Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I read through it.  I wasn't very familiar with previous versions, but I don't see the big changes in National and local changes.  Help me out.

The elimination of an Arbitration clause is unusual, but I'm not that big a fan of how arbitration works these days so that's fine with me.

The constructive trust language on council properties is there, but I know that not all councils sign off on that exact language.

The special assessment proposal should be a non starter for LCs; I hope they rise up against that.

Of course near as I can tell there is no requirement for any greater amount of transparency or governance owed to we the worker bees.

I found that National is dictating the board of LCs.  The size, members, etc.  Now, how much that actually changes each board, I have no clue.  Before, it was up to local councils on the size and composition of their board.

The bolded language below is new...

Quote

Any changes to the bylaws of the local council shall be approved in advance by the National Service Center, and any changes to the requirements for local council bylaws established by the Executive Committee shall be incorporated into the local council bylaws.

They eliminated the local council chair cabinet ... not sure if this exists today, but that is gone so at minimal it was a proposal that was rejected.

 

  • Upvote 2
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

Objections coming in.

72f3eb09-44db-46d5-870b-3137e3e48f42_8674.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

This one was a clear summary of an objection by a Jane Doe.  Jane was an explorer scout who was sexually abused in 2013.  Prior to bankruptcy, Jane sued the BSA, Town of Trumbull and certain individuals.

Now, with this bankruptcy, the Town of Trumbull will be covered (and I don't think they paid a dime).

I think this is where the plan gets really tricky.  While the case can proceed against the PO (and it is) she can no longer sue certain individuals, or the Town given the current releases.  

A very valid point ... how is a protecting a Town critical to BSA's survival?  This objection is well written and really gets to the heart of questioning the releases for COs.  I expect we will see other individual cases that blow holes in the Chartered Org protections.

This is a risk going forward even in district court.

I expect LCs are probably safer ... the CO releases are the ones I think are at most risk.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that none of these should be surprises.  There will be many objections.  I'll be watching for TCC, DOJ and Zalkin ... those were the big groups holding back support.

The GSUSA objection is garbage (technical term).  They are owed nothing.  I'm sorry, but asking for millions of dollars because BSA let in girls ... come on.  Even the district judge overseeing their lawsuit is about ready to throw it out.  They should get nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to understand how the Girl Scouts can not be embarrassed by this.  The BSA claims on the basic symbols of Scouting predate any the GS might declare.  Their sour grapes is somply their own fault anyway, as they did nothing to meet the long term demands of many girls to have programs similar to BSA.  It has been obvious from almost the beginning that Lowe was not fond of BSA, partly because she was not fond of BP or the Girl Guides.

The desire of some girls to become Scouts can be documented to the girls that showed up at the first international gathering in England, telling BP they wanted to be Scouts too.  This of course let to Guiding.  

Someone with more ability might determine if there is truth to stories that GS more than once threatened legal action when BSA planned to develop products similar in nature to the Cookies of GS, such as cakes and nutrition bars with Scouting symbols.  

What is really crazy is that while they are complaining about the entry of girls into the BSA, they refuse to recognize that many of the girls joining BSA are also Girl Scouts and continue in their program.  So, explain please how that is damaging to them.

They also need to not forget that in today's society, their disparaging comments about the abuse issues will likely just bring more digging by some, and that they themselves might become a target.  They are surely not immune to bad actors, and by pushing the envelope, they may get kick back they do not want.

It is sad that in much of the rest of the Scouting world, girl groups are able to work with boys, even to some extent in countries with very strict laws regarding women.  What does the infer in regard to the GS leadership?

Now the other noted things may or may not have credence, though they also might just be more of some of the devious pursuits of some legal opportunists to ride on the wave.  

In the end, we are back to the convoluted and often questionable legal system we allow to continue in our country.

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

I'll be watching for TCC, DOJ and Zalkin ... those were the big groups holding back support.

No objections filed by them. 9:52 pm eastern. 
 

Handwriting on the wall.

 

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

Someone with more ability might determine if there is truth to stories that GS more than once threatened legal action when BSA planned to develop products similar in nature to the Cookies of GS, such as cakes and nutrition bars ...

In the summer of 1992, i helped the national Scout Shop in my council move to the new office building. During the move, was given BSA energy bars to snack on. When I asked why they were not selling them, I was told that GSUSA sent a cease and desist letter claiming they were infringing on Girl Scout cookies.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, objections filed by the following:

  • Endurance American Insurance company, Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company, Trader & Pacific Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, St. Paul Surplus Line Insurance Company, Gulf Insurance Company, Allianz Insurers, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, AIG, Munich Reinsurance American, Inc., Markel Insurers, Everest National Insurance Company, 
  • Claimant I.G.
  • Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp, Roman Catholic Ad Hoc Committee, Archbishop of Agana
  • Guam Committee
  • Eric Pai
  • Girl Scouts of America
  • Parker Waichman LLP (354 abuse claims holders)
  • AT&T Corp
  • Jane Doe
  • Claimant M.C.
  • Oracle

Now many other groups can still stop the current plan (for example, the DOJ does not support it and is likely relying on its objection from months ago).  So, I take the list above as the groups that may be most concerned on even the upcoming plan (or perhaps were left out of discussions).

1) Roman Catholic Church seems very concerned as to where the current plan is and doesn't seem content with where the plan is going.

2) Many insurance companies have concerns.  Century, Hartford and a few others who have deals in the current plan... I wonder if those hold in the new plan or if we may see them object if the plans change.  In general, non settled insurance companies appear concerned.

3) Some individual claimants.  Now, these are pretty small groups, so perhaps they do not know the upcoming plan details. 

4) Misc. entities (AT&T & Oracle just have disagreements on outstanding debts).  GSUSA ... ugh.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

the upcoming plan details

The Plan as put to a vote, or as changed so far to date, or are additional Plan changes anticipated?

And why no objection by the TCC? Also relying on a prior objection, or does this signal an agreement of some sort?

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

The Plan as put to a vote, or as changed so far to date, or are additional Plan changes anticipated?

And why no objection by the TCC? Also relying on a prior objection, or does this signal an agreement of some sort?

That would seem to be the implication from the TCC comments earlier that an agreement has been reached, but I am not in the legal profession.   The update from my council executive board meeting was positive but there was emphasis that there was still much to be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

That would seem to be the implication from the TCC comments earlier that an agreement has been reached, but I am not in the legal profession.   The update from my council executive board meeting was positive but there was emphasis that there was still much to be done.

Agreed. Eagle1993 pretty much said all of this, but the general comments and tone suggest a deal:

1) Everyone is being respectful.

2) They are listening to us.

3) We are substantively involved at every turn every.

Addressing the 3 Pillars:

1) Money - We may not get the numbers we want so we will be chipping away at expenses. I read that to mean, we are close to getting as much as we can on additional contributions.

2) Settlement Trust. To reduce those expenses, and put more money into the hands of survivors, we will not let go of ensuring independent governance of the Settlement Trust.

3) YP. We are engaged in active conversations and making progress. (Remember, there is a Survivor Working Group that’s been at this for a while.)

Sound like a deal is afoot. Moving the status conference seems to indicate the same.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

 

Sound like a deal is afoot. Moving the status conference seems to indicate the same.

 

I'm sure all won't agree.  But I am morphing into acceptance.  We are all getting older....in my case, fairly quickly.  Before the BK, many of us had decided either to leave the whole matter faded with the time that had passed or we had no case, due to SoL (or both).  We have been through various degrees of reliving our abuse.  That has not been good for our mental health, especially combined with the other fun things going on around us.  Dwelling on this is not how I want to spend my sunset years.  BSA was negligent, without a doubt.  My abuser is a piece, without a doubt.  We're not going to get much compensation, but what we do get sends the message that we have at least been heard.  Fix it for future boys and then it's just time to move on.  JMHO

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

I'm sure all won't agree.  But I am morphing into acceptance.  We are all getting older....in my case, fairly quickly.  Before the BK, many of us had decided either to leave the whole matter faded with the time that had passed or we had no case, due to SoL (or both).  We have been through various degrees of reliving our abuse.  That has not been good for our mental health, especially combined with the other fun things going on around us.  Dwelling on this is not how I want to spend my sunset years.  BSA was negligent, without a doubt.  My abuser is a piece, without a doubt.  We're not going to get much compensation, but what we do get sends the message that we have at least been heard.  Fix it for future boys and then it's just time to move on.  JMHO

Whatever survivors want is what I support. As long as the YPT piece is also addressed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

I'm sure all won't agree.  But I am morphing into acceptance.  We are all getting older....in my case, fairly quickly.  Before the BK, many of us had decided either to leave the whole matter faded with the time that had passed or we had no case, due to SoL (or both).  We have been through various degrees of reliving our abuse.  That has not been good for our mental health, especially combined with the other fun things going on around us.  Dwelling on this is not how I want to spend my sunset years.  BSA was negligent, without a doubt.  My abuser is a piece, without a doubt.  We're not going to get much compensation, but what we do get sends the message that we have at least been heard.  Fix it for future boys and then it's just time to move on.  JMHO

I think we may see a split in survivors.  Those with strong cases (or the abuse was already front & center in their life) and good law firms ready to go after LCs and COs in state court vs those who, like you, are ready to be done and are ready to move on.  How the courts/plan balances those groups will be interesting.  

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...