CynicalScouter

So, sexual abuse is a lawyers' "get rich quick scheme"?

Some will. Most probably will. But yes, a percent (how much? TBD) will likely be going to pay for the settlement and/or the legal fees associated with this mess. The LCs that were telling people as recently as last year that "all local money stays local" were either a) being sold a bill of goods by National who in fact was until last fall touting that they would be able to cover everything or b) knew where this was heading and led people on. Camps are getting sold left, right, and center. This is a bad, bad scene.

Ok, there are three levels of review, two are going to happen. The third...might? NOW: The BSA and insurance companies vetted. This was originally 95,000. Now down to 84,000. Likely to go lower. Some of this is duplicate claims (accidental, on purpose, whatever). Some are for claims that were already paid out (where someone already sued the BSA and won) etc. SOON (maybe): The insurance companies want to get supporting documents from 1000 claims and verbal depositions from 100. This "sampling" would give insurers more info. They filed a motion of this, it is still pending. LATER: The BSA plan calls for ALL BSA Settlement Funds and assets (buildings, cash, paintings, oil/gas rights, etc.) to go into a Settlement Trust. The Trust would be overseen by a Trustee who would be appointed by the bankruptcy judge with the debtors OK. ALL 84,000 claims would go to the Trustee who would go line by line, case by case and determine a) how valid the claims are and b) how egregious the claims. The claimants are going to have to come up with something more than "just give me money," WITHOUT GETTING INTO DETAILS there will be an "abuse score" for each claimant. That abuse score will be put up against a chart. So, if your "abuse score" is 100, and every "point" is valued at $1, then the Settlement Trust will pay you $100. Again, WITHOUT GETTING INTO DETAILS some people may have suffer 1000 "points" of abuse. Their abuse was worse than 100 points, or happened 10 times (100*10 = 1000). etc. They would get $1,000. The fact that it is 40-50 years old cuts both ways: yes, it is harder to defend against, but it is ALSO harder to prove it actually happened. So no, it is not just going to be a case of "I was abused, give me the cash."

1) There has been no voting. 2) I think the idea with the new toggle plan is to legal the legal status of the LCs alone, estimate abuse claims based on a point system. That just leaves the question of the HA bases.

Took some time off. Wanted to work on some things. Get my head on straight. Yes, I am aware of all the activity and buzz. In the end, the bankruptcy is not about who is writing the most poignant letters to the judge (here's a hint, ex parte communications like that will likely never make it to the judge and even if they did, the canons of judicial ethics prohibit her from considering them). It is as I have said from the start about math. As someone from the TCC said in a prior town hall: this is a business proposition. How much (to creditors) and when. Not who writes the most tear jerking letters. So, what has BSA delivered? Not much, but it might be the best they can do. The deal with Hartford is a joke. $650 million might matter if there were only 650 claims (think USA Gymnastics). That's not what is playing out here. We are talking thousands, just in terms of states where the statute of limitations hasn't run. Last I checked, there were 850+ state and federal lawsuits pending against BSA that are part of the automatic stay. There's no doubt been a rush in states like NC, NJ, and NY where there are deadlines coming up or past to file more. $400 million from LCs? Even bigger joke. Local councils and Chartered Organizations are just utterly screwed at this point. We have talked at length about how they have not even been 100% forthcoming about their assets. But even if people seized all $4 billion, so what? There isn't enough. The TCC is absolutely getting cut out of this conversation, for the very reasonable reason that at this point they are useless because… BSA thinks it can cut a deal directly with the Coalition/AIS/Kosnoff (or at least the Coalition) and bypass the TCC. Read the mediation documents and read between the lines of why TCC was not even invited to the last day of the Miami mediation and why they were not allowed to pose questions. They are not relevant to the deal BSA is trying to cut. The only group more annoyed than TCC right now? Insurance companies not named Hartford. From what I gather, they were put in a Zoom waiting room the entire time in Miami. Every document I have read and the feeling I got from the Zoom sessions with the judge make me more and more convinced that there will be a BSA-Coalition deal that leaves out the LCs/COs and effectively cuts TCC off at the knees. The rest will involve Chubb and the other insurance companies vs. the abuse claimants for the next decade with BSA possibly siding on the side of the abuse claimants. This happened in some Catholic abuse cases where the dioceses sued/went after the insurers. Victims need to start wrapping their arms around the idea that $1 million payouts are off the table. You cannot get blood out of a stone and $102 billion is not going to magically appear where there is not $102 billion to be had. Chubb and the other insurance companies would themselves have to be liquidated to come up with that kind of cash. Never going to happen. I would lay money that within days of BSA National finalizing the contingency plan/toggle plan to come out of bankruptcy, at least half a dozen councils will file their own Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcies. With thousands of suits and claims already in the pipeline, there is just no working around it. So, stop thinking like people with emotional ties. Start thinking about this as a sheer function of math. There is not enough money to go around. This means either victims are looking at a pittance, or they opt to reject and will get million-dollar judgments that are worthless (again, cannot get blood out of a stone). BSA National survives as a hollowed-out shell that will keep bleeding out members (I can just see the headlines of BSA only paying out $10k per victim, that will sell well). We are already at World War II membership levels. Let's see how long it takes to get to World War I levels. Local councils are just utterly, utterly screwed.

Who knows? Same thing with the Catholic Church: the only way to find out is if 1) Those organizations kept a paper trail (as BSA did and Catholic Dioceses in the U.S.) 2) Lawsuits that find abuse cases and/or that paper trail from #1 3) Criminal investigations that find abuse cases and/or that paper trail from #1 4) Government hearings with subpoena or equivalent power (I'm thinking of the 2009 Irish commission on this subject regarding the Catholic Church, although that was criticized as a whitewash by some).

You KNOW that the world's turned upside down when @David COand I agree on something, but we agree on this. BSA couldn't even be bothered to answer ONE question about the SAFETY (not program) need for the YPT policy on adults tenting with their own children.

THAT is my point. THAT is my question. THAT is my concern. I can understand if the statement was "Because Scouting (other than Cubs) is scout-led, scout-focused, and scout-driven, adults should generally not tent with their children." That's a programmatic reason. That is trying to keep Scouts, BSA and the senior-scout programs from becoming Cub Scouts Part 2. I can 100% support that PROGRAMMATICALLY. The problem is that a parent now is BEING THREATENED WITH BEING DECLARED A YOUTH PROTECTION VIOLATOR if they tent with their kid. I went up the chain. Went to my district chair. What is the SAFETY reason for this? Don't know. Went to my S.E. What is the SAFETY reason for this? Don't know. Email National. Emailed national. Got the boilerplate PROGRAM answer I already found online at that @RichardBgave. So I followed up that email and asked again, that's a PROGRAM reason. What is the SAFETY reason. Never got a response. Let me repeat. NEVER. GOT. A. RESPONSE. So no, thanks. I'm not going to help BSA on Safe Scouting unless and until I can get ONE STRAIGHT ANSWER. Will I obey the Guide to Safe Scouting? Absolutely. Will I obey Youth Protection Training? Absolutely Will I tent with my son at a BSA event? NEVER. But if BSA cannot even bother itself to answer a basic question WHY something is done or WHY a PROGRAM rule is being wrapped up as a SAFETY rule, don't bother asking me to help lift a finger to promote that same program. Hey @RichardByou and BSA decided to ignore my email and question. Got another person asking the same. Any response? At all? No? Ok then.

Globally? Or US? If it was Global, I'd say yeah sure that might even be low. With the U.S.? Gosh, I don't know. I mean maybe? EDIT: Has to be global. I looked at all annual data for the U.S. since the start. Even if you assume a BRAND NEW SET OF SCOUTS EVERY YEAR since 1911, you only get to 270 million.

As I said, when BSA starts to answer questions, then perhaps I'll be inclined to participate and help. But I cannot, in clear conscious and a straight face, help promote Safe Scouting when my own questions don't get answered and my emails don't get returned. It very, very much seems as if engagement means "Do what your told. Don't ask questions. Don't expect answers." EDIT: So I'll ask once again (and if it takes a letter to the bankruptcy court, maybe that is what it takes to get you/BSA to take this seriously). What is the SAFETY reason for not allowing an adult to tent with his/her own child? Not the PROGRAM reason, the SAFETY reason? If you throw me another PROGRAM answer I'll know you and BSA National are not serious about this. Is, as I noted a PROGRAM answer. Are you concerned that parents will sexually abuse their children? Ok, that's a SAFETY reason. I may agree/disagree, but I can see that could be a SAFETY concern, sure. But simply throwing up the FAQ that talks about PROGRAM is not a SAFETY reason. Deciding not to answer my emails regarding a SAFETY is not a best practice, either, but that's another story. Perhaps one the court and claimants attorneys need to know?

I guarantee what if we filed such a brief a LOT of YP questions would be sorted/resolved right quick because at that point it would be fodder for the abuse claimants to show that BSA doesn't take YP seriously. Of course, as I said, it means the end to not only any plans the scouter has for a future in BSA but their children as well.

This is what blows my mind (not really) Until 2020 and the bankruptcy, by BSA's own admission, direct contact leaders were NOT all YPT trained. They only hit 99.9% in 2020. As recently as 2018 that number was only 67.1%. As for the clarity, I can point to three different items right now on the BSA website regarding two-deep leadership that directly contradict each other, especially in the area of virtual activities, whether or not merit badge counselors are/are not "registered adult leaders" for purposes of two-deep, etc. And when you ask you are either given multiple contradictory answers or ignored.

I have often thought the way to light a fire under National would be to get a group of adult Scouters to file a brief in the bankruptcy court indicating that BSA does NOT take YPT seriously, as indicated by the fact that when we as registered adult leaders ask questions we are given a) multiple answers or b) blown off. Then provide email chains showing/demonstrating this. Of course, any scouter who did that would a) be purged and b) if they had kids in program would see any chance they had a Eagle voided on the spot.

The question came up how can they accommodate religious concerns/objections especially in the context of sexual orientation/identity. I think they can do it using the existing draft that got leaked. There are three places where sexual orientation are discussed Draft Requirement 3 Solution: Discuss with your merit badge counselor how your unit can create the most welcoming environment for every person who wants to be involved with your unit. Tell what more your unit can do to ensure anyone can participate regardless of their ability, ethnicity, faith, financial background, gender Identity, race, or sexual orientation. Review the plan with your counselor and then discuss with your unit's leadership how you might implement your plan Draft Requirement 8 Solution: Describe how generalizing people by identities such as ability, age, ethnicity, faith, financial background, gender, gender identity, race, or sexual orientation can be harmful. Tell how stereotypes can lead to prejudice and discrimination. Solution: Give scouts the option to NOT select the one dealing with sexual orientation (Select ONE of the three scenarios) Of course, there will be an ENORMOUS push back that this waters down the DEI badge itself, but it may be one way to address concerns

Already discussed here

Transcript will not be available until June as Doc. 2407 Why do you ask? Stenographer gets paid. Sending around free copies to all parties and lawyers means $0. So standard practice for courts is for either a) NO free transcripts EVER or b) time delayed.

Even if run out of money is true, that refers (I believe) to BSA cashflow/cash on hand. For example, I could see BSA saying that it ran out of cash on hand in August and then had to stop paying its current bills in order to fund the bankruptcy proceeding had to take out a loan had to sell items NOW to pay for the proceeding. For example, the University of Scouting building gets sold this summer and rather than the proceeds going into some Settlement Fund it now goes direct to pay the legal bills. This is something I plan on asking some bankruptcy lawyers I worked with back in the day: what happens if the debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding cannot afford to stay in bankruptcy. One possibility is that the TCC attorneys and the BSA attorneys become a class of creditors in their own rights

If you read the motion papers, ASSET estimation isn't even listed. The focus is entirely on the amount/value of the sexual abuse claims. The proceeding is for an "Estimation of Personal Injury Claims". This has 0 to do with properties.

If a BSA employee is sexual harassing people, go straight to national.

Yep. Our Life scouts are getting personalized attention to get to Eagle by June.

We told our parents we did not expect BSA to be alive much past the summer. We are hopeful, but we gave people warnings that this was looking pretty bad. The biggest challenge here is that National's not saying a word, Councils are NOT talking much at all (and lately it has been only to say "We are selling the camp", and so all that leaves is guesswork. No one is going to be able to say for sure what PRECISELY is going to happen until after it is all over. That could be months. It could be YEARS.

Right now that box is "We need cash, now, to pay the sexual abuse settlement, now." The bill is going to come due very soon. What Three Fires Council did when it announced it was selling its camp was to say 1) We are selling the camp now/after Summer 2021. 2) If it sells, all proceeds go to the abuse settlement fund. 3) If it doesn't sell, Three Fires Council will simply transfer the title/deed to the camp to the settlement fund Scouting has the same membership it did in 1941, but the infrastructure (like camps) it did in its heyday, when it had 200-300% MORE MEMBERS than it does now. Things have got to give.

It's in the motion papers.

For whom? And some of it we won't know for a long time. This may actually be good for everyone in the sense that there has been $100 MILLION dollars worth of foot-dragging and precisely NOTHING to show for it. A fired up judge practically ORDERING the parties into a locked room (bring a toothbrush) to get things done may be a good thing. Or it may just prove a useless exercise because everyone remains locked into place without more data 1) How many of the 80,000 claims are valid? No idea 2) How much is each claim worth, approximately? No idea 3) What assets does BSA REALLY have to offer? No idea (BSA's put out its version of asset list, TCC is saying BSA is full of BS) 4) What assets do to Local Councils REALLY have to offer? No idea (Like BSA, LCs are pleading poverty or restricted assets, TCC is calling shenanigans) 4.5) Are LCs mere appendages of National and therefore who cares what LCs think their assets are, for these purposes LC assets = BSA assets. 5) What assets do the insurance companies have to offer? They still insist they won't pay a dime because BSA lied to them in obtaining the insurance policies. And on and on and on. $100 million and we are no closer to any of these answers than we were a year ago.

Right, the magic math is either 1) Establish all available assets and divided by abuse claimants OR 2) Establish all debt (abuse claims) and then figure out who has to pay what. That's where BSA National, LCs, and insurance companies will start to slit each others throats. For TCC purposes, however, it won't matter. The TCC will have a number and then leave it do BSA, LCs, and the insurance companies to figure it all out.