CynicalScouter

I think one thing worth noting is the use of the phrase "alternative". When the draft requirements leaked last November/December there weren't any "alternatives" to any of the requirements. Also, and this came from my Council advancement chair, that as much as the focus of attention had been the DEI merit badge might raise concerns over critical race theory, Black Lives Matter, etc. that it was the issues related to sexual orientation that really threw some Councils, and especially COs, into a tailspin.

Found here in the Scoutbook forums https://discussions.scouting.org/t/update-on-dei-merit-badge-from-latest-bsa-office-hours/22884 Because everyone was asking about the DEI merit badge, this is a transcript from the February 2021 BSA Office Hours https://www.scouting.org/program-updates/scouts-bsa-office-hours-session-february-25-2021/ The first mention was from 2:00-3:00 The introduction of the proposed Diversity, Equity and Inclusion merit badge is being delayed. Until further notice, all Scouts working on the Eagle Scout rank should continue to use current rank requirements. Once the Eagle-required Diversity, Equity and Inclusion merit badge is introduced, Scouts in the process of earning the rank of Eagle Scout will be given adequate time to earn it. Updates regarding the merit badge will be shared with councils directly and via Scoutingwire. Specific questions are welcome via email at Officeof.ChiefDiversityOfficer@scouting.org The second mention was 19:00 to 22:00. Scott Berger is asked why the DEI merit badge is delayed. Scott, can you tell us a little bit more why the DEI merit badge is delayed. Sure and by the way in the chat, I noticed a lot of questions and I’ll try to answer them all with this one answer. The merit badge was developed and there were requirements put together and before releasing it we wanted to make sure that it had buy-in and a wide audience and a lot of eyes on it because it could potentially be controversial. Although we certainly didn’t want it to be Scouts should never be political in nature and should never do anything against their family or their religious values. So we wanted to make sure that a lot of people saw the requirements before the badge was launched. When that happened there were a lot of comments that we received now, of course, not everybody in the scouting program was given an opportunity to look at it. But Scout executive certainly were many high-level volunteers and various councils were and there was a lot of feedback really really good feedback and because of that we want to pause, delay, but not cancel the merit badge so that those comments could be evaluated and dealt with because this is an important issue and we wanted to make sure that nobody was offended by anything that the scouts was doing again because we are not looking to push any agenda whatsoever. Somebody had written in earlier as soon as the meeting started. You know, what about a chartering organization that might differ with some of the aspects of the merit badge. The merit badge will not ask a scout or their family to do anything as I said, that would be against their family or their religious beliefs that has that can include their views on sexuality or sexual orientation or whatever. There will always be an alternative for them to do or just things for them to consider but it does not push an agenda. So while there is no date yet set for a release of the merit badge. I’m hoping that it’ll come soon. I don’t think it’s going to come before the spring. Because right now there are many things that the scouts are dealing with on a grand level such as the bankruptcy which is still being dealt with and things such as that. So I hope this in a kind of broad sense answers that question but you should know that just like anything else in the scouts we will release the badge in a way that should be very acceptable to everybody.

I have been asked not to post any longer on this subject.

All well and good, but do try to keep in mind that while BSA was not in support of outright lynching of African Americans and everything the KKK had to offer, it was not always very forward thinking in terms of issues related to race. Consider that BSA allowed for not only segregated units ("Colored Troops"), but even segregated COUNCILS until Old Hickory desegregated in 1974, decades after Brown vs. Board of Education. Moreover, BSA had no problems with the practice in LDS units of banning African American scouts from serving as SPLs until the NAACP of Utah sued them in what was a very, very embarrassing row again in 1974.

Depends. Nationally, only 56.6% of direct contact leaders are trained. http://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/commissioner/newsletter/2021_winter/KPI_NatlRegion.pdf More and more Councils, however, are requiring it. I know one council that as of 2021 is mandating that all leaders be position trained and in 2022 will require anyone even APPLYING to be a leader must first take the training (except for IOLS for SM/ASMs). The thinking is that now that ALL position leader training is online except IOLS, there's no excuse not to have trained leaders. Of course the counterpoint is that to be a trained Den Leader now takes 3+ hours: YPT (1-1.5) and Den Leader (2 hours). You are asking a lot from people to sit through that.

It "went off the rails" when you decided to declare "grooming" of children for sexual assault was "psycho-babble", as you did here. It "went off the rails" when you decided to compare or equate the sexual assault of children to premarital sex, as you did here. It "went off the rails" when you decided that somehow your religion (you called it "my own religion" here meaning Roman Catholicism) was somehow opposed to or in opposition to the idea that "grooming" of children was a real thing, as you did here, even after it was noted that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops themselves acknowledged "grooming" was real, not "psycho-babble". I've seen you around here long enough to know that when confronted, you will simply not respond and instead stop posting for a few days/weeks and then come back, so I'm not really expecting you to explain this. Suffice to say that your absolute dismissive attitude and denigration that grooming is "psycho-babble" is nauseating.

Here's "universally" agreed upon, except perhaps by you. 1) Grooming isn't "psycho-babble". It is real and it happens. 2) Dismissing "grooming" as "psycho-babble" is a sure fire way to ensure child sexual abuse continues.

Grooming isn't "psycho-babble" but the fact that people like @David COthink it is may help explain (a little) why child sexual abuse it still happening. It comes from the mindset that child sexual abuse only happens with bad people kidnapping kids in vans with puppies and/or use of force. That type abuse-by-force is the exception.

Yes, and even the Catholic Church (your "own religion") recognizes that grooming exists and is a problem. Why on EARTH are you defending grooming/sexual abuse of minors? This is direct from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops https://www.usccb.org/offices/child-and-youth-protection/preventing-and-identifying-child-sexual-abuse

Are you actually equating sex outside of marriage and sexual assault of a child? As if the two are somehow the same or even similar? Even the Catholic Church acknowledges there is a vast, GIANT difference between two adults having sex outside marriage and CHILD RAPE. This, and your support for grooming (or rather rejection of the concept) literally is making me sick.

I'd ask if you are kidding but I've been around long enough to know: you aren't. Grooming isn't "psycho-babble". It is a term that refers to a specific set of actions that are the prelude to most child sexual abuse cases. That you dismiss this as "psycho-babble" is sick.

Neat story. But big differences: 1) That fire killed 167 and injured 700, for a total of ~867. The current number of claims against BSA is 100 times as large (87,000). 2) Ringling knew how much it owed because had specific medical bills and pain/suffer awards or court judgements. NO ONE has agreed so far how much each claimant will get here. But let's keep playing out your scenario and see how far we get. 3) BSA's total revenue, before any expenses, was 285,151,314 in 2018 and 408,616,814 in 2019. That was BEFORE 50-60% of membership left. But let's be REALLY optimistic and say revenue will remain around $200,000,000 a year for the next decade. Again, NO expenses. NO BSA employees; forget "minimal staff" under this plan there is NO staff. NO ONE GETS PAID ANYTHING in this imaginary scenario where ALL BSA National's revenue is converted into abuse payments. 3) If we convert all BSA revenue for the next 10 years (ala Ringling Brothers) into abuse payments that would be $2 billion. Again, BSA would reneg on all other expenses. 4) $2 billion/87,000 claims = $22,988 per claimant. Is that enough or would you still consider it "unreasonable"? If not then @David COplease indicate the amount that WOULD be "reasonable" and how, precisely, you think BSA is going to pay for it.

No, because it is a giant difference. The Catholic Church is NOT identical or parallel to BSA for a host of reasons. 1) First Amendment protections 2) Churches as corporations sole 3) The physical churches as being held in trust 4) CLEAR lines that parishes and churches are under the direct command and control of the diocese/bishop (vs. BSA where National is/is not controlling Councils) 5) Churches (the physical things) are an essential element of religious activities and therefore more protected 6) Religious Freedom Restoration Act grants additional protections to the Catholic Church that BSA does not have Etc. Thus, while diocese had to sell OTHER properties, the actual churches themselves to my knowledge were NOT sold/liquidated to appease creditors.

Then what is reasonable given: 1) Total BSA National assets = $1.4 billion. 2) Total Local Council assets = $1.6 billion - $3.3 billion 3) Total abuse claimants = 87,000

They can try. The judge has to approve of course.

All of this operates in a (magical) vacuum where a) legal fees are not an issue and b) no other claims are pending against BSA. This is JUST looking at what it takes to get the abuse claimants money. For everything else you just mentioned (legal fees, other claims, etc.) BSA and the LCs have to come up with even MORE money on top of what I just listed.

Keep in mind, $11,500 is based on some massive assumptions and wild speculation. The likelihood is going to be lower.

Now, I want to address this separately and in reverse. The scenarios I used above focused on the means, not the end. But let's focus on the end. Scenario A - $100,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $8.7 BILLION. Even if you liquidated BSA National ($1.4 billion) and EVERY Council ($3.3 billion highest estimate I saw), you are maybe half way to this number. End Result: BSA and all LCs liquidated (and somehow magically do NOT have to pay pensions). Insurance companies on hook for $4 billion. Scenario A.1 - $100,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $8.7 BILLION. Cut BSA National in half ($700 million) and EVERY Council in half ($1.6 billion). End Result: BSA and all LCs literally cut in half. Insurance companies on hook for $6.4 billion. Scenario B - $50,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $4.35 BILLION. Cut BSA National in half including sale of most or all HA bases ($700 million) and somehow cut all LCs in half as well ($1.6 billion), you still come up $2 BILLION short. End Result: BSA and all LCs literally cut in half. Insurance companies on hook for $2 billion. Scenario C - $10,000 per claimant: 87,000 claimants means $870 MILLION. This is pretty close to the BSA Reorg plan/offering now (Scenario 4 above). $6000 comes from BSA and LCs. $4000 comes from the insurance companies. End Result: BSA contributes $275 million. LCs $300 million. Insurance companies on hook for $300 million.

As I said before, without knowing for sure the numerator (assets) or denominator (claimants) for sure/judicially recognized, we are just guessing here. But to speculate it out. Scenario 1 - Liquidate National: claimants get $0 since the pension programs would, by law, have to be secured/paid out first to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and they already put in a $1.1 BILLION dollar claim. Total to each claimant: $0 Scenario 2 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, Non-Time Barred Claimants Only: Here, BSA is forced to sell Summit ($300 million) and half of all remaining assets ($300 million) PLUS somehow gets LCs to kick in $300 million, PLUS $100 million just kind gets found along the way. BUT BSA and the LCs tell all time-barred claimants to go away. That leaves at most, 30,000. Total to each claimant: $33,333 Scenario 3 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants: Same as scenario 2, but BSA and the LCs pay out to all 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $11,494 Scenario 4 - $525 Million in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants: Pretty much the current plan: BSA National puts in $225 million, LCs $300 million. 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $6,034 Scenario 5 - The "$1.5 billion Settlement Fund", ALL Abuse Claimants: Last fall at least some lawyers/claims collectors advertised that a $1.5 BILLION settlement fund had been set up. Where this number cam from is not clear to me, but I am going to use it. Somehow, BSA and the LCs get to $1.5 billion. 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $17,241 So, to my way of thinking (and anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong) if you want a scenario where ALL abuse claimants are paid out, regardless of time-barred or not, $11,500 is probably as high as you can possibly go for BSA/LC contributions. What was advertised was as high as $17,241 but that appears to have just been speculation and TV ads. TWO GIANT CAVEATS HERE: 1) LCs are still playing shell games with assets. $300 million from LCs may be incredibly low or just right. There's no way to know. EDIT: I am seeing reports LCs have somewhere between $1.6 billion in assets and $3.3 billion in assets. 2) This does NOT include whatever the insurance companies are forced to chip in.

Yep, But by that point there's going to have to be some liquidated organizations and bankrupt localities before people start to rethink this. Since the Catholic Church isn't going anywhere, that leaves BSA to take the hit/be liquidated. Both the Catholic Church and BSA warned that opening up these SoLs were going to lead to this and they were castigated for it.

I am not so sure. Lest we forget about double dip ("Chapter 22") and even triple dip ("Chapter 33") bankruptcies that come out of organizations that are so crippled they simply come out of bankruptcy only to go right back in again. 20% of Chapter 11 entities slip back into Chapter 11. I said previously in this thread that until BSA unveiled its Reorg plan I had hoped it would survive. I don't see that happening now. With massive declining membership and universal opposition to the plan (other than JPMorgan Chase) this ends with Chapter 7 now, or a crippling Chapter 11 that results in a hollowed out shell that limps into Chapter 7 in a few years.

The plan calls for all "protected parties" including National, local councils, even Contributing COs (listed on Exhibit B, right now that is noting more than a blank piece of paper) to be covered from "ALL abuse claims" including "FUTURE Abuse Claims" (emphasis mine). So, if the abuse occurred prior to February 18, 2020 it is covered by this plan (if approved). Those terms are defined in pages 5-35 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/876518_2293.pdf Protected Parties Abuse Abuse Claim Future Abuse Claim

Yeah, I still am thinking LCs will continue to play shell games with assets.

Yep hearing on April 15. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/876543_2298.pdf

That's my own theory as well. In the end, I don't see BSA holding on to anything other than as a hollowed out shell: liquidation in all but name and allowed to keep on that which Congress specifically granted in the charter: the trademarks, names, and that's it. I'm going to be real curious, but so far other than JPMorgan Chase, I believe every party to this is going to oppose the plan either because they thing BSA is holding out (the HA bases are going bye-bye folks and the shell game they played with Summit is going to come back on them), the LCs are holding out, or the Kosnoff-types who simply want the watch BSA burn. One thing that keeps gnawing the back of my head though is the pensions. If everyone screws around enough that BSA really runs out of money/goes into Chapter 7, it is my understanding Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's $1.1 BILLION dollar claim takes primacy over all other claims against BSA and since BSA only has about $1 billion in assets it would mean all other parties are left with $0 to fight over (from BSA, the LCs and insurance companies could still be on the hook for who knows what).