CynicalScouter

So you believe that the BSA's auditing and accounting firm signed off on fraudulent IRS 990 forms, thereby committing at least 6 felonies? Even if I think BSA's lying, I don't think the accounting firms are, especially after Sarbanes-Oxley. Nor do I believe that BSA is submitting fraudulent financial data to the bankruptcy court. AND even if I did believe BSA was doing so, I have every reason to believe a) the accounting firms won't sign that (this isn't the days of Enron anymore) b) the attorneys for the claimants wouldn't be neck deep in those financial records just looking for something they can pounce on.

Great @David CO. Rather than just downvote actual data about what not for profit CEOs make, I'll make you a deal. Name the number the BSA CEO should make. What's the dollar figure?

Again, that is NOT the job of the attorney(s) for the victim(s). That is the job of the attorneys for BSA. But let me wrap this up with a comment the judge made in an earlier hearing. She had said that while the survivors have an interest in the outcome of this bankruptcy, so too do the scouts of this generation. She is NOT utterly unaware of what the ramifications are here. And again, let me go back to another point: Kosnoff is ONE LAWYER. Every other attorney on record so far has said they are in favor of a Chapter 7 deal that does NOT kill of BSA.

The industry standard for not for profits is that the CEO makes .1-10% of all expenses generated by the not for profit. The larger the organization, the smaller the percentage. For 2019, BSA had expenses of $460 million. https://ar2019.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019-Unaudited-Treasurers-Report-Final-5-13-201_2.pdf The latest reports and data indicate that for a not for profit or charity with similar expenses to BSA, CEO salaries were 0.2% of expenses. https://analytics.excellenceingiving.com/2019-2020-nonprofit-ceo-compensation-study/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=studies.ceo $460 million * 0.2% = $920,000 But if you want to fight about the CEO salary, let's have that fight. Name the proper amount/name the number. Yep. But it is so much easier to hate, hate, hate the professionals as if they should all be paid $1

I had a conversation with a person once who was absolutely convinced that our DE made 2-3 times what she actually does AND that she got paid on commission/the more fundraising she brings in the more she got. When I showed the salary range for the DE position, he was shocked. One more point: if a person was just looking to make money, the not-for-profit world is the LAST place they'd be looking.

It was noted several times during the bankruptcy hearings for BSA that the BSA Board was 70+ people which in the private sector is just insane. The problem is everybody wants seats at the table.

Possible hint of what the non-monetary damages elements of the BSA plan may either a) spell out of b) be required after the bankruptcy settles as part of the plan to have the entire BSA YPT system reviewed. This was the BIG non-monetary demand the TCC had (along with release of the IV files). The following is part of the bankruptcy package that USA Gymnastics has agreed to. Most relevant to BSA I think would be the possible introduction of an INDEPENDENT outside entity to field and investigate sexual abuse claims as well as an entire department, including auditors and lawyers, to do spot checks. Also, USAG is required to publish the names of all those in their version of the IV files (not victim names, but the names of those removed from USAG). I could very, very easily see the TCC and/or the independent reviewer they bring in demand that all BSA units have a) a YP compliance person and b) be subject to random inspection and audit. 2. USAG’s Non-Monetary Commitments And Reforms. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47282/c66b1b09-6d90-4e99-85c9-243103212938_1552.pdf It goes on for 4 pages. My own synopsis (many of these reforms are listed as already happened/have happened). Points 1-4 dealt with governance of the organization. Point 5-7 are safety. The adoption of "a new Safe Sport Policy, which mandates reporting, defines specific types of misconduct, sets standards to prohibit “grooming” behavior, and establishes greater accountability." https://usagym.org/pages/education/safesport/policy.html The expansion of the Safe Sport Department to train and educate, including a Director of Safe Sport Education and Policy, a Safe Sport Legal Counsel, four Safe Sport Investigators, a Safe SportA dministrative Manager, and paralegal with dedicated Safe Sport responsibilities plus reporting posters indicating how to report abuse everywhere Points 6-7 are about the "gymnastics clubs" in local areas. They must met the same standards as USA Gymnastics regarding Safe Sport Policy, posters, Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy, etc. Each local club must also have a Safety Champion to ensure compliance. Point 8 is that all USAG employees are charged with doing everything the can in their capacities to work on athlete safety. Point 9 is the establishment of a hotline, email, and website for reporting abuse. All reports must go to an independent third party (U.S. Center for Safe Sport) Point 10 is that USAG will work with a Survivors committee and the independent U.S. Center for Safe Sport. Point 11 is that USAG's version of the ineligible volunteer file will be made public with the names of ineliglble and suspended members listed on a website. Point 12 is websites, training, and other education about athlete safety. Point 13 is that National Team Athletes have a spelled out detailed right to a Protest Policy that allows them to speak out about abuses, or anything, and NOT lose their spot on the National team Points 14-17 are about the culture, including positive coaching, audits about the culture, etc. There are other points, but it wraps up with this

2. USAG’s Non-Monetary Commitments And Reforms. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47282/c66b1b09-6d90-4e99-85c9-243103212938_1552.pdf It goes on for 4 pages. My own synopsis (many of these reforms are listed as already happened/have happened). Points 1-4 dealt with governance of the organization. Point 5-7 are safety. The adoption of "a new Safe Sport Policy, which mandates reporting, defines specific types of misconduct, sets standards to prohibit “grooming” behavior, and establishes greater accountability." https://usagym.org/pages/education/safesport/policy.html The expansion of the Safe Sport Department to train and educate, including a Director of Safe Sport Education and Policy, a Safe Sport Legal Counsel, four Safe Sport Investigators, a Safe Sport dministrative Manager, and paralegal with dedicated Safe Sport responsibilities plus reporting posters indicating how to report abuse everywhere Points 6-7 are about the "gymnastics clubs" in local areas. They must met the same standards as USA Gymnastics regarding Safe Sport Policy, posters, Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policy, etc. Each local club must also have a Safety Champion to ensure compliance. Point 8 is that all USAG employees are charged with doing everything the can in their capacities to work on athlete safety. Point 9 is the establishment of a hotline, email, and website for reporting abuse. All reports must go to an independent third party (U.S. Center for Safe Sport) Point 10 is that USAG will work with a Survivors committee and the independent U.S. Center for Safe Sport. Point 11 is that USAG's version of the ineligible volunteer file will be made public with the names of ineliglble and suspended members listed on a website. Point 12 is websites, training, and other education about athlete safety. Point 13 is that National Team Athletes have a spelled out detailed right to a Protest Policy that allows them to speak out about abuses, or anything, and NOT lose their spot on the National team Points 14-17 are about the culture, including positive coaching, audits about the culture, etc. There are other points, but it wraps up with this

Councils, indeed many organizations, are absolutely loathe to sell property because once it is gone, it is gone. Same with investments. In fact, it is considered a bad business practice and an indicator of bad financial management to dip into your endowment too much.

He has conflicting desires between a) getting all the money the victims can and b) destroying BSA. As I laid out earlier, if he wants to maximize victim compensation, Chapter 7 with a living (if weakened) BSA is the way to go. If he wants to kill BSA, that results in his clients getting less than in the first scenario. He cannot be simultaneously a) in it of the money and b) out to kill BSA. It is either/or.

Yes, it is true. Listen again to what he said. If scouting is to move on, BSA has got to go. He has also said on his Twitter feed he favors #savescoutingEndBSA https://twitter.com/hashtag/savescoutingEndBSA?src=hashtag_click&f=live His argument, which you can agree or disagree with, is that if you really love scouting and are committed to scouting, you MUST at this point scuttle BSA and move on to the next organization that takes its place. I disagree, but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, he is the ONLY attorney to publicly have this view. EVERY OTHER law firm and attorney group has indicated that they are in favor of a Chapter 11 in some form or fashion. Kosnoff's important, and his loud and visible, but he doesn't represent a majority view by any stretch in the desire to kill of BSA.

To put into perspective: that makes the math $850,000 per victim in average. Even JUST looking at the non time barred BSA claims (around 15,000) that would be the equivalent of the BSA plan = $12.75 billion. Add in the timebarred and the numbers just become astronomical: $70+ billion.

Then the entity to blame is BSA for operating its program in such a manner that, through its negligence, allowed THOUSANDS of children to be raped. Trying to burden shift here to say that the lawyers (who I'll now say for the 5th time because it clearly isn't getting through to you) are ethically obligated to focus on THEIR CLIENTS should instead not do their jobs is nonsensical.

Again, and I do hate to repeat myself, but I will. The role and function of an attorney is to maximize the amount/value their client receives as compensation. It is NOT the role and function of Kosnoff, or Stang, or ANY attorney for ANYONE other than BSA to care one whit about BSA and the "current scouts". I'll tell you what an attorney acting ethically would feel: "I feel bad for Johnny. I feel worse for my client who was [insert listing of sexual assault that took place] as part of a BSA program where the BSA, COs, and LCs were negligent. Maybe Johnny should ask BSA leadership why it failed both Johnny AND my client." You do what we told my troop's Star and Life Scouts last spring: Get your Eagles quick and do NOT assume BSA survives past July. But again, while you are talking to that 15-year old, why not have a conversation with the 51-year-old who, when he was 15, was sexually abused and had it swept under the rug by his local council? Why is he not worthy of your sympathy and concern? Again, there are two sets of victims here: the sexually abused scouts of days gone by and the current scouts who will miss out on opportunities today. BOTH can blame BSA for operating in a manner that led to this point. You know who is NOT to blame? The lawyers for the victims of child rape who are meeting their ethical duties to obtain the best possible settlement for their client(s). You keep wanting to blame everyone BUT BSA.

BUT a lot of that is locked up in real estate/capital fund. Only 7% ($246 million) is in the operating fund's assets. 40% ($1.2 billion) is locked up in land. 49% ($1.6 billion) is locked up in endowments. So, it isn't like BSA is swimming in cash ala Scrooge McDuck. No one wants to tap into the principle of the endowments. And trying to sell those camps? No way. It took the bankruptcy for some councils to sit down and really decided whether they needed those camps or not.

One more, and I'm only picking on them because they are big Circle Ten's budget for 2019 (latest data I've got from the IRS). https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/750800615_201912_990_2021040217863611.pdf And estimated 57,000 scouts https://circleten.org/posts/1430 In 2018, Total Expenses = 15,254,062, or $267 per scout. In 2019, Total Expenses = 14,154,166 or $248 per scout. This is consisted with what I've heard in FOS pitches over the years "Scouting costs Council $200 per scout". Ok, but what about the evil, evil salaries? In 2018, 6,849,994 (or 45% of budget) In 2019, 6,910,304 (or 49% of budget) But, how does this compare to other major not for profits? Not the best, not the worst. See attached from https://onlinegrad.syracuse.edu/blog/big-non-profit-budgets-spending/

Using the data from the above and current membership numbers. Let's use the BSA's latest annual which had youth at 1,199,425. Let's also use 762,000 which was the number that BSA filed with the court at one point earlier this year. Operating Fund Total Net Assets Capital Fund Total Net Assets Endowment Fund Total Net Assets Total Net Assets $76,091,174 $1,425,277,988 $1,795,028,509 $3,296,397,671 762,000 $99.86 $1,870.44 $2,355.68 $4,325.98 1,199,425 $63.44 $1,188.30 $1,496.57 $2,748.31

We don't know annual budgets for all LCs easy (have to pull 200+ IRS 990 Forms), but we can tell all assets of the LCs. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf

There is no "AIS Coalition". There is AIS, a grouping of 3 particular lawfirms representing approximately 15,000 claimants OF WHICH some of those 15,000 are members of the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf There is the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice which represents around 60,000-65,000 claimants INCLUDING SOME that are members of AIS. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf There was a falling out and two of the three AIS firms LEFT the Coalition; the third (Eisenberg) remains. If you read what Kosnoff has written, both in his filings with the court and on Twitter, the abbreviated version is he feels a) the Coalition is in it for profit and Wall Street backed loans (?) and b) that the Coalition is ready to sell out any and all claimants to get a) accomplished where as he (alone) is the sole voice speaking honestly for victims. Everyone else are sellouts.

Then re-read what he said or re-listen to what he said. He's been remarkably clear about this. He is NOT looking to kill SCOUTING. He's looking to kill BSA.

Can't have program without money. Money makes the world go 'round.

I want to pull this out to elaborate on a point that I believe separates Kosnoff from the Coalition, the TCC, and perhaps any other attorney involved on the claimants side of the case. I submit the following postulates. The ethical duty of an attorney in a civil proceeding (and bankruptcy is a ancillary to or a subordinate version of a civil proceeding; it is NOT a criminal one) is to zealously advocate in a legal/ethical manner for their client to receive the maximum benefit to which they are entitled under law. It is the duty of a bankruptcy court in a Chapter 7 proceeding to determine how much each claimant is to receive and when in a way that allows for the Debtor to emerge and restart operations. One of Kosnoff's end desires is the ending of the BSA. Note again: I do NOT say the end of scouting. I said the end of BSA. The current BSA proposal (Plan 4.0/RSA) calls for $250 million from BSA (cash/properties and a loan). Thus we come to maximum compensation, the end of BSA, and what I'll call the Kosnoff Konundrum (yes, it is a cheesy alliteration. Tough.) Let us assume that 1) can be demonstrated as follows. The altruistic lawyer who seeks "fairness" and "justice" for their client will want their client to receive a maximum benefit for the the sake of their client. The greedy, pernicious lawyer (dare I say, yes, I dare, the "vulture") wants to maximize their own benefit/40% contingency. Thus, they'll zealously seek out a maximum benefit for their clients FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. Either way, the attorneys for victims want maximum money for their clients. Again, this isn't about what is "Fair" or "Moral". This is about what does a bankruptcy court do. And a bankruptcy court talks in terms of money and that is ALL it talks in terms of (that and WHEN, but I'll get to that in a minute). That is postulate 2). And so you have the TCC, the Coalition, and the FCR using the following math/game theory. A) Liquidate BSA and seize all $1.4 billion (now down to around $1 billion and dropping fast) will take years of BSA bleeding to death (membership declines, court and legal fights, etc.) and result in having to fully fund the BSA pension for decades. THE END RESULT: Maybe victims get more than $250 million, but that won't be for years and there's a chance the judge will accept the BSA's argument that $250 million really is all it can contribute and still be financially viable. MAYBE the "How much?" goes up, but the "When" certainly takes much longer. B) Force the BSA out of bankruptcy without a discharge simply returns claimants/victims to state courts where the first 10-20 claims get paid (maybe) at full value and the rest will get nothing from BSA as it is once again forced back into bankruptcy. THE END RESULT: We are back to where we are not (tens of thousands of claims) in a few years, but with a BSA with even FEWER resources to dole out to victims. C) Vote the BSA out of bankruptcy without a discharge. The TCC/Coalition/FCR urge their clients to reject any and all BSA plan. Same a B: we simply return claimants/victims to state courts where the first 10-20 claims get paid (maybe) at full value and the rest will get nothing from BSA as it is once again forced back into bankruptcy. THE END RESULT: We are back to where we are not (tens of thousands of claims) in a few years, but with a BSA with even FEWER resources to dole out to victims. D) Take a deal valued at $X million. This is the Plan 4.0/RSA. We can quibble about what $X is and whether "250" is the right answer, but in the end, that number is probably not going to go much higher. Remember: the only way BSA got to $250 million was with an agreement to take out a $80 million loan on top of everything else. THE END RESULT: Victims get a guaranteed benefit amount NOW/near future that answers both "How much" and "When" And here's were the Kosnoff Konundrum comes in. As an attorney seeking maximum benefit for his clients there's an argument that he should want D so long as the value of X is high. How high is up to the judge (again, she is NOT going to approve a number that kills BSA or leaves BSA financially unable to function). That is the LEGAL argument. As an advocate against child sexual abuse in general, he wants what is "Fair" and "Fair", in his opinion, is liquidate BSA and kill it. It is unworthy of being saved, so it needs to go away. And here I think is why Kosnoff's konflicted (see what I did there?) with both his own desires AND the other attorneys. Remember, the other attorneys do NOT care if BSA lives or dies. Stang in a townhall I believe said that almost verbatim: THEY DO NOT CARE. They want maximum values. And a live BSA, in their legal opinion, gets their clients (for those operating in an altruistic mindset) or themselves (for those lawyers in it for their own personal gain) more money, now than spending years in court on the chance that MAYBE they can liquidate BSA and MAYBE that results in a bigger payout. Would you rather have a sure $250 million NOW or roll the dice, spend years in court bleeding out the BSA's money, for a chance at more? Kosnoff however ALSO wants a dead BSA. And if that means this gets dragged out for years in state courts (failed bankruptcy) or dragged out in bankruptcy court to force a conversion to Chapter 7, then that's what needs to happen. So, which weighs heavier? If he's more focused on maximizing his clients financial compensation, or even his own personal financial gain, he'll climb onto BSA Plan 5.0 when that comes out or some version of it If he's more focused on the death of BSA, he'll reject any and every plan other than a Chapter 7 (that somehow magically pays out no one but victims I guess?) and push for the same. At least, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

@Gilwell_1919 I want to respond to this, but in the proper thread, which is this one. Let's be clear what Kosnoff has said. 1) He had stated that scouting should continue. He's repeated that over and over, but that scouting needs to continue WITHOUT BSA. 2) If you found an organization that had, for 100+ years, aided and abetted in the systematic sexual assault of children AND either a) did nothing or b) did not much, I think a reasonable reaction would be "this organization is so corrupt as to be unsalvagable. Start anew." That, to my ear, is Kosnoff's point. I am not saying I agree with it, but if you truly believe BSA's that corrupt from top to bottom, then "burn it all down" is one possible reasonable conclusion. 3) The mission of an attorney is to zealously protect and advocate for the interest of his or her client and NO ONE ELSE. It is the mission of the attorneys for BSA to ensure that BSA survives and they will zealously advocate for their client's survival. It is the mission of the attorneys for the insurers to ensure that they not pay one dime more than the client(s) are legally required to. It is the mission of the attorneys for the abuse victims, like Kosnoff, to ensure their clients receive the maximum compensation allowed under law. The fact that this might mean current scouts are seeing camps sold? Is NOT their problem. Their ethical duty is to THEIR CLIENTS. Not BSA. Not current scouts. THEIR CLIENT. Imagine for a second the following. Due to negligence of the church (broken steps), you slip and fall on the steps of your local church and break your back. You hire an attorney to get your medical bills paid for AND for your pain and suffering as a result of the church's negligence. Your attorney then sends an email "Well, I'd like to get you all the money you are legally entitled to, but you know if we did that the church might have to eliminate the church's childrens choir. So, sorry, I know I'm your attorney, but I won't help you get the money you are legally entitled to." That attorney would be in breach of his/her ethical duty to his/her client. If YOU tell your attorney "You know what, I opt NOT to press my claim so the children's choir can live." Fine. No problem. But if your attorney said "I have decided not to press your claim because I feel sympathetic to the church choir." That's an ethical breach. The lawyer should step down as your lawyer. So in the end no, I don't blame the attorneys for the victims. They are literally doing their jobs: to zealously protect the interests of THEIR CLIENT. Not society at large, not BSA, not little John or Jane Cub Scout. THEIR CLIENT. As I said before: there are two generations of victims here. The scouts who were directly abused in the past and the present day scouts who are, indirectly, suffering in some ways through a loss of programming. Obviously this generation's scouts are NOT suffering the pain and anguish of those sexually abused, and I want to be clear i am NOT drawing an equivalence. But make no mistake: neither of these victims are victims BECAUSE OF THE LAWYERS FOR SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS. They are victims because of a) the sexual predators and b) a Boy Scouts of America organization that either utterly failed in their legal duty to care OR did so in such a poor manner it allowed child sexual abuse to blossom and did nothing (or practically nothing) for 100 years.

Boy Scouts Insurance Fight Complicates Deal to Pay Victims

Two things can be true at the same time: Kosnoff may be the biggest jerk in the world Kosnoff's signature may have been misused/used without his permission #1 has no bearing on #2. #2 has no bearing on #1.