Jump to content

Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

i am a former professional. I can tell you there are ways to influence who is selected onto different boards

In my 10 year applicable year range, the candidates "offered" were 100% manipulated.

 I have NO confidence in any B..S.A. governance document.  (I have read all of them-they are trash legal drafting, unless you represent National. Then they make perfect sense.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 830
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No one here, except members who are claimants, have any part of deciding anything in this bankruptcy. Let's drop the personal criticism of others who express in a scoutlike way their differing op

We're going to split the ch11.x thread in 2. The original will be kept as it was intended, for the legal aspects of the case and everything else will go here. In a nutshell, if the judge is dealing wi

@Gilwell_1919 I want to respond to this, but in the proper thread, which is this one. Let's be clear what Kosnoff has said. 1) He had stated that scouting should continue. He's repeated th

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Does anyone have any further insight beyond my limited knowledge?

Many of the first scout units were formed within YMCA's.  Edgar Robinson, who had been in charge of YMCA youth camping since 1900, became the managing director of BSA until it hired its first executive.  I believe it was during this Edgar Robinson period that Duty to God became enshrined.

YMCA was a very religious institution at that time.  I doubt YMCA would have given scouting the assistance it needed to get going if it did not include Duty to God.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

I find this to be a very curious comment.

So, perhaps, could it be, that the "Duty to God" element was introduced to U.S. Scouting to entice religious denominations to accept the Chartered Organization role on a denomination-wide basis?

And, perhaps, so adopted because the SOLE religious denomination in Great Britain was the Church of England (courtesy of some arrogant King), but in America, many denominations were active and Constitutionally NEVER to be circumscribed.

Does anyone have any further insight beyond my limited knowledge?

Was the CofE truly the only religious denomination in the UK in 1907?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

And, perhaps, so adopted because the SOLE religious denomination in Great Britain was the Church of England

Catholics ate fish on Fridays, so I would argue that we were the SOLE religious denomination.

 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

Was the CofE truly the only religious denomination in the UK 

Oh.  That is entirely different.  Never mind.

 

Edited by David CO
With apologies to Gilda Radner
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'll agree. What I DISagreed with previously was that idea someone came up with Q and A. There lies danger. Every time Mosby speaks anything and everything has to be cleared with lawyers. Did you see his NAM presentation? It looked like a hostage video: he was CLEARLY reading cue cards or notes. A pre-recorded video can be cleared with counsel. A live Q and A not so much.

I’d did and it looked bad. I will say I have been more impressed with people like Bryan Wendell, Richard Bourlon and Anthony Berger.  I’ve found them more accessible than most professionals and while in some cases I don’t agree with all decisions at least I see some transparency and communication from them.  I’ll also argue that BSA has been doing a great job improving their IT.
 

That said, BSA needs to improve their transparency, reduce their board and hold members accountable, get inspirational leaders (inspirational for youth) who are held accountable by members.   This is not just an issue since bankruptcy.  I’ve been impressed by other scouting orgs who seem to have more transparency and get to hold their leaders accountable.   
 

Hopefully after bankruptcy we will see change, but I’m not holding my breath based on what I am seeing now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Independent confirmation of what I had only heard rumored/suspected as the case:

UMC churches are telling units the no-recharter is explicitly (vs. implicitly) about putting leverage on BSA.

https://discussions.scouting.org/t/united-methodist-church/246903/51

Quote

Yeah, our Pack and the associated Troop just got hit with this. Our COR informed us today that they would not be renewing our charter; but are happy to have a facilities use agreement after the current charter expires (Dec. 31). It’s not personal of course, but the Conference is scared of the liability. They also made it clear that this is meant as leverage to get the BSA to to include CO’s in its bankruptcy settlements. If this gets resolved before the charter expires, then they’ll renew us.

 

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

UMC churches are telling units the no-recharter is explicitly (vs. implicitly) about putting leverage on BSA.

In a way, that's good, in that there's clearly a potential resolution. Also bad because this whole thing is a house of cards that now needs another layer.

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

In a way, that's good, in that there's clearly a potential resolution. Also bad because this whole thing is a house of cards that now needs another layer.

It is still a horror show for units because of whiplash. Imagine what they are going through not knowing if they'll get a recharter out of the UMC church they are attached so they have to scramble to get a new CO but THEN there's the possibility by November 15 (I'm just picking a date here) all is well and the UMC church either a) will recharter or b) decides that it isn't worth they risk anyway.

And recall that the Methodist Scouting FB folks (an official page of the Methodist Scouting Committee) said they will have an "honest update" by September 20, the day before BSA is set to defend Restructuring Plan 4.0 which does NOT include COs.

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

Independent confirmation of what I had only heard rumored/suspected as the case:

UMC churches are telling units the no-recharter is explicitly (vs. implicitly) about putting leverage on BSA.

I think it is clear the UMC is using its leverage as the largest remaining chartered organization to attempt to resolve some major issues. And I think it is also clear that they are in communication and working in coordination with several other CO's.  All of them feel that there has been a very serious breach of the partnership in which the BSA has left them exposed to potentially millions of dollars in liability.

I know personally that members of the ad hoc mediation committee (composed of several chancellors (conference legal advisors), top members of the United Methodist Men's group which oversees Scouting programs for the UMC and headed by a bishop) are working diligently to attempt to negotiate a win/win solution for victims, the CO's and the BSA.  I also know that these have often been difficult and contentious negotiations.

The message to the local units from the ad hoc committee is to "hang in there". They are working rapidly to resolve these issues and to continue to support Scouting as a vital ministry.  

Unfortunately, this places both local chartering organizations and Scouting units in limbo. And one of the consequences is that we will likely see the exodus of some local chartering organizations. The mantra of the local CO's to the BSA at the moment seems to be "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The BSA will have a lot of damage control to do. And a means to regain a sense of trust in the century old partnership will be essential.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I’d did and it looked bad. I will say I have been more impressed with people like Bryan Wendell, Richard Bourlon and Anthony Berger.  I’ve found them more accessible than most professionals and while in some cases I don’t agree with all decisions at least I see some transparency and communication from them.  I’ll also argue that BSA has been doing a great job improving their IT.
 

That said, BSA needs to improve their transparency, reduce their board and hold members accountable, get inspirational leaders (inspirational for youth) who are held accountable by members.   This is not just an issue since bankruptcy.  I’ve been impressed by other scouting orgs who seem to have more transparency and get to hold their leaders accountable.   
 

Hopefully after bankruptcy we will see change, but I’m not holding my breath based on what I am seeing now.  

I continue to be underwhelmed by the BSA professional leadership at the National and Local levels.  Transparency is not in their vocabulary.  Neither is communication.

Noticed a random note on our district e-blast (which typically has "no new content") about cub recruiting and the Field Director who assisted.  Apparently our DE, which is number 5 (maybe 6??) in the last 8 years has left.  No notice from council on that occurrence.  Then they wonder why the turnover is so bad as they don't regard them very highly and we do not get attached to them.

In our district we are roughly 50% UMC units, but little to no direction or leadership from the council.  But hopefully you'll fill in that FOS and sell that popcorn.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

The message to the local units from the ad hoc committee is to "hang in there". They are working rapidly to resolve these issues and to continue to support Scouting as a vital ministry. 

And herein lies the rub because while the message they may want to be getting out is “hang in there” it’s coming across as a “abandon ship”.

but I will also tell you there are several bishops and other senior Methodist leaders who were sending out the message that BSA, NOT the COs, we’re selecting these abusive leaders.

https://www.neumc.org/newsdetail/15389972

The Facilities Use Agreement is similar to a lease allowing the scout unit to use your space, but leaving the scout unit with FULL RESPONSIBILITY for everything else, especially including the selection of leaders, which the BSA has previously misrepresented that scout leaders are chosen by the church.  The proposed Facilities Use Agreement is being recommended precisely because it contains NO SUCH REPRESENTATION.”

I will tell you right now If I am an attorney for claimants and I now see an official statement from a Methodist bishop saying that BSA and BSA alone was selecting these leaders and not the COs, I am getting that bishop in for a deposition tomorrow and demanding copies off the annual charter agreements going back to the 1950s and even 1920s that show in fact yes the COs were signing off/ approving these scout leaders.

Word of advice if you really do know some of the people on that ad hoc committee: they better get their story straight and quick and get that bishop to take down that claim ASAP or the claimants and the insurance companies and their attorneys are going to eat the UMCs alive.
 

we already know for example the insurance companies have monitored this forum as well as reddit and other places and submitted letters from other bishops as evidence.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

IMHO, Scouting shouldn't be thought of as a business...

Totally disagree.  BSA is a business.  

People are always more cautious when dealing with businesses.  Buyer beware.  BSA's motives are not entirely pure and their product is not infallible.  Some degree of caution is advisable.

 

 

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

And herein lies the rub because while the message they may want to be getting out is “hang in there” it’s coming across as a “abandon ship”.

And here is the conundrum: 

The Methodists do not march to the same beat or perhaps a better analogy would be that we sometimes sing on different verses in the hymnal ... much to the chagrin of the choir director.

The program ministry branch (United Methodist Men) is very focused on retaining a strong relationship. It has always been very community and socially minded - part of the denominational  "DNA".

The judiciary arm, on the other hand, is focused on protecting the conferences and local congregations. They definitely do not like the prospects of lawsuits whether they be past, present or future.

As a result, the messages are not always in sync.

Add to that, the Methodists work in dozens of semi-independent conferences that interpret and communicate issues differently.

And finally, for a "connectional church", we are amazingly stubborn and independent at times at the local level.

So, is it any wonder if there are mixed messages? And that the poor Scouting units are left spinning around?

Maybe the solution is to join around the table for a pitch-in dinner, something we all have seem to have in common as Methodists..

 

 

  • Thanks 1
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...