SiouxRanger

I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless. As I recall, National's standard was to report a 2% membership growth year-to-year. Recruiting new members was a DE's job responsibility. Now we have a 40%± drop in membership. Further, it seems the consensus that the LC's will spend about 50% or so of their total assets and even a higher percentage of their unrestricted assets. What company just sends off 50% of its assets and feels good about it? It would be fatal to most businesses. Precisely. And they won't. The non-disclosure agreements have put the lid on mobs of irate peasants (us) storming the Lord's castle (National). The peasants have some facts and much conjecture. It does not seem to be enough to spur the needed numbers of peasants to take to the digital streets. There is no grass-roots movement, much less opposition, to the implications and growing consequences of National's bankruptcy plans. The consistent posters on this forum number 24 to 36 people. There are a number of guests, but still not typically more than 250 or so at any one time. Just not enough to get the attention of National. The guests are not motivated to register and make their voices heard. 5,000 folks sending a daily email to National for a month. Well, that's a start, perhaps. Some Claimants may be paying attention-either on this forum or other forums. There is another problem. Even educated, Scouting folks (non-claimants), at least in my orbit, are paying virtually no attention to the bankruptcy. The COR, Troop Committee Chairperson, SM-none of them seem interested and know very little about it. True, but probably of little practical importance as those voting will be voting on the Plan as a whole. Arguments for and against the Plan will be based on an aggregate analysis, not the facts pertaining to a single or limited number of LC's. For example, those voting might reject the Plan if it is shown that only 5% of LC assets are being paid into the Settlement Fund. That a council or two is paying 99% means little as the total Settlement Fund contribution is miniscule in the aggregate. Conversely, a Plan which proposes that 85% of LC assets be paid to the Settlement Fund would have a better chance of approval, even though a council or two might be paying 0%. We will be handed a fait accompli. Our choice will be to accept what is left of Scouting and soldier on, or leave in disgust (or for any other reason).

"Fraud in the inducement" and "fraud in the execution." It raises the question: "The statutes of limitation were reopened so that abuse claimants would have enforceable claims, but were the statutes of limitation reopened so that the CO's and LC 's, who may have liability on account of National's acts or omissions, can assert their claims against National for indemnification?" Probably no one considered that CO's and LC's would be claimants in their own right. Ooops.

I do hope decisions are coordinated and sooner than later. I don't know what our unit would do if we had to find another location. It only occurred to me the other day how dependent we are on having our meeting room adjoining our storage room. It would be inconvenient to have to go to, or meet at a different location to prepare for a campout, and then go to the meeting location. It would be OK to meet at the storage location the night of the campout to load up, but gear is typically returned over several troop meeting nights, and that gear would have to be ferried to the storage location. Just one more step in the process.

Roughly appears to be about 17,000 Latin Catholic Parishes, 144 Dioceses, and, 32 Archdioceses in the USA.

Possibly parishes and dioceses announcing different rules at different times. Surely, the guidance or directives will be coordinated at some level, not only to prevent initial confusion, but to avoid having to retract guidance or directives at some point.

Well, then there should be a mosaic of treatment in the Catholic Church.

A "preference," at least in a Chapter 7 case, is a transaction that provides a benefit to a particular creditor to the exclusion of other creditors in the same class and it prejudices those other creditors. At one time, (and maybe still) preferences were defined as occurring within a certain time window preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition, or was entered into with certain other classes of individuals, such as, principals, owners, spouses of principals/owners, and such, which had a longer time window. The Trustee in bankruptcy could void those transactions and pull the assets bestowed on the privileged/ortunate creditor back into the bankruptcy estate to be divided amongst ALL the creditors of that class. I've seen no discussion of this, so it must not be applicable-statutory, or time-barred. I don't know. Conceivably, the business judgment rule may be an exception to the preference rule, that is, "Normally, this would look like a preference, but we had a sound business reason to make this deal, and here is why it is sound..." If this is the case, then until the Judge rules on this, Hartford is still on the hot seat. One would think that National has no reason to cut a sweet deal with Hartford, because National's liability will be discharged, whatever that liability is and no matter how much Hartford and the other insurers have to pay, unless the deal provides a benefit to National, which, appears to me to be to obtain Hartford's agreement with the RSA., thereby greasing an easier approval of National's Plan. Likely, that Hartford was chosen for the sweet deal because its vote would swing RSA approval. Maybe all this is garbage. "I did not have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one." Pascal (I think).

Well, if the Catholics don't have staff assigned to open the mail in Irving, someone is and likely has permission. Parishes answer to Dioceses, Dioceses to Archdioceses, and they answer to ? Papal Nuncio? The vow of obedience obligates the clergy to answer to whom? The Catholic Church has an impressive body of Canon Law, last time I looked online. It is difficult to discuss matters in "executive session" when the subject of the discussion gets your mail-perhaps not all of it. And maybe the National Catholic Committee of Scouting has no responsibility for anything except religious awards. But somebody must have that responsibility. And so far, not a word have I been able to find pertaining to my unit. I believe there was a report that the Archdiocese of New Orleans issued direction on rechartering.

Why is the Hartford sweet deal not a "preference?" That doctrine is not applicable to Ch. 11 bankruptcy cases?

In accounting, I believe it is a technique to separate certain functions to prevent fraud. Such as, the department responsible for sending out bills, does not collect the money. A different group collects the money, and a third group compares the bills sent by the one dept., to the funds received by the other dept. If the two lists don't match, something is amiss. One would think, given National's track record on lack of disclosure of abuse claims received by National, that insurers will insist on having a role monitoring future reports and claims.

I have checked the website for the National Catholic Committee On Scouting and cannot find any mention of National's bankruptcy or rechartering. Curiously, the address of the Committee is in Irving, TX. Implying some measure of being an extension of National? Certainly not able to conduct its business if National opens its mail-I don't know if National staff does open the Committee's mail, but seems strange that the Catholic Committee does not have its own office with National having its own liaison staff to the Catholic Committee. Do other religious groups have such connections to National? Also, no mention of National's bankruptcy on the Committee's site for my Diocese. I sent an email inquiry for guidance. A unit faces finding meeting space, storage space for equipment, parking space for a unit trailer, along with considerations of encouraging scouts to finish up their next rank advancement, especially Eagle, before the unit faces the recharter unknown.

Having sons, could you enlighten me about "girls' natural organization instincts?" Thanks.

On another matter of a council's plan fund its Settlement 'Fund Contribution, briefly: My council's indicated the other day that our council was looking to obtain a loan to cover its Settlement Fund contribution. Our camp is probably a restricted asset. I did not ask any questions-not the time or place. But what lender is likely to make a loan to an organization whose future is so murky and tenuous? And, though camp may not be sold now, it wll certainly be mortgaged-we have only one. So, if membership remains low, the likelihood of mortgage default is higher, and the council may lose it anyway. (Just thought-can the Council mortgage restricted a asset without the consent of the holder of the restrictive rights? Probably not, but as no one I know is privy to the terms of the restrictions-not even the professional responsible for managing the camp-I can't say.)

My understanding of "mandatory reporting," at least in my state, is that only certain classes are mandatory reporters: physicians, counselors, etc... Lawyers are not. Which raises the question, is anyone in the Claimant claim process a mandatory reporter? I don't know. It is like walking down a path: Claimant calls a law firm about a Claim. Speaks with a receptionist, then an info intake person, that information is passed along to a somebody (firm case manager, junior attorney, etc.), then ultimately (maybe never, according to some) by the lead attorney, then filed, with the Court, and if not anonymously, then there is another chain of people having seen and having access to the details of the Claim. Are any of these folks mandatory reporters or are they barred from reporting due to client confidentiality ethics restrictions? I don't know the answers, but those are the initial lines of inquiry.

Pretty sure I understand the meaning of "terminate." I also understand the principle of de minimus non curat lex, but that has broader application to matters beyond mere semantics. The issue is: resolving this discussion so that a single post clarifies and clearly states the issues relating to insurance for the benefit of all the posters and guests, namely: 1. The significance of National's apparent position that its interests in the policies somehow end up in the Settlement Fund as assets. It is my understanding that when a debtor files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, ALL of the assets of the debtor become assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate and the debtor loses control over them until "exiting" bankruptcy, but retains the right to propose a Plan. The debtor's task in drafting its Plan is to make it attractive enough to creditors so that they approve it, yet leave sufficient assets for the debtor to return to its prior business or operations, albeit with dramatically diminished assets. I am not sure what insurance interests National proposes be transferred to the Settlement Fund. Abuse Claimants appear to be the sole class of creditors who will be beneficiaries of the Settlement Fund 2. An explanation why the CO's seem to oppose National's Plan of transferring its insurance policy rights to the Settlement Fund. If National's Plan with regard to the insurance policies makes no difference to the CO's they would not care, obviously. There is the suggestion that the rights of the CO's are somehow diminished. On the other hand, if all of the above is mere inexpert conjecture spread over dozens of posts,, and the issues really are: 1. No coverage before 1978 at all, well that is straight-forward. Discovery, document production, and an evidentiary hearing. Policies exist, or they do not. Persuasive evidence exists of National's representations to CO's that coverage exists (evidence of fraud on National's part, promissory estoppel, violations of consumer protection or business transaction laws, etc.), or it does not. 2. Caps, aggregate and per incident, well, that is policy interpretation and mere math. A Claimant abused three times on a single campout by one Abuser a single incident, or three? Interpret the policy and you have an answer. Same Claimant abused on 3 separate campouts by same Abuser? Same Claimant abused on 3 campouts by different abusers? 3. Apply insurance coverage to "direct claims" first (that is, claims against National) and then apply coverage to "indirect claims" second, namely, CO's, LC's and other third parties. Or apply insurance coverage prorata between National, and the CO's, LC's and other third parties? Again, read the policies and make a decision. It could be a different decision for each policy as they may have different terms. That @ThenNow, an attorney?, whose wife is educated in insurance matters, is confused, is proof enough that this issue needs to be clarified so we can move past conjecture and supposition. I am not here to engage in energy-sapping debates. I don't need or want to "win" debates, nor persuade anyone of anything. I want to understand the process, the leverage held by the parties, the pressures applied, and the likely affect on the outcome. One has to understand these matters before one can evaluate the likely outcome(s). This forum exists to discuss, resolve, clarify, and at least to arrive at a working hypothesis-perhaps later exploded, but which explains all the known issues at the time of its adoption. So that everyone has some level of understanding which enables them to continue reading with a decent level of understanding. If one does not sweep away the fog as one walks into it, one will forever walk in fog.

@cynicalscouter. Your first sentence " you do not have access to BSA insurance policies" sounds a bit like "terminating" to me. But if you read it as "You've got access to BSA policies, but that access (benefits to you CO's) is not what you thought it was, and your coverage is pretty thin, because:" 1. "You CO's have no coverage before 1978, regardless what you assumed. Where did you get that idea?" 2. "There are aggregate caps and per occurrence caps, some of which we, National, have already accessed, leaving less for you CO's to cover your liability. Coverage/benefits will run out long before your liability is covered." 3. "Our, National's, liability gets paid first, and if any coverage remains, only then will you CO's be covered and only to the extent of remaining coverage." (In effect, National gets the lion's share of the insurance benefits. By way of example, assume: A. That National has a $10M policy. B. That National has already, pre-bankruptcy, used $4M of that coverage, leaving $6M in remaining coverage. C. That Claims filed in the bankruptcy have a value of $12M of which National's share is $8M and the CO's share is $4M. (A 2/3rds to 1/3rd ratio.) National's position seems to be that the $6M of remaining coverage is applied to National's $8M liability, leaving National's liability of $2M unpaid, and to be discharged in bankruptcy, and further, leaving the CO's with its/their full share of $4M of Claims remaining unpaid which the CO will either cover by a negotiated contribution to the Settlement Fund and receive a discharge, or go-it-alone with no insurance (because National used it all up). CO's on the other hand would prefer remaining insurance coverage to be allocated between National and the CO's prorate, that is, National only gets 2/3rds of the remaining insurance coverage, or $4M, and the CO's getting 1/3rd, or $2M. (I'd note that Claimants would prefer National's preferred analysis as it leaves the CO's exposed to greater liability and therefore leveraged to pay more money into the Settlement Fund.) Is this a fair statement of the insurance issue? (By this analysis, Hartford's sweet deal is in effect a lowering of its aggregate cap. So, in my example above, even though the remaining coverage on the $10M policy is $6M, the Hartford deal might lower that to $5M. That would not make any difference to the CO's in my example, as no coverage remains for them, but it would have a deleterious effect on CO's in situations were there would be some coverage for CO's if there was no sweet deal.)

So, does National's Plan leave the CO's uninsured, or leave them with whatever coverage the policies provide by the policies' terms, and the difference to the CO's is whether they: 1. make some $ contribution to the Settlement Fund, and thereby be entitled to a release from all liability, or, 2. not make a $ contribution and be left to whatever coverage the policies provide, and retain all liability for claims. And, I guess this analysis of #2 is complicated by the Hartford deal which would effectively reduce the coverage that the Hartford policies would provide to the CO's if they don't make a $ contribution. Is this closer to what National proposes? (I would note that it seems that Hartford has played a very good game. It negotiated the best deal it could for itself, with the proviso that if Century is able to negotiate an even better deal than Hartford did, Hartford gets the benefit of Century's superior negotiating power/result as Hartford's liability is reduced by some formula.)

Though I can't yet convince myself that I understand how or on what theory National's plan or threat to dis-insure the CO's is based, if the underlying policies are somehow transferred to the Settlement entity, Adult Scout A is likely being dis-insured along with the CO which charters that unit. Lovely.

So, regarding National insurance policies under which the CO's were allegedly insureds, would that coverage also extend to adult leaders in the unit chartered by that CO? Adult Scouter A attends a Troop campout. An incident of abuse occurs on that campout. Adult Scouter A has no knowledge of or involvement with the abuse. Later, a claim (lawsuit) is filed against National, LC, CO, and Adult Scouter A. Is Adult Scouter A afforded insurance coverage to defend and indemnity for any damages under National's policies, or is Adult Scouter A uninsured and on his/her own? Has Adult Scouter A ALWAYS been uninsured? And then, if National's coverage does insure Adult Scouter A, does National's Plan, vis-a-vis terminating insurance coverage for the CO's, also terminate coverage for Adult Scouter A?

I had this vision of Native Americans herding buffalo off a cliff. There's a plan? So, considering all of today's events, is National closer to its toggle plan? I see all of this as a cascade of positions, each a fall-back to other positions in this order: 1. Initial plan of little money from National. 2.-? Maybe a couple of iterations to PLAN 4 with RSA and Hartford. 3. Plan 4 without RSA-seems unlikely to pass. (Now we know Hartford deal is OK with the Judge). 4. Plan 4, like #3 but with CO's agreeing to something via mediation and negotiation. 5. Toggle Plan. (National retreats to only lifeboat on the ship. Everyone else fends for themselves.) 6. Chapter 7 conversion. 7. All BSA intellectual property acquired by some entity-and where will Scouting be then? I keep thinking about that Laurel and Hardy line about a "fine mess."

Interesting, Thanks. I have a volume on the debates over the Constitution, I will check it out. Nonetheless, in practice, Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of why democracy has (sort of) thrived.

Freedom of Speech is in the FIRST Amendment, for a reason: primacy of importance. TRUSTWORTHY is FIRST in the Scout Law. And, what is National's track record judged by that law? Who will ever trust National again?

I only have experience with one Catholic Parish CO, and, as an institution, it could care less about the units it sponsors. Elderly parishioners always smile at scouts when scouts are part of an activity parishioners see, but otherwise have little knowledge of the unit's principal scouting activities. Senior Troop adult leadership in my troop know nothing about National's bankruptcy unless I tell them. Given that a SINGLE ABUSE CASE could create a multi-million dollar liability for a CO, if they continue to sponsor units-they are not paying attention. And if they listen to their lawyers and risk managers, they won't. So, you may well be right. There is a lot of support for the concept of scouting and happy-faced, good deed doing, scouts. But reality will be measured by the statistics of the insurance companies-and those statistics will measure the true risk, and then add a percentage for insurer profit. To my knowledge, mold coverage for houses and other residential units has all but disappeared. The risk is too high and the losses per unit are disproportionately large. Not hard to imagine that sex abuse risks will become uninsurable. Insurers will tell us what risks are financially controllable. And even if a CO has such coverage, National will laugh in its face and yank the coverage in National's NEXT bankruptcy. The present is history. It is tomorrow where the game is always played.

Sadly, these types of considerations now become part of the "routine" of making camp safe, and on our list of things adult volunteers need to be alert to. So, my council camp has three separate buildings, two shower houses and the pool house. All are relatively new, perhaps the last 8 to 10 years. They are built on the single stall model, single stalls for restroom facilities, and single shower stalls. Each stall locks from the inside. All stalls open to the OUTSIDE. In full view of anyone present. Each building has a central service corridor for mechanicals to service each stall. Access to that corridor is behind a locked steel set of double doors. There is NO access to any stall from that corridor, other than the occasional pipe providing water. All the walls are cinder blocks. The stall ceilings are solid. The walls are very plain. Good lighting in every stall. It would not be easy to install a camera in these particular stalls, and that they are virtually identical, anything different from one stall to the other would stand out (hopefully). Being on a National Camp Assessment Team, I've toured a number of camps. It appears to me that it is the older facilities where cameras could be more easily concealed. Rustic, weathered, 2 x 4 framed stalls, plywood sides, ceilings open to trusses, bird nests, spider webs, no electric lighting, DARK, etc. A camera could more easily be placed up in the dark area amongst the trusses, perhaps camouflaged in some fashion. And, one shower house I toured had open ceilings to the trusses, but everything was painted white, including the trusses and underside of the roof sheathing. Even there, a determined abuser could make a small (tiny?) box painted white and attach it to a rafter with a single screw and escape detection. My point is that detection of surreptitious camera placement is extremely problematic. I have not seen any mention of this issue in my National Camp Assessment Team materials. Something to be added to that.

I suspect that both churches have solid leverage with little bluff in it. What organization needs substantial legal liability with little to nothing tangible to show for it? And when so bit, do you stick around to be bit again? And, the churches may well use that leverage to obtain better terms in the bankruptcy, AND THEN, drop out as CO's in the future having determined that National is unable to adequately protect them in the future. That seems to be the finesse play for the the Methodist and Catholic interests. If National believes the Methodists and Catholics will drop out as CO's in the future, then National will likely steam ahead with any path that provides no relief to these CO's and preserves maximum benefits to National. However, if National takes that course, it is a Rubicon moment as National may lose substantial membership due to dropped Methodist and Catholic units, and lose a substantial number of free meeting places. Suitable free meeting space is not easy to obtain. And, where will units keep their "scout rooms" where all their equipment is close at hand? Are units to be left to figure this out? Hardly a polished program "roll out." That National's plan already leaves these CO's exposed, it seems to be a clear indication of National's willingness to "go it alone." Or, National may have initially proposed a plan that leaves the CO's completely exposed to scare them into taking any deal that gives them some coverage, though far from what the CO's would prefer. Sort of the "we'll threaten them into line" approach. From all I can determine, National's bankruptcy plan is half-baked, but perhaps intentionally so: That "mediation continues," as I've read in a few places, seems to indicate that National intentionally filed a plan that would alarm the many interests hoping to mediate its way to getting the other interests to accept much less than those interests would have been able to command in the absence of a pending bankruptcy. In effect, National is saying, "We filed a plan that leaves you out in the cold, and we are willing to concede a little, but, if you don't take what we offer, well, time is short..." A way to treat one's friends? (Not often that "Texas Hold'em" is played in a Delaware court.)