CynicalScouter

I'll agree. What I DISagreed with previously was that idea someone came up with Q and A. There lies danger. Every time Mosby speaks anything and everything has to be cleared with lawyers. Did you see his NAM presentation? It looked like a hostage video: he was CLEARLY reading cue cards or notes. A pre-recorded video can be cleared with counsel. A live Q and A not so much.

Yep. And here is my question about the Churchill group. Who selected them? I'm betting the professionals. Was I allowed as mere den leader (at the time) to participate! No! Sit down. Shut up. Run your Bears den. We don't want to hear from you.

You mean the locked down/private FB group? Sigh. What a mess. So the only way to speak to the Chair of the National Cub Scout program/lead volunteer is to a) join a FB group that is NOT at ALL referenced on the official scouting.org website and b) hope the admins let you in? Does NO ONE think that is totally insane? My daughter's in GSUSA. Right here, now, today, I can find the national program lead(s), their photos and emails, and email NOW my questions and concerns. No secret, private Facebook groups required.

Nothing written. No "policy" policy. But if you want in, you pay for that seat.

The price tag I was quoted was that over the course of 3 years of local council service you had to contribute at LEAST the minimum $200 per year for Friends of Scouting AND sufficient funds to make West-Silver ($5000) in that 3 year time period. Basically, $150 a month for every month of board service.

Good for you. I've been told, point blank, no check, no council board seat and given the exact number (which I was expected to give each year of service on the board). It is pay to play. And I get it, LCs need the cash. But let's not pretend that den leader/mom is getting invited to be on a national committee somewhere. It's who-you-know and pay-to-play.

Rubber stamps. As you said: with 70 people, including as the judge noted an enormously LARGE number of lawyers, to have anything approved unanimously is just an indicator no one was paying much attention and deferring to the professional staff to tell them what to do.

Here's what I would personally like to see and I proposed it for the paid professionals half-heartedly because it would likely be a violation of employment law (forced volunteerism) but I 100% believe it a good idea for any volunteer position. Any volunteer member of a council or national board, or committee thereof, but have recorded service in a unit in the prior 3 years defined (per the Registration Guidebook of the Boy Scouts of America) as Chartered Organization Rep (CR) Committee Chair/Committee Member or its functional equivalent in Sea Scouts and Venture (CC, MC) Unit Leader (SM, NL, CM, SK) Assistant Unit Leader CA = Assistant Cub Master, SA = Assistant Scoutmaster, or its functional equivalent in Sea Scouts and Venture Den Leader OR Assistant Den Leader "Volunteers" may run the council, but I bet if you asked the 72 members "when is the last time you performed unit service" most would indicated DECADES ago, if ever.

But unless you are prepared to write big checks or suck up to the right people, you will never be asked to be on any boards, committees, or anything. That's what is frustrated me and others at every level above unit. I want to be involved, I've got ideas on how to improve things, but there is LITERALLY NO WAY to know who to send my idea to. So, let's be clear her: programs, policies, and standards are set by those who are in-good with the professionals. Like right now, today, this second, if I had an idea for how to improve the Arrow of Light year, WHO would I even send that too? Who is the Chair of the National Cub Scout program/lead volunteer? No answer. No way to know Who is the Director of Cub Scout programing? I found a 2017 Scoutingwire article, but who knows if that's still accurate? And there is NO contact information for that person (I can GUESS it is firstname.lastname@scouting.org, but that is a GUESS) https://scoutingwire.org/meet-bsas-new-program-directors-cub-scouts-boy-scouts-venturing/ This website says they exist, but no names, no contact, nothing. https://www.scouting.org/programs/cub-scouts/den-meeting-resources/ In other words, sit down, shut up, mind your own business, don't ask questions, and if we want to hear from you, we'll ask you. And that's just day to day operations. How about the Churchill project? What a disaster that was. Who was allowed to be on it? No answers. Who were the members? No answer. And don't tell me it was about "girls, gays, and transgendered" when they were looking at things like territory structure. Give me a break. This was in-house people mouthing in-house things. And as you may recall, that report NEVER came out officially; instead a leaked Powerpoint picture was the ONLY thing that ever came out thanks to a reddit leak that I found/saw. So, when you say "very involved volunteers" I hear either "big check writers" or "people who are insiders".

It is 100% clear that some board members, whether it is National or Council, are there to write big checks. I remember once, years ago, talking with the dean of my undergrad college about the Board of Trustees and how a famous alumni/actor had been named to the board and what committees he had been assigned to. Curriculum? Budget/finance? He laughed: some board members, he said are more BORED members. I would hazard a guess that many of these folks barely blip/register. Until the bankruptcy I would be they maybe met 2-3 times a year (if that), or conference called in, rubber stamped whatever the Key-3 and professional staff handed them, etc. And the idea isn't necessarily that all 72 need scouting.org emails and need to be checking them. But the notion is that they are 100% UNKNOWABLE aside from some major IRS 990 form sleuthing. That speaks volumes in and of itself. The reason I suspect it will never drop to 1, 8, or 12 is because of that cash-cow aspect. If you're handing out board seats for checks, then reducing board seats means reducing that ability. There's no way that happens. As the judge and lawyers in the case mentioned: 72 directors in the private sector sounds insane, but in not-for-profit world? You board seats are where you get your money, or your money gets you a board seat.

Right now, today, I can find the names and contact information for the leadership of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, the National Organization for Women, and the American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/our-leadership https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/our-staff/ and https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/board-of-directors/ https://prochoice.org/about/mission-leadership/ https://now.org/about/officers/ https://www.aclu.org/officers-board-directors Past a point, safety is an excuse/cop out. I know of NO other organization that has taken a position on "gays, transgenders, and girls" that has 100% shut down any access to information about Board Members and/or senior employees/officials in the way BSA has. NONE. EDIT: Can you name a SINGLE other organization of ANY sort that goes out of its way to NOT list its board members (outside of mandated IRS 990s) or its senior employees? Name ONE.

Depends entirely how "linked" they are. Saw this in a recent FB group supposedly from a high level mucky mucky in BSA. Options on how to organize linked troops: Ashley McEllhiney Steigerwald Scouts BSA Communications Chair. I’m the Scouts BSA Communications Chair. The Scouts BSA Committee is putting together some clarifying documents and guidance for linked troops. Here are a few points I can share… The non-negotiables for a linked unit: You must have a separate Scoutmaster for each troop. Each troop must have their own SPL and youth leadership structure. For any gathering/outing/meeting where girls are present, you must have a registered adult female, YP trained and over the age of 21. Then you have choices about what structure is going to work best for your linked troop. Here are four sample options: 1. Operate as two separate troops with separate troop committees only sharing a common charter organization and charter organization representative (COR). 2. Operate mostly as two separate units who plan, function, and Scout independently. The difference from the option above is that they share a chatering organization, COR, AND they may share a troop committee. 3. Operate as two separate units, but choose to meet on the same night/place and to sometimes go to summer camp, major outings or weekend outings together. Some units may also share ASMs (but never Scoutmasters), they may also share the troop committee. 4. Operate as two separate units who choose to utilize a shared schedule, e.g. going to camp together, taking most outings together, meeting on the same night, and doing opening and closing together. They may share ASMs and a troop committee. Essentially doing as much as they can together but with awareness of adhering to the non-negotiable guidelines.

This raises a point: how transparent is BSA? Try this. 1) We know, based on IRS 990s and the latest filing with the court, that the 72 member NEB includes three relatively unique names: Chookaszian and Dittrick and Desai. Using that data, surely I should be able to find a current roster (or even a 1 year old one, I'm not picky) of the BSA board on scouting.org, right? Well, nope. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascouting.org+Chookaszian+Dittrick+Desai All I get is IRS 990s. 2) Well then maybe it is on scouting wire? Nope. Nothing https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascoutingwire.org+Chookaszian+Dittrick+Desai 3) Well, let's see if Google is having trouble with the sites, it has been known to happen. I'll search for Chookaszian and Dittrick and Desai using the native search feature at both sites. Scouting.org: 1 single page listed - Thank you! Regional Outdoor Chairs Have Offered Resources and Guidance to Local Councils https://www.scouting.org/?s=Chookaszian+and+Dittrick+and+Desai Scoutingwire: 1 single page listed - BSA’s Commitment to Act Against Racial Injustice https://scoutingwire.org/?s=Chookaszian+and+Dittrick+and+Desai 4) Well then maybe I'm a moron. Why not just do a mass search via google for these three names and see what comes up. https://www.google.com/search?q=Chookaszian+Dittrick+Desai Yeah, some IRS tax data and that's it. 5) But @CynicalScouter, why are you so focused on the out of touch NEB? Focus on those BSA employees! I know by pure happenstance that, for example, Garfield Murden is a National Director, Scouts BSA. Surely, if I run the above searches, I'll find Mr. Murden's name in a staff listing showing, for example, the other National Directors or something? Right? Yeah, no. Google search of Scouting.org https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascouting.org+murden No but I found a fax list (???) for BSA that listed SOME top folks, but wrong Murden. Google search of Scoutingwire.org https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascoutingwire.org+murden Native search of Scouting.org https://www.scouting.org/?s=murden Native search of scoutingwire.org https://scoutingwire.org/?s=murden In short and in sum, it is literally impossible to determine who senior leadership is in BSA at either the employee/managerial level OR at the board level (outside of the Key-3: Mosby, Ownby, Sorrells) But @CynicalScouter, you'll say, why so cynical? This is probably STANDARD for similarly situated groups? Yeah, no. Let's pick on GSUSA a second. Same drill. Based on their IRS 990s I am going to find 2-3 board members and employees/officers with unique enough names and search for them on their GSUSA website. Here's the IRS 990 I'll be using https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131624016/202131319349302813/full 1) For BOARD names I'll take: Noorain Khan (Secretary) Jeanmarie C Grisi (Treasurer) and Kathy Hopinkah Hannan (National President) For OFFICER names: Bernice Johnson (VP Procurement), Maureen McNerney (Chief People Officer), and Sapreet Kaur Saluja (Chief Strategic Partnerships & New Ventures Officer) Google search for board members https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agirlscouts.org+Khan+Grisi+Hannan And would you look at that, an entire PAGE dedicated to the board! (NOTE: Grisi and Hannan appear to have cycled off in 2020). https://www.girlscouts.org/en/about-girl-scouts/our-leadership/national-board.html Google search for top executives https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agirlscouts.org+Johnson+McNerney+Saluj Will wonders never cease, there's an entire PAGE dedicated to them, with photos and bios and everything! https://www.girlscouts.org/en/about-girl-scouts/our-leadership/executive-team.htm Let me repeat this back It is literally impossible to determine who senior leadership is in BSA at either the employee/managerial level OR at the board level Now you'll excuse me, I have a sudden hankering for cookies. Don't know why.

Isn't is sad and pathetic that there is absolutely no way to see a list of any of this in scouting.org? I can pull the 2020 board from the IRS 990s and the top/senior officers. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019BSA_Form990_publicdisclosure-1.pdf But right now, on scouting.org, there is no way for me as a unit level leader to see a list of ANYONE other than the National Key-3.

1) Really? That seems counter to what the Bankruptcy rules had. My read is that ANY plan requires either 2/3rds of claimants representing at last 50% of value OR a cramdown. My understanding was that the way Lauria put it the plan was a) Send out the global plan (BSA/LC/CO) and when that goes down in flames, b) order the cramdown. EDIT: Yep. Any plan, toggle, global, toggle plus, whatever = 2/3rds. 2) As for the TCC plan, again my recollection was the Stang had said at a hearing when exclusivity was about to expire that they could put together a plan in two weeks. However, then the RSA showed up. Speculation: Stang's "Toggle plus" (BSA + LCs) became the RSA plan.

I’ve been in three councils and never had this happen. BSA does require units complete a unit fundraising application for council to approve but I have never had to pay a fee or has council take any cut whatsoever. Typically the DE simply looked it over to make sure we weren’t doing anything we were not allowed to (soliciting donations, raffles, etc.) and signed it on the spot. 5 minutes tops. No cuts or fees or whatnot.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to I do recall that during the May hearing the judge brought up the point that the individual current scouts have an interest in seeing scouting survive that is separate and independent and needs to be considered. I interpret her comments not as being “enamored” with BSA but as is recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of scouts in the United States it could potential see their program collapse and that those current children have to be a factor as well as the victims. As for “overwhelming objection”: there is a vast vast difference between 60% of victims voting no (which would be an “overwhelming objection”) and 60% of victims voting yes BUT the plan failing for lack of 66%

My point was to address the issue that his tweets were somehow stopping parents from taking the kids into Scouting. They aren’t. it was not to address the separate issue of how persuasive he is with claimants/clients. I remain convinced he probably does have the ability to ensure no BSA plan gets 2/3rds.

Yeah, that's insane. 72 people?!?!? But this list reminded me of something folks have complained about, that BSA leadership is still in place from when the abuse took place and/or that it had been in place for decades. So, let's take a look. I was able to get from the IRS 990 for the NEB for 2011 and want to compare it today https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/2011Form990.pdf Of the 72 member board, 30 are listed on the IRS 990 form as NEB in 2011. Which means a LOT of the people that drove BSA Into the ditch in the last decade are still driving the bus. 2021 2011 Roster? Howard Bulloch Yes Dennis Chookaszian Yes Keith Clark Yes Kent Clayburn Yes Ron Coleman Yes Phil Condit Yes Rick Cronk Yes John Cushman Yes Douglas Dittrick Yes John Donnell Yes L. B. Eckelkamp Jr. Yes Jack Furst Yes Brett Harvey Yes Aubrey Harwell Yes Lyle Knight Yes Frank McAllister Yes Drayton McLane Yes Skip Oppenheimer Yes Tico Perez Yes Wayne Perry Yes Frank Ramirez Yes Bob Reynolds Yes Jim Rogers Yes Nathan Rosenberg Yes Randall Stephenson Yes Rex Tillerson Yes Jim Turley Yes Steve Weekes Yes Gary Wendlandt Yes Jim Wilson Yes Tanya Acker No Glenn Adams No David Alexander No Lisa Argyros No Bray Barnes No Scott Beckett No David Biegler No Janice Bryant Howroyd No Dan Cabela No Ray Capp No David Clark No Wes Coleman No Joe Crafton No Charles Dahlquist No Devang Desai No Craig Fenneman No Robert Gates No Gordon Gee No John Gottschalk No Jenn Hancock No Ray Johns No Ron Kirk No Dave Moody No Ellie Morrison No Jose Nino No Dan Ownby No Doyle Parrish No Jeanette Prenger No Steve Rendle No Bill Rosner No Jim Ryffel No Alison Schuler No Michael Sears No Wes Smith No Scott Sorrels No Bill Stark No David Steward No Thear Suzuki No Brad Tilden No Frank Tsuru No Tom Yarboro No Dr. Steve Zachow No

He has 4,409 followers. I think folks are way, way overstating his persuasive power over parents. Yes, I know that for us in this BSA bankruptcy discussion, he's a figure and perhaps a key one (I think that overstates it when you consider he's ostracized from the TCC, the Coalition, and 1/3 of the AIS). As I said before: he's loud. He's the "public face". But the idea that parents of scouts know who he is? Nope.

Lauria said "soon" and "in a few days" she "hoped" as it related to RSA. There is a possibility that they will either a) try to bring forth RSA 2.0 (3.0?) or b) skip and go right to the disclosure and integrated the points they agreed to into that. As for drop dead date, that depends. Under the rules I believe (and I am not as conversant with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure) 28 day notice under Rule 3017. HOWEVER in the past BSA has asked for expedited/reduced time limits. I am sure they'll make the case that the 28 days should be waived because they are only making "minor edits and revisions" if they submit a Plan 5.0 and opposing counsel will object, etc. And the court always has the power to reduce deadlines established by the rules "for good cause shown".

My experience this this. There already is an official policy BUT it allows for Council discretion and is used as a stopgap to tide units until they can get a normal CO. The shift may be to take council discretion away and require they accept the role as a long term proposition.

Depends entire on who comes along for that ride. Per BSA's data https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf 1) Under a global resolution plan (BSA, LCs, COs) membership in 2022 will be 994,000. That said, I suspect the mass exodus of COs will continue, but be replaced by others. 2) Under a toggle place (BSA only) membership in 2022 will be 911,000. 2022 will be the year of 10-25% of councils going into bankruptcy and COs engaging in a mass exodus. It looks like the almost immediate end of the CO system.

Here is my take, and it is my take only. Mosby was hired from outside the professional staff: he was I believe the first CEO to NOT automatically come in as Chief Scout. By the time he was being hired in Fall 2019 it was clear BSA was heading for bankruptcy, not if but when. Mosby was hired to get the organization through that mess. BUT during the last National Annual Meeting it was announced he was staying on past the bankruptcy. That appears to be a shift.

He wasn’t invited into the mediation, in large part because a) he only represents (at BEST) 15,000 and even that number is debatable as the representation was spread jointly across three firms that were part of AIS. Kosnoff claims HE represents them all; the AIS filing suggests it remains joint. Regardless of that the mediation was predicated on the idea of reaching a settlement. Kosnoff has said: he didn’t WANT a settlement. He wants Chapter 7. There is absolutely no reason to invite someone to a mediation whose sole avowed purpose is to nuke the mediation. and he said he wants to be to be deposed by the insurance folks because of the misuse of his signature and his belief that he has evidence that the coalition is unethically bankrupt by Wall Street and is selling out the claimants for cash. Here is why Kosnoff is important. He is loud. He is the center of a lot of attention. And due to the requirement that 2/3rds of claimants have to approve the BSA bankruptcy deal, he may enough leverage with victims to ensure the vote never reaches 2/3rds.