CynicalScouter

True, but having a court ORDER you, on pain of contempt, to do something is going to move things a lot faster. That's why this HAS to be part of the settlement, and TCC has made it clear it will be asking for YP changes. Want to get those reports done quick? Make it clear failure to comply will result in the council and/or BSA national facing contempt sanctions. That will light various fires under people. That's NOT to say TCC will support Clery-type reporting, but it would be what I'd be asking for. No more hiding things away in those IVF files. It does NOT have to mean that a person is named ("John Doe, Scoutmaster for Troop 123") but it could be

Clery reports are mandatory reports submitted to the federal government. The feds simply host the website and store the data. The burden will be on council staff to report, but you know what? I don't care. BSA needs to do this to be taken seriously. And if some council were to report on an annual basis "We had 0 YP violations this year" I'd suspect either a) that council had reached a point of utopia or b) YP was not being enforced. TCC has said that in addition to any financial settlement(s) for abuse victims it will be asking for changes to BSA's YP program. Remember: over 11,000 abuse claims occurred the much vaunted (but NOT enforced) YP training took place. And as recently as 2018, only 66% of direct contact leaders were YP trained. I would LOVE to see TCC ask for, and the court order, BSA produce Clery style reports and an INDEPENDENT sexual abuse special counsel/special monitor named by the court to oversee BSA's YP compliance, similar to how federal courts appoint special monitors to confirm compliance with consent decrees or court orders.

They are also no doubt looking at the councils (like Colonial Virginia) that have no camps to make the case many/most camps are not core/essential to scouting.

Keep in mind in a bankruptcy, what is/is not a "core" element needed for BSA National to survive is the question. If you look at the recent (1-2 months) push to have HA bases be "Family Adventure camps" the business case will be that HA bases will be money makers for BSA in the future. So, you are right, units may not need them, but BSA may claim it needs their projected future revenue to survive.

Hartford has responded to the TCC/FCR/Coalition request for information regarding the sweetheart deal they cut with BSA. While the details of the responses are not available, we do know that the were mailed/processed today based on the notice of service (a document filed with the court indicating that the following papers were sent). Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Company’s Objections and Responses to The Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, The Official Committee of Tort Claimants and The Future Claims Representative’s First Set of Requests for Admission Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Company’s Objections and Responses to The Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, The Official Committee of Tort Claimants and The Future Claims Representative’s First Requests for the Production of Documents Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Company’s Objections and Responses to The Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ First Set of Interrogatories Before anyone asks No, we don't know what objected to or how they responded to any of this. No, we likely won't either. These kinds of papers are sent back and forth between attorneys. Unless somewhere down the road a relevant portion is included in some other court filing, we'll never know.

As noted, there are units whose entire interaction with the CO or COR is a 5 minute conversation for signatures once a year.

THIS is what I want from BSA and I hope the TCC demands: Cleary Act style reporting (which focuses on colleges and universities) For example, right now I can pull up data on Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter, Negligent manslaughter, Rape, Fondling, Incest, Statutory rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault, Burglary, Motor vehicle theft, and Arson. I can find this out for a particular college OR a particular campus of that college. I can then see how many resulted in arrests, disciplinary actions, unfounded crimes, and fire statistics (?) https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/#/ Any council data on number of people removed? Nope. YP violations? Nope. Start posting reports and aggregated data and we can start to talk honesty and transparency with BSA and the LCs.

Yep. When people scream and squeal about Guide to Safe Scouting or YP, I point out that 90% of both and be traced back to a lawsuit or an insurance company demand, or both.

Which is part of why this is in court and the COs waiting in the wings to see what happens and if the insurance companies will cover them and to how much/what extent.

I remain absolutely stunned that councils still think they can skate on this. They can't. Just sit back and watch. These statutes are going to tear every BSA council apart.

Except that the book group does not have access to young children is not based on a binding contract/charter that requires the minister ensure certain oversight and standards are observed

Just FYI: We are now at or near 300 letters from abuse victims filed with the court in the last week 10 days. Most, if not all, appear to be based on a request from AVA Law Group/Abused in Scouting/Andrew Van Arsdale to make such submissions. Anyone think that this is going to stop with 300 letters? Nope.

Both. The insurance companies provided their policies with an understanding that BSA would supervise these adults and utterly failed to do so and let in whomever, whenever, wherever. Moreover, it is clear that BSA KNEW IT HAD A PEDOPHILE PROBLEM and did nothing to tighten up this mess. The concern was numbers: they did not and will not check to see if CORs are in fact exercising oversight. Instead, they just crossed their fingers and hoped. That obviously did not work.

A followup. Fortunately this is not my troop, but the "feeder" troop for my son's former pack. In short, the old SM for my old pack's "feeder" troop left due to a work change in March. At crossover, the pack's CM was in effect drafted into being the new SM (none of the ASM wanted it). He was browbeaten into it. He's a really, really nice guy and can't so no. A real servants heart. Here's the problem: he's taken over the PLC completely. It's Cubmaster 2.0 from what I am told. He directs the PLs and SPL the way he would direct cub scouts to do things. He has NO frame of reference, NOTHING to see or observe (again, he just crossed over with his son 30-60 days ago). Now everyone is running scared: it would be rude to force him out and frankly it isn't clear if any ASM would step up. Is there ANY recording, ANY documents, ANYTHING to show the role of a SM in a PLC? Thanks.

Nope. But I wonder how common that will remain if these units are looked at as legal liabilities. For example, I know Catholic Church chartered units in my diocese must, in addition to BSA YPT, take Virtus, be registered as PARISH leaders, and are subject to oversight by the pastor (IH) or a similarly designated person who sits on the Parish board as the COR. The pack I came from it was a Deacon, then the newest junior priest, then back to the Deacon. In other words: if you are going to get this parish into potential legal liability, we want to know who you are, what you do, and you are going to be vetted (defined as the Diocese). If you suck as a Scoutmaster or Cubmaster, whatever. But you are NOT going to be a legal liability.

The purpose of the pros is, in the best of cases, to be the institutional memory and help units survive and thrive. At worst, they are tone deaf egotists and bean counters who don't know what "real" scouting is and just want to beg for money for the council to pay absurdly large scout exec salaries. Your mileage may vary, and there are entire sections of this site dedicated to debating the positives and negatives of the professional staffers. But, anyway, back to the point; the pros are suppose to help units because the units are all volunteer (although early on there were reports of paid Scoutmasters, that was dropped by the 1930s). Volunteers who are untrained, unprepared, and don't know anything about how a BSA unit is suppose to operate or how to operate the unit in compliance with BSA policies. So, there you have it: Boy Scouts of America. A (mostly) volunteer organization guided (or dictated to, depending) by paid professional staff based on the absurdly laughable premise that the chartered organizations are selecting and overseeing the men (and later women) who are responsible for children and this entire mess insured by BSA National and the Local Councils Now, do you see what the insurance companies are like "No way are we paying for this mess."

UNIT is as follows and, as always, starts with a Key-3 The Institutional Head (IH) selects a Chartered Organization Representative (or names themself). The COR is entitled to sit on the Council Board. In a church, for example the IH may be the pastor while the COR is a deacon, member of the congregation, junior pastor, etc. The IH or COR names a Committee Chair. The Chair is a registered adult leader and responsible for the unit's administrative functions. Fundraising? Paperwork? That's suppose to be committee (it tends to get dumped on Scoutmasters, but that's another story) The IH or COR names a Unit Leader (Scoutmaster, Cubmaster are the ones you are likely familiar with). This is typically on the recommendation of the Unit Committee, but the unit committee does not "hire" the Unit Leader, the IH or COR does. Under the terms of of the annual charter agreement between the CO and Boy Scouts of America (note: NOT the local council), the CO is to oversee these three and the entire program and adhere to BSA's directives and program. Note that the language changed over the years, but usually includes language like this. Below these Key-3 are Unit Committee members: again, all must be approved by the COR. Unit Leader Assistants: Den Leaders, Assistant Cubmasters, Assistant Scoutmasters are the most common. Again, must be approved by the COR. Merit badge counselors are technically DISTRICT positions, not unit. Another story for another day. THE BIGGEST CRITICISM of this relationship is that the IH and COR, while they are suppose to be exercising oversight of these units and taking seriously the men (and women) they select to these positions in reality just sign the papers. CORs tend to be someone in the congregation who wants to help run the unit. Unit leaders tend to be whoever is willing to take the job. Committee chairs are whoever are willing to handle the paperwork. The joke of the relationship is that other than signing that annual charter agreement, the IHs and sometimes even the CORs wouldn't be able to identify the unit leaders in a police lineup. It is looked at like the Troop/Pack is some outside youth group that uses the church's basement once a week. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE but it is how it evolved. The CO/COR is completely checked out. That's why so many COs dropped scouting last year. The lawsuits and bankruptcies made them realize: Who was it that signed that adult application to allow the absusive scoutmaster in? That's your signature COR or IH. Who was it that utterly failed to supervise any of the abusers or the scout unit? That would be you COR or IH. But, who is now on the hook for negligence in selection, oversight, training, and retention? That would be you COR or IH. You just thought you were leasing space to the scouts for weekly meetings for free. LOL You're screwed now.

Your "standard" Council (and let me say again, "standard") works up from 1) District Executive - a paid professional who is assigned a district within a council. This district can have anywhere from a few to dozens of units (Scouts, BSA; Cub; Explorer; Venture; Sea Scouts). Along with the District Committee Chair (volunteer) and District Commissioner (volunteer) they form the District Key-3. 2) Middle management, to be discussed below.* 3) Scout Executive - a paid professional who is assigned to run a council. The Scout Executive hires the D.E.s directly or indirectly (there may be a middle manager in-between the SE and the DE). Along with the Council President and the Council Commissioner, they fomr the Council Key-3. Now, every other position at the council level is somewhere in between. For a large, incredibly complex Council (looking at you Circle Ten) there can a slew of middle management*. Field Directors (who can act like supervisors of DEs or like super-DEs in their own right), camp staff, council direct support staff (registrar, scoutstore staff, etc.) Above the Councils are Territories (used to be Areas and Regional, but they got smushed into the new Territories). Again, lots of volunteers (training, development, etc.) and a few paid pros. Above the Territories is National with its own Key-3. Chief Scout Executive ("Chief Scout"), National Board Chair, and National Commissioner. https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/about-the-bsa/national-leadership/ Now, here is where phrases like "chain of command" fall apart. 1) Keep in mind MOST of the positions and people I just described are volunteers. If Roger Mosby as Chief Scout Executive "orders" a local district volunteer to do something, the response will be to go pound salt. 2) Local councils have their own boards, own finances, and own view on how much deference and control the cede to National. ULTIMATELY National could revoke the council's charter and has done so due to financial mismanagement or in order to merge councils. But day to day, the council sets its own budget, controls its own volunteers, etc. 3) This above is why it is often thought of or called that National "franchises" councils or units (for the record, the annual charter for both is issued direct from National). That's true...to a point. But as has been noted over and over, there's a legal question on whether BSA TODAY, NOW simply "order" local volunteer council boards to turn over all LC assets to BSA. If Mosby were to tell a local council "you must sell Camp XYZ today and turn over the money to us?" See the aforementioned pounding of salt. Some things are non-negotiable: Councils cannot run around and create their own criteria for Eagle Scout, or create their own merit badges, etc. But they can decide whether to sell that camp, or participate in the bankruptcy settlement releases or not.

This is what TCC wants to know and BSA and JP Morgan won't say. There are several questions: 1) Who the debt is payable to. The promissory note issued to Arrow, WV and payable on demand is payable on demand to BSA. This is part of the shell game, that Arrow, WV really isn't an entity separate of BSA. Thus WHATEVER value Summit has should be considered BSA equity. 2) The property is worth more than the (legit) debt. The other argument is that the debt is inflated to make it look worse than it is. They took a second mortgage on Summit to make it appeared more encumbered than it is, but that cash is sitting somewhere and the minute the bankruptcy ends, the money gets returned. This was, in part, why TCC noted that the promissory note has NO interest and NO maturation date. That's not a legit loan; that's trying to hide assets from creditors, in effect telling JP Morgan "hold our money off our books for now, but when this blows over, we'll want it back." 3) The property could be sold TODAY, any/all debts paid, and STILL have money to be put into an abuse settlement fund. This is a modified version of #2.

At this point: stubbornness and institutional inertia. There have been people here on this forum and I know I've heard it from folks I know who were in national level positions a decade ago that even back then indicated that whatever case there was to make for Summit past a certain point it became something akin to throwing good money after bad. First rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging. But I also think it is just as plausible, and TCC certainly thinks so, that Summit is in fact at positive equity at this point and that BSA and JP Morgan just threw on a promissory note (with NO maturation date and NO interest) to try and shield/shell game the property. It is after if BSA leadership is putting Summit ahead of even scouting itself.

Most Councils are not Circle Ten. My own council is a tiny, fraction of Circle Ten and has the same level of resources. We are relying on a volunteer lawyer as whatever the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils is telling the Key-3. That's not to trash on Circle Ten, I mean great for you. The other councils are going to get slammed, hard.

Boy Scouts abuse claimants seek details of local council, insurer payments Oh, and of course the LCs are not getting away with anything, either. And the letters to the judge are making an impact, at least in terms of being reported.

That remains absolutely true to this day. And not just churches, COs as a general rule look at units simply as "a thing we rent space to for $0 a year." That is why starting last year dozens of COs dropped units when it became clear that all those years of abuse made COs liable for the unit. This resulted, for example, in the unique situation where the Diocese of Dallas in effect gave BSA 30 days to get out of the parishes and find new COs. It also meant the creation of the new Council-CO model where a) the Council charters the unit/serves as CO and b) the former CO simply signs a rental agreement. Short Form Facility Use Agreement Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement

I think it could show it. There's two possibilities: 1) Summit has a good amount of positive equity but JP Morgan and BSA put the loans and play games with the financials to make it look encumbered so that the sexual abuse victim won't get it. 2) Summit is so far underwater as to be utterly embarrassing and a shock to everyone to see how much of a money pit it is.

That is what the TCC wants BSA to release. It is why or part of why they are opposing the deal BSA made with JP Morgan. The math does not add up. It looks like there is money being shielded by a fake loan agreement. That whole mess could be solved in 1 hour if JP Morgan or BSA just emailed the financials to the judge and the TCC. TCC asked, BSA said no. Makes you wonder.