CynicalScouter

10 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

The survey gives you a 2,000 character comment box for each recommendation that you'd like to comment on.  No canned responses.

But they set the recommendation. They only want to hear what they want to hear.

And as I recall the last time a survey was done (insta-palms?) the results were ignored and/or hidden.

They.

Don't.

Care.

32 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

BUT, what would BSA have told insurance companies

"We have files full of people we bounced out due to child abuse/pedophilia."

Had they admitted and specified, rather than hid, the insurance premiums would have been higher.

2 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Hard to make recommendations when we have no idea how these changes will be implemented. 

Right. Like this

Quote

Establish minimum standards to be considered a council.

Sure, I might support that if there were meaningful, measurable metrics used for the minimums.

If, however, the standards are "amount raised for national", not so much.

And here comes the backpedaling.

And a survey (in which they do not allow you to offer new ideas, just want you to approve theirs).

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

I have no doubt that the executives lied.  They still lie.  They lie all the time.  Regardless of what the executives did or did not tell the insurance companies, the insurance companies knew about it.  They always knew about it.  Everyone knew.

Even though the money is important, it is even more important that the insurance companies be made to acknowledge that they knew about it.  It is infuriating that people are still insisting that they didn't know.  Everyone knew.

How would the insurance companies have know if Scouts National leaders were lying to the insurance companies? You can say "everyone knew" but looking back we now know: no, not "everyone knew".

10 minutes ago, David CO said:

I know that this is what they are arguing.  I also know that they will probably get away with it.  But that doesn't mean it is true.  If the pedophile problem was a secret, then it was a very open secret.  Everybody knew.

It sounds a lot like the war crimes trials.  Everybody claimed they didn't know.  It happened right in front of their faces, but everyone denied having seen it.

Here's a copy of National's lawsuit against the insurance companies. Note the timeframe: the policies date to the 1970s.

You seem to be under the impression that the premiums were paid "for years". That isn't how this worked. National signed insurance agreements with them EACH YEAR. So this isn't "years of premiums". The question is, for example, in 1971 did National sign the insurance agreement for that year and nevertheless withhold info?
The insurance companies are claiming (rightly probably) that National knew but did NOT tell the insurance companies when the policies were signed back then.

And given National's action/reaction, I fully believe they knew and opted NOT to tell the insurance companies in 1970s.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION.pdf

7 minutes ago, David CO said:

We paid for insurance.  The insurance premiums were supposed to pay for any settlements.  As it turns out, the insurance policies were worthless.  The insurance companies collected the premiums for many years, but now they won't pay out.  The obvious solution is for the courts to make the insurance companies pay for the settlements.

Two reasons:

1) Some of the policies covered accidents. This was not an accident.

2) The policies were based on Boy Scouts NOT withholding information from the insurance companies. The Insurance companies are claiming, in effect, that Boy Scouts failed to fully disclose therefore the insurance agreements are void.

Quote

 

Insurers Balk

It’s also in court with its insurance companies, which argue that they shouldn’t have to pay claims related to abuse that the Scouts could have reasonably prevented. BSA and several councils sued the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and First State Insurance Co. in Texas for $13.5 million in June, after the insurers argued that BSA’s own records showed the organization hadn’t done enough to warn or protect kids. These weren’t unrelated incidents, according to the insurers, but all the result of the organization’s failure to warn parents of the risk.

 

In a different legal dispute, insurers are refusing to pay for sex-abuse settlements and legal defense fees, arguing that the events weren’t accidents, or even unforeseen.

“We have a social and moral responsibility to fairly compensate victims who suffered abuse during their time in Scouting, and we also have an obligation to carry out our mission to serve youth, families and local communities,” Surbaugh said in his statement. “At no time in our history have we knowingly allowed a sexual predator to work with youth, and we always seek to act swiftly when alerted to abuse allegations.”

 

21 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Then again, all of those people are older than me, many are probably deceased, and some may themselves have been victims.

Part of the problem is this: those people are not being sued. This is a suit against the corporate entity called Boy Scouts of America.

If this was a lawsuit/bankruptcy against say XYZ Corp. that makes widgets, the people who lose out there are shareholders and other unsecured creditors. If the widgets were defective or harmed people, the worst case scenario is XYZ Corp goes bankrupt, the shareholders and unsecured creditors are up a creek without a paddle, and the secured and other creditors get to pick at the carcass. The CEO and other executives of XYZ corp would have no personal liability, and neither would be other people who bought XYZ Corp widgets.

This is the problem with trying to keep a charity/not-for-profit running post bankruptcy. If the organization does good, the court is NOT going to want to outright kill it. But the fact is that Boy Scouts of America is an incorporated entity, which means that it "owns" the liability, especially since states repealed, relaxed, or opened up their statute of limitations on abuse.

Most online ads have nothing whatsoever to do with the site owners preferences and therefore, the answer is no.The way ads are offered up is one of three ways:

1) The ad company's automated system scans the site, sees what words the site uses, and matches ads. It is why for example so many ads about the Scouts lawsuit appear on this page. Lots of politics gets discussed on Issues & Politics. The ad company's algorithm then thinks "lots of political talk on this page/website, better send along the ads tagged/keyword politics."

2) The ad company scans your browsing history (the cookies in your browser or IP tracing) and offers you ads. Search Amazon for widgets and then come to this site. Odds are, you'll get offered some ads for either a) Amazon or b) widgets

3) Mass blasts. It is election season and the ad companies are getting lots of political ads. There's no algorithm (1) or search logic (2) you will simply get more political ads because there are more political ads being purchased and therefore have to be placed on websites.

So no, generally speaking when a website owner enters into an agreement with an ad company to put their ads on the website, they have no control over ad content.

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

A settlement like that makes a lot more sense for the tobacco companies than it would for BSA.  Some people will smoke regardless of the cost.  I don't think people will continue to join and support BSA if they know that they would be spending their hard-earned money (for the next 25 years) to pay off a lawsuit.  There are plenty of other youth activities available that aren't encumbered with long-term debt.

If true, and I think you may be right, then plaintiffs lawyers are back to plan #1: take 10 cents on the dollar today.

I still believe in the end National limps away from this and is not liquidated but is simply a shadow of itself with minimal staffing and barely any real support. Everything shifts to the Councils which creates a whole other mess but that's another story.

I will also say one more thing: Simply because SOME plaintiffs lawyers want to nuke Boy Scouts does NOT mean a) that is what ALL plaintiffs attorneys want and b) they can or will get a judge to sign off. There seems to be a misunderstanding that one particular plaintiffs attorney will get whatever he wants from the judge. That is simply not a given.

Moreover, as I pointed out, there is a presumption AGAINST forced conversion into a liquidation. Especially if they are trying to compensation to victims. I can see a situation where National and plaintiffs reach an agreement like the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement where every year for the next 25 years National will deposit from its revenues a certain amount into a Victims Fund to pay out victims. Failure to make such a payment then converts from the Chapter 11 to the Chapter 7.

From a victim's perspective and the judge's, which would you rather have: 10 cents on the dollar TODAY (which is what they would get if they completely liquidated National) or 80-90 cents on the dollar over the course of the next, say, 20 years.

On 7/14/2020 at 4:52 PM, Eagle1993 said:

When I heard 10,000 plaintiffs I begin to wonder if this goes Chapter 7 vs 11.  If Chapter 11 results in a settlement that is too low, I wonder if the judge is able to push this into Chapter 7 and liquidate everything.  I hope not … but that number was large and scary.  Perhaps that was the point to push for a large settlement.

Yes, if push comes to shove the judge can convert but not simply because the settlement is too low but because the payments aren't being made OR because the debtor is acting in bad faith OR in the "best interests of creditors and the estate." 11 U.S. Code § 1112. Conversion or dismissal

 

Quote

“The Code does not define the phrase ‘best interests of creditors and the estate.’” 7
Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1112.04[7]. As a result, courts have indicated various reasons for
choosing conversion and rejecting dismissal. Courts have considered “prejudice to creditors” to
be a proper reason for a bankruptcy court’s refusal to dismiss a chapter 11 case. See id.; Matter
of Atlas Supply Corp., 857 F.2d 1061, 1063 (5th Cir. 1988) (“If dismissal would prejudice the
creditors, then it will ordinarily be denied.”). Misconduct of the debtor, i.e., debtor actions that
delay creditors’ ability to collect their claims or otherwise protect their interests, also warrants
conversion rather than dismissal. See In re Simmons, 200 F.3d 738, 743 (11th Cir. 2000)
(“When dismissal will only allow the Debtor to hinder creditors, secret[e] assets, and further the
Debtor’s abuse of the system, dismissal or her voluntary petition is not warranted.”); In re
Picacho Hills Utility Co., Inc., 518 B.R. 75, 80 (Bankr. N.M. 2014) (finding the need for a
“neutral, unbiased trustee” to investigate transfers favored conversion rather than dismissal); In
re FL. Invest. USA, Inc., No. 13-10814, 2013 WL 4039807, at *5 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Aug. 7,
2013); see also 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1112.04[7] (“In [choosing between conversion and
dismissal], the court may consider such factors as . . . whether the debtor had engaged in
misconduct and whether creditors are in need of a chapter 7 case to protect their interests.”).
Collier also lists “whether the debtor would simply file a further case upon dismissal” as a reason
to convert rather than dismiss. 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1112.04[7].

EDIT: Additional reasons for (forced) conversion of a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7. In re Costa Bonita Beach Resort, 513 B.R. 184, 200-01 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2014) (quoting Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1112.04[7] (16th ed. 2011))

Quote

 (1) whether some creditors received preferential payments, and whether equality of distribution would be better served by conversion rather than dismissal;

(2) whether there would be a loss of rights granted in the case if it were dismissed rather than converted;

(3) whether the debtor would simply file a further case upon dismissal;

(4) the ability of the trustee in a chapter 7 case to reach assets for the benefit of the creditors;

(5) in assessing the interests of the estate, whether conversion or dismissal would maximize the estate's value as an economic enterprise;

(6) whether any remaining issues would be better resolved outside the bankruptcy forum;

(7) whether the estate consists of a "single asset;"

(8) whether the debtor had engaged in misconduct and whether creditors are in need of a chapter 7 case to protect their interests;

(9) whether a plan had been confirmed and whether any property remains in the estate to be administered; and

(10) whether the appointment of a trustee is desirable to supervise the estate and address possible environmental and safety concerns.

14 hours ago, mashmaster said:

That will be going out on Scouting Wire, and probably in Bryan on Scouting, so keep an eye there, but we'll post a link here as soon as we see it. That was supposed to have gone out earlier this week, but consensus is hard and is taking some time to get right.

The leaked document I found on reddit was shown to all BSA staff was released as a definitive document. Not a draft. Now with all the pushback, they are having to backpedal and get their story straight.

This does not inspire confidence.

First, welcome.

Second, you need to speak to your charter organization's legal counsel. This is a very, very delicate thing and the answer is going to depend on who is the legal parent or guardian of that scout. If you withhold information from that scout's legal parent or guardian, you put your troop and the chartered organization at legal risk.

It may be that this

Quote

the father was the one who signed him up with scouts and has been the parent/guardian on record for as long as this scout has been with our troop

answers the question. But it may not if you do not know for sure who is the legal parent/guardian of record.

EDIT: One more note. Depending on your state's guardianship laws, even if the grandparent has been named the scout's legal guardian, you still may not be allowed to simply deprive the parent of information regarding the child's whereabouts.

Quote

the grandparent doesn't want the father to be able to have access to the scout's account information or scouting events

All the more reason your chartered organization's legal counsel needs to be brought into this. NOW.

3 hours ago, NYCScouter said:

I have read all the Guidebook Literature and looked at a number of Scouter Forum discussions and there doesn't appear to be any official method for removal of a Chartered Org Rep (COR), and replacing them with someone who actually does the job as defined in the Guidebook. Any guidance on this from some Troop that has experienced this problem out there?

The head of the chartered organization, referred to in Scouting literature as the "executive officer." These may sometimes be the same person. "The Chartered Organization Representative (COR), who will be appointed by the Chartered Organization."

See the Chartered Organization Representative Guidebook.

As for how, the only way I've seen it done has been to offer up a new person. Simply going to the Chartered Org itself or the EO thereof and complaining never, ever, ever works. What I have seen work is "Hey COR thanks for your service, would you be interested in letting so and so have a chance?" or easing the person out with a replacement already picked.
Remember: the COR was put there by the Chartered Org. You have to in effect convince the Chartered Org was wrong in the first place or is wrong now to keep this person around AND that someone else is willing to step up. I know at lots of units whose COR remains only because no one else wants the position/is scared of the position.

14 minutes ago, BAJ said:

At a recent Roundtable, there was mention that National was running a budget deficit currently above $100 million.

Not sure where that is coming from, is there a source?

9 hours ago, ValleyBoy said:

 If this dollar amount is not raised council has stated the unit will not be recharter for 2022.

Ok, I have not been around scouting that long, but I have never, ever, ever heard of a council demanding certain dollar figures being raised or else no recharter.

Council fees are one thing, can't do anything about that I'm afraid National allows them to be directly tie to recharter. But mandatory targets for fundraising? No way.

No, but National's ability to issue council charters is. And I cannot think of ANY bankruptcy I ever heard of where the court ordered the chartered entity to relinquish their congressional charter (and I looked).

Remember: they filed a Chapter 11 (reorganization) not a Chapter 7 (liquidation). You might have an argument that National surrendered its ability to function entirely with a Chapter 7, but that is not what it happening.

22 minutes ago, David CO said:

Woohoo.  I guess this means I am even more cynical than CynicalScouter.  That's quite an achievement!  

Not cynicism as much as legal; in other words I think the plaintiffs would like it, but I cannot find a legal basis that would force a Congressionally chartered organization to return their charter to Congress. In other words, yes, plaintiffs will drain national and the councils dry of funds, but not utterly shut them down.

This goes back to the Dale lawsuit when certain members of Congress tried to revoke the Scouts Charter. During the debates the argument was that a) the organization could return its charter to Congress b) all applicable members of the chartered organization die (e.g. Grand Army of the Republic, United Spanish War Veterans, Veterans of World War I of the United States) or c) Congress could revoke the charter it BUT a court couldn't do so.

44 minutes ago, David CO said:

 I believe BSA and most of the councils will be wiped out by the bankruptcy.  They won't exist anymore...What were the minimum standards for a council back when BSA first started? 

I do not see a bankruptcy judge approving any plan which results in the elimination of National in its entirety, forcing the organization to return its charter to Congress, and disbanding/liquidating 200+ councils. It may be what some plaintiffs lawyers want, it does not mean they will get it.

That said, I see a crippled National and 100 mega-merged Councils that may or may not operate cooperatively or well.

As for minimum standard from 1910-1913 there was none. From 1913- they standard was they had to have a charter from National.

2 minutes ago, dkurtenbach said:

Link?

It was in an email to me when I asked for the Churchill reports and an official copy of Scouting Forward: Plan to Lead and not just a screencap.

4 minutes ago, David CO said:

My guess is that all of the endowments will disappear during the bankruptcy.  There is no way the lawyers will leave them intact with your council or any other councils.  Bye bye endowment funds.

My question is about mergers.  Why is a failing council automatically merged into other councils?  If a council fails, why couldn't they let the community form a new council within the same boundaries?  Or maybe the better solution is to break up a failing council into smaller councils.   

Right, that's what the lawyers want: all council assets including endowments. It remains to be seen if they get them.

As for mega-merging, depends on why it failed. For example, when LDS left I know several councils in Utah mega-merged because it made no sense to have a council with 12 units. And breaking a failing council into smaller ones doesn't always make sense either because now you could get a council that is district-size or smaller.
As for letting the community form a new council, I am not sure I understand. The only way that would work (that I can see of) is that a new entity is formed and incorporated (NEW COUNCIL, LLC), any and all staff or board members of OLD COUNCIL, LLC are removed, and all assets of OLD COUNCIL, LLC are transferred to NEW COUNCIL, LLC. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?

National's statement on the leaked documents/screen caps.

Quote

Churchill committee reports were developed and submitted to the National Executive Committee.  Those reports in their entirety are not designed for mass distribution.  The Scouting Forward: Plan to Lead document is not a finalized document nor are all of the Churchill recommendations.  Committees have been formed to look at these recommendations more closely and start to design possible implementation plans and timelines.

Churchill was selected a year ago. According to the presentation at National Annual Meeting, it was chosen because Winston Churchill was a leader in a time of change.

The discussion of the name "Churchill" is at 49:00 in the General Session Video. They 6 committees are "Churchill groups" and their plans are "Churchill projects".

Not national, but other councils, yes.

Alamo Area Council https://www.alamoareabsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AAC-COVID-19-Warning-and-Waiver.pdf

South Texas Council http://southtexasbsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/STCBSA-COVID-19-Warning-and-Waiver_June-2020_fillable.pdf

Daniel Webster Council https://nhscouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Unit-Activty-Meeting-Guidance-2.0.pdf

Great Smokey Mountain Council https://www.easttnscouts.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Camp-Property-COVID-Forms.pdf