All Activity

Not sure how 141 IRO cases could take 80% of additional insurance money. If only $4 Billion more is recovered how could the average settlement be an average of 27 million.

Other reasons why the insurers wanted to move the case from Texas federal court to Illinois state court: 1. Trying to start at the bottom of the food chain with state court. Don't have to worry about that as this case is now wading its way through federal court. Less delay starting closer to the top of the food chain. 2. Attempt to freeze case indefinitely under Colorado River abstention. Denied which equals less delay. 3. Judge stated in opinion, "“Texas law is likely to apply to many of the issues in this case.” Texas has very strong bad faith statutes. In addition, historically Texas juries are not friendly to coverage avoidance particularly involving childhood sexual abuse claims and Texas has stiff Insurance Code penalties. Yes, the insurers can delay but the more they delay, the door opens more wide for "bad faith" penalties. In Texas, if a jury finds bad faith where policy benefits are withheld, damages are not capped and attorney fees are recoverable. I am sure this is one of reasons why bad faith was included in the lawsuit. In short, risk is growing exponentially for the insurers. A normal loss = policy limits A bad-faith loss = uncapped damages.

It seems like it has ended with a muted thud. SC appeals are over, most people are resigned to getting 10% or less of any award, SOL claimants left behind, Trust doesn’t really communicate anything because there’s nothing to say, SSS issue will work its way through (likely by decreasing to what was originally expected/submitted), IRO unknown but probably will max out 80% of any additional insurance money, a new Scouting entity unencumbered by liabilities associated with decades of covering up sexual abuse, insurance companies slightly less wealthy but still very wealthy… everyone goes home having been put through the ringer of an unjust system. I wish you all the best.

This was a pretty good den meeting, considering the low cost and prep time. I highly recommend for future Ben Den Leaders. Save it for midway through the year when you're burned out and the weather limits your options.

Some of these issues were caused by the councils and how they have things configured in AKELA. For example, one of my units hit "the naughty list" for not rechartering timely and I was confused so I spoke with the COR; the COR completed recharter the first week of December (all online). I then went to the DE and let him know that the unit rechartered online the first week of December, and was promptly notified that "whoopsie" council has an "introduced" manual process that blocks all recharters for a manual review that caused the issue. We're never going to have a smooth process if the professionals are introducing extra steps to try and keep this 1970's style. $237 isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things but what are the scouts getting back for that? The fee's are not bad if the scouts are getting value back; I just don't see the value back when visiting these high fee councils. One of the councils adjacent to mine has a $160 council fee; they have 18 more fulltime paid staff than my council and they have several hundred fewer scouts; what value is that council getting?

Oh, but council can add weird fees. A friend of mine's council has a $77 Council fee added to the individual, and a $75/Scout fee added to the unit recharter. $85+77+75 = $237 per Scout per year in that council. Don't forget awards and activity supplies have skyrocketed too.

Different experience here... 1. The new registration regime actually caused more work to ensure that Scouts remained registered, and could, therefore, enjoy the benefits of "membership". (I'll elaborate on that in a bit.) Because the transaction now goes directly from family to BSA, the burden of action was shifted to the family. Most families are not fully on top of all the minutiae they have to manage in their lives, and the required action of reading the emails from National (which probably went to spam) and figuring out what to do to register their Scout (admittedly a very low priority), especially around the holiday period, meant that about one third of our Scouts did not have a current paid registration going into recharter. 2. Once the recharter process started, our Troop became "locked" somehow, and no adults or Scouts who delayed could register in the unit until the recharter was complete. Those who attempted got some sort of "Unit Not Valid" message, and the system would not process their registration or payment. Now you have doubled or tripled the amount of work a family / Troop has to do to get on top of this, as they have to monitor the recharter, then notify parents to try again, and then do the payment process again. 3. Even though there is a "grace" period for individual registrations, until the unit recharter went through, adults in our unit/district/council could not manipulate calendars or input advancements (we'd get a message for a Scout that said they did not have a valid membership.) After a huge outcry to District Commissioners/District Staffs/Registrar/Council Staff (folks at our January Roundtable were quite testy), the council office pulled folks from other duties to assist Registrar in tasks needed to complete the effort. Still not done for all units due to adult application issues (for position changes to make sure a unit has the required leadership to recharter), but the majority in our District are now done. Finally, consider the amount of money being wasted on this process... every family has to pay something like a 3% convenience fee to do this online with a credit card. For those who went to the Scout office and paid in person, because this was an option presented to avoid the card fee, their registrations were held up until staff went through that paperwork in office. (Of course, the checks were cashed right away, but renewals were delayed... optics on that not so good either.) I'm with @Tron... these two actions should be de-coupled by some significant space in the calendar. My take: Units should be prompted to renew FIRST. Once a unit renewal is complete for the next year, the demand signal for individuals to renew their memberships in that unit should go out... There are a lot more moving parts to this, I'm sure...

I don't think this was a blunder. From what I have witnessed this was a good thing. Just to be clear as to what I was seeing in my area; we had a pack charging $500 pack dues and blaming council & national. Now that it has become infinitely harder for that pack to munge all the dues together at 1 point in the year and blame recharter, council, national, santa claus, and whomever else for the steep fees that pack is down to single digit membership because all of the cubs in that area are going to other packs now. Whatever happens going forward membership cannot overlap with recharter; membership with national and council "service fees" have to be clearly defined so as to prevent bad units from scalping parents.

I want to give an update on the Trust Claim submissions by the Slater firm. I spoke to my attorney Larry Friedman. The 3rd party neutral which Slater claims must pass through before they can proceed to the Trust for evaluation is identifying inconsistencies between survivors Omni Proof of Claims and their Trust Claim questionnaires. Larry and his teams work has found MOST of these are the result of extremely sloppy work by Slater attorneys when preparing their clients documents. A little over a month ago, I received an AIR (additional information request) from the Trust. This was due to sloppy work by Slater attorneys. Larry submitted the information that was requested on my behalf and less than 30 days later I received my award determination. I am ecstatic with my claim determination and have submitted my acceptance package. Even this late in the process survivors represented by Slater, past and present, should have a qualified professional helping them respond to Trust AIR's. If anyone would like Larry's contact info, I would be happy to provide it. I'm sure everyone is aware that Slater is placing liens on their former clients awards. Larry and the Trust are putting in a process to escrow the attorney fees needed to satisfy the liens. This means the 36% of our claims Slater is putting a lien on will be held in an interest bearing escrow account and the remaining 64% can be distributed to survivors. This way the Trust can continue processing and paying claims to Slater clients.

If they do, in fact, roll this back, I will be impressed that National will have taken prudent steps after recognizing this blunder. Now let's see how long it takes to make the change.

WOW, who could have predicted rolling registration would be a "Charley Foxtrot?" 🤔

I fired the Slater firm back in October and retained Larry Friedman and Tim Silverman as new council. I received my claim determination a little over a week ago. I've spoken to a numb of other survivors over the past week that also fired Slater and hired Larry and Tim. They also have received claim determinations as well. All of us still had to be vetted by the independent neutral even though we retained new council. I believe hiring Larry and Tim had a lot to do with our claims starting to be determined over the past week.

Are there any updates on the Slater client pause?

Insurer's first attempt at getting the Trust's suit against them tossed has been denied: USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-01592-0.pdf Essentially, the insurers started playing their delay game and asked for the lawsuit to be moved to Illinois. The court has said "nice try, but no." So, it's a victory. BUT, expect there to be an apeal of this and any decisions unfavorable to the non-settling insurers. They are masters at delay and even with a trial moving forward it will be years until any resolution. This is a time value of money exercise and insurance attorneys are masters at delaying procedures so their employers hold onto their assets as long as possible. Still, let's appreciate any victory no matter how small, and hope some insurance CEOs start thinking "Okay, the cost of litigating this is starting to cost more than settling."

Thanks That was the substance of the SM's reply.

Possible reply: “Priority is given to skills training, which is primarily done in situ on campouts, which we use meetings to plan. We encourage skill mastery at meetings BY PLANNING IN ADVANCE with fellow scouts to set aside meeting time to do so.” Or, don’t waste your breath and just work for smiles.

I was mistaken for the membership chair of my district this week. I was like, I do know the membership chair; however, I am not even on that committee. But in the persons defense we have not seen the membership chair at any district meetings or roundtables for several months :P

There is a 2 month "lapsed" period; however, depending on what report a leader looks at a lapsed scout may or may not be represented. I really hope not; but, if they do decide to go back to pro-rated I hope they have membership at a different time than recharter.

Patrol time; the bane of the main character syndrome parent.

fliver to cambodia Am sure that some on here may have read this, or at least know about it, but I found this AI generated description that seems interesting. Wonder what others may think about the idea of this being put into afilm or video. A " Flivver to Cambodia: Two Boy Scouts Across Asia " is a travel memoir by French adventurer and Boy Scout Guy de Larigaudie. The book chronicles the journey of Larigaudie and his companion, Roger Drapier, as they became the first people to drive from Paris to Saigon in a motor vehicle. They used a second-hand Ford Model T (commonly nicknamed a "flivver") to complete the trek between 1937 and 1938. Key Details of the Journey: The Vehicle: A 19-horsepower Ford Model T. The Route: Spanned approximately 30,000 kilometers across Europe, the Middle East, India, and Southeast Asia. Legacy: The book remains a celebrated classic in scouting literature, particularly in France, for its themes of adventure and friendship.

Yep.

That would make far too much sense.

Sometimes I think we are just not getting through... I am an ASM working with a Patrol of younger Scouts. Last night, an older Scout interrupted this Patrol's Meeting to try to take a younger Scout out to work on his Life requirement #6, using EDGE to teach a skill. The younger Scout is the planner for the Patrol's next camping trip, and he was working out plans with his Patrol mates. The younger Scout was obviously frustrated by this demand (from the look on his face) and turned to me for guidance. I dismissed the older Scout and told him this was time for the Patrol Meeting, and that the younger Scout was to stay and finish his planning with his Patrol Mates. This morning, the parent of the older Scout sends a scathing missive to the Scoutmaster, outlining how his son has been trying to complete this requirement for months now, and is not getting any support from the Troop. (This is factually incorrect, and the SM handled the email response to the parent perfectly.) The parent made brief mention of the Patrol Meeting scenario last night, and made a comment in reference to it that makes me believe we are just not getting through... "I understand the importance of patrol meetings, but don’t get why they would take precedence over completing rank requirements." This, followed by threats to leave the Troop if the Troop does not immediately make and implement a plan to help their Scout finish the requirement. Important to note also, this older Scout rarely comes to meetings, and has not been on a Troop outing since Oct 2024. He did not make arrangements with anyone to try to work on the requirement during this meeting... smh https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ?si=ljwnDk_wERNKzhz4

While we have not seen specifics on how this may be implemented, we have been told that the 'rolling registrations' will be going away and we will be going back to everyone expiring/renewing at the same time.

I'm pretty sure our council does not. I keep asking and often no one knows who the chair is, or they keep pointing to a particular professional. This is a huge issue as one person cannot do it all.