CynicalScouter

It really is that blatant at this point. BSA and Hartford hit a sweetheart deal, in which the sexual abuse victims (either through their attorneys or at least the TCC) had precisely 0 input. And the two of them expect the abuse victims to just accept it. This was the same stunt they pulled when they reached an "agreement" with JP Morgan over Arrow WV/Summit.

That creates the second part: JP Morgan's mortage/loan is a fraud to make it appear as if Summit is in debt. It isn't. TCC and the others are claiming, in effect, that the MINUTE that BSA gets out of bankruptcy, the note is going to be 100% paid off. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/878880_2364 a.pdf If JP Morgan and/or BSA really have a DEBT interest in Summit (as opposed to equity) then prove it. Otherwise, this looks like a fraud.

Let me put it this way. Between 2010 and 2019 (before the LDS left and COVID) Cub Scouts dropped 27%. At a time when U.S. Male Population age 5-11 dropped only about .6% During that same time period, Scouts, BSA lost 11%. U.S. Male Population age 12-17 only dropped around 1.7% That's what is insane here. You cannot attribute it to a lack of kids. They (or perhaps their parents, or both) just couldn't be bothered. And COVID isn't going to change that trend. Source: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (NC-EST2019-AGESEX-RES)

This was explained really well on reddit. Summit has equity worth at least $345 million. They are just making it LOOK like it is in debt. It isn't.

That's the way I read it, too. And consistent with what I had heard. To put this into perspective folks: The last time total youth (Cub + Scouts, BSA + Venturing/Sea Scouts + Exploring) was this low was was between 1933 (707,598) and 1934 (774,594) The last time Cub Scouts was this low was 1943 (300,782) and 1944 (412,871) The last time Scouts, BSA was this low was between 1919 (360,790) and 1920 (389,352) EVEN IF everything DOUBLES, we are talking massive, massive losses. A doubling of total youth to 1,498,146 would put BSA back to where it was in 1947 (1,584,927) A doubling of Cub Scouts to 697,476 would put Cubs back to where it was between 1948 (608,716) and 1949 (766,635) A doubling of Scouts, BSA to 739,432 would put Scouts, BSA back to where it was in 1935 (738,628) We have an entire institutional infrastructure (local councils, camps, HA bases, National structure and organization, etc.) built for a 1980s-1990s program (at best) but numbers are that are closer to WW2. BSA, if it survives, is basically going back to scratch.

Because as far as they are concerned, as they expressed in the filings, this no big deal, no need to litigate this out, because of COURSE they are not playing shell games/acting fraudulently with respect to Summit/Arrow, WV. They are not about to concede that "Well sure, maybe what we did was fraudulent. Let's let a judge decide." Deny. Deny. Deny.

Hartford had an investors call. It was...interesting. Part 2, and the real humdinger

That's the big worry for me as well and why I am very, very interested to see the July 2021 KPI numbers. I'd be VERY curious to see if National even allows them to be released in any shape or form.

BSA and JP Morgan filed their objections to some of the recent TCC/FCR/Coalition moves to go after Summit/Arrow, WV. BSA's effort to try and protect Summit/Arrow https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/79c9867a-f837-49ff-a8ab-562ce6c6dfdc_2733.pdf Arguing, in effect, that the BSA-Arrow relationship and shell game isn't "fraudulent". (Hint: When you try to hide assets by putting phony notes payable on something, it's fraudulent). JP Morgan 1 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/48cdda3a-e13e-48de-80ed-a376c6676dd8_2732.pdf Arguing now is not the time to determine Summit's status, wait until later in the Reorg process. And JP Morgan 2 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/48cdda3a-e13e-48de-80ed-a376c6676dd8_2732.pdf Another attempt at defending Summit/Arrow WV

Care to share with the class? Is is the KPI report? So you are saying that between December 2020 and March 2021, V/SS dropped from 23,731 to 14,000? and Explorer from 52,007 to 17,000? In 3 months? http://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/commissioner/newsletter/2021_winter/KPI_NatlRegion.pdf

We have some very, very different numbers. The latest I have is V/SS = 23,731 and Explorer = 52,007 as of March 2021. Historical (pre 2020) data Year Venturing & Sea Scouting - Youth Exploring - Youth 1998 188,010 310,000 1999 202,486 331,000 2000 233,858 2001 276,434 2002 233,858 2003 288,395 2004 280,584 2005 249,948 2006 244,266 2007 254,259 2008 261,122 146,564 2009 257,361 121,407 2010 238,846 113,062 2011 231,127 112,783 2012 219,453 116,589 2013 192,080 114,894 2014 157,655 110,853 2015 142,892 110,445 2016 136,629 119,268 2017 87,827 114,751 2018 55,101 109,613 2019 42,571 101,243

When even trying to discuss merging Sea Scouts into Venture was part of the Churchill plan, Sea Scouts rallied and saved their program. I cannot image that BSA will touch that hot stove again, at least for awhile. And going after Venture? No, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

In the absence of a) a universally agreed upon definition of quality that b) can be quantifiably measured, you will still get quantity data.

Are you kidding? Guide to Safe Scouting is crystal clear. Youth Protection and Adult Leadership Having threesomes at a Scouting event is explicitly, unequivocally a Youth Protection issue. It is also explicitly a violation of the Scouter Code of Conduct Again, let's be clear here: @Armymutt is claiming that

I cannot tell you how many times I've been the one to tell Council and District level professionals about things from National. BSA's communications apparatus is just horrible and it has not gotten any better over the years. I'd even say it is worse, but that might be overselling the point.

One possibility is Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But these are not stupid lawyers. So, let's assume good faith and a modicum of smarts here. 1) BSA is bleeding out and they want to avoid death by exsanguination. As such, they'll latch onto ANY deal or ANY agreement that gets them out of bankruptcy the fastest. If you ever took lifeguard training, it is the same thing. A drowning person will climb onto ANYTHING that elevates their head above water, even if that means trying to climb on top of the lifeguard. It is the logic if self-preservation: cut any deal, make any concession, just to make it stop. The focus is on getting any kind of plan, period because... 2) They are assuming that in the end they will be believed when they tell the abuse victims in that ballot package "this is really, really the best we can do." And here's the thing, in keeping with #1 above, BSA leadership and lawyers may really, truly believe that. They may believe, for example, that while $650 million from Hartford is a pittance, they'll take $650 million NOW if it means getting out of bankruptcy by September 1. And they assume that they can persuade 67% of the abuse victims of that as well. Of course, there are a good number of abuse victims who will look at the absolute pittance of a number and say "No, thanks. We'll wait and see what we can get down the line." 3) One more possibility is they know something we don't. For example, we know that BSA has been promised money from the (independent or "independent") Boy Scouts of America Foundation to tie BSA over post-bankruptcy for a few years. I wonder if BSA's mad dash rush is also with an eye towards someone(s) telling BSA "the minute you get out of bankruptcy, there's $100 million in donations waiting for you."

I am still thinking that BSA won't ever get its plan (global, toggle, whatever) out the door and that an alternative TCC/FCR/Coalition (or some combo) will be what ultimately gets sent out.

Right, and that's my point. These are not really "executives" in the sense of C-level corporate office types. So OP's assertion that there were a lot of "executives" was something of an inaccuracy.

I want to reiterate what others have said and that in fact is directly from the Youth Protection Training. It is not up to YOU to investigate or decide if there is/is not sufficient evidence. If you suspect something, you have to call 844-SCOUTS1 (844-726-8871) or email scouts1st@scouting.org immediately.

BSA has now released its new solicitation plan (how will the various creditors vote). If you thought TCC, FCR, and Coalition was/were mad before, just wait. As you read it, remember Class 8 = Direct Abuse Claims. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/88d65e3f-2adb-4828-aac7-021073afe799_2726.pdf 1) BSA wants this done by September 1. Let me just say that heck will freeze over and we'll be skating on the ice before that happens. Event Proposed Date Voting Record Date May 19, 2021 Solicitation Date June 2, 2021 Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline June 17, 2021 Publication Deadline July 2, 2021 Plan Supplement Deadline July 16, 2021 Voting Resolution Event Deadline July 30, 2021 or as otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court Voting Deadline July 30, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Plan Objection Deadline July 30, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Voting Report Deadline August 16, 2021 Confirmation Brief/Plan Reply Deadline August 20, 2021 Confirmation Hearing August 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) 2) BSA does NOT want ANY statements from the TCC, FCR, Coalition, or ANYONE ELSE involved in the Direct Abuse Claims in that ballot pack other than BSA and any other "co-proponents" (see section on Distribution of Solicitation Packages, page 12 in the PDF) So if TCC, FCR, or Coalition rollover and accept the BSA plan, they can have that info transmitted to the abuse victims. If they reject/object the plan, they are told to shut up and sit in a corner. 3) They are offering an expedited payout of $1,500 to any sexual abuse victim (Class 8 or Class 9) who just wants to walk away now.

I mentioned previously this all started when Hartford refused to pay out on its insurance policies and BSA sued them in state court over it. Here's the original petition in that state action. It lists all the Hartford policies. Exhibit A lists the dates as 1971-1980.

As for the $650 million Hartford deal, the TCC has come out in the press with its own estimation of how much Hartford should be paying: $8 billion at least.

Again, let's look at it from the BSA lawsuit perspective. It is not uncommon to have a situation where an adult sexual abuser is "grooming" several kids, or perhaps is "grooming" the friend of the abuser's own child or even being a "friend of the family." There have in fact been convictions where the SM admitted the practice of targeting his son's friends, etc. So having a second child present but elsewhere in the house, or even another adult who is not YPT trained/mandatory reporter, doesn't work. And in this sense, I'll say BSA is not going as far as it could. For example, Roman Catholicism's program (Virtus) requires 2 deep NON-RELATED leadership (e.g. your spouse cannot be the 2nd person). All of the rules in Guide to Safe Scouting and Youth Protection Training, up to and including 2 deep leadership at all times, 24/7, start to make sense if you put it in the prism of "the LACK of this rule was used to successfully sue BSA and/or or some LC at one time or another." Now, does that mean that this is going to be always enforced? Of course not, because that would require one of the scouts, scout parents, or scout leaders ratting out the out-of-compliance leader. But what it does do is to provide some legal protection to BSA and the LCs. "See, we had a rule AGAINST just this kind of thing and the abusive SM just ignored it. Therefore, we were NOT negligent."

The reason that 24/7 rule is in place is because when scouts were sexually abused it was NOT always during a scouting activity. It would be Scoutmaster telling a scout "come on over to my house and we can work on your rank advancement", etc. There have been people posting on this very forum that have in fact said that is how they were abused: by a scout leader in the leader's home/some non-scouting location. So, faced with the choice of a) writing a rule that limits Youth Protection Training/Guide to Safe Scouting to scouting events only b) writing the 24/7 rule, they went with the later because of BSA's past history in this area.

There are a lot of people who are absolutely insistent that the LCs are fine and will come out of this AOK, as with National. Either they are being cheerfully optimistic or naive. Time will tell.