwise been approved). Most states have at this point enacted state laws of general incorporation. Go to the state's Secretary of State, pay your fee, file some paperwork and POOF you have an incorporated entity. The federal government has no such thing, thus federally incorporated entities must still be incorporated one-by-one by Congress.

We don't know because it has never been done before. There's never been a bankruptcy of a Congressional Chartered organization. The Congressional Charters that have lapsed have been because the membership ceased to exist. For example the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) was a fraternal organization made up of ALL union veterans from the Civil War. When the last vet died, it ceased operations. The idea is that Boy Scouts of America (the chartered, incorporated entity) will survive with either: a) zero assets (liquidation-in-all-but-name) or b) minimal assets. We know what folks like Kosnoff want (zero assets) but what does the bankruptcy court want/is comfortable with? And the other plaintiffs lawyers?

Plan Z of course being Zombie Apocalypse which has moved from "laughable" to "well, maybe"....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-liability-insurers-challenge-sex-abuse-claim-mining-11611575995 Boy Scouts’ Liability Insurers Challenge Sex-Abuse ‘Claim-Mining’ Key quotes from the plaintiffs lawyers And

This is coming from the Insurance Companies, not BSA/National or the Councils. This will be the absolute key to the entire thing. Only two options I see. 1) Try to get these claims tossed. This is dangerous for two reasons. First, if they are not settled NOW and someday the state(s) involved open up a look-back window, the claims get revived and the insurance companies, National, and the Council(s) are on the hook. Second, if BSA supports this motion the media campaign will be "BSA fights against victims." 2) BSA accepts the claims (even if the insurance companies won't pay out) and offers some kind of compensation. That's tricky.

In our Council I think the final tally is going to be 25% of Cub units not rechartering with a total of 35% of Cubs not coming back. A lot of "for now". As for crossovers; in my district I am seeing NO crossovers out-of-CO. So, all of Pack 123 is going to Troop 123 whereas in the past maybe 1-2 scouts from Pack 123 would have gone to Troop 456. If you don't have a feeder pack it was always tough, This is going to make it doubly so.

Yes. And the point was that units were just going on and finding their own people (no problem with that) and then not having them properly registered/background checked/YPT compliance. If a unit wants to go out and recruit their own MBCs, whatever. Have at it. But what they should NOT be doing is circumventing the YPT/criminal background checks because they just couldn't be bothered. Taking away unit's abilities to self-designate MBCs in Scoutbook won't end the practice of unregistered, non-criminal background checked adults having access to scouts. But it is a step in that direction and that's a good thing. Again, have we learned nothing from the abuse scandals?

No. Scoutbook allowed units to name ANYONE an MBC. This was a residual aspect of Scoutbook; it was originally a UNIT management tool. BSA just bought it and is attaching it to Scoutnet piece by piece. As such, the unit management software allowed units to identify certain people as MBCs. The example was this. 1) Troop 123 has a scout that wants to earn Reading Merit badge BUT they have no reading MBC. 2) Troop 123's scout reaches out (after getting a blue card of course and the name from the SM) to Troop 456's Reading Merit Badge counselor based on the list the SM got from district/council. 3) Troop 123's advancement chair, scoutmaster, whomever then "links" the Troop 456 MBC to the scout. That grants limited access (approval of the MBC). What units found out was that they could designate ANYONE they wanted as an MBC and skip the "based on the list the SM got from district/council" part. That flaw was kept when Scoutbook was bought by BSA and BSA is now fixing it so units will have no ability to do this anymore AND it will integrate with Scoutnet to confirm the MBC a) is registered and b) YPT compliant.

Yep. Guide to Advancement specifically contemplates this. What has been happening, however, is that units are too lazy or couldn't be bothered to get these people registered and YPT trained. Instead,, they are just putting people into Scoutbook and pushing ahead. That will stop, at least the Scoutbook part. Sadly, I suspect this will simply push the unregistered MBCs further underground.

Great! Here's the depth and reason: If they are held out as working with scouts on behalf of or as part of a Scouting program, they need to be registered, criminal background checked, and YPT trained. If NOT for the sake of the scouts and to prevent them from being abused (you do care about that right?) then to ensure we don't get a new generation of lawsuits and liability for units, councils, and national. Have we learned NOTHING from the sexual abuse scandal? At all?

This is NOT going to stop the practice units have of off-the-books MBCs without YPT, but I hope it mnimzies. And if someone gets dropped, then the answer is that they get YPT updated ASAP. Fingers crossed there would be a system where Scoutnet determines someone's YPT is, say, 3 months from expiring they get an auto-generated email alert.

My #1 concern is that the people holding themselves out as MBCs (and their troops holding themselves out as MBCs) are registered, criminally background checked, and YPT cleared. I don't give a darn how "competent" they are, if they cannot (or will not) get a criminal background check I don't want then around Scouting youth. Protecting scouts from abuse is a little more then "officiousness". You agree, yes?

I am so glad this is happening. I cannot tell you the number of MBCs in other units I've learned of where the Key-3 just made some random person a MBC in the Scoutbook system and allowed these unregistered (and therefore no criminal background check) people access to scouts. https://discussions.scouting.org/t/removing-unregistered-merit-badge-counselors-from-scoutbook/218461

NJ's entire unemployment system basically collapsed during COVID because no one knows COBOL anymore. When did they discover this was going to be a problem? July 2003. https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/05/nj-failed-to-fix-unemployment-system-for-19-years-records-show-now-murphy-pleads-patience.html

Yep. And oversee a $500,000-$1,000,000 budget and 8-12 employees (assume a mid-size Council). For $43,000 a year.