1980Scouter

73% is a solid D grade in school. Is a D good enough? I was surprised it is this high.

Has anyone heard anything from their LC expressing concern if the vote fails and the plan falls apart? I am sure SE talk amongst themselves and realize a failed plan would open up LC to lawsuits depending on state law windows. How worried are LC's? The ones around me do not show it if they are.

I took my eagle certificate off the wall when this bankruptcy started and all the shady things BSA has done over the years to hide issues came out. No longer proud to display it. Then during bankruptcy my LC sold a camp I put a lot of effort in to and loved very much. I had a friend's of scouting framed picture on the wall, to the trash it went. I still have good memories of scouting as a scout and leader but do not feel support for National or LC.

I think this bankruptcy will drag on for a least another year or until the BSA runs out of money and does a chapter 7. I wonder if they will ask LC to contribute to their defense and operating funds to keep the BSA operating longer.

I would like to add all who have been following this case closely have their ideas where this is going and that is good as there are many different options. In the end this case could go anywhere. It could be dismissed, approved as submitted or anything in between. It is sad that it took two years to get where we are now. The longer it drags on the worse for the future of the BSA. If I only had a time machine, I could be the hero of this forum.

I respect your dedication to BSA but you have to realize that for a plan to be approved every entity has to be all in. This includes money and future youth protection. We are not there now and it will take all entities increasing their contribution and youth protection changes to satisfy the TCC and others. This could occur and BSA could go on their merry way. But this is a very complicated case with so many objections by many. I agree that a BSA only may be the way to go. Get maximum from BSA and insurance including some HA bases. Then go after LC on a council by council basis. This would likely settle national BSA much faster. You are correct in some LC do not have much more to contribute, but most do have a lot more they could contribute.

I think this is where number of claims comes into play. The formula included this. I have noticed the same in my state. Although not necessarily fair, maybe the councils with fewer claims and large reserves could agree to contribute the same percentage amount to get the LC contribution up to a level that would pass the vote. They may have to do this to save Scouting for the future. As Eagle 1993 said just one LC lawsuit would cost more than many LC's are contributing if the circumstances were right.

The LC's are going to have to contribute more for any plan to be approved. They have two choices, either pay the victims or pay the attorneys defending them. The money will go to one of the two groups of people.

Thank you Eagle1993 for the update posts. I feel like this is phantom math. It would take very favorable membership growth to reach the 100 million. I just do not see that happening. This is one issue with the whole case, it is about the details. While 100 million looks good on the surface, when the details are explored not so much.

If the LC's raise their offer by the $800 million the insurance is adding I would say this is real and could work. But 40 million is a token. Even at 800 million, it is only ~3 million per council. Very affordable for them. Some would do more, some less based on the factors established.

Are we still on track for the TCC to release all the LC dashboards that will tell what they think is fair contribution by LC's? This could be a game changer if they can get the word out that you can get a significant increase from LC's as they have the assets if you back a TCC plan. The insurance settlements are peanuts of what they should be and I think people will see that. TCC I am sure has an insurance amount in mind that is significantly higher than offered.

So we have heard about the Methodists response to rechartering. What are the Catholics, Baptists and others doing about recharter? There are many units in these churches that have to realize the issue at hand. Protection of church assets would be front and center for these churches.

Failure is Scouts BSA not surviving. A guy taking a group of kids camping is a success is my opinion. That is one of the founding BSA principles.

One thing I forgot to add is the only winners so far have been the attorneys getting paid very well.

Now that we are almost two years into the bankruptcy process, I thought I would poll all the regular posters and get their opinions if the BSA will survive this. All the ups and downs in this case have made for exciting reading at times. My feeling is that BSA will survive bankruptcy with little cash, very limited property and low membership only to fail a few years down the road. There are so many factors working against them. 1) High fees 2) Loss of CO 3)Society changing. 4)Large paid staff overhead. 5)Negative media PR 6)Future abuse cases-this is a big one in my opinion as there will still be cases but hopefully few. 7)Sexual abuse law changes-in favor of victims. 8)Abilty to find enough leaders. 9)Loss of large financial donations 10) Camp losses will enrage camp supporters who will leave the organization. 11)Infighting within councils, this is often overlooked but there are always disgruntled leaders and volunteers with the direction scouting is taking. 12) Loss of most LC endowments. Many councils are surviving off interest and investment earnings. There are many more things working against the BSA and it would be a surprise if they survive long term.

My LC just raised camp fees at all camps 150% for weekend camp use. Trying to make up lost money. $200 for a 12 person cabin for the weekend.

Who funds this forum? I would like to thank them for allowing information to be shared about the bankruptcy and scouting in general. With national and LC'S communication lacking, this forum is a big asset.

Did anybody listen in on the hearing yesterday? I viewed the agenda and it did not seem like any earth changing things were scheduled.

I would think it better to release a planner sooner before people start voting showing that compensation could be much improved in the TCC plan. That will show it is possible for LC's to contribute significantly more, as well as other sources too.

So we could see the TCC plan maybe today for their vision of how contributions would be under their plan. This could be a game changer for bankruptcy.

If it is that bad, most likely not. I think there will be ALOT of council mergers before this is over. Many were not in good shape before this mess.

I think LC's are starting to realize the vote may not go in their favor. My LC's is doing a second round of staff downsizing. You can hear the desperation in some of their media posts. Like doing everything to recruit and making sure to say "everything is good with scouting to parents." I wonder if units are doing this or being honest.

That has to be a typo on land values. That would be extremely cheap land.

With all the camps being sold during bankruptcy and before, this is a big thank you to all who helped maintain them over the years and donated money for them. The camps would not exist in the first place without donations of money or land by people who believed in scouting. Then often, especially in later years maintenance was done by a dedicated group of volunteers who cared for the camp. They may have been scouts or parents attending a camp and decided to give back. At least many camps in my area did not have full time rangers after the mid 90's. So the role of volunteers increased greatly. They often donated supplies to repair things or got suppliers to give the camp really good deals in items. I think this is one of the overlooked things in bankruptcy that so many people put their heart and soul into these camps.

I agree 100% scouting has become like the federal and state governments. Why do we need both national and local councils? This is like government in that they have federal agencies and states have the exact same agencies. Ie federal EPA, state EPA. I would say keep LC's but reduce the number to 2-3 per state. Eliminate national and replace it with a board that makes standards. That is all that is really needed is standards. Turn over HAB's to the LC in that area. We could save hundreds of millions yearly with this change. People seem to like semi-local control and this would be it.