DavidLeeLambert Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 14 hours ago, MYCVAStory said: As well, suggesting that any of this occur at a BSA facility is not well-considered when considering the victims and the impact of that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that victims themselves (nor individual pensioners, bank officers, chartered org officers, etc.) need to attend the negotiation. The discussion here is whether counsel for the parties should meet in the offices of one party's counsel, or over Zoom; or whether it would be better to meet against the backdrop of what has been implied to be the Debtor's biggest asset, the HA bases and the Council camps. And from what I've seen of the TCC members who presented during Town Halls, I don't imagine they'd be particularly bothered or endangered simply by setting foot on BSA or Local Council property. Since I posted yesterday, I've dug up a bit more information about the amenities at a couple facilities. The newest HA base, Summit Bechtel, advertises conference services. It's only a six-hour drive from Delaware, and one of the close airports has several non-stop daily flights ot other cities, including New York City. It has a 300-seat auditorium, and a couple of 500-seat dining halls. The number of new COVID cases per day has increased slightly over the past couple of weeks in West Virginia, as it has in many states; but Raleigh and Fayette counties are both below 45 new cases per day, per 100,000 residents. The Michigan Crossroads Council has a Cub Scout day-camp, Adventure Point, which advertises facility rental. That camp also has multiple conference-rooms. It's a short drive from the Gerald R Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids; in fact it's literally within a few hundred feet of a freeway exit. Michigan has also had a slight increase in COVID cases recently, but it's doing so well at vaccination that all adults will be eligible starting April 5th. And I think a circus-tent with temporary power and A/V equipment could be set up at just about any of the hundreds of Council properties, for a socially distanced but in-person meeting. But the insinuation that victims are fundamentally prejudiced by meeting at National Council or Local Council camps strikes me as FUD, along the lines of comments that the BSA is or was a "rape factory". In the public IV files and in the few redacted abuse claims that have been introduced on the bankruptcy docket, there are some reported incidents at council camps; but none that I've seen yet at HA bases, and the majority are elsewhere: leaders' homes, leaders' vehicles, camping at public parks, leaders' workplaces, even the victims' homes. (Can you cite any public allegations of abuse at any HA base? Can you share any statistics about how many of the abuse claims in the case allege abuse at a national High Adventure base, or at a Council-owned camp property?) An important question in the case, and probably still a sticking-point in the negotiations, is whether the camp properties are "core" to BSA's mission, and to the mission of each of the local councils who have them. Now, during the first decade of Scouting in the U.S. there was no High Adventure base (Northern Tier was established in 1923, and Philmont was donated in 1938, although the donor had allowed a few Boy Scout troops to camp there before he donated it), and even today many units do the majority of their camping and other activities at non-Council properties. It's possible to carry out the program as written without ever setting foot on a council property. But a properly-run camp makes it easier, and can actually contribute to safety by allowing only registered Scouts and volunteers on-property during program time. And I'd still say the camps are "important" to BSA's mission. In fact, if there's a choice between the headquarters building and a camp, I'd say to keep the camp. Presumably the headquarters is where the registration database and IV files are kept, but BSA could build a secure bunker on Philmont property and a backup one on Northern Tier property, maybe a tertiary one at Summit, with sustainable solar power at each location, as a permanent repository for its records. The executives are global travelers anyway and can arguably work from home. Likewise, my local Girl Scouts USA council has its headquarters office on the grounds of a Girl Scout camp, not a separate location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said: And from what I've seen of the TCC members who presented during Town Halls, I don't imagine they'd be particularly bothered or endangered simply by setting foot on BSA or Local Council property. This is all a moot point right now. The Judge has denied the motion to hold the mediation completely virtually. Regardless, rules will be put in place so that communication is orderly and on equal footing. The TCC has shared that it will have representation on-site while its bankruptcy professionals are organized across the country. Victims need to know that the TCC will be an active part of this process equal to all parties. As far as the comment above, I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who was sexually abused while in the scouts, especially at a camp, would be "particularly bothered" by visiting a similar facility and/or one owned by the organization you believe is responsible for your abuse. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 I cannot see any advantage to the BSA to hold the meetings at a BSA facility other than some possible cost savings. The TCC wants to force the sale of the high adventure properties so why show the property off? For someone who was molested on BSA property, it is not a good place and could garner bad publicity too. Hold it in a neutral site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yknot Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 2 hours ago, vol_scouter said: I cannot see any advantage to the BSA to hold the meetings at a BSA facility other than some possible cost savings. The TCC wants to force the sale of the high adventure properties so why show the property off? For someone who was molested on BSA property, it is not a good place and could garner bad publicity too. Hold it in a neutral site. Yes I think that would be a little tone deaf for the victims on the TCC and could backfire for the BSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 There seems to be three big questions that must be answered in the March mediation. What will be the National, LC and CO contributions to the fund. I think the insurance aspect cannot be covered until the estimates are complete for District Court. In terms of National, it’s pretty simple. Are the four HA based restricted assets. To me, it should simple be a matter of law. Are there clear deed/donor restrictions, does the JP Morgan debt take precedent on the claim and is Arrow WV separate. I expect the mediator should be able to help here and by simple I mean relative to the next to. LCs ... while very little is shared, due to NDAs, from digging through Facebook, a council presentation and Reddit comments it appears the $300M is nearly all the unrestricted assets from many councils. The questions I have... is that all councils or just councils at risk to further litigation. Also, how valid are the restrictions. This will be tougher to move as it involves either pulling in councils that might not be at risk of much litigation (for example from limited SOL states) or restricted assets. The Ad Hoc committee better be ready with a final number. At a certain point they may be better off walking away and allowing individual lawsuits. COs.... dead silence. I don’t see CO protection as part of the settlement. I just don’t see any COs feeling much risk. Just a hunch but we haven’t seen anything from them so far so I’d be surprised if we see movement. They may be better off not contributing and simply saying this is a BSA issue. I guess I don’t have much hope for mediation outside National BSA’s contribution. You might see some minor movements in LCs. I was surprised the $300M was so low, but for the council that I am close to it meant selling their best camp property. If it is already coming to that at $300M I would be shocked there is a ton of unrestricted assets out there. This might just be a council by council legal fight going forward. We will see... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 To add an example from one council. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: COs.... dead silence. I don’t see CO protection as part of the settlement. I just don’t see any COs feeling much risk. Just a hunch but we haven’t seen anything from them so far so I’d be surprised if we see movement. They may be better off not contributing and simply saying this is a BSA issue. Perhaps someone can speak to this issue that’s been bugging me. I have been wondering if LCs are communicating with their COs about all of this. I know many churches have filed to affirm their indemnification by the BSA, but what of those that are clueless? I’ve yet to speak with her, but my mom still attends the Catholic church that sponsored our Unit. I feel like it may be completely off their radar. I hate to ask her about it, but she is pretty connected and knows the people who handle business and whatnot, both locally and some in the Diocese. I will probably contact her in the near term. Thanks for any insight you might be able to lend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: The Ad Hoc committee better be ready with a final number. At a certain point they may be better off walking away and allowing individual lawsuits. Based on what I was told by CynicalScouter, I don’t see how they can come in with much of anything, outside of those few councils the represent. During the hearing, they sounded all nicey nice, talking about collaboration and broad cooperation. I know from personal experience that isn’t the case as to some LCs. Back to the herding cats and charming snakes. There seems to be no common cause and, without it, how does this get successfully wrangled on behalf of all LCs? I’m cornfusled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 54 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Perhaps someone can speak to this issue that’s been bugging me. I have been wondering if LCs are communicating with their COs about all of this. I know many churches have filed to affirm their indemnification by the BSA, but what of those that are clueless? I’ve yet to speak with her, but my mom still attends the Catholic church that sponsored our Unit. I feel like it may be completely off their radar. I hate to ask her about it, but she is pretty connected and knows the people who handle business and whatnot, both locally and some in the Diocese. I will probably contact her in the near term. Thanks for any insight you might be able to lend. It's certainly not off the radar of the Diocese's lawyers, especially with the abuse cases against Catholic clergy and parishioners. There's a reasonable chance that some of the abusers involved in the Church may have been involved in Scouting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 (edited) Very little is being shared; however, my understanding is that there are a very low number of individuals in each council under NDA who know the plans. I doubt LCs would pull in their COs. Perhaps National is in talks with larger COs, I doubt this is occurring at the LC level. Edited March 26, 2021 by Eagle1993 Removed quote as used wrong one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: Very little is being shared; however, my understanding is that there are a very low number of individuals in each council under NDA who know the plans. I doubt LCs would pull in their COs. Perhaps National is in talks with larger COs, I doubt this is occurring at the LC level. I wish there was more to be known. As I’m sure few of us do, I don’t function well in an information vacuum. I don’t see (understand) how the LCs or COs are going to come to the table, as will be needed to make this an acceptable Plan. For the COs especially, what compels those in closed states? Obviously LCs are moving to liquidate assets in anticipation of their contributions, so that’s hopeful. Perhaps there will be a better read on how many are taking action soon. (I realize not all of you view “hopeful” as the appropriate word choice here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattR Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 I suspect there is no grand plan. Rather, there's chaos, just like there usually is. Another hunch is that for the bulk of councils, like mine, all of the property wealth is really a house of cards. Over the past couple of decades it's been spent. Certainly there are councils with money but it's not many. If my council can get silver jte then there are a lot of broke councils. Consider that the bsa declared bankruptcy when the assumed number of cases was in the small number of thousands, when the expected payout was in the few hundreds of millions. Maybe they're not playing bluff. Maybe there is no grand plan because they're essentially broke and the $300M is not far off. And then there's the $150M the lawyers spent. All I can think of is financial investigations. That's a lot of money to figure out that most councils are broke. Maybe they're assuming a great web of offshore accounts and lots of shell companies when the reality is just like everything else in scouting - ductape and wire. The victims will get some money but no satisfaction. The bsa will be punished but won't learn anything. Kids will keep camping but with less toys. The volunteers will muddle on. That's the plan. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 I don't recall seeing this posted here. If duplicative, my apologies. https://www.newsday.com/long-island/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-nassau-suffolk-1.50192369 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2Eagle Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 2 hours ago, ThenNow said: I wish there was more to be known. As I’m sure few of us do, I don’t function well in an information vacuum. I don’t see (understand) how the LCs or COs are going to come to the table, as will be needed to make this an acceptable Plan. For the COs especially, what compels those in closed states? Obviously LCs are moving to liquidate assets in anticipation of their contributions, so that’s hopeful. Perhaps there will be a better read on how many are taking action soon. (I realize not all of you view “hopeful” as the appropriate word choice here.) LCs clearly are coming to the table as we're seeing camps being sold even in closed states. The decision to sell a camp is a very emotional and fraught action to take, and is fought tooth and nail to the extent in can be even under the best circumstances. That LCs are contemplating it and moving forward actually is a sign of real seriousness. I'm in a closed state, and we have two camps that in normal years are financially self sustaining. I know we have cash assets and I know we'll be in a position to make a reasonable contribution. But I doubt we'd get to the point of selling a camp until there is a compelling legal decision that says we must --- and it's still unclear to me that such a legal decision is a sure thing. As to the COs, certainly any organization that has served youth and is in a look back state is aware that their state laws changed. But how deep is their legal jeopardy is a very different question for them than for either BSA or even an LC. If we're talking about claims from decades ago, for any individual CO there are probably only going to be one or two at most, and they're going to be difficult to prove even in a friendly state court. Assuming a plaintiff can find a lawyer willing to take on one individual Elk's club or single Methodist parish, that case is going to settle out pretty quickly. And you have to find a CO to sue to begin with. Both the COs that sponsored my units in the 70s are simply gone --- they don't exist, there's no one to sue, and nothing to pay. For COs in closed states, they're really not a party to this. They face no legal jeopardy unless their state changes its laws, and it's hard to imagine a church or service organization deciding to pay today to hedge against some hypothetical future legislative change. I don't know how much more "acceptable" the plan is going to get. Restricted assets are restricted, there are real limits on how much is actually available to pay claimants no matter how worthy their claim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 7 minutes ago, T2Eagle said: If we're talking about claims from decades ago, for any individual CO there are probably only going to be one or two at most, and they're going to be difficult to prove even in a friendly state court. Assuming a plaintiff can find a lawyer willing to take on one individual Elk's club or single Methodist parish, that case is going to settle out pretty quickly. And you have to find a CO to sue to begin with. Both the COs that sponsored my units in the 70s are simply gone --- they don't exist, there's no one to sue, and nothing to pay. My CO has numerous, as do many others. I'm not sure it's any more difficult to prove that with an LC. Sam measure of negligent oversight if any abuse took place onsite or nearby, which is not an isolated occurrence. I know this for a fact. As to single parishes, many churches are overseen by a next level of oversight and that's where the liability shifts. I'm not justifying, but stating the legal and historic reality. This is precisely why it is the Catholic dioceses being sued and filing for Chapter 11. Also, most are still very much in existence. 7 minutes ago, T2Eagle said: For COs in closed states, they're really not a party to this. They face no legal jeopardy unless their state changes its laws, and it's hard to imagine a church or service organization deciding to pay today to hedge against some hypothetical future legislative change. Again, not sure why that is assumed any more than for LCs from closed states, some of which are already prepping for contributions. Remember, 18 states have pending legislation for look-back "revival" windows. That's not hypothetical, though certainly not guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts