Jump to content
mashmaster

Chapter 11 announced

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Why do YOU want to deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?


This isn't about seeking protection from Congressionally Chartered organizations. Your plan is simply a BSA bailout. No one organization should get that kind of a custom carve-out from tort liability.


Yes, it is a shame that today's kids get penalized. You want to just focus on today's kids. I want to focus on the kids (now grown men) who got abused.


And even if I didn't want to focus on the kids, I find the idea of such a special carve-out from tort liability is bad public policy. No one organization is so important that it should receive special favors from Congress.

 

So let's net this out then.  The choice is either:

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

So let's net this out then.  The choice is either:

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Is that it?

Close.

A big point of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the question of how much insurance companies will pay. Keep in mind that if the insurance companies honor their insurance policies that the victims will be compensation and BSA will have to pay but not nearly as much.

The insurance companies are claiming, in effect, the insurance agreements are void because a) BSA lied to the insurance companies when the contracts were signed OR b) BSA while insured failed to exercise the minimum amount of care necessary to honor their end of the insurance agreement or c) both.

There's no way BSA walks away unscathed. The damage to BSA's reputation is already done (and started with the first abuse lawsuits years ago and the release of the Perversion files). That meant financial drag as people fled. Then there's the claims/bankruptcy. But as above, even if the insurance companies have to eat 100% of the payments, BSA will still be looking at decades of decline because

1) The reputation is shot

2) Any new insurance premiums will be astronomical

3) Boy Scouts was developed for a post-World War II, mom and apple pie, vision of patriotic Americana that believes in institutions. That nation no longer exists. BSA is an anachronism and that means its funding model is an anachronism, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Close.

A big point of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the question of how much insurance companies will pay. Keep in mind that if the insurance companies honor their insurance policies that the victims will be compensation and BSA will have to pay but not nearly as much.

The insurance companies are claiming, in effect, the insurance agreements are void because a) BSA lied to the insurance companies when the contracts were signed OR b) BSA while insured failed to exercise the minimum amount of care necessary to honor their end of the insurance agreement or c) both.

There's no way BSA walks away unscathed. The damage to BSA's reputation is already done (and started with the first abuse lawsuits years ago and the release of the Perversion files). That meant financial drag as people fled. Then there's the claims/bankruptcy. But as above, even if the insurance companies have to eat 100% of the payments, BSA will still be looking at decades of decline because

1) The reputation is shot

2) Any new insurance premiums will be astronomical

3) Boy Scouts was developed for a post-World War II, mom and apple pie, vision of patriotic Americana that believes in institutions. That nation no longer exists. BSA is an anachronism and that means its funding model is an anachronism, too.

Let's not conflate the issue.  The insurance companies are not the point here.

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Which path do you think is the correct one.

Edited by ParkMan
clarified a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ParkMan said:

Let's not conflate the issue.

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Which path do you think is the correct one.

Not conflating. There's a third option

  • Insurance companies pay the bulk of the abuse victims compensation. BSA's financial damage is substantial but not catastrophic (fire sales of Sea Base, Philmont) or even fatal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The core public policy problem we are dealing with is how does a federally chartered organization with a mission to serve the kids of the United States ...

 

Your comment raises an interesting question. Any work I've ever done for federal or state government has had to meet all sorts of standards for non discrimination. Even though it's pretty much unlikely, If Congress were to actually examine the charter, how would BSA fair? Until recently, the organization has not exactly been welcoming to large and politically important categories of the nation's youth. And while girls are now allowed, they are still segregated into separate dens/troops,. There is also the problem of church involvement and the fact that atheists are not welcome. There have been a few recent reports about historic churches having trouble with National Historic Trust applications because they are churches, and the HT is another Congressional Charter so you can kind of see where the pendulum is swinging. Instead of Congress helping BSA, I'm wondering in today's environment if we should instead be worried about them possibly revoking it?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Not conflating. There's a third option

  • Insurance companies pay the bulk of the abuse victims compensation. BSA's financial damage is substantial but not catastrophic (fire sales of Sea Base, Philmont) or even fatal

Nope - that may happen, but that's a side question.  That's the "we'll stick it to the system concept and no-one is hurt."  That's conflating the issue by suggesting that someone else is harmed that is not victims or kids of today.

Really this comes down to the hard question:

  • let abuse victims sue in perpetuity so that we do not deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on
  • limit the timeframe of suits so that we do not penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening

What's your choice?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yknot said:

I'm wondering in today's environment if we should instead be worried about them possibly revoking it?  

If you look certainly since the 1980s there's been a sense (and unwritten rule) that Congress will not issue new charters. The idea of a "Congressional Charter" as being some prestige thing is sorta, well, antiquated.

So, while I cannot see Congress going out of their way to pull BSA's charter, I also don't see it lifting a finger to help get BSA out of civil liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yknot said:

Your comment raises an interesting question. Any work I've ever done for federal or state government has had to meet all sorts of standards for non discrimination. Even though it's pretty much unlikely, If Congress were to actually examine the charter, how would BSA fair? Until recently, the organization has not exactly been welcoming to large and politically important categories of the nation's youth. And while girls are now allowed, they are still segregated into separate dens/troops,. There is also the problem of church involvement and the fact that atheists are not welcome. There have been a few recent reports about historic churches having trouble with National Historic Trust applications because they are churches, and the HT is another Congressional Charter so you can kind of see where the pendulum is swinging. Instead of Congress helping BSA, I'm wondering in today's environment if we should instead be worried about them possibly revoking it?  

I've lobbied for a long time for Congress to appoint an inspector general to oversee the BSA.  Congress should absolutely do it's job to ensure that the BSA is fulfilling it's charter.

The slight distinction from what you describe that I would make is that the BSA should not be allowed to violate the charter.  This is a corporation created for the purposes of the United States.  If the BSA leadership is in place to fulfill the needs of the country.  If the leadership violates it, said leadership should be replaced.  

Edited by ParkMan
clarified a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Nope - that may happen, but that's a side question.  That's the "we'll stick it to the system concept and no-one is hurt."  That's conflating the issue by suggesting that someone else is harmed that is not victims or kids of today.

Really this comes down to the hard question:

  • let abuse victims sue in perpetuity so that we do not deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on
  • limit the timeframe of suits so that we do not penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening

What's your choice?

You keep changing what you are asking (it went from "deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?" to "sue in perpetuity". No one is saying perpetual suits.)

And you are offering a false choice/dichotomy that immediately rejects a third option. So no, I don't accept the premises of your question, namely, that those are the only two choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

If the BSA leadership violates it, said leadership should be replaced.  

And they can be. But under the charter, as written, the new BSA leadership would be chosen by...the old BSA leadership.

Quote

(a) Executive Board.—

An executive board composed of citizens of the United States is the governing body of the corporation. The number, qualifications, and term of office of members of the board are as provided in the bylaws. A vacancy on the board shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the board.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

You keep changing what you are asking (it went from "deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?" to "sue in perpetuity". No one is saying perpetual suits.)

And you are offering a false choice/dichotomy that immediately rejects a third option. So no, I don't accept the premises of your question, namely, that those are the only two choices.

I merely prefaced the text with some action words based on your context.  Ok, let's go back to the original text:

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Which path do you think is the correct one?  If there is a third one, what is it?

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And they can be. But under the charter, as written, the new BSA leadership would be chosen by...the old BSA leadership.

 

Congress created the corporation.  Congress can amend the enabling language to do whatever it needs to.

Edited by ParkMan
clarified a thouhght

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I merely prefaced the text with some action words based on your context.  Ok, let's go back to the original text:

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Which path do you think is the correct one?  If there is a third one, what is it?

Congress created the corporation.  Congress can amend the enabling language to do whatever it needs to.

Congress wants absolutely nothing to do with this mess. They did NOT repeal the charter in 2000 (Scouting for All Act which would have repealed the charter for refusal to allow homosexuals in). It was rejected 362-12 with 51 House members voting "Present".

Yes, in some theoretical sense Congress can amend the enabling statute. That's not going to happen.

As for your two premises, again, I reject that those are the only two options. I've already demonstrated there is a third option (insurance companies carry most of the load) that is currently pending before the court.

Edited by CynicalScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we started the week with a cougar attack and now we have another cat fight. BTW,  the BSA selected BOTH options

The Debtors commenced these chapter 11 cases to achieve the dual objectives of (a) timely and equitably compensating survivors of abuse in Scouting and (b) ensuring that the BSA emerges from bankruptcy with the ability to continue its vital charitable mission. These objectives remain unchanged.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/855387_1519.pdf

...and now back to our show.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for your two premises, again, I reject that those are the only two options. I've already demonstrated there is a third option (insurance companies carry most of the load) that is currently pending before the court.

And this is the problem with our country today - let's punt on the real choice because someone else will make it OK.  But, even if the insurance companies pay, all it does is lower the amounts we're talking about.  The BSA will still have to pay which will mean higher fees for kids, camps sold which means fewer camps for kids, a diminished reputation which means fewer kids participate in the program.  The will be a material impact on the kids of the United States.  So that's not a real third choice.  It just attenuates the impact.  Kids are still penalized. 

You've not convinced me that this is a real third option.  As far as I can tell, you are still telling me the choices are:

  • deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
  • penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

 So which one do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:  The perpetrators, the ones actually responsible are long gone for the most part.  The local authorities and political or power brokers that protected the actual perpetrators are basically ignored, since they are either some civilly protected entity or are conveniently untraceable.  Most of the claimants likely are not in the so called Perversion files, as they were shielded by those connected entities or their family's chose, at the time, to NOT put the claim into the public eye.  And, if the claim is actually in the Ineligible Volunteer File, there are notes as to what was done outside the BSA that resulted in no charges or minor charges.  After fifty plus years, most of it is really like the charges lodged against political people that date back decades.  Yet we do not see them being held accountable.  Why?  Because there is power and money that is willing to sweep it away, and the lawyers do not see a pay day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...