CynicalScouter

What BSA said in the latest Scouts, BSA Office Hours is that no scout would be forced to contradict their religious views. See this for the discussion.

Right. The "how much and when" is applicable to ALL creditors in ALL bankruptcies. But it was also brought up in the TCC that just as soon as "how much and when" is answered, TCC would as for an order directing changes/improvements to prevent sexual abuse in BSA. Details TBD.

That's why I said Clery reports. Annual. Aggregated to the Council level and National. Any lower (district) and you get into issues.

Background checks against a database are run council via a paid company (or companies, I forget which I had in my head there were two). The council (or district, depending) is suppose to call references. In my district, that's simply not done at all for years. Now, they want a volunteer district committee person to do it. Again, let me repeat that. An untrained, unpaid volunteer is now expected by BSA to start doing reference checks. My district hasn't had a DE in years, so this is their solution. Tell me again how much BSA takes YP seriously?

And if this was a civil suit, maybe that would work. A judge can look at equitable relief/what is "best for society". But it isn't. This is a bankruptcy. That means the judge's main focus is in on a) claimants and b) money. Or, as the TCC attorney put it a) how much do claimants get and b) when do they get it. And the claimants (or 66% of them) have to approve the plan. Could a bankruptcy judge overrule the 66%, tell 80,000 abuse victims "No money for you, instead the money will go to better YPT?" over the objection of the abuse victims? Sure. Theoretically. Will it happen? Not a chance. Can they fashion some kind of injunction/order at the end of the bankruptcy that BSA has to improve its YPT? Maybe. But that is AFTER the money is parsed our (or the judge rules on HOW the money is parsed out, the actual checks may take months/years).

I don't need to know John Smith was ejected for refusing to maintain two-deep. But this super secret, frankly crap, of no reporting, hide it away and pretend it isn't happening is exactly what caused the Ineligible Files to be a PR mess. I don't want names. I want to know my Council is DEMONSTRABLY taking YPT seriously. Ditto, and especially, National. That means heads on pikes.

I've been at this for 10 years. My Council? 0 people that happens to. And I see it is "Asked to not return". Not "volunteer raped a child, so volunteer she was EXPELLED." They were "Asked to not return". How...nice. And anyone wonders why there's 11,000-13,000 abuse claims? Because BSA "asks" people not to return for violation Youth Protection. Again, perhaps that's why what we need are annual reports from Council saying that (no names) Clery Act type reports that 14 registered adult leaders were REMOVED OR EXPELLED for YP violations. Or heck, even NATIONAL data on that number.

You've read BSA National's statements. YPT is perfect, an industry leader. Etc. Meanwhile, LARGE portions of registered adults in BSA were not even YPT trained until 2020. Take a look; as recently as 2018 only 67.1% of direct contact leaders had current YPT. It only got to 99.9% in 2020 when the lawsuits starting to flood in and the bankruptcy happened. If BSA took YPT seriously, that 99.9% number would have happened DECADES ago.

To followup on this. Even as a threshold matter, BSA doesn't take YPT seriously. Want to know how I know? Look at the fall 2020 recharter and the training.scouting.org fiasco. For anyone who did YPT online last fall, the system failed to record module completion if you took all 4 modules consecutively. Meaning if you took module 1 and finished THEN HIT GO TO NEXT MODULE and did Module 2, it would NOT record completion of Module 2. Or Module 3. Or anything. And sometimes it didn't even record Module 1 completed. For MONTHS complaints were made at every level this was a major issue. Adults were taking YPT over and over, thinking they had completed the program and finding out they were going to have to retake it. Again. Rather than stepping up and fixing the problem, BSA National punted. My Council and others had to come up with "workarounds" on their own. My Council Advancement chair sent a "Workaround" sheet to all units. Other councils posted the "Workarounds" they found to their websites. One council, for example, found that using a private browser tab worked. http://www.elcaminoreal-bsa.org/uploads/7/9/6/0/79603604/201009_ypt_workaround.pdf Other councils told people to complete 1 module, logout, WALK AWAY FOR AN HOUR, then do the next one. Who the heck has time for that? And my larger point: I've never, ever seen or heard of a BSA leader tossed or reprimanded for failure to adhere to YPT. Never. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, I am talking about a leader who gets directed to take remedial YPT because their unit is using unregistered merit badge counselors or unregistered ASMs and committee members. Remember when Scoutbook removed all unregistered MBCs? And is removing all unregistered adult leaders? Just go take a look at some of the FB groups; you'd have thought this was some new thing with all the yelling and screaming. BSA wants to be considered to have taken YPT seriously? They need to start to take it seriously. Heads on pikes. A YPT education system that works. Annual reporting.

I've spoken with people at the unit, district, council, and national level on this. To a PERSON they all tell me BSA's YPT is the model, a work of perfection, and that it doesn't and isn't in need of any change or review. They've reached the perfect youth protection program. Meanwhile, we've had 11,000-13,000 scouts abused since YPT was implemented. As someone previously said, all YPT has done is to throw a bunch of training over the wall and hope it sticks.

G2SS is, I believe, in its entirety (or almost), a collection of lawsuits compiled into book form. I will guarantee that 80-90% of all G2SS rules derived from "we got sued for this, therefore let's ban it." So let's look at power drill or 4-wheeled cart. Again, I'll put money on the table that SOME scout SOMEWHERE got hurt with a power drill or a 4-wheeled cart, sued, won, and then either BSA Risk Management on its own accord (or the insurance companies at their insistence) put in the rule. Look at G2SS's requirement that pioneering structures be no taller than 5 feet and the specific reference to OSHA (workplace) regulations. Again, John Scoutmaster or Jane Committee Chair did NOT come up with OSHA standards out of the blue sky; this is the work of lawyers and/or actuaries. As for 2 adults present to allow their child to have a friend visit their house, again, I'll bet if you tried to yank that out you'd be presented with one (or more) instances in which a scout went to a friend's house and their Scout leader sexually abused the scout while the Scout leader's son was elsewhere in the house. And trust me, on this score BSA is somewhat "lax". I am also Virtus trained as a Roman Catholic catechist (I teach Confirmation classes for kids in my parish) that included evening sessions at my home. My wife is also Virtus trained. We could NOT be each others "two-deep" because we are related; a third Virtus trained adult had to be present. That was easy; the "co-catechists" were myself and the other trained adult, my wife (for these purposes) was irrelevant for youth protection. Meanwhile, for BSA events my wife (registered adult leader) and I can have scouts at our home since we are "two-deep" for each other.

No, but they can do Clery Act style reports: Number and types of incidents in last year (sexual abuse, breach of no one-on-one), etc. Result of incidents (adult removed, adult removed and arrested, no action, remedial YPT education)

As far as anyone from National is concerned, YPT is a smashing success. Therefore no, they are not going to review it until they are forced to.

FYI. I ran the statistical analysis I had intended on the abuse claims data vs. the number of youth in BSA. As I suspected, the number of claims and number of registered youth were found to be strongly correlated. In other words, it gives credence to the idea that it wasn't YPT that resulted in the decline in abuse claims; it was the decline in the number of scouts. Large positive relationship: Pearson r = 0.86, p < .01. Strong positive relationship: Spearman rho = 0.94. p < .01 This cannot and does not mean that we can demonstrate a causal relationship (correlation does not equal causation) but it is very, very interesting and could suggest that maybe, perhaps that the decline in abuse claims is mostly, if not entirely, the result of a decline in the number of registered youth. But the only way to determine that is with more analysis. Year Total Youth Total Claims 1990 3918672 1,125 1991 3501233 977 1992 3453315 947 1993 3427374 902 1994 3403334 843 1995 3460795 782 1996 3518255 759 1997 3624038 662 1998 3693439 635 1999 3742852 538 2000 3351969 532 2001 3325504 369 2002 3238027 357 2003 3200218 325 2004 3145331 241 2005 2938698 227 2006 2868963 202 2007 2855833 171 2008 2979200 159 2009 2911351 136 2010 2852754 120 2011 2836652 94 2012 2775383 88 2013 2612955 57 2014 2418727 57 2015 2355331 35 2016 2341207 38 2017 2282584 47 2018 2186329 36 2019 2118449 18

My point is that even the 9 TCC victims care, of 50% of the victims care or 60% of the victims care, it only takes 33% of abuse victims to say "no" and BSA's dead. It will be forced to either a failed bankruptcy that results BSA running out of money this summer/fall and maybe civil suits for the next DECADE (if it does somehow find cash, which I doubt) or liquidation this summer And the local councils in states with no SoLs or lookback windows as COs will be right behind. There's no out here.

Boy Scouts Local Councils Face Financial Threat From Abuse Claims

Yep. In that sense TCC is "emotionless". TCC is simply about raw math. If a live BSA with all its local camps and HA bases = maximum benefits to the Settlement Fund (for annual payments for a generation), great! If a dead BSA and all local camps and HA bases sold = maximum benefits to the Settlement Fund, great! Kosnoff wants BSA dead first, last, and foremost.

Again, I don't think TCC wants Scouting destroyed. They want maximum value for the abuse victims. If that means Scouting stays alive after this, THEY DON'T CARE. If that means Scouting's destroyed, THEY DON'T CARE. Again, this is in contrast to Kosnoff who does in fact was the destruction of Scouting. If BSA National and the LCs (and COs) can come to the table with a real, reasonable offer that maximizes the amount that goes into a Settlement Fund, TCC will happily take it. The only way I can think of it is draining blood (and yes, I know the "blood sucking" motif for lawyers). TCC will take as much as it can and not 1 drop more. The judge will only allow TCC to take as much as would leave BSA alive. Kosnoff wants the BSA drained dry. The challenge is that these three are in direct conflict with one another when one consider that NO judge is going to order a cramdown on sexual abuse victims and there's no chance BSA's plan will ever get 66% of abuse victims (because there's enough Kosnoff-affiliated claimants to keep that vote from happening). BSA will then run out of money and this converts to a Chapter 7. Then Kosnoff wins. THAT is why my troop told our parents this weekend it's over. There is no scenario here in which BSA survives. They'll run out of money (Chapter 7) in short order.

It could be a bluff. It could be real. Here's the tricky part: it could be both. Keep in mind: BSA is burning through cash for lawyers at an amazing clip. PLUS membership collapsed in 2020 down to 1.1 million. 40-48% of members are gone. So some of this is BSA conjecture: they don't know how much money will/won't come in between now and the fall. They've got estimates I am sure. They also don't know how much money will/won't have to be spent on lawyers. They've got estimates I am sure. So, if you assume a rate of cash coming in as X and cash going out (for operating expenses and the lawyers) as Y, BSA could be guessing at July. Or fall. Or whenever. How much is guess and how much is bluff isn't clear.

Yep, I deleted my post.

Right. But then again, the LCs have been out there screaming for the world to hear "Everything is fine. We won't owe anything. Local money stays local. Keeping sending in the FOS donations, there's no way those will go to the bankruptcy!" My Council was clear: we are going to have to pay, the only question is how much. But I can think of at least 5 councils who in the last 10 days have VERY publicly announced they aren't going to have to pay a dime. Just look at this from Black Swamp Area Council that got published in the local newspaper. And let's take a look at the TCC report. Black Swamp has at least 69 claims. They are going to have to pay. At this point it is either they are lying to themselves/delusional or they are lying to others to keep the FOS and other money rolling in.

Right, but my point was specific to BSA. TCC does NOT want a liquidated BSA, but that's what we are heading towards. If TCC thinks it can maximize its claims for abuse victims by keeping BSA alive, it will do so. But that still takes 66% of abuse claimants agreeing to whatever plan BSA comes up with. And that's not going to happen, especially not after BSA's high handed, insulting $6000 offer and doing everything it can to protect Summit. I think we agree this ends with BSA dead. I was just pointing out that it isn't a death TCC wants, but that is where we are heading since there is to my seeing NO chance of getting 66% of abuse claimants to agree to a plan.

Actually, it isn't, for two reasons. 1) As I noted, liquidation of a not for profit (like BSA national and the LCs) is legally impossible UNLESS the not for profit voluntarily does so. 2) Liquidation triggers the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Whose that you ask? It is a federal agency that insures all private pension in the U.S., just like the ones BSA National used to have. PBGC has already filed a claim for at LEAST $1.1 Billion against BSA national (nearly the sum total of ALL BSA National assets which are around $1.4 Billion). Upon liquidation, guess who jumps to the top of the creditor list ("administrative and priority claimants")? Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Guess who could not care less about abuse victims, TCC, Kosnoff, or anyone else other than those it is legally obligated to protect (BSA pension program participants)? Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. What that means is that 1) Kosnoff cannot get his liquidation unless BSA falls on its sword and asks for it and.. 2) The minute BSA did so, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation comes in and sweeps 90% of BSA's assets out the door. The abuse victims, the other creditors, JPMorgan Chase, EVERYONE else gets to fight for the $200 million (or less) in scraps at that point. The LAST thing TCC wants is a liquidated BSA. They want the BSA Golden Goose to keep paying out settlement checks/golden eggs for years to come into that Settlement Fund. Again, do NOT equate TCC = Kosnoff. They have two very, very different agendas.

Right, and the TCC lawyer (forget which) said that during the TCC town hall: the first priority was to maximize the amount recovered for victims. The moment that number is reached, they will be asking for an order regarding changes/enhancement of prevention of child abuse that will be included in the final reorganization plan. TCC did not say what that order would entail, but if I had to make a wild guess it is going to include an outside inspector-general type appointed by the court that will be a YPT enforcer and lay down whatever rules he/she feels are needed for YPT. Or, it might in fact be specific changes to YPT rules. As I said, if it were up to me the minimum standard should be Council-level reports similar to Clery Act reports for colleges that list every YPT violation and the subsequent results (arrest, unfounded, adult dismissed from program, remedial YPT education) etc. Any council that reports 0 YPT violations in any given year should immediately have an audit done to either a) replicate what they are doing because they are perfect or b) heads should roll (paid professional and volunteer) because there is no way a council with thousands of adults did not have at least ONE screw up.

There's nothing to question. It is black letter: if this is a Chapter 11 plan, the plan must be such that the company continues operations post-emergence. And if claimants continue to vote against the offer and BSA insists it simply cannot part with (INSERT NAME OF ASSET HERE) then either: 1) The judge orders a cramdown, in effect overruling the claimants. Regarding sexual abuse? That has NEVER, EVER happened. No federal judge is going to order it, or rather, the odds of it happen are so infinitesimal as to be effectively zero. 2) The bankruptcy fails and the company (or in this case BSA) comes out of bankruptcy with no restructuring plan. BSA would go back to the position it was in prior to the bankruptcy filing, circa February 2020. 3) The bankruptcy converts to Chapter 7 liquidation. Since a not for profit cannot be FORCED either by creditors or the judge into Chapter 7, BSA would have to volunteer for liquidation.