Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter 1434]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

know this is a negotiation, but National BSA basically put up their minimum, put the bulk on LCs (which they haven't committed to) and punted on suing insurance companies (the Catholic Church in the past actually helped sue the insurance companies to get payouts). 

This really does look like "what is the absolute bare minimum we can put in as a plan." Holding $667 million as restricted. Protecting every HA base. and the $300 million from the Councils is "voluntary" and "ask".

[ThenNow 1373]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Delaying the process to vet could actually lead to a worse outcome for BSA.

How so?

[Eagle1993 2160]

Just now, ThenNow said:

How so?

Because BSA is paying a ton of legal fees each day/week/month this goes on.  Articles early on, when there were 5,000 claims, indicated BSA should be expected to fund a settlement that would equate to most of their value.  So, it really doesn't make a difference if it is 5,000 or 50,000 (at least in terms of the financial payout from the BSA). 

So, if this is delayed for 6 months to vet the list, and we drop to 25,000 claims ...  BSA may just end up having to liquidate as they run out of cash to fund continuing operations.

[ThenNow 1373]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This really does look like "what is the absolute bare minimum we can put in as a plan." Holding $667 million as restricted. Protecting every HA base. and the $300 million from the Councils is "voluntary" and "ask".

I have sat at some reasonably significant negotiation tables, both merger/acquisition and legal settlements. In context and to scale, this is about as "In your face!" as I've seen, short of someone who simply thinks they have no reason whatsoever to give way or zero liability and are begging you to go to trial. It reeks of "I dare you," but what's the call? To wax historic and romantic, it's a slap in the face with a white glove. Still historic but less romantic, a head on a pike at the gate, perhaps?

I have a thought that's been rambling in my head and fits reasonably well here.

When I stand back and look at the mosaic of this story as it plays out, I cast National in the role of the wealthy ruler trying to make an escape to establish its domain on the far shore. Arrogant, defiant and unwise, the ruler makes a fatal of error of judgement. He has loaded the ship with so much wealth that it sinks halfway across the channel. His subjects, left on the shore, must fend off the marauders at the gate with little by way of stores, few resources and no precious metals or gems with which to negotiate. (Not saying we survivor claimants are marauders, but you get the idea. A certain lawyer has long ago auditioned and been cast in that starring role.)

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow
Adding clarity...

[ThenNow 1373]

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So, if this is delayed for 6 months to vet the list, and we drop to 25,000 claims ...  BSA may just end up having to liquidate as they run out of cash to fund continuing operations.

Got it.

Personally, I don't believe that, "the well runs dry in July," rhetoric. I've not heard anyone on the claimants' side verify that apprehension and it sounds tactical, to a negotiator's hears.

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993 2160]

21 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Got it.

Personally, I don't believe that, "the well runs dry in July," rhetoric. I've not heard anyone on the claimants side verify that apprehension and it sounds tactical, to a negotiator's hears.

I tend to agree.  I expect BSA should be ready for this bankruptcy to last until 2023 or even 2024.  They will need to clearly communicate:

- HA bases ... if units register and provide funds to go to HA bases, what happens to their money if the HA base is sold off.  Could this money ever be pulled into the bankruptcy settlement.

- Councils ... if camps are lost, will fees paid for summer camps be refunded.

- FOS donations ... will any of those donations go to the bankruptcy settlement...

Outside of those issues/concerns, the bankruptcy really doesn't impact my units day to day operations.   We made the call to go to Philmont this year in fear it would be lost by 2022, but otherwise, limited impact. It is ugly in the media and probably has some impact on recruiting, but I expect that is minimal.  Given their offer, it seems clear this we are not looking for a quick settlement and need to live with bankruptcy for a long time.

[jr56 92]

Yup, I would be reluctant to donate to FOS, knowing that it is going into some lawyers pocket.

[RememberSchiff 3662]

Will all Councils represented by the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils vote on the Plan or just the 8 or so Committee members?

IMHO, the BSA "restricted assets" should be vetted under guidelines from the Judge. HA camps are not critical to BSA's mission or our to local program.

We scrambled and ran our own local HA after our reservation was cancelled by Philmont fires. We saved about $300/scout, didn't lose time to travel and altitude acclimation, and had a great time.  Let's do it again!

Edited March 3, 2021 by RememberSchiff
grammar

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

When I stand back and look at the mosaic of this story as it plays out, I cast National in the role of the wealthy ruler trying to make an escape to establish its domain on the far shore. Arrogant, defiant and unwise, the ruler makes a fatal of error of judgement. He has loaded the ship with so much wealth that it sinks halfway across the channel. His subjects, left on the shore, must fend off the marauders at the gate with little by way of stores, few resources and no precious metals or gems with which to negotiate. 

Except, in this case, the subjects (us), left to fend for themselves, go on happily scouting because there are no "marauders" after us.  The marauders then launch maritime salvage operations and learn to deep sea dive (extended legal actions against local councils?)

Edited March 3, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[ThenNow 1373]

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Except, in this case, the subjects (us), left to fend for themselves, go on happily scouting because there are no "marauders" after the us. 

That sounds like a reasonably happy ending. I can foresee certain marauders drowning in their hapless attempt to recover the booty. 

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

That sounds like a reasonably happy ending. I can foresee certain marauders drowning in their hapless attempt to recover the booty. 

And I can see the good Lord smiling on the undertakings of others and justly rewarding their efforts. 

[ParkMan 1293]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

When I stand back and look at the mosaic of this story as it plays out, I cast National in the role of the wealthy ruler trying to make an escape to establish its domain on the far shore. Arrogant, defiant and unwise, the ruler makes a fatal of error of judgement. He has loaded the ship with so much wealth that it sinks halfway across the channel. His subjects, left on the shore, must fend off the marauders at the gate with little by way of stores, few resources and no precious metals or gems with which to negotiate. (Not saying we survivor claimants are marauders, but you get the idea. A certain lawyer has long ago auditioned and been cast in that starring role.)

As I expect that you would.  Are you not a member of the group suing the BSA?

Seems to me what we really have here is two groups:

• those was hurt a years ago trying to extract as much money from Scouting as possible
• those who are involved in the program today trying to preserve as much of Scouting as possible

I know the media has portrayed this as victims vs. the national BSA - but at this point, it's really gone beyond that.  This is about how much of Scouting in the US do the claimants want to dismantle.  Of course the claimants are going to try to make national look awful and belittle the offer.  That's in their best interest.

You've stated that the claimants want the BSA to contribute 1.3billion or more - not the $500+ million being discussed now.  The way the claimants get to that requires the BSA to sell of camps and facilities used by kids today.  Facilities that have been assembled over 100 years and countless contributions.  Facilities that have been improved by countless millions of hours of sweat equity by kids and volunteers.  Yep, few of us love the Summit, but Philmont, Sea Base, and our local camps are important to the program.   If our council has to contribute 2-3 million dollars, we'll have to sell our camp.  Summer Camp is gone, camporees and other large events are gone, low cost camping is gone.

Strikes me that the BSA is doing the responsible thing for Scouting here - trying to protect as much of program as it can for kids today and in the future. 

If I look at this dispassionately, its just a group of people just trying to preserve as much of Scouting as possible while claimants are trying to extract as much as thy can.

[T2Eagle 902]

19 hours ago, skeptic said:

It is good that someone here sees the verity in my concern regarding suggestions by legal people that "nothing" has really been done and the intimation that it is getting worse.  Now, if the courts might actually review the totality of the "facts", in this case YP and stats in the past two decades.  I just hope someone in the legal team for National is paying attention.  Better, maybe a few of the silent supporters that know this is slanted, actually might step in to balance the scale a little.  

 

It's worth remembering that how well YPT has worked or not worked, or whether the abuse levels are better or worse now than in the past isn't really a question before the court.  Both sides might make rhetorical claims about it, but there isn't going to be any evidence or arguments heard as to who is correct.  

A settlement might involve an agreement about changes to the YPT guidelines, in fact it probably will, if for no other reason than that the victims would demand some sort of change as a condition of settlement.  It's hard to see what that change would be because YPT practices are becoming somewhat standardized across youth activities.  In the last decade the training I've received as a rec league coach, scouter, and Catholic youth serving volunteer have all been pretty much the same.  At a guess I would say the change will be some structure independent of BSA that has to govern YPT and review all allegations of violations

[yknot 1338]

6 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

If I look at this dispassionately, its just a group of people just trying to preserve as much of Scouting as possible while claimants are trying to extract as much as thy can.

Except BSA taking that position is the same rationalization that led to a lot of abuse cases being covered up in the first place. You can't be dispassionate about how the public will view your actions in a situation such as this. 

[ThenNow 1373]

36 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

If I look at this dispassionately, its just a group of people just trying to preserve as much of Scouting as possible while claimants are trying to extract as much as thy can.

I almost don't know where to start with this, because it seems like I am repeating myself, ad nauseam. I'll try:

1) I'm not part of any "group trying to sue the BSA." Never tried. Never initiated. Never thought about it until all of this blew up however many years ago. I wanted to put a man in jail, take his house and assets and reputation, then burn down the house, sell the property and assets and give it all to a child protection charity. It's just little ol' me representing myself;

2) You don't know what, if anything, I continue to do or don't do in support of Scouting. Might want to read into that, as may be appropriate; 

3) I did not initiate this campaign to do "equity" by all survivors of past abuse in Scouting. I was minding my own business and trying to manage my life, such as it was, when this blew up in my face. It set off a train wreck of a year wrought with months and months of darkness I won't go into, not the least of which was 4.5 months of research and documentation creating the materials to submit my Proof of Claim;

4) Neither I nor the other sexual abuse survivor claimants forced Mosby or Turley to make the promises that were made and repeated about their motives, goals, intentions and heartfelt sorrow;  and

5) To say that I/we/they/whoever are trying to get as "much money from Scouting as possible" is a non-statement, and uses your 'only two camps' assertion lumping everyone together. It's neither accurate nor helpful. What does "as possible" even mean? What the formula is, I don't know, but what has been offered, and the way it was done, is nothing short of shameful.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow