SiouxRanger

On 7/8/2021 at 1:25 PM, elitts said:

 

 

 

Just to make it official, ThenNow correctly related the current policy on the discussion of lawyers within this (and related) threads.  Generalized discussion about lawyers and their motivations is not acceptable; but specific discussion about any attorney involved in the case and actions they've taken or statements they've made are fair game.

This post is of particular interest.

I can understand the prohibition on making general derogatory comments about lawyers generally, so as to discourage the proliferation of meaningless posts ranting and raving against lawyers.

Permitting specific comments about the motivations of specific attorneys, well, that seems to be another matter, as derogatory comments, proven to be untrue, would be libel, would they not?  Why would anyone want to tread that shaky ground especially with respect to attorneys whose daily life is litigation? "Neither a libelor nor a defendant be." (I believe a quote from Al Franklin, brother of Ben.)

So at the risk of offending the forum rules, and if so, moderators wield the ax, though believing to be within the parameters of ThenNow, attorneys who practice this manner of law:

(Content deleted without prejudice as not allowable under thread rules)

On 7/10/2021 at 2:01 PM, PACAN said:

So when do we see Exhibit C...LC contributions?

After 8 or 10 hours of research the other day, (read most of the 3rd amended plan and the critical parts of 4th amended plan and other stuff, including this forum) I told a friend that the ONLY number of importance was the LC contribution our council.

And that was not available.

Which raises the question why are those numbers not of record?  National's determination of the amount each council should donate is not dependent on the LC's agreement to pay it, yet they are not available..

This entire process is a master case of selective revealment. "Just what we want to show, just when we want to show it."  Just-in-time data delivery.

And so I sense the Judas Goat is at the head of this line.

On 7/12/2021 at 5:47 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Got blast email from my council.

not 

"A non-binding letter of intent."  And just to what purpose is that?  Meaning something like "we've reviewed it, not screaming yet, just might do it, but we want to see more?"
 

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Depending on the council this is going to mean dipping into their endowments and long term investments. It is it NOT just cash sitting in a checking account for operational expenses.

That means the x% interest the council gets each year is going to be lesser in the long run. That is why not for profits are NOT inclined to dip Into endowments unless they absolutely have to.

To my way of thinking, "long-term investments" is an artificial designation or determination by the owner of those funds, essentially meaning, "We don't want to spend those but to rely on the interest generated by them." But the owner retains control of the funds.  In a bankruptcy, by a council, any funds the council has signature authority over is an assets of the bankruptcy estate.

"Endowment funds," to my way of thinking, are funds donated by third parties, and subject to some measure of restrictions on use.  A council is not likely to have signature authority over the principal, but only the interest generated. Even the interest may be subject to restrictions.

In my experience, my council prefers donations to be made to the general fund and not subject to any restrictions.  Why the donor of a significant donation would do that is beyond me.  Far more protective of the donor's gift is a separate entity that is not controlled by the council, which disburses funds as determined by that separate entity to the Council to fulfill the donor's intent.

This gets me to the issue of the proper role of a not for profit.  Is its goal to amass a war chest and, hopefully, remain forever untouched?  I understand the need for a rainy day fund, but to what degree? At some point, when a sufficient war chest is amassed, the not for profit should get back into the business of improving its program offerings. (I was particularly struck by the net worth attributed to my council in the bankruptcy filings-millions more than ever appeared possible, camp being a mere fraction of the total, yet camp is always scrapping for minuscule amounts (less than $1,000) to replenish dog-eared camp expendables.  Why would this be?

The issue is partly one of matching a donation to a likely intended beneficiary.  When grandpa donates $50 to Friends of Scouting he is expecting those funds to have some effect which his grandchild will see.  At council level, the attitude seems to be that all donations benefit the scouts, as they benefit "Scouting."  Even if the entire donation is consumed by salaries, or goes into a long-term investment.

If councils were truly seeking to benefit youth by providing program, donations would be used to provide those programs to more youth. But I don't see that happening.  After some years on the council executive board, I do not recall one second's discussion of budget issues-how much to spend on program as opposed to salaries, or long-term investments. Those issues disappear into a black hole.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, up to a point.

Depending on what state you are in the payment may be as low as 1% or as high as 75%

So, from 1% to 75% of non-legally enforceable claims are on tap to be compensated.

What is the basis of the  "Gray" system of classifying states (and thereby the claims arising in that state)?

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Point of reference. Blackhawk Area Council last week announced the sale of Camp Canyon to pay for the settlement. After 750+ emails, the council backed down and announced a new plan to pay for the settlement without having to sell properties is coming.

I speculated that the alternative plan (to be announced August 2) will be for the council to use its cash instead of property.

Canyon Camp was, according to BSA's numbers, valued at $1,668,940.

Blackhawk Area Council balance sheet (again, BSA numbers) indicated

Cash & Equivalent = $310,974
Land, Buildings, and Equipment (including Camp Canyon) = $1,832,040 (land value - depreciation)
Long-Term Investments = $3,989,290
Other Assets = $5,881,177

• All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 151 (plus some shared with other councils)
• All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 15

So, while they haven't announced the number, working backwards it looks like they were going to pay $1,668,940 on 151 claims, or roughly $11,000 per.

Illinois is a "Gray 1" state, meaning under the BSA/TCC/Coalition plan claims would be valued at 50%-70%. Blackhawk also includes part of Wisconsin which is Gray 3 (10-25%). I don't know how those 151 or 15 claims breakdown.

 

So, if a camp is sacrificed, and cash retained, for what purpose is that cash retained?  To buy another camp, perhaps smaller and less expensive to maintain?  To pay staff salaries?  (Isn't that largely what it is for anyway?) In years past, in my council, all of the United Way monies, popcorn sale profit, and Friends of Scouting contributions were not enough to cover payroll.  That is, all of the major sources of revenue were not enough.  Part of the fees scouts paid to attend events also were used to pay salaries. Appallingly top heavy, in my estimation.

How much of a "sell the camp" decision is driven by a "preserve management prerogatives" motive?

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Point of reference. Blackhawk Area Council last week announced the sale of Camp Canyon to pay for the settlement. After 750+ emails, the council backed down and announced a new plan to pay for the settlement without having to sell properties is coming.

I speculated that the alternative plan (to be announced August 2) will be for the council to use its cash instead of property.

Canyon Camp was, according to BSA's numbers, valued at $1,668,940.

Blackhawk Area Council balance sheet (again, BSA numbers) indicated

Cash & Equivalent = $310,974
Land, Buildings, and Equipment (including Camp Canyon) = $1,832,040 (land value - depreciation)
Long-Term Investments = $3,989,290
Other Assets = $5,881,177

• All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 151 (plus some shared with other councils)
• All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 15

So, while they haven't announced the number, working backwards it looks like they were going to pay $1,668,940 on 151 claims, or roughly $11,000 per.

Illinois is a "Gray 1" state, meaning under the BSA/TCC/Coalition plan claims would be valued at 50%-70%. Blackhawk also includes part of Wisconsin which is Gray 3 (10-25%). I don't know how those 151 or 15 claims breakdown.

 

So, as I understand this, the settlement will compensate the "Unique and Timely" abuse claims even though not legally enforceable?

On 7/25/2015 at 7:48 AM, packsaddle said:

David, I've seen that already but not, I suspect, in the context you are thinking about. I've seen (counting through memory now) about a dozen, at least a dozen times that a leader in both cub and boy scout units have suggested a different faith as superior somehow to the faith that a boy's family currently followed. It has happened to me and my children as well. For my children, on a couple of occasions when they politely declined, they were informed that they were "going to go to hell" as a result. Do you think these 'invitations' came from persons from 'liberal' faiths?

 

This kind of nonsense is not something new and I've seen it all my life. I admit I was surprised when it 'emerged' from unit leaders but it did.

I have never found labels to be useful or explanatory.  Liberal, conservative, well, they mean nothing to me.  I am much more interested in the opinion of A on issue X.  That I can meaningful respond to.

On 7/24/2015 at 2:35 PM, MattR said:

Terry, I agree with 99% of what you said and what you and the moderators do for this forum and scouting. Without the help I've found on this forum I would have given up on scouting a long time ago - and I'm not done needing help. I also agree that acting scout like is paramount. That said, I'd like to hold your feet to the flame to a much higher standard than anyone else here is held to. Most likely I just want to make a point and picking on you is the best chance I have to do that. Please let me explain. Your post comment "(or start one of your own!)" reflects what was said a lot to those people that wanted a change in the membership policy. That comment was always said with a bit of my way or the highway, take it or leave it, I could care less about what you want attitude. I've never thought it to be scout like. Yes, you said up front that you respect the religious differences of everyone here, and yes, your point that you won't tolerate the denigration of gay scouts is also admirable. However, that phrase doesn't help and right now we need to figure out how to help each other.

 

We need to help each other against the extremes that will never be happy with what the BSA is doing. We also need to keep helping each other learn about scouting. We have a wide range of expertise here and the last thing I'd like to see is a big chunk of that leaving over this issue. Some will. But hopefully many will stay. I would very much like to invite them to my campfire.

 

This forum reminds me of my extended family and how sometimes it's more important to tolerate your father-in-law than confront him. It made me better in the long run, even if it took nearly 30 years!

 

Thanks again for what all y'all on this forum do (All y'all is Southern for "every single one of the many" )

30 years.

It is how it ends that counts.

On 7/1/2021 at 1:48 PM, fred8033 said:

Probably re-hashing a really old argument yet another time.  ... I agree that we don't need to keep re-imaging BSA and the programs.  I would say though that I disagree on the strengths.  I feel like a church member who still has faith, but is now questioning one of the long-promised values. 

Leadership.  I just don't think troops teach it well.  I question focusing on leadership.  I question encouraging adults to teach leadership.  Scouts will learn leadership naturally by trying to get their scouts out doing things.  Be active, etc.  

I never wanted my scouts to be in scouting because of "leadership".   Sure it might become a side benefit.  I wanted them in it to do things I would not do with them on my own.  Or skills I did not have at that time.  ... To also build life-long friendships.   To get experiences.  To be more independent of me.  But, "leadership".  I'm not sure I would join BSA to get my kid to learn leadership.

I have never been terribly impressed with the level of training offered by BSA-at every level.  The concept is sound: "Let Boys Lead."  But there is no level of guidance/instruction to the boys who are to lead. (Just spent last Sunday reading an Eagle Court of Honor ceremony script, translating on the fly, "he" to "the scout" to adjust for female scouts.)

How does one "lead?"  Well, there are skills and techniques, establish your role as leader, gain the attention of the audience, control the agenda/meeting schedule stick to the schedule, delegate, encourage others, etc.

That is taught at NYLT, formerly JLT (in my day), but that is taught only to senior scouts.  Until a scout attends NYLT, they are on their own.  A huge time gap  between patrol leader and an NYLT trained scout. I know of no leadership materials available to scouts before that unless in some manual, which I have not seen nor seen in my Troop.  If available, not commonly available, as I have not seen it since 1995 when my youngest started in Boy Scouts.

I recently completed Wood Badge, and though interesting, had little leadership substance.  The Ticket Items I completed had value to the targeted audience.

I just have to say that I see a huge disconnect between "training" and its usefulness as implemented in the BSA.

And as a life-long scout, camp staffer, scout parent, scouter, cub pack chairperson, troop chairperson, council executive board member, and many other positions, I'd really like to Scouting be successful.

On 7/2/2021 at 9:31 AM, BAJ said:

This was my first thought in response to this thread as well.  I made a patch recently for a troop activity.  I went to a licensed provider, they looked at my design and told me what changes I’d likely need to make to get it approved in the BSA review process.  I grumbled a little, but in the end it got approved and so it has the Scout logo on it.  They also told me if I didn’t want to make changes, I could take the Scout logo off and it could be made that way without review, my choice. 

Having been on this board for a bit now, I would be willing to make a substantial bet that if a patch was made with BSA’s logo and name, and something viewed as explicitly political — whichever the end of the spectrum the political element came from — there would be critical discussion that was not appropriate for Scouting.  Unless everyone is cool with seeing patches that associate things they really don’t agree with and Scouting being worn on uniforms at Camporees and Jamborees, we should probably support patch review processes(even if that support involves some grumbling.)

Where would I find the BSA review process rules or BSA patch design requirements?  I've designed about half a dozen patches over the years, all through my council, and professional staff never made mention of rules, other than the flour-de-lis had to appear on an official patch.

Thanks.

A few procedural questions-perhaps someone can enlighten me:

1.  Does a council have to accept the amount National has set for that council's contribution or can that amount be negotiated? That is, is it a "take it or leave it" proposition?

2.  Do real estate assets need to be liquidated by October, 2021, or is there some other date (i.e., are they to be sold at a "fire sale?"  Distress sales always yield low prices.)

3.  Is there any mechanism for a council's volunteers to attempt to raise the funds for the contribution amount and save a camp or scout office?

4.  Are restricted asset camps entirely protected, or is protected only on a case-by-case basis?

5.  Is the amount of a council's contribution based on the enforceable claims attributed to that council, or on its ability to pay, and if so, does the ability to pay equation include the value of restricted assets.

Thanks you.

(I suspect these are answered throughout the various threads, but a current summary collected at this point might be helpful to others.)

On 7/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, CynicalScouter said:

That is due to federal law and has nothing to do with BSA's wishes. In short, all pensions are guaranteed by the federal government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). You cannot attack the pension via bankruptcy and even if the pension became part of the bankruptcy in the event of a liquidation the pension program gets paid out first/near the top. So no, you cannot attack the pension.

No. The decision is the Council's. Precisely because Councils ARE independent entities, the decision on their assets belongs to the Council, not National and not the Council/Scout Executive.

Right now, as I type, all 250 or so Councils are voting or have voted on whether or not to participate. The deadline is July 9. That is a Council vote. The SE/CEs do NOT get to unilaterally decide this.

Frankly, at least in the case of Summit, it isn't clear that selling would do any good. Summit is such a debt sink/money loser that even if sold it isn't clear that it would pay off the debts it had on it even prior to the bankruptcy.

Regarding your comment that "the councils are voting" just who in the council governing structure is voting?  You don't think the SE makes a unilateral decision, so that leaves the Council Key Three, the Council Executive Committee (perhaps 4 or 5 folks), the entire Executive Board, and then, I guess, would be the Chartering Organization Representatives.  I have not heard a word in my council about the bankruptcy. 

Its seems like the questions put to the councils are "Does the council participate in contributing to the settlement?" and if so, "What assets are used-cash and/or liquidate real estate?"

On 7/11/2021 at 7:36 AM, ThenNow said:

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

Been mulling your comment looking for a response.  I met him when he was old enough to work on camp staff and we worked together for several years.  He was no longer affiliated with a troop, but only the Council camp, and was clear of the abuse he experienced at the unit level.  He fit in well with staff, had an engaging personality, and nothing seemed amiss.  He worked tirelessly at camp, preferring commissary work requiring physical exertion to counseling merit badges and such.  He had earned Eagle, and was a top student.  He preferred being outdoors and camp work put him in his element.  It also gave him a break from parents who I'd characterize as "not having a clue" and thereby incapable of being meaningful support, though they were aware at some point and attempted help which only compounded the damage.

On 7/8/2021 at 6:41 AM, gpurlee said:

Welcome to the forums SiouxRanger. Thank you for your post.

You have valid points. It should be noted that established bankruptcy law dictates the priority of some of the claims such as pension funds.

Unfortunately, the fallout from this situation may continue for some time.  

Thanks for the Welcome.

I doubt any measure of rebranding will improve the status of BSA.  This whole situation is a horrible hit.

Thanks to everyone who has welcomed me to this forum.

I'd really rather never need to be here.

My life has been Scouting.

Worked at the local camp and Philmont a number of years.  Three Eagle Scout sons.  Multiple Philmont Treks.

I care not about awards and knots and such.  I've qualified for many knots, but won't apply.  I care about what scouts see and do and what they learn.

Other than earning Eagle, and my Philmont staff years, I have been blessed with 7 Mentor Pins (and perhaps another tomorrow, so I have been informed) and making a positive difference in the life of a boy (scout-and now girls, too) is what is important.

And that is what Scouting is all about.

On 7/8/2021 at 6:51 AM, ThenNow said:

Welcome and thanks for a very good post. That’s a dandy for #1!

As to the quoted portion, has he ever unpacked that for you? I haven’t heard anyone else express something to that effect and it may well be a revelation into my experience. Many people are shocked to hear I was abused for years, yet persisted in Scouting to achieve what I set out to achieve. Only as I read what you wrote about your friend did I consider what would have “happened to me” had I dropped out at 11, the time of my first abuse. The picture was not pretty. As those who’ve read my posts know, many things about my Scouting life are precious to me. I took many things to my therapist to dispose of when I first started working with her on all of this, but some mementoes I wouldn’t part with, including my Eagle Certificate and pin, sash, key patches, NESA pin and a few photos. Just prior to the Chapter 11 filing I made a significant move to reconcile with Scouting. Against the advice of family, I wanted to become involved again. Then, two months later, I read the announcement in the WSJ. Thus began the adventure of the BSA Bankruptcy Seesaw Game.

If he’s given you any insight into what he meant, I would welcome it. 

He has tangentially unpacked the abuse he was subjected to.  It is more than I care to discuss, not feeling at liberty to do so, even concealing identifying details, and don't even care to contemplate, except to help me wrap my own mind around the degree and depths of the damage done.

I believe that children remember most negative comments directed their way for life and those comments have some hanging presence or at least ghost-like shadows that surface from time to time and haunt them..

Inappropriate sexual activities-well, I cannot imagine the depths to which one who has been subjected to them have sunk emotionally at times during their life.  I would think that suicide ideation is high on the list.  This is serious.

We are talking about mere, innocent children being subjected to an event or events of intense, unwanted, and unacceptable intrusion into their entitlement to their own personal emotional integrity.  It is emotional rape if not also physical rape.

Everyone is entitled to feel safe wherever they are.  Physically and emotionally.

My friend reports to me he has had weekly therapy session since I knew him as a teenager.  Now being nearly 50 years later, me only being brought into the loop about 3 years ago.  I was stunned when I learned.  But I understand.  Who wants to tell anyone of being subjected to such actions?

"How can he be such a good friend if you only learn XXX years later?"  He lives more than 1,000 miles away-left after college.  We've communicated by emails and such, and when I learned, I flew out to meet with him.  He is tough, but hurting and it has now, late in life, turned debilitating.

I did not enjoy high school, and won't be attending perhaps my senior class' last reunion.  I wasn't treated well by many in my class.  I was a nerd, did well in mathematics, poorly in sports, chess champion, and was a Boy Scout.  My experiences in high school, frankly, really hurt me. And to this day.

However, with the public advent of sexual abuse in Boy Scouting, I now understand that however I feel about how I was treated in high school, it is NOTHING compared to the damage done to those who were sexually abused in the scouting program.

I have two further comments.

First, that those abused did nothing wrong.  They did not fail.  They are not weak.  They clearly did not deserve what happened to them. They were targeted by predatory adults driven by their own impulses and motives, having superior age and knowledge, who planned their attacks.  Lying-in-wait has virtually no defense.  Children have no defense against such advantages.

Second, those abused should have no shame.  Cast off the emotional burden placed on you by the adult who targeted you. You just happened along and they attacked when the opportunity presented itself.  If you had not happened along, they would have awaited another victim-you would have been spared, but another would be the victim in your place. You are merely the victim by accident. You are NOT responsible for the criminal intent or activities of adults.

I am always struck by the wisdom and admonition of the Biblical quote:

"That which you do to least of mine, you do to Me."

I guess I do not understand how an organization which requires a religious component...