CynicalScouter

All of this is happening at the diocese-by-diocese level. Dallas and at least one or two other dioceses have already switched to facilities-use-only agreements. Moreover, the dioceses are appear in the bankruptcy as dioceses or as part of the Ad Hoc Committee of Dioceses. The National Catholic Committee On Scouting is not in anyway involved (legally) in the bankruptcy. Also, given the hush hush nature of the transactions behind the scenes, I'm not surprised and why the letters from the Methodists are so shocking here. When the Diocese of Dallas tossed its units out, it was not sent out as a letter or posted on a website. For the Methodists to be this vocal and public about it means it is to send a message to BSA: we are not to be trifled with.

This came up in the spring when there was a BSA virtual open forum. During the February 2021 Scouts, BSA Office Hours, Scott Berger (a Scouts, BSA National Leader) was asked why no coed Troops. This was his response video from 28:30-31:00 "That [coed troops] is not in the plan. Nobody supports that [coed troops]. And there's good reason for it. The reason that the program is laid out the way it is currently is because we realized that in many respects girls mature quicker than boys. And having a coed program would disadvantage the boys. And we don't want that. I'm making a joke now. Lot of married people out there. You understand. You know why. Females take over sometimes. That was a joke. But what I really want to say is that we looked at the experience not only in Venturing, where young women will often assume leadership roles, but we also looked at other countries where they went towards coed troops and a coed way of doing things and it really hurt the young men to the point that the young men quit scouting by about 50%. We don't want that to happen here in the BSA. So there is no plan. Whenever anybody asks about it, we say very firmly, that's not happening. So, take it to the bank as best you can. But that [coed troops] is not happening."

If the only COs being left to twist in the wind were the Methodists and Catholics, I might agree with you. But thus far BSA has left ALL the COs left to twist. This isn't about "secularized scouting". It is about BSA pushing off certain conversations until later and just assuming the COs would be patient and wait. They aren't.

I think the BSA was/is taking the COs for granted, in the following sense (and this is almost verbatim what counsel for the Ad Hoc Local Councils Committee said): this entire process is being dealt with in phases and now that they have a deal with the main victims groups (TCC/FCR/Coalition) that covers BSA and the LCs now they could turn their attention to the COs I should said had a deal because the RSA blew up, but anyway. And oh, this "phase" approach did nothing to stop them from being able to cut a deal with Hartford. I think they may have a point in this sense: trying to figure out the COs is going to be an amazingly complicated mess even in the best of circumstances. But this is triage: what is the most important deal to be struck/cut in order to get out of bankruptcy? There are only but so many hours in a day, what do you want to dedicate them to: cutting a deal with the TCC/FCR/Coalition, or the COs? BSA's attorneys chose the TCC/FCR/Coalition and decided to kick the can down the road with the COs. Here's the problem: that strategy, while it may have made legal sense, from an institutional perspective was a bad one. Now you have lots of COs who feel, as the attorney for the Methodists and Catholics put it, left out and abandoned. It certainly LOOKS on paper (in the form of the RSA and the Fourth Amended Plan) as if the COs are being left to fend for themselves. Now, that may not have been what BSA intended, but that's the message that go through.

Er, sorta. What I was told was that Councils have the OPTION to take on the role of CO via the Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement. Perhaps that's what is meant: "we COULD do this, but we have absolutely no intention on doing so". Now, I cannot imagine a council not wanting to if the alternative is losing the unit outright, but the Council cannot be forced to do so. But maybe there are such councils out there.

For an organization who has be prepared as a slogan there is a massive disconnect somewhere along that line

I just want to loop back on this. This recharter season may be an absolute mess precisely because there will not be a resolution to the question of CO coverage by December 31. Last year when things were unclear a few COs failed to recharter. Now we have entire groups of Catholic diocese and Methodist regions telling or actively encouraging them NOT to recharter. If BSA sticks to its guns and says It never insured the COs pre-1978 and they get paid last in any event? Wow.

Yep precisely because this issue won’t be resolved by December 31, 2021 (recharter deadline) and for many even if it is resolved the COs are now absolutely scared of what comes next.

I have see the opposite argument, namely, the post-bankruptcy BSA will have all prior claims settled and may find it is easier to get insurance since the insurance companies won’t be as worried. Moreover if BSA really does have best in world YPT and has the TCC plan in place to put all YPT up for an independent review then it may prove easier and cheaper than before. Finally and frankly BSA numbers have collapsed it may be cheaper to cover fewer people.

At the very least all claims pre-February 2020 would be covered. I would have to check if they are looking to get February 2020 to discharge date covered as well.

One more question that I doubt will go over very well: what happens for councils that pay nothing? In other words, I'm thinking of very small councils with few assets may pay $0. Note that the below is TOTAL assets BEFORE liabilities and BEFORE taking into account restricted vs. unrestricted. Council Total Assets All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims Alabama-Florida $715,419 57 0 Mobile Area $594,174 110 4 Southern Sierra $700,976 144 141 Inland Northwest $810,065 158 3 Pushmataha Area $695,144 48 2 Gulf Coast $409,791 185 5

True, it is. However, in a good number of states due to mandatory reporting statutes plus BSA's YPT rules, the scouter who finds out about the abuse does not have a choice about whether or not they report to law enforcement. They have to report. Part of the difficulty here is that we are missing a major part of this story. Someone in BSA or the LC got this information and relayed it to law enforcement (or did so through lawyers). We have I believe NO idea if law enforcement then contacted the victim. Moreover, and this is also another completely realistic possibility, is that the confidential claim information wasn't used directly at all. By that I mean the following (and I've seen this in criminal cases before). Jane Smith accuses John Doe of a having a gun illegally and shows a picture of John Doe holding it. A crime? Sure. So that gives enough reasonable suspicion to start an investigation. Turns out John Doe DID have a gun and he had a permit for it, but police as part of that investigation observe John Doe making drug deals. John Doe is arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute. In other words, the proof of claim may only have been used to the extent necessary to get police to start to take an active interest in this person and that led not to a child abuse or child sexual abuse charge but possession of child porn.

If true, and I'd need to see it confirmed, I saw in an FB group that Greater New York Council's contribution to the fund will be $9 million. Bear in mind that this is only speculative rumor, but GNY is a) in an open state b) has the second most claims (Total claims = 1,454, non-time barred = 1,420) of any council. That said, I'm inclined to believe that $9 million number. $9 million sounds like an absolutely pittance, but let's look at their numbers (again according to BSA's data, not the TCC's) and $9 million may be about right. Assets Cash & Equivalents 1,494,300 Land, Buildings, and Equipment 5,630,537 Long-Term Investments 13,729,490 Other Assets 2,598,496 TOTAL ASSETS 23,452,823 Liabilities Debt 1,983,276 Other Liabilities 565,079 TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,548,355 Totals Unrestricted Net Assets 10,041,590 Restricted Net Assets 10,862,878 TOTAL NET ASSETS 20,904,468 Thus $9 million would be about 89.6% of all unrestricted net assets and 43% of total net assets. That's consistent with Grand Canyon, another council with a huge number of claims. (497 of which 475 are timely). Grand Canyon is having to give up 73% of all unrestricted assets and 53% of total net assets.

Yes, there will be. BUT unlike in the past, BSA is in a much better position. Remember: the whole point of these lawsuits and claims is that BSA did nothing or next to nothing to prevent the abuse. They were negligent. Now, however, it is much harder to push such a case (not impossible, just harder) against BSA thanks to YPT, Guide to Safe Scouting, and other things. Moreover, ALL abuse take took place prior to February 2020 is covered in the bankruptcy (it is why the Future Claims Representative exists). Lawsuits will never go away, but it will be harder to demonstrate BSA failed to protect that abused scout.

First, he's wanted a Chapter 7 since the start since he wants BSA dead, so some of this is wishful thinking. Everything else stems from this. Kosnoff wants BSA dead. Second, part of this stems from his view of BSA and the LCs, namely, that the LCs assets should have been considered BSA assets. His argument is that LCs are in effect simply appendages of BSA and upon dissolution LC assets go to BSA. Therefore, Chapter 7 the whole thing to maximize victim recovery. Third, that complexities involved make a Chapter 11 impossible and liquidation is the cleanest way of dealing with this. One of is posts said (paraphrase) there is more pain and suffering than money, therefore throwing a pittance ($200 million) is simply always going to be insulting.

Sorta, but notice the big giant "Unknown" https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf Unique and Timely Abuse Claim Count* by Top-20 Most Common Chartered Organizations Chartered Organization Group Unique & Timely Abuse Claim Count** METHODIST CHURCH 3,760 BAPTIST CHURCH 3,157 CATHOLIC CHURCH 3,131 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS 2,430 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1,611 LUTHERAN CHURCH 1,416 ARMED FORCES*** 607 EPISCOPAL CHURCH 557 AMERICAN LEGION 477 YMCA 435 VFW 369 SALVATION ARMY 242 ELKS LODGE 222 LIONS CLUB 199 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS 195 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS 157 BOYS CLUB 129 KIWANIS CLUB 108 ROTARY CLUB 88 MOOSE LODGE 75 OTHER 20,985 UNKNOWN 36,496 MISSING 5,740 Total 82,586 * The total Abuse Claim count in this table is slightly higher than the total count of unique and timely Abuse Claims to account for claimants that named multiple organizations. ** The abuse claim count listed in this column is based on the claimants’ responses to Part 4.H. on the Sexual Abuse Proof of Claim Form and does not account for references to the Chartered Organization that may be located elsewhere in the proof of claim. The abuse claim count listed above also does not reflect any other analysis conducted by the Debtors to approximate the total number of abuse claims that implicate the Chartered Organization. *** Abuse Claims flagged as "Armed Forces" named one of the following groups: Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, or the generic US Military or US Armed Forces

LDS is not saying they won't help the victims or have to pay. What they are saying is that, under their understanding of the BSA insurance policies, that LDS is entitled to reimbursement/coverage under BSA's policies. Nowhere does it say victims won't get paid or shouldn't get paid. What it is saying is that BSA agreed (in LDS' view) to make those payments and therefore BSA should not now be able to walk away without honoring that commitment. THEN if LDS still has to pay even more on top of that, that is another conversation. But first, BSA pays.

This gives a good overview https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics So, this disclosure hearing is going to look at about a dozen documents: 1) The disclosure statement. Does BSA give enough information, and more importantly enough ACCURATE AND DETAILED information, for the court and claimants/voters to gauge what BSA's current status is, what all the assets and debts really are, what all the claims are. Etc. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee5156a3-0c08-4833-a600-8256c44c8a56_5485.pdf 2) The reorganization plan. Here BSA lays out in graphic gory detail, exactly how it will pay off everything and everyone and what it will look like post-bankruptcy. You'll see references to BSA and "Reorganized BSA". BSA is the entity that goes into the bankruptcy, "Reorganized BSA" is what comes out. Don't worry, the name "Boy Scouts of America" will remain the same, but if the document kept referring to "Boy Scouts of America" it gets confusing whether you are talking about the entity BEFORE the bankruptcy release and AFTER. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1ec7e1fa-b4a3-43e4-aca0-6539d0b659e2_5484.pdf Now, BSA originally filed these as TWO separate documents back in February 2020. They have filed their latest AMENDED version (Plan 4.0) as two separate documents AND as one big mega-document. The mega-version is called a "Red-line": you can see all the changes and amendments they made recently. That mega-document is here https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf 3) The Solicitation Package: the sexual abuse claimants are not about to go through 500+ pages of plan and disclosure statement. Well, they could, but that's not realistic. Instead, what they will get is a package with a) a cover letter telling victims they can access the FULL plan and FULL disclosure statement (as approved by the court) at https://omniagentsolutions.com/bsa-SAballots orhttps://omniagentsolutions.com/bsa-ballots, They MAY get the full 500 pages, that is to be determined. b) a notice that they have a right to be heard (through their lawyers) at the confirmation hearing that happens after the vote c) ) the Disclosure Statement with all exhibits, although again this MAY not be the full statement or might instead just be "go see it at https://omniagentsolutions.com/bsa-SAballots or https://omniagentsolutions.com/bsa-ballots" d) the court's order indicating it has approved this process, again might just be "go to https://omniagentsolutions.com/bsa-SAballots or https://omniagentsolutions.com/bsa-ballots" e) the ballot where the victims vote f) statements from proponents of the plan, opponents, both, or neither g) Possibly a "plain language" or "plan English" statement for victims who aren't conversant in legalese. The TCC's proposed statement is https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a6491a00-9dd7-4d75-8671-2284c1f88c7c_5706.pdf Now, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these items is going to he fought over, tooth and claw, for days if not weeks. Every line, every comma, everything will be fought tooth and claw.

I concur. And even BSA mapped out a March 2022 cashflow scenerio.

That's absolutely the LDS' view. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/82a47dab-b75d-43b7-ae01-00b6dc8a17b0_3263.pdf and they want to fight about it. So we are getting into what BSA "intended" for the COs. And this gets into BSA's loose language over the years. Again, the entire CO system is a house of cards. CORs not really paying attention/checked out. COs that barely knew they had a unit. No one paying attention. And now it is coming back to haunt.

That answers that. Thanks. I would assume that since the TCC signed off on the deal by which councils contributed $550 million in cash and property + $100 in a note/loan to be paid off over time, they are not objecting to the OVERALL package even if perhaps in their view SOME Councils are getting off light.

Someone posted on a FB group that, due to the delayed hearing, the full list will NOT be released yet/will be released just before the September meeting. That said, lots of councils went ahead and announced anyway.

My new, estimated timeline for BSA to emerge from bankruptcy. All dates based on the original timeline for the Fourth Amended Plan. This means if there are NO hiccups whatsoever, BSA is out of bankruptcy by December 1. If there is even the slightest delay, we are in to 2022. Past the recharter deadlines for most councils. Remember how BSA said it needed to be out by August for cash flow? Remember how BSA said it needed to be out by September for recruitment? The next one will be "need to by out by December for recharter" Event Days from Disclosure Hearing Guestimated Timeline Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline -9 Sunday, September 12, 2021 Disclosure Statement Hearing 0 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Voting Record Date 0 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 8 Wednesday, September 29, 2021 Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline 24 Friday, October 15, 2021 Deadline to File Plan Supplement 31 Friday, October 22, 2021 Voting Resolution Event Deadline 45 Friday, November 5, 2021 Voting Deadline 45 Friday, November 5, 2021 Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 50 Wednesday, November 10, 2021 Plan Objection Deadline 56 Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Final Voting Report Deadline 59 Friday, November 19, 2021 Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline 64 Wednesday, November 24, 2021 Confirmation Hearing 69 Monday, November 29, 2021

Not every state makes it a LAW that everyone involved in scouting/childrens programs is a mandatory reporter. I'm not sure how Alabama law squares on this. But again, if I had to guess, I'd say that the bankruptcy judge would find in favor of a council official who transferred the info to local police.

I think the point is that victims, in filling out the form, THOUGHT it would be used ONLY in the context of a) their claim and b) the bankruptcy proceeding in general. But there was one additional sentence. Note this sentence I am betting/thinking that they'll claim someone at the Local Council was a mandatory reporter.