Bankruptcy Losses

[RememberSchiff 3663]

20 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Update:  3/01/2022

Deer Lake to be Sold for Private Development.

In a surprise move that shocked many town and state officials, the Connecticut Yankee Council of the Boy Scouts of America announced last week that it had accepted an undisclosed offer for its Deer Lake property, effectively paving the way for development of the entire 250-plus acre parcel. Though the council did issue a statement that would leave open a window until March 31 for consideration of a “superior offer”, most town and state officials have said that the selling price, which is speculated to be twice the appraised value of the property, is unlikely to matched by an offer.

...

Trust for Public Land made a bid in mid-February for $2.4 million, which was rejected by the Connecticut Yankee Council, and, according to statements from the council, it has conditionally accepted a bid from Fortitude Capital, LLC for $4.6 million. According to a spokesperson for the council, the CEO of Fortitude capital is Margaret Streicker, who is also a member of the Connecticut Yankee Council’s Board of Directors, further muddying the issue of whether the council was and is negotiating with the town with full transparency.

From Connecticut Yankee Council’s website: Reshaping Our Camp Properties to Fund Scouting's Mission:

To serve the young people today- and in the future- our Council volunteers and professionals have been evaluating every aspect of our program and business to set Scouting up for success in the 37 communities we serve.

While we’ve changed greatly in the last 18 months, more change is necessary to succeed. This can be painful but is necessary, especially when looking at the situation we are in. Our Council is not exempt from the nationwide declines in membership organizations like the BSA have experienced. This, coupled with challenges over the past several years, means our Council needs to make major changes to survive.

To make those changes, the Council needs to secure funding and right-size our portfolio of properties to a level we can maintain. Simply put, we own too many properties for the membership we have today. While the outdoors are critical to delivering Scouting’s mission of preparing youth for life, owning property is not. This has been studied by the Council Executive Board for the past year as well as the Board’s Properties Committee.

On February 17, the Council Executive Board made the difficult decision to sell Deer Lake Scout Reservation. This decision wasn’t taken lightly and was done with the Scouts of today and tomorrow in mind. While we are divesting from Deer Lake Scout Reservation, the buyer is allowing the Council to lease the property for at least the next three years to operate it as a camp.

We recognize the passion behind preserving the outdoors and have had discussions with organizations committed to such while encouraging them to submit a competitive bid that can be accepted by the Board. To that end, the Board has negotiated for a specified window in which it can consider superior offers to the one currently being pursued, and any such offers would need to be received by March 31.

The net proceeds from the sale of Deer Lake Scout Reservation will be reinvested into Camp Sequassen and Hoyt Scout Camp to both improve and expand the facilities, programs and infrastructure.

As a Council, we’re continuing to evaluate how to best serve the youth of today and prepare us to serve the youth of tomorrow and appreciate the work our volunteers, families and supporters do daily.

Rudy Escalante

Council President

Mark Kraus

Scout Executive/ CEO

 

https://www.zip06.com/news/20220301/deer-lake-to-be-sold-for-private-development

https://www.ctyankee.org/council-news/reshaping-our-camp-properties-to-fund-scoutings-mission/

 

 

Update 03/02/2022:

Trust for Public Land (TPL) Plans to make a Second Offer for Deer Lake

http://digitalpub.chron.com/publication/?i=739966&article_id=4224364&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5

[skeptic 992]

Just my personal opinion, but the local council there is not showing good judgment.  Would rather see the land protected with a smaller profit on it, than see it developed.  From my perspective, even with all the issues currently, that should be a major consideration.  Once it is developed, other than as a park or preserve, it is gone, period.  

[T2Eagle 902]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Just my personal opinion, but the local council there is not showing good judgment.  Would rather see the land protected with a smaller profit on it, than see it developed.  From my perspective, even with all the issues currently, that should be a major consideration.  Once it is developed, other than as a park or preserve, it is gone, period.  

Agreed, we're not a for profit corporation obligated to provide the highest possible dollar return to shareholders (arguably, for-profits aren't actually obligated to do that either).  We serve the community's interests, and we're obligated to do what's best for the community; that doesn't mean we can ignore finances, but it doesn't obligate us to place finances first. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by T2Eagle

[T2Eagle 902]

8 hours ago, scoutldr said:

While I hate to see any Council properties sold off, I would have questioned the propriety and legality of the plan to seek taxpayer dollars to purchase it.

I've never seen it myself, but my understanding is that several, even many, camps in the mountain west were on US Forest Service land.

[RememberSchiff 3663]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Just my personal opinion, but the local council there is not showing good judgment.  Would rather see the land protected with a smaller profit on it, than see it developed.  From my perspective, even with all the issues currently, that should be a major consideration.  Once it is developed, other than as a park or preserve, it is gone, period.  

 

17 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Agreed, we're not a for profit corporation obligated to provide the highest possible dollar return to shareholders (arguably, for-profits aren't actually obligated to do that either).  We serve the community's interests, and we're obligated to do what's best for the community; that doesn't mean we can ignore finances, but it doesn't obligate us to place finances first. 

... the Outdoor Code

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

Gents, you are operating under a misguided assumption...

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

Vision "The Boy Scouts of America will prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law."

Nowhere in the mission or vision statement does it say the professional corps, or national or council boards will subscribe to the values and ideals of Scouting.

Our assumption is that it would be inherent that all would walk the talk, but my experience over a "career" of 43+ years as a Scout and Scouter says it just isn't so.

And as this culture comes more and more to light, as it has in the national-level controversies of recent decades, and as it is in this bankruptcy process, BSA membership will dwindle.

Character matters.

 

[yknot 1338]

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Agreed, we're not a for profit corporation obligated to provide the highest possible dollar return to shareholders (arguably, for-profits aren't actually obligated to do that either).  We serve the community's interests, and we're obligated to do what's best for the community; that doesn't mean we can ignore finances, but it doesn't obligate us to place finances first. 

The Council's interest will be in having the largest financial war chest possible in order to continue paying salaries for as long as possible in the face of dwindling membership and fundraising. 

 

[T2Eagle 902]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

The Council's interest will be in having the largest financial war chest possible in order to continue paying salaries for as long as possible in the face of dwindling membership and fundraising. 

 

That's a weird assumption given that the people making the decision are volunteers who don't draw a salary.  Council board members really don't have a vested in interest in whether they have 5DEs, 2 DEs, 3DDs, 4 people working in the scout shop etc.

[yknot 1338]

17 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

That's a weird assumption given that the people making the decision are volunteers who don't draw a salary.  Council board members really don't have a vested in interest in whether they have 5DEs, 2 DEs, 3DDs, 4 people working in the scout shop etc.

It's not weird. It is sadly a cynical opinion based on experience. For lack of a better word, relationships between paid staff and volunteer or even elected volunteer boards can be incestuous. That's pretty real world. 

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

10 hours ago, yknot said:

It's not weird. It is sadly a cynical opinion based on experience. For lack of a better word, relationships between paid staff and volunteer or even elected volunteer boards can be incestuous. That's pretty real world. 

Yes, I have observed the trend of SEs finding people who have drunk the kool-aid and recruiting them to their boards.  (BTW, why would the SE have any influence over who is on the executive board?)

Typical boards are NOT representative of the people in the community who make up the volunteer corps.  I find their interests and agendas are not aligned with the ideals of Scouting, as their actions routinely demonstrate.

[skeptic 992]

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yes, I have observed the trend of SEs finding people who have drunk the kool-aid and recruiting them to their boards.  (BTW, why would the SE have any influence over who is on the executive board?)

Typical boards are NOT representative of the people in the community who make up the volunteer corps.  I find their interests and agendas are not aligned with the ideals of Scouting, as their actions routinely demonstrate.

Too often the case, but definitely not a universal issue.  We have had numerous  closely aligned board members, and in the over forty years I have been here, a great many of them were active in the real trenches.  BUT, still, we have also had our share of disnconnected and, shall we suggest, puppets.  

 

[skeptic 992]

It occurred to me this morning that the problem I, and others, may be having is equating the BSA, the organization with the people behind it.  It is the people that have made the poor choices and not responded as we may think, or even know, today, they likely should.  (We are likely not seeing the total pictures due to time and lack of actual information).   The organization is made up of people, and often those people let it down for whatever reasons.  Having the skill and actually even bravery to stand against wrong actions and especially evil is hard, and far too many of us fail.  It then somehow gets transferred to the larger organization, and all its people, which is where the "broad brush" I speak of comes in.  It is interesting that a quote from a completely unconnected article this morning seems to pinpoint much of this discussion/debate/diatribe.

"Our society has become so quick to judge and point fingers and blame, and somewhere along the line, we've forgotten about kindness and compassion and forgiveness. And we've forgotten that we're all human and we all make mistakes."

 

 

[InquisitiveScouter 1653]

57 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It occurred to me this morning that the problem I, and others, may be having is equating the BSA, the organization with the people behind it.  It is the people that have made the poor choices and not responded as we may think, or even know, today, they likely should.  (We are likely not seeing the total pictures due to time and lack of actual information).   The organization is made up of people, and often those people let it down for whatever reasons.  Having the skill and actually even bravery to stand against wrong actions and especially evil is hard, and far too many of us fail.  It then somehow gets transferred to the larger organization, and all its people, which is where the "broad brush" I speak of comes in.  It is interesting that a quote from a completely unconnected article this morning seems to pinpoint much of this discussion/debate/diatribe.

"Our society has become so quick to judge and point fingers and blame, and somewhere along the line, we've forgotten about kindness and compassion and forgiveness. And we've forgotten that we're all human and we all make mistakes."

 

 

There really is no concrete thing as an "organization."  That is an "agreed-upon fiction."  People constitute organizations, and without people, there is no organization.  When I refer to the BSA, I refer to the people running it, leading it, and making and/or carrying out the decisions.  And, as is this case, people often hide (retain anonymity) behind the shield of an organization.

Also, there is a difference between mistakes and immoral actions.  A mistake is something generally done without intent, or out of ignorance.  I am very forgiving of mistakes.  Even then, I defer to Lincoln, "When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest."

Immoral actions (or downright crimes) usually involve intent.  Prerequisites for forgiveness and compassion in those instances are sincere confession, contrition, and wherever possible, restitution.  These are what are lacking.  Otherwise, punishments and scorn are the just deserts.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter

[johnsch322 524]

52 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It occurred to me this morning that the problem I, and others, may be having is equating the BSA, the organization with the people behind it.  It is the people that have made the poor choices and not responded as we may think, or even know, today, they likely should.  (We are likely not seeing the total pictures due to time and lack of actual information).   The organization is made up of people, and often those people let it down for whatever reasons.  Having the skill and actually even bravery to stand against wrong actions and especially evil is hard, and far too many of us fail.  It then somehow gets transferred to the larger organization, and all its people, which is where the "broad brush" I speak of comes in.  It is interesting that a quote from a completely unconnected article this morning seems to pinpoint much of this discussion/debate/diatribe.

"Our society has become so quick to judge and point fingers and blame, and somewhere along the line, we've forgotten about kindness and compassion and forgiveness. And we've forgotten that we're all human and we all make mistakes."

 

 

Is there a mistake in your past you want forgiveness for?

[qwazse 4342]

19 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Is there a mistake in your past you want forgiveness for?

There may indeed be mistakes in one’s past, but the most annoying thing is a friend who asks forgiveness for them. One owns errors, adjusts, and moves on.

We need contrition from those who were malicious, avaricious, or haughty. From everyone else, we need them to do better the next time they step up to the bat.