Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

In this case, it's easy to imagine that, say, 10 to 15 percent of claimants won't be satisfied with anything less than burn it all down.

Your comment just strikes me.

The "flip side" is that there are some survivors who are not interested in "burning it all down."

And why would that be? (I'd understand if 100% of survivors wanted to burn it all down.)

I suspect because one of the goals of the TCC-that "YPT be enhanced and upgraded so that abuse never happens again."

Essentially, a tacit recognition that there is not enough money to adequately compensate us, but we can demand ONE THING that compensates us for the pain in our souls-that it never happens again to other children.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As the time that a vote total approaches, I encourage everyone to repeat the Scout Oath and Law several times to remind us how to treat one another.  There are victims here who wish for the plan

I just finished reading Bates' report.  Now I have a headache.  It's well-written, but a bunch of spin.  So we're too old to deserve a decent settlement?  While I get the sol issue, if a suit is valid

66% is the threshold for a bankruptcy.  However, WSJ was reporting even BSA admitted they needed 75% which they didn't reach.  There are two issues that the 73% causes. One will be with Silverste

Posted Images

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Some tell me this can be the result of good acting, but I disagree. 

... not commenting about TK ... 

It's not a clear line between passionate and financial motivation.  Money can buy emotional involvement.  Lots of money can buy strong emotions.  The reverse is true too.  There are many good well meaning people need strong financial motivation to handle ugly hard situations.  

My personal tie is a child hood friend.  His family had strong career and financial ties to the nuclear power industry.  All the way from 7th grade to 12 grade, all we had to do was say anything critical of nuclear power and we could get him upset.  I'm not sure he was ever in a nuclear power plant or understood the physics, but we were attacking his family when we criticized.  IMHO, it's very similar.  ... Lots of money can bring real tears.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

All of the comments about various arrangements to transfer camps out of local council ownership, essentially for free, to protect them from creditors have not mentioned the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, updated in 2014, and renamed the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act.  It has been enacted in about 45 states.

The purpose of the Act is to render transactions voidable if done to shelter assets from present or future creditors (by transferring valuable assets, in our case a local council, without receiving comparable value in return which comparable value could be used to pay claimants).

Almost certainly, any such transfer after the Oregon case verdict in 2010 would be suspect as that case was the proverbial handwriting on the wall.

Were it to be shown that Scout Executives had knowledge of substantial settlements, not in the public eye, that date could even be earlier. By the time you know you have a problem, your knowledge is the problem, as any action you take to shelter assets once you know they are at risk makes the sheltering suspect and perhaps voidable (that is can be reversed). Catch 22.

Were a council to transfer camp(s), then manage to stave off filing bankruptcy for the requisite period, one gets into legal discussions of the interplay between bankruptcy law and state law. I don't have any current knowledge on that topic.

And then there is the problem of the Scout Law, Rule 1:  Trustworthy.

Not seemly for scout councils to connive to conceal assets to avoid a financial reckoning for its activities. Then there's the embarrassment of council board members who might take exception to being a co-conspirator in such machinations.

Well said.  

There are other options though.  For example, taking a loan to cover finances / legal costs that reduces the asset liquidation value.  ... hmmm ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I really think it would help for JSS to start declaring what the court thinks of the plan.

Your's is a good point.

The American system of jurisprudence is based on the idea that opposing parties in a case, present their opposing positions and arguments in support of them in open court or documents, and then the judge "adjudicates" by making a judgment and rendering a decision. The judge's decision will tell you about the judge's thinking. You'll have the decision before you'll have insight into the judge's thinking.  Not so helpful, but it is our law.  A  judge rarely just pontificates from the bench (during a hearing) about how the judge is thinking.

But people being people, there are ways a judge "signals" their leaning on an issue, or whether they think a party's position is shakey.  (They rarely signal that they think a party's position is strong.)

They ask pointed questions or make comments on the evidence offered or arguments being made during a hearing. And the tone of that will be a big clue of the judge's thinking.

Or, they will suggest an in camera conference in the judge's chambers, where the judge can be a bit heavier in the judge's comments (not wanting to make the same comments in open court and perhaps embarrass an attorney in the presence of their client-if the client feels that the attorney has lost the confidence of the judge, that attorney may not be able to persuade the client to compromise, and the judge is not in the business of crippling legal counsel so that pending matters cannot be resolved.)

It is complicated.  And subtle.  Reading tea leaves is easy, and just as about as reliable.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Well said.  

There are other options though.  For example, taking a loan to cover finances / legal costs that reduces the asset liquidation value.  ... hmmm ...

Yep, agreed.

I have always held the position that the law (legislation) is inherently incapable of imagining all of the possible combinations and permutations of human behavior, and so laws never "comprehensive'," that is, covering everything.

And THAT is why we have courts-to apply laws (inherently insufficient) to situations the laws just don't quite cover.

(Trust me, NOBODY likes to pay legal costs. For any reason or any purpose.  (smile))

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Well said.  

There are other options though.  For example, taking a loan to cover finances / legal costs that reduces the asset liquidation value.  ... hmmm ...

From a different point of view, I was only addressing a number of posts and did not want to get bogged down in answering each at length, repeating myself, losing whatever audience I have (maybe only you, faithful friend).

I wasn't addressing legitimate solutions to sheltering assets.  They exist, are legal, and maybe even acceptable to National.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Well said.  

There are other options though.  For example, taking a loan to cover finances / legal costs that reduces the asset liquidation value.  ... hmmm ...

Oh, well, yes..

I have long made the observation that the law is totally unable to conceive of the infinite varieties of situations the human mind can create.  The law is ALWAYS

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

Oh, well, yes..

I have long made the observation that the law is totally unable to conceive of the infinite varieties of situations the human mind can create.  The law is ALWAYS

???

ALWAYS behind the circumstances human minds can concoct.  Statutes always have gaps in their coverage, and that is why we have courts which try to fill those gaps

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

It is complicated.  And subtle.  Reading tea leaves is easy, and just as about as reliable.

What can the status hearing provide?  I would think, at minimum, the judge could indicate if the % accepted votes is going to be enough.

I do remember a prior hearing where the judge remarked about a section of the plan where she said something along the lines ... I marked up that section a lot and have a lot of concerns, we will address during confirmation ... so perhaps some tea leaves there?

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

Statutes always have gaps in their coverage, and that is why we have courts which try to fill those gaps

This is in part why I don't think LCs can count on the ability to just hide all their properties over the next 2-3 years to add restrictions and protect them from bankruptcy.  These properties are all now clearly documented.  There is a BSA document indicating which are currently unrestricted.  It is clear most if not all of these councils are at risk of bankruptcy.  To try and shield them will be tough.

Now, if they want to take loans out, sure.  They can sink them down to 100% debt but at that point they have liquid assets that are unrestricted.  This is what national did to their HA bases.  However, national, when they leave bankruptcy, will be 100% in debt on all their HA bases.  This is part of the reason they are greatly increasing their fees over the next few years ... just look at Philmont.  Perhaps you can do that with HA bases, but to expect to do that with the majority of 500 council camps, most of which barely break even each year is a fools errand.

I personally hope all LCs can find protection through this bankruptcy.  Having a decade of individual LC lawsuits will be a disaster for the BSA.  We will lose far more camps, see fees increase more, see donations drop more if we go down that path.  Even if councils need to kick in more right now ... which they will ... I expect it is a better long term strategy.  We will see.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I am unable to access it, if this is a link. I am a “cotton-headed ninnymuggins,” however so that may be in play. (Nod to Buddy.)

Nope, not you this time😁.  Just introduced last week, the only information is in summary form.  It is part of a larger bill.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

There are board minutes, emails, memos that are likely to contain explosive information. 

Most of the alleged issues were long ago. I'd be very very surprised if anyone on the current boards or even SE positions are the same ones that were around when any coverups happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2022 at 9:38 PM, SiouxRanger said:

I suspect because one of the goals of the TCC-that "YPT be enhanced and upgraded so that abuse never happens again."

Essentially, a tacit recognition that there is not enough money to adequately compensate us, but we can demand ONE THING that compensates us for the pain in our souls-that it never happens again to other children.

As a survivor and someone who was briefly on an Executive Board viewing the initial stages of the case (before being scrubbed), I don’t think there is any such “tacit recognition,” as stated. If we received overwhelming recompense - compensation is a bit crass to me, though I’m certain you mean no offense - those who wish to see Scouting continue would be no less intent on YP improvements. The two goals exist independently and intensely so. I would be ashamed of myself if I received an award of any amount and watched BSA emerge without advocating for YP reform. Our opportunity for significant leverage is now. If we don’t seize it and end up squandering the moment, that would be an awful thing. That said, BSA has to come to the table and “make it so, Number One.” (Nod to Captain Picard!)

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As a survivor and someone who was briefly on an Executive Board viewing the initial stages of the case (before being scrubbed), I don’t think there is any such “tacit recognition,” as stated. If we received overwhelming recompense - compensation is a bit crass to me, though I’m certain you mean no offense - those who wish to see Scouting continue would be no less intent on YP improvements. The two goals exist independently and intensely so. I would be ashamed of myself if I received an award of any amount and watched BSA emerge without advocating for YP reform. Our opportunity for significant leverage is now. If we don’t seize it and end up squandering the moment, that would be an awful thing. That said, BSA has to come to the table and “make it so, Number One.” (Nod to Captain Picard. So, everyone gets that reference, yes?!)

You do understand me precisely and stated it much better than I.  No offense was intended.  My intent was that "no matter what award survivors receive, YP reform has to improve/bolster/enhance/ensure that such abuse never happens again."

(I'd note that I sometimes use non-legal terms in my posts because readers may not be versed in the nuances of legal terms-of-art.  I used "compensation" to connote a money judgment/payment. "Award" is technically more appropriate, but more generic and to a non-lawyer, connotes things much more akin to a medal or ribbon-clearly not my intent.  To a lawyer, "award" is a money judgment. So, perhaps, "settlement payment" or even something else would have been better.  Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.)

Words are our joy, and our burden-and sometimes, downfall.

And I also meant that it is my impression that Survivors see YP enhancement as a co-equal and essential element of any resolution of this, equal with any monetary award.  And, I understand that regardless of any monetary award, YP reform is its own issue and to be resolved as its own issue.

Clearly, BSA's proposal of ONE Survivor on any YP Board moving forward is a clear statement that BSA cares not one whit about meaningful YP reform. Survivor presence should be a majority.

I stand firmly with the Survivors.  BSA has to make good on the damage it has caused. Funds accumulated in National's and Councils' war chests (long-term investments) over the past many decades should be used to redress the damage done over those past many decades. Borrowing NOW to pay for the damage of past decades is shifting the burden of that damage to current Scouts and their families.  And is not their bill.

But is leaves Councils flush with old money to fund salaries.

Yesterday, I learned that our scout executive's salary plus retirement fund contribution, for last year was just shy of 50% of the Council's budget. (The retirement contribution was HALF of salary.)

Sack cloth and ashes at the ready @ThenNow.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved a bunch of posts about council finances and possible organization to a new thread: The name might change but this link should work.

My apologies if you were confused by this but this sub thread really has little to do with the court case..

Edited by MattR
moved more posts
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...