CynicalScouter

First, welcome. Second, the Church can refuse to be a CO but enter into a facilities use agreement that, in effect, makes it nothing more than the rental unit for the unit. The Council becomes the de facto CO. And the Church doesn't need to give a valid reason: they cannot be compelled to be a CO. The entire Diocese of Dallas, for example, directed local parishes to end their roles as COs but did allow them to continue to rent facilities. These are the official forms from national https://www.scouting.org/resources/forms/ Short Form Facility Use Agreement Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement

See, I'm torn here. We are struggling between 1) People who are actively engaged in units who are the most in-the-know about what units need AND the least likely to have free time to be messing around with district events. 2) People who are "has-beens" who have tons of time but no idea what units need or want. Our "next door neighbor" district has that, which I am sometimes jealous of because it means people who are dedicated to putting district events together and staffing it. On the other hand, it is what THEY think units want ("because that's how we did it"., not necessarily what is wanted.

Yeah, my district committee has 4 people now that we lost the committee chair last month. I'm just trying to see what it takes to rebuild. 10 years ago (before my time), we had district dinners, awards, the whole thing. And now 10 years later, 4 burn outs and nothing else.

Dumb question: I've been reading and re-reading BSA's "how districts should be run" books. How many of you have an actual nominating committee? Mine does not and hasn't in years. How many of you have actual Council members sitting on your District Committee Nominating committee (I'm not talking about District Chairs who are ex officio Council members). Mine is 0. What percent of your district committees are unit leaders? Mine is 100% cubmasters, scoutmasters, and unit committee and they are all burnt out.

Right, because even if you know what other people were paid, that does NOT mean what you will be paid, given the unique situation here. For example, if 5 years ago a person sued BSA for having lost a leg due to an accident at a HA base caused by BSA's negligence and won $2 million, that's great. BUT that was back when BSA had more money and was NOT facing 82500 other personal injury cases. Thus, while a SINGLE loss-of-leg claim in 2016 might have been valued at $2 million, ten THOUSAND lost-of-leg claims in 2021 does not mean BSA (or its insurers) will be paying out $20 billion out to people because there simply is NOT $20 billion in the insurance companies or BSA to pay that. Century, for example, as Kosnoff is pointing out may only have $400 million in total assets at this point. Chubb, which owns Century, has assets of $102 billion, but we don't know if the deal that Chubb cut to acquire Century includes a limiting aspect that has a maximum for which Chubb is on the hook for Century's debts. Etc. The TCC/FCR/Coalition have been asking (and demanding) for documents regarding the Chubb/Century deal and so far Chubb/Century has refused to turn over the critical ones. The latest is that TCC/FCR/Coalition is asking for a court to order Chubb/Century to turn over the documents. We'll see how that works out. All this is a round about way of saying what others indicated: this could take years. It could be you will get 1% or 10% of the full value of your claim because there simply is not enough money left. Etc.

I believe in the past there has been a concern that young people/young scouts will come onto this site for information and that discussions regarding specific acts of sexual abuse are not appropriate.

The argument is that Some are encumbered (they have liens or mortgages on them) therefore you can't sell them because someone else (JP Morgan) has the note. Upon sale of the property, the lien or mortgage holder gets paid first. Philmont is donor restricted somehow such that it can never be sold and that it reverts back to the original family if/when BSA decides to give it up

I, for one, and not trying to trash anyone here or engage in bigotry. The Roman Catholic Church has had to (voluntarily and in some cases involuntarily) open up on its past practices, admit error, and seek to rectify the situation. Some of that, yes, did brush up against practices and policies of the Church, but that did NOT mean that all reform minded people were anti-Catholic bigots. I'm of that faith and I don't think my interest is based on bigotry. But I also think that sometimes those of a particular faith will be be quick to jump onto "you are just anti-RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION". No, it isn't always bigotry or "lambasting" a religion or its faithful to point out that the abuse happened and it happened for the following reasons [FILL IN THE BLANK]. Therefore, don't do [FILL IN THE BLANK] anymore. SOME times (note SOME times) those of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been very quick that ANY criticism of past practices is immediately bigotry. And, given the past history of persecution of that faith, I get it. But, that does not mean it is immune from examination and criticism. Nor does it make it immune from lawsuits. https://apnews.com/article/sexual-abuse-by-clergy-lawsuits-arizona-sexual-abuse-90d2cff3ef5668cfc28f3a3269c09b1c

You are correct. My bad. The BSA contribution is either Global Resolution Plan: $119.9 million (if global) or $99 million (if Toggle plan) That's still peanuts $120 million/82500 = $1454

Hi and welcome. You are correct about how far apart the sides are on damage amounts. $1.4 billion is the TOTAL BSA assets. That's selling EVERYTHING BSA has to its name. Of course, that's unrealistic since a) BSA is not getting liquidated and b) even if all $1.4 billion is sold off, there are other debts BSA would have to pay with that $1.4 billion as well. The number I expect BSA will pay is more than the $425 million it has offered but less than full liquidation $1.4 billion. Of course, that number is JUST the BSA contribution. There are contributions that have to come from Local Councils Chartered Organizations and Insurance companies (for BSA, the Local Councils, and the Chartered Organizations, or some combo)

I didn't. Don't ascribe to me words written by others.

I want to come back to this because I read today's redacted victim letters and again, the "BSA only wants to pay $6,000 and that's not enough" came up. I am more worried than ever that there will never, ever be a 2/3rds vote to approve a BSA bankruptcy. As I noted on June 3, even if BSA was somehow completely and totally liquidated and ALL assets turned over to the settlement fund, that number will only be $17,000. The latest public number (not necessarily the latest number, but the latest public number) was $425 million/~$6000 per claim. Let say that BSA comes up to $7000 per. In any such scenario, the victims attorneys have to in effect argue to their clients that they should take the offer ($7000? $8000?) because there is nothing left for BSA to give. That means the Coalition I guess? But even then, getting to 2/3rds? I just don't know.

One final note: it would be just as relevant and subject to discussion as to whether or not Roman Catholic practices as they pertained to hiding/shielding sexual abusers had an impact on the sexual abuse that took place in units chartered by parishes or other Roman Catholic entities. I know there are several lawsuits filed in NY against the dioceses/archdioceses claiming that the Roman Catholic Church's policies help to protect and shield sexual abuse that should never have been allowed to happen OR that should have been dealt with in a way other than it was. Having a conversation about whether the RCC's policies and practices led to or contributed to sexual abuse of minors can be done in a way that does NOT disparage Roman Catholics or their faith.

Perhaps because for almost the entire history of BSA, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Was the single largest chartering group, bar none (the Methodist Church, collectively, came in a distant second). Exercised an enormous amount of influence over BSA policies and procedures, some of which remain to this day despite the departure of The Church. Because those religious practices bled over into Scouting. Some were mundane: No raffle tickets for BSA fundraising? Put in by leaders of The Church due to objections over gambling. Some were less mundane. The Church's position on African-Americans directly led to the continuation of racial segregation in scouting for DECADES longer than it should have. It was not until The Church was sued by the Utah chapter of the NAACP that it backed off and BSA was able to come out definitively and unequivocally against racial discrimination in scouting. For better of for ill, the history of BSA is in many ways synonymous with history of The Church as it applied to youth programming and development. Yes, The Church left 18 months ago, but 90+ years of history and influence did not just suddenly get turned off like a light switch. Finally, and most critically, many of the current sexual abuse claims and cases include The Church as co-defendants make the case, quite strongly frankly, that for these purposes The Church WAS the BSA and/or Local Council. As noted in #3: when The Church controlled, operated, and directed entire councils, entire programs (Varsity was a direct offshoot of Young Men Mutual Improvement Association) for decades, The Church's practices get dragged into the conversation. The Church was a driving force, if not THE driving force for scouting in 1/3 to 1/2 of the country for decades. That said, religious bigotry and intolerance have no place in this conversation. Conversely, simply because a matter may overlap with the practices of The Church as they relate to scouting does not immunize The Church from criticism, especially as those practices pertain to sexual abuse occurred in units chartered by The Church.

And this is going to ring the bell for councils to hike their fees as well. And as I've noted: it isn't going top stop until 2025 AT THE EARLIEST.

Thanks. Just found that thread. I figured as much. Now just got to recruit the scout into our troop (option #3).

I should clarify. AoL is a RANK Webelos may refer (in context) to the DEN or the RANK, depending.

Something odd I just came across. My son is friends with a scout from another troop. Apparently that unit's committee chair and scoutmaster sent an email that from now on they will not hold any OA elections arguing that OA simply takes away from the troop and gives nothing back to the troop. The scout has obtained the minimum number of camping nights and was interesting in being elected to OA, or at least having a chance, and is disappointed. Is there anyway to work around this?

No. BSA requires that the crossover Cub Scouts (AoL is a RANK, Webelos is a DEN), now Scouts, BSA scouts, demonstrate all the elements. The first words of the Scout rank requirement are. That said, the key to the two-year Webelos program is that 80-90% of the program is repeated in the first three ranks of Scouts, BSA. Scout Rank = Scouting Adventure + Outdoor Adventurer (Outdoor Code) + Cyber Chip Tenderfoot Rank = Building a Better World + Outdoor Adventurer + Cast Iron Chef + Scouting Adventure + Scouting Adventure + Stronger, Faster, Higher + portions of Castaway And so on. A well trained, well developed crossover Cub Scout who has earned both the Webelos and Arrow of Light ranks should be (aside from time requirements) able to make Tenderfoot the day they crossover.

You are right. I should have said "governance structure" including and especially the composition of the National Board. Of course, it is perhaps a testament to how little the regional/area/territory system matters that in the midst of the bankruptcy the lawyers decided to let that move ahead. If it had any actual relevance to how BSA operates, it too would have been postponed until post-bankruptcy.

So, about this. LCs have demanded a ton of autonomy from National for years. National allowed segregated units and Council until well into the 1970s. This is cyclical: National gives, National takes. LCs gripe, LCs get things. The problem is that again, as they talked about in the Governance fireside chat, is that the "fun bus" (Programming) which National does control encroaches on everything and is used as an excuse to tell councils how to run themselves. Take, for example, position trained. National has said that it will NOT require unit leaders to be position trained, only YP trained. MY council, however requires you be position trained within 90 days. National has talked/muttered about imposing the same: MANDATING that all leaders (or at least youth/direct contact leaders) be position trained. They claim it helps to ensure program integrity: how do you know how to be a den leader if you don't take the 1.5 hour Den Leader Training program on training.scouting.org? On top of the 1.5 hour YP training? You can see how LCs would prefer that National butt the heck out and let them decide whether to mandate on their local volunteers or not. LCs are angry because they feel as if National doesn't listen to their concerns, which they hear from local units. So, some of the solutions (guaranteed seats on the National Board for smaller Local Councils, etc.) are valid. But as someone pointed out: a LARGE majority of the current National board are already current or former Council officials. The other thing to consider is that the only way National changes is if National desires it. The resolutions committee, which came up, opened up who could submit resolutions for bylaws amendments. 61 councils put in bylaws changes like the guaranteed seats. The problem is twofold. First, NO changes are going to take place until post-bankruptcy to the structure or organization of BSA. Absolutely none. Second, the CURRENT board has to approve any such changes. If the current board likes the way things are going just fine and thinks the LCs are spoiled brats, the resolutions get voted down or watered down to nothing. The brand's the only thing BSA has, but listen to the marketing message. Every fireside chat and NAM talked about reaching out to NEW parents, NEW people who may never have heard of scouting or may have not know it was in their area. That's the give away: people who HAVE heard of BSA are likely drawing negative connotations, so the marketing is going to focus on never-heard-of-you types. And on thing Tillerson and the rest repeated over and over: there is a BIG money/PR push to rebrand BSA as "safe" the minute the bankruptcy is over. That's to attract the people who ARE aware of BSA and the abuse.

Sorta. There was always supposed to be a balance between pay-to-play and seats that went to people who were actually involved in scouting at the unit level (either current or former). It is why all Chartered Organizations are, ex officio, Council members although they rarely or never show up. My feeling, at least as to my council, is that over the years the council is almost entirely pay-to-play. That's not a good way to run things.

Lower case "s" scouting does not. But if you want Boy Scouts of America scouting, then BSA National (by virtue of the Charter and trademarks on top of that) gets to dictate what that Boy Scouts of America scouting program looks like. Come back around to the franchise model for a second. Sure, you can open your own hamburger joint and name it Muttsy's. But if you want to sell McDonald's burgers and attract customers based on that name, you do it the McD's way, not your own. Same here. Imagine the chaos, for a second, if one Council decided to simply combine all Cub Scout Dens into one, put out its own Cub programs and levels, but still maintained and called itself Cub Scouts. That's not going to work. To take it even more extreme: let's say that Local Council A decides it doesn't like the current set of Eagle Required merit badges and decides to substitute its own. The Local Council B decides to only require Eagles need 5 merit badges and scouts can pick whatever they want. Etc. Now, if you want to form your OWN scouting program, go ahead and go off independent. The formerly known Baden-Powell group did just that. But if you want to affiliate with a national name (Boy Scouts of America), then you adhere to their program, you don't get to use the name and then come up with whatever it is you want to do.

I did not pick up on that from the governance Fireside chat at all. I believe that the governance was that: 1) LCs insist they are independent entities that are administratively and legally separate from National, therefore National should stick to "programming" and not tell councils how to run themselves. 2) National which has in the past in the name of "programming" shove requirement on councils that dictate how they should operate. This is why when people say "National should just admit in the bankruptcy they control the LCs" is it NOT that clear cut. Putting this back in the context of the bankruptcy for a second Multiple LCs, for example, simply refused to put into their articles of incorporation National's mandated, or rather "mandated", language that upon dissolution all LC assets go to National. Multiple LCs (I think I heard 61) submitted identical resolutions that, among other things, demand seats on the national board for smaller LCs and changes in the way that National treats the LCs. The LCs, in their pleadings (such as Circle Ten), identify themselves as independent, autonomous, franchises. The Ad Hoc Local Committee of Local Councils puts it this way And so on. When Gates and others at the National level talk about working together and surviving or dying together, I think he means that a National BSA that exist bankruptcy only to see some/many/most of the LCs go into bankruptcy right behind them would simply kill whatever is left of the organization.

Since the Board selects the Board, there is no real chance of progress. That said, I think these last few posts belong on the NAM thread, not the Ch. 11