CynicalScouter

Yes, up to a point. Depending on what state you are in the payment may be as low as 1% or as high as 75%

Point of reference. Blackhawk Area Council last week announced the sale of Camp Canyon to pay for the settlement. After 750+ emails, the council backed down and announced a new plan to pay for the settlement without having to sell properties is coming. I speculated that the alternative plan (to be announced August 2) will be for the council to use its cash instead of property. Canyon Camp was, according to BSA's numbers, valued at $1,668,940. Blackhawk Area Council balance sheet (again, BSA numbers) indicated Cash & Equivalent = $310,974 Land, Buildings, and Equipment (including Camp Canyon) = $1,832,040 (land value - depreciation) Long-Term Investments = $3,989,290 Other Assets = $5,881,177 All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 151 (plus some shared with other councils) All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 15 So, while they haven't announced the number, working backwards it looks like they were going to pay $1,668,940 on 151 claims, or roughly $11,000 per. Illinois is a "Gray 1" state, meaning under the BSA/TCC/Coalition plan claims would be valued at 50%-70%. Blackhawk also includes part of Wisconsin which is Gray 3 (10-25%). I don't know how those 151 or 15 claims breakdown.

Canyon Camp is saved https://www.telegraphherald.com/news/tri-state/article_34c2cdb2-92df-5011-8f9e-7f458b7dac12.html And No details and the FB posting says the final proposal will be voted August 2, but if I had to bet they are going to opt to wipe out all their cash reserves in order to save the camp.

When you consider there are councils that have lost 50-70% of their membership in the last few decades, "underutilized" camps start to make sense.

Right, the TCC has said over and over that they do NOT want the Settlement Trust turning into a real estate company. Settlement trustees are not in the real estate business. So cash is great, but properties are next-best-thing. That's why the agreement is written the way it is $200 million in properties OR additional cash.

Ok, yeah, my bad.

Some of the older editions are outdated. For example, the appendix to the old (and still on the website) Troop Leader Guidebook allows for patrols to go off on their own without adult supervision. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/512-150_appendix(15)_web.pdf Of course under today's YPT and Guide to Safe Scouting, the answer to "When can a patrol day hike or service project without adult supervision be allowed?" the answer is "Never". https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/

Also, if the patch includes any of the following words, phrases, or images it must be approved by BSA. http://licensingbsa.org/trademarks/ If the COUNCIL is the one purchasing/making the patch, then my understanding is that it is OK since BSA grants the LCs rights to use. But if you want to go out to your local print shop and make your own, no dice.

Yep. But it is interesting to me to see how much of this is being attributed to "If only we kept the gays out in 2013, everything would be fine."

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20210712/boy-scouts "After 100 years of teaching future presidents, explorers, and civil rights leaders to follow their moral compass, it's been sobering to watch the Boy Scouts lose their own bearings. And yet, the unhappy ending for one of America's proudest traditions was easy to predict once the organization started chasing the approval of critics it could never win. Now, eight years into this experiment in moral compromise, the country is watching one of the saddest "I-told-you-so" moments of a generation. Disgraced, bankrupt, unpopular, and on the edge of extinction, the Scouts' leadership is showing the world where cowardly conformity leads -- and it isn't where the culture promised."

As I understand it from talking to my Council and seeing what other Councils are doing It is take it or leave it. Remember that number the LC is being handed was derived from negotiations with the TCC and is part of the agreement that the TCC and others reached with BSA and the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils to come up with $600 million. The LCs do not get to negotiate this: this is the price that must be paid in order to be released from claims. LCs do not want to do fire sales because that means they have to come up with the difference in cash. In order to avoid fire sales, councils have two options. Sell now if they think they can get a good price OR if they are unable to sell the camp prior to the conclusion of the bankruptcy they will simply transfer the property to the Settlement Trust when the bankruptcy is finalized. Yes. Each LC is allowed to substitute cash for real property under the bankruptcy plan. If somehow a massive fundraising effort occurred OR if a council decided rather than selling their camp they would wipe out their cash and endowments instead, that's up to the LC. Case by case. Some of the "restrictions" were minimal or not relevant regarding a sale. Others were, in effect, iron clad. For example, the Maine Attorney General is suing a council that tried to sell a restricted camp (the AG enforces charity laws) due to under-utilization. https://www.wabi.tv/2021/07/01/lawsuit-fights-stop-sale-central-maine-boy-scout-camp/ The formula was based on all of the above (number of claims and ability to pay plus leaving the council enough money to survive) and it may or may not include "restricted". Keep in mind as I said in #4, some of the "restrictions" are limited restrictions and do not impact the ability to sell the camp. Others absolutely do prohibit the sale of the camps.

The Executive Board, although I understand some councils the full council is getting a vote. So, for example just random the Blackhawk Area Council Executive Committee voted July 6 to sell the camp, but the full Executive Board will meet in August to approve the committee's decision. https://www.mystateline.com/news/local-news/former-boy-scouts-decry-decision-to-sell-canyon-camp-to-help-pay-national-sex-abuse-lawsuit/ Yep. That's exactly right.

So, BSA is asking to depose John J. Kinney who is Chief Claims Officer, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and president of its Heritage Holdings unit. https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/HIG/company-people/executive-profile/117973693 In July 2021 "Kinney's responsibilities were recently broadened to include Operations in addition to his role overseeing Claims." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hartford-announces-expanded-roles-for-cio-deepa-soni-and-john-kinney-head-of-claims-operations-01625136872?tesla=y Here's his LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-kinney-a49b4a51/

Got blast email from my council. No details on amounts only that the council voted to sign a “non-binding letter of intent” and that since we have no camp or property it will be 100% cash “to fulfill its share of the total contribution by making an all cash contribution to a settlement trust created under the BSA’s Chapter 11 plan for reorganization.”

Latest filing from claimant asks he be named as "Financial Master" for BSA case, including being named "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA". His plan to rescue BSA is to get a $100 billion (with a B, billion) PPP loan repayable over the next 50 years. All scouts will be assessed $1200 in fees per year (he thinks current fees are $600 per year) which the scouts will have to pay off via selling...something. Oh, and scouting will overnight go back to 2 million scouts. And for his services as "Financial Master" "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA" claimant wants $8.4 billion in payment. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ffc33d5b-b35a-4d1d-9027-3d0d76905d31_5552.pdf

I should be clear: I think that the first numbers that came out (from Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils) were wildly off and that the TCC numbers are closer to where they landed. The fact that the TCC signed off on the RSA tells me that the TCC at least sees the LC contributions ($300 million cash, $200 million in property OR cash; $100 million loan) as at least reasonable. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf Recall that the sequence was Plan 1 (February 2020 placeholder): $0 from LCs Plan 1.5 (March 2021, amendments to Plan 1): $300 million Plan 2 (April 2021): $425 million May 13 (or shortly thereafter): TCC sends to all LCs the TCC asset and financial dashboards Plan 3 (June 2021): $500 million Plan 4/RSA (July 2021): $600 million The LCs have now, in effect, doubled what was on the table in March 2021 and the TCC is on record via the RSA that the $600 million number is acceptable. The Local Council Settlement Contribution shall include: (i) at least $300 million of cash to be paid on the Effective Date, (ii) Unrestricted properties with a combined Appraised Value of $200 million (the “Property Contribution”), which shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by any cash payment amount in excess of the $300 million, provided that the methodology and procedures related to property selection and acceptance are provided for as set forth in full in the Term Sheet; and (iii) a $100 million interest-bearing variable-payment obligation note (the “DST Note”) issued by a Delaware statutory trust on as soon as practicable after the Effective Date.

Right, I am. I know the debt has to be paid. Without going into to the details, precisely because LCs are non-parties, anything done or said is not otherwise protected under attorney/client and under attorney work product. The NDA allows the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils and BSA National to share info without nuking those privileges. And the reason I don't think you see or hear LCs clamoring to claim the TCC's numbers are wrong is because I don't think there's much of a conflict between what the TCC is asking for/saying LC financial status is and what the LCs are about to announce to the court they are giving EXCEPT where, as in my council about about 10% of councils, there are no camps or other property to sell. That's going to be a holdup for only a few councils or perhaps smaller councils or both.

More media coverage on LC assets/what will the LC have to pay https://www.goerie.com/story/news/crime/2021/07/11/boy-scout-bankruptcy-how-much-will-erie-council-give-in-settlement/7894716002/ Of course the sad irony is that the "recommended link" in that article is to a February 2020 article in which the local scout executive was quoted saying BSA's bankruptcy would have no impact on the LC whatsoever. Area Scout chief: Bankruptcy to change nothing in Erie https://www.goerie.com/news/20200219/area-scout-chief-bankruptcy-to-change-nothing-in-erie Now, of course, that is just not true.

I believe the argument has been in the past that there's no provision to remove an award that was already given to someone, regardless of what they have done. And I know for a fact this is not the first time BSA has removed a scout for something. I can think of at least two scouts in my district removed after drug arrests. The point is that parents and BSA don't advertise and send out press releases "John Smith has been removed from scouting for his drug arrest."

It really didn't as even Hamilton alluded to. With all the lookback windows and the inevitable wins in state courts, BSA's options were: 1) The race for the courthouse door: Get dragged into various state courts with no or opened SoLs for the next decade, lose or be forced to settle hundreds of cases, run out of assets (or have hundreds of millions in court judgements) and be forced into a bankruptcy anyway. 2) File bankruptcy now and try to parse things out as best as they could. Hamilton's point was also that the best case scenario here would have been a an omnibus settlement that included one number made up of a) BSA payments to victims b) LC payments and c) insurance payments. But, given insurance companies and their track records in other sexual abuse cases, that's not happening anytime soon.

Let me say this: IF (and I mean IF) big if, massive, if. IF the young man identified is the one that National sent a letter to, then I can't blame them. The name appeared in local media. From there it could have gone to the District Executive, the Scout Executive, or both. BSA is not a government entity. There's no right to due process here. No one has to be convicted of anything in order to be tossed out of scouting. Arrest warrant means they convinced a judge there was probable cause a crime had been committed. Moreover, even in @PeterLewis' description it is clear the kid did the hacking. My guess (wild guess, again, big IF here) is that BSA determined that being arrested for multiple felonies is incompatible with scouting and that therefore the scout has to go.

There are way, way too many missing pieces of this story to be able to figure this out. Without more details, any answer would be 90% speculation (at best).

Marci Hamilton of ChildUSA on Diane Rehm Show about the bankruptcy. Nothing new if you've been reading this forum. In short The deal that has been cut is not meeting with 100% approval by plaintiffs attorneys. Comparisons between the Penn State settlement and the Catholic Dioceses (which was not national) and BSA (which is national) Insurance companies are evil and the insurance companies need to step up with a "gold standard" that gets discounted insurance rates (pilot program coming out) The claims process re-traumatizes and may not be worth it if it is only a few dollars at the end of this The bankruptcy courts and bankruptcy law were never designed for sexual abuse cases. Can't blame the judge, she's trying to do the best she can, but Congress needs to act. This is mass tort lawyers vs. child sexual abuse lawyers at this point. Most of the individual perpetrators are beyond the criminal statute of limitation. The Oregon and Kansas cases were the key and revealed the information about the IVF/"Perversion" files. If BSA did not claim bankruptcy, it would have lead to more discovery. Victims, this is going to take years. https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2021-07-09/what-the-boy-scouts-settlement-says-about-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims/116455

I had a copy of the NDA forwarded to me. They most certainly are under an NDA in order to obtain information as part of this process. The signature line is my council's president. The demands on our council are much, much more than the TCC claimed. It was purported that the TCC wanted to leave councils with 2 years operating expenses. We won't be left with that. We are being forced into a merger as a result. This is likely because our council is 100% cash with no properties whatsoever to sell, making us a very small minority (out of 250 councils, I think around 10% have no camps or offices to sell). Our exposure is "120 claims, plus or minus 3" because those claims are shared with a neighboring council (due to mergers and splits) there's some ambiguity over 3 claims. Of those 120 or so, 6 are not time barred. We are a closed state. 120 claims * $7,000 = $840,000. The actual number is closer to $1.1 million due to some of those claims be within the SoL. Again, we only have $1.5 million in total assets, and that includes our entire endowment. The number I was told was $450,000 left after this is all said and done, not two years operating expenses (which are $250,000 per year) Again, my council is probably atypical because we don't have property to sell (we were forced to sell our camp and office during the Great Recession). But anyone thinking that somehow my council's holding on on victims, we are not. Yep. That's exactly who it is with I saw it myself.

This has been a night and day. Got off the phone with someone I know who sits on my council after the voting this week. We have no camp, no real property, and no office, so our contribution has to be entirely in cash. We have around $1.5 million in assets with $250,000 in expenses every year. We are going to have to pay a little over $1 million, including our entire endowment. We'll be left with less than 2 years of operating expenses ($500,000; we'll be left with $450,000). Talks have started to merge into our council next door; the council already voted 2 months ago to merge districts within the Council. The only remaining question is whether our Council will be cut in two (half go to one council, half the other) or all go into one council. So, as a reminder to all, we (my committee chair and scoutmaster) sent an email to all parents last spring indicating we were not expecting BSA to survive and that we'd do what we could to get our Star/Life scouts to Eagle before things folded. This person, who has been in scouting for 17 years and is not what I would call a panicky person, indicated "I've told my troop the same and others have as well." The expectation is that even if scouting survives, the COs are going to leave en masse. Locally, the COs are in open rebellion and, as someone else mentioned in NJ, the Methodist churches will likely just outright abandon units at the next recharter in December. We have one Catholic diocese that covers our entire council and it is currently "debating" whether to issue a no-more-COs order. I spoke with the committee chair of the troop that is chartered by the parish and he says the pastor wants to keep the troop and pack alive and be the CO, but he has to do what he's told.