fred8033

It's not a lie. It's a reflection of the times.

Lie. Hid. Deceived. Incendiary words that I don't buy into. Your words "lack of informing" is not lying, hiding or deceiving. CSA in 1980s and earlier was not viewed as a safe scouting issue. It was just becoming understood as a crime. Just like insurance policies written then did not recognize the massive liability of CSA. People did not think of CSA as a safety issue any more than bank robbery was not considered a safety issue then. This argument will go round and round. Yes, BSA will pay, pay, pay. Thank you for writing that, but it's just mean and spiteful. Most of your posts are more considerate. BSA was at the center of big wrong. There were many aspects to this failure. Now, society is punishing BSA. I just don't want to be the hypocrite in this righteous stoning.

We've been thru this argument many many ways. Past incidents did not happen in an vacuum. Scouting is a community structure happening in schools, churches, police stations with parents and other members of the community. Scouting has DRASTICALLY evolved YPT with continual improvements. Improvements before other organizations. For annual reporting of incidents is problematic for many ways. Perhaps, the key improvement is to change voluntary number rollup into a mandatory reporting for roll-up. A national database / structure already exists. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

There is nothing in there that is an actual improvement. It claims credit for existing structures and real improvements already done by BSA. It ignores major recent law changes; such as expanded mandatory reporting. "annual reporting" of confirmed incidents collides with mandatory reporting resulting in incomplete, conflicting and confusing status. It's better to get the real measurements from outside sources receiving the reports. Those are pretty words without real change. It claims credit for real progress over the last 20 years. ... It's hot air. ... Worse, it's treating BSA today like a criminal based on the actions of our grandparents and great-grandparents. If TCC was serious, it would propose specific legislation for all youth organization. I had seen this above earlier, but it's an empty shell for actual change.

Well said. At some point, it doesn't ring entirely fair as your statement throws mud just like coalition thru mud at TCC. What real changes to YPT? If there is a reasonable change, I'm sure BSA will adopt. No one is arguing for weak YPT. YPT has drastically changed and nothing like it was 30/40/50 years ago. This just seems like posturing to justify a different argument. Everyone is trash talking and working to subvert each other. The whole process is a tragic farce.

Is the $137M held in trust / not-spent? OR will it be used as up-front cash to continue funding the legal process? Or, to reimburse cash already invested? I fear one group paid first and when everything falls thru, there is neither money to refund nor any value to the victim. I also fear contingent earnings reimbursed more like expense sheets (aka ... you get 30% after we deduct our business expenses) I suspect it will be somewhere in-between. Held in-trust by the trust, but with a very high overhead spend rate that somehow helps advance the legal cases. This is a high-risk settlement. It can fail for many ways. It seems wrong to up-front cash like this. ... When do incentives become bribes?

Thank you for all the useful info. Very appreciated. I just don't see how this resolves without becoming BSA only and maybe also being forced. Too many people with too many conflicting interests to get a clean vote. And definitely no chance at a timely conclusion.

#1 I don't understand this fundamental. Voting to accept a settlement of BSA liability where those outside any legal SOL claim can heavily influence the vote. This is a court of law; not general advocacy or marketing. If the majority of states are closed states (and it is closed vs open ... not grey #1, grey #2, grey #??), then the votes and retrieved funds should go to those that have legal right. ... I don't understand how funds are distributed to those without legal standing. I don't understand how the court hears arguments for clients without standing. #2 I'm not sure rejecting the plan gets more. Ch7 could result in less as other claims get higher priority. Even without Ch7, there is no guarantee a different settlement would be better. ... if anything, a rejection could let BSA out faster by having the judge find a strict amount BSA can afford and then let BSA out. I'm not sure any path toward a larger, more complex settlement is possible.

Sad but true.

If #2 is not covered (LDS scout leader doing abuse of scout outside of normal scouting events), then would the settlement reimburse victims of scout leaders where the act was outside of a scouting activity? The two should align. Reimbursement and liability protection.

If 1 & 2 are not covered, why would LDS enter into the agreement. These are major holes in the liability protection that make a person question it's worth.

In many ways, I hope this happens. This case has devolved into a tragic farce. No one will get out of this looking good. No one will be healed. This is extremely expensive (+$100m already???) and looks extremely problematic to close out. Too long. Too many conflicting interests. Can't even cleanly establish who represents who and if they are a real claimant. Time and cash are being wasted. BSA has X amount of assets that it can release and survive. That should happen and soon. Let the trust resolve the paychecks.

You might want to note ... COs & bankruptcy - Eraseing past debts (aka liability for past CSA) COs & previous settlements COs that don't exist anymore. COs that exist, but maybe different entities Good luck doing the research. Good luck finding lawyers who want to take on this large effort. ... The country is filled with churches that have sold / merged / closed / etc. Good luck figuring out if it was a "merger" that has liability for the past or a new church given the building. So United Methodist small town USA doesn't exist anymore. Their building now says Cross Roads or Our Loving Savior. Is it the same church? Different church? ... You'd have to invest thousands to trace the lineage. ... My own home town has many churches. Two that continue as from 50 years ago. Most / All the rest have been acquired / changed hands.

I'd 100% expect this. This seems correct. Zero ethical issue. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nature of business accounting during huge tort cases. It a real ethical issue to collect new donations as normal to pay past liabilities as if all is good. FOS is about sending a kid to camp; to help families afford scouting. That's the pitch. If most of the money is to pay yet-to-be-understood liabilities of 30/40/50 years ago, you need to tell those families. Same with the big donor. ... KEY POINT ... People donate to make the future better. People don't donate to pay past bills. QUESTION - If an LC received a major donation before the settlement is reached (let's say $10m), that $10m "could" be factored into LC assets during negotiations. Is it correct that the $10m; meant to target future good; could increase the settlement size of the past liability and effectively reduce amount available for future good? I'd really like to understand non-profits and tort cases. Non-profits are often funded on donations. If a tort case takes 18 months to reach a settlement, the non-profit is best served to operate on savings; effectively reducing the available cash. Tort cases are a business equation. If the settlement is reached on day 1, you could get 20% of 100% of the assets. If negotiations take 300 days, then the settlement is based on much lower assets. Very different than a manufacturing company going thru bankruptcy. If a manufacturing company did this, they'd have to stop making and selling their product. That effectively stops the business and removes it as an on-going concern. That changes the problem to liquidation. ... Non-profits can keep executing against savings doing the exact same work they've always done. Scouting has always been funded mostly by donations. LCs assets are a buffering cash-flow tool. New donations effectively re-build savings for tomorrow. ... I see zero reason to re-build savings for tomorrow if those new donations will increase the size of past liabilities of 30/40/50 years ago. ... I see zero reason to collect donations if those donations instantly disappear or if the future is in question. It would be nice if new donations after the lawsuit submission date could be treated / preserved for new use, but there is no clean accounting method to say what paid for today's debt and what is protected for tomorrow. Only real method is to hold-off donations for tomorrow.

Well written ... I'm not sure on the term colluding for BSA's lawyers as their absolute job is to do the best for their client as their client was pulled into court (rightfully or wrongly). Court is an oppositional process ... BSA's lawyers are trying to find the best way out for BSA. I can't really complain about colluding. Other factors yes. Colluding no.

... and ... you (I assume) have a spouse and a job. You need to save time and energy for both. Be careful. Don't let scouting cost you a promotion or a marriage. Seriously.

Welcome

So that sounds like NOT reviving closed SOL periods. Am I wrong? I'm trying to marry that with the writing that it's a three year window of reopened liability. "3-year window will open on January 1, 2022 for claims against perpetrators, private organizations, and government for abuse from 1960-2021. The law is not * Description only indicates that a law revives against the government if the statute explicitly mentions public entities or case law clearly supports that conclusion. This list also does not include revival via delayed discovery rule. www.childusa.org | 3508 Market Street, Suite 202 | Philadelphia, PA 19104 | info@childusa.org | 215.539.1906 4 a revival law—it is a new cause of action—but it is included because it opens a window to justice for many survivors whose common law claims have expired. (2022-2024 window opening soon)."

Doesn't this table reflect chance of being sued? I'm sure there are other factors too (number of victims), but most of these councils have closed SOL liabilities. ... most ... https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WindowsRevival-Laws-for-CSA-Since-2002.pdf Closed Sam Houston Area - Texas - Closed. No revival for expired SOLs. Probably won't have one Northern Star - Minnesota - Closed. Three year revived SOL lookback window expired in 2016. Greater St. Louis - Missouri - Closed. No open lookback window Atlanta - GA - Closed. Opened window 2015 - 17. Circle Ten - Texas - Closed Michigan Crossroads - Closed - Had 90 day window for Larry Nassar claims. Then closed again. Crossroads of America - Indiana - Closed Cascade Pacific - Washington - Closed Open/Opening Denver Area - Colorado - Opening - Time window ... Not sure how to interpret their "new cause of action" law. Different than revived SOL Los Angeles - CA - Open It's not life changing for each victim ... avoiding lawyer comment ... it is still millions extracted from each LC that may not have a open fear of liability.

Amazing how I want to debate a change that is incredibly reasonable. It's not wrong. Very understandable change. I think it's because I just like short MB names. Medicine over Health Care Professional. Also, I like action-oriented MBs. First Aid preferred over Health Care Professional. Plumbing or welding over American Labor. Otherwise ... ok.

Those who guided BSA into the situation are mostly dead. ... Not all, but most. ... 1960 chief scout and executive board? 1970s? 1980s? Those from the last twenty years have been trying to find a path out. Even those from that era were trying to handle very hard situations. People want to feel better about themselves by blaming those from the past that are not here to defend themselves. I'm really, really not sure those commenting now would have done any better back then. In many cases worse. I'm not an apologist for BSA, but come on. The IVF files are evidence of BSA trying to find a way to block people where society failed.

Yes, BSA could establish a viable five year business plan. BSA as a business is an interesting beast. Most of the value are intellectual products (badges, ranks, lessons, structure). Some value is in Philmont and the high adventure camps. From what I see, BSA could drastically scale down and then slowly over time re-establish itself. BSA is not like a manufacturing company where raw material, manufacturing, product design, etc could risk it not competing in the future. I really believe BSA has a strong course back. As for local councils being sued into insolvency ... There are hundreds of councils. Less than half will probably out right fail. Those councils that do fail can be replaced quickly with new franchies. If BSA can shed debt / liability, it has an excellent chance of being a viable business.

This seems like the sausage analogy where things can be really ugly to get a result. Many LCs will walk away from the agreement if required to surrender the majority of their assets. Many LCs can use SOL protection. Many LCs might have already settled on individual claims. Many might do better with their own bankruptcy in their own state. In any case, LCs might do better simply because they continued to control the funds now. If suspect if you ask LCs to give up 50% or 75% or more of their assets, most LCs that can will walk.

@SiouxRanger ... Fundraiser app. Not the main proposal. Council approval. Not the beneficiary. ... Unless I miss read a key part. If the proposal was signed off and report was signed off, you are good. ... Even if the proposal was not signed off, there are still paths as the project is required; not the paperwork. If the scout can demonstrate develop, plan and lead, there are still paths forward. ... Fundraiser app exists to prevent things from going south.

You should be fine. Submit your paperwork. The approval form is targeting special situations where you make financial commitments or compete with the council or could represent scouting badly. I've rarely seen an Eagle project fundraiser that crosses the line. Unless it's a really special fundraiser, you should be fine.