vol_scouter

Last communications that I had with YP professionals was near the end of 2020. In my council, there have been volunteers asked to not return due to YP violations. Remember when asking for changes to anything at the NC that many employees are gone. It will require longer times to get anything accomplished.

I too have talked with people at all levels including the professionals who created the current YPT and some of the actual national experts and that is not their attitude. They believe that it is good but are looking for anything to make it better.

That is simply not accurate. The BSA had the nation's thought leaders actively help to develop the current youth protection program using the best ideas available to protect children from all kinds of abuse. They continue to monitor claims and other information sources to look for problems that can be corrected.

On these forums, I always accept fellow Scouters as trustworthy until shown to be otherwise. So in that vein, you have paid a terrible price for something forced upon you. For that, I have sympathy. You family will have suffered from your scars. That is not fair. Unfortunately, there is no real fairness. To me, fairness would be to see all the perpetrators in prison for their crime, some monetary compensation for their pain and suffering from the perpetrators and enablers (which could be the BSA), and counseling that helps them to put this into the past. The fair thing to current Scouts is to not damage the program and camps. Unfortunately, there is not enough liquidity in all Scouting to satisfy both needs. The entire situation is sad.

You are correct in saying that the current youth did not build the camps. My guess is that few of the abusers built the camps either though there are no doubt high profile exceptions. Essentially none are 'paying for it' as most are dead or elderly and not involved with the program. It will not come from the pockets of volunteers except from those of us who will try to rebuild Scouting after it is devastated. The life changing experiences might not occur without camps as often.

ThenNow said: "I’ve not listened twice, but my recollection is that the TCC vice chair said something close to, “From the outset, our concern has not been the continuation of Scouting, but maximizing the recovery to survivors.”" So the TCC is about maximizing the money paid. Unlike some others here, I think that the BSA sees the high adventure bases (HAB) as core to the mission. If you accept that, then the offer is not unreasonable. The local councils (LCs) are getting requests for contributions that are harmful but not fatal. Most have agreed to this initial proposal but much more will be damaging to the ability of the LCs to deliver the core mission. As a physician, I have had many patients who were abused as children and the damage that it caused. I do not recall any abused in Scouting (most in families) but the repercussions were many and often debilitating. So I am sympathetic to all victims. At the same time, this is going to harm all of the youth currently in Scouting and for years to come - if not totally end Scouting. The correct balance is based on how you value the different issues.

We totally agree that they don't care, that is not what I am arguing. My argument is that they believe that the LCs have assets of $1.3 - 3.3 B which is greater than what they will get from the BSA plus LCs (~$1.2 - 1.5 B) and they can attack the COs on top of that. Certainly the former is quicker than the latter. The other factor is that Kosnoff says that his firm represents ~80% of the claimants. The latter approach better satisfies his desires. I would expect that he will encourage his clients to vote against anything other than liquidation. So it is my belief that the TCC favors liquidation as they believe it to provide the maximal payout and aligns with Kosnoff so is the easier course.

So we are told that the TCC is represented by some of the best professionals in the business. Those professionals are either wishing to destroy all of Scouting in the USA or they are not as good as they claim because they do not understand the membership and financial models of the National Council (NC) and the Local Councils (LCs). I tend to believe the former. Attorneys have estimated that the LCs represent assets of $1.5 - 3.3 B. So liquidation of the NC at ~$1.2 B will be consumed by the PBGC but that leaves more than is on the table by liquidating the LCs before ever tapping into the chartered organizations (COs). That is the best financial outcome for the claimants that is what the TCC said was its only concern. So my opinion is that the TCC wishes liquidation of everything and in my mind there is no doubt which does not make my opinion correct.

Up to a point, I agree. However, the issue that I see is the reaction of the chartered organizations (COs) and the effect on local councils (LCs) giving and membership. So with the now planned lawsuits to be filed against the COs, many church organizations will advise or require the local churches to get rid of any units. So suddenly most units will not have a place to meet. That further harms membership that has seen a massive decline during covid and Chapter 11. The registration fees all go to support the National Council so the local councils need Friends of Scouting campaigns. Up to now, councils could accurately say that you gift would go to supporting local Scouting. With the lawsuits, giving will nearly cease as it did for the National Council when it filed for Chapter 11. Most councils make some money from summer camp that is being demanded by the TCC. So the LCs will see a rapid decline in membership and giving. Some LCs are already in financial jeopardy and many others will be so quickly. When do they collapse? Summer, fall, or next winter? Depends on the resources. So I fear that by not clearly understanding the structure and finances of Scouting, the TCC has signed a death warrant.

At least three of the four properties are known to provide life changing experiences [Philmont, Northern Tier, and Sea Base] while the fourth has not been in existence long enough establish that the experience is life changing. Certainly, the recent World Scout Jamboree was life changing for the attendees. Nothing is truly priceless. If the Louvre decided to sell the Mona Lisa, it would be purchased at some price. Being called priceless means that it would require a very dire situation for such a thing to even be considered. The high adventure bases (HAB) of the BSA are priceless to the BSA. There is research from a third party with independence that shows that youth remain in Scouting to have the possibility of going to a HAB. The experiences of three and likely all are life changing (I have seen it occur on three Philmont treks and two Sea Base adventures). Many (most?) in Scouting see these as priceless. The threat that the TCC unleashed on the local council camps is even more important in Scouting. Summer camp is extremely important in Scouting where lives are changed every summer. The local BSA camps are used for far more than just summer camp. They are the site for district camporees, Cub day camps, OA events, and council rendezvous {and various other names for a council wide for all kinds of units [packs, troops, crews, boats, and labs]}. The lose of council camps would be a devastating blow to Scouts and Scouting. Once again making innocent children pay for something with which they did not have any relationship. There is no doubt in my mind that the TCC wants the destruction of Scouting. They want all assets which is the local camps as well as the HAB of national. This will devastate Scouting at all levels.

They have laid off a large portion of the national council staff. It is not a bluff, the national council will not have sufficient liquidity to file a viable business plan that will enable an emergence from Chapter 11.

It is clear that Kosnoff does not represent the TCC and vice versa. It is true that the PBGC would have the first right to the proceeds of BSA liquidation. So say it takes all of the BSA. This opens up all of the local councils and chartered organizations that the TCC and Kosnoff both believe to be larger than the BSA. The BSA has stated that they will be insolvent after this July and would be forced to convert to a Chapter 7 liquidation. Since the TCC and Kosnoff believe that the assets of the local councils and chartered organizations, liquidation is the better course. It seems to me that the BSA and local councils have little chance of survival. The TCC is advocating proceeding with suing local councils and chartered organizations which shows intentions and makes its statements, at best, disingenuous.

This is disingenuous at best because the best way to maximize the amount recovered is to liquidate the BSA, all local councils, and as many chartered organizations as possible. So the TCC is committed to the liquidation of the entire BSA and punishing more than a million children and youth as well as nearly a million dedicated volunteers. This is light of unquestionable improvement in youth protection. The legal system is horribly and possibly irreparably broken.

Some councils are financially sound but a fair number (maybe 30?) are insolvent and supported by the National BSA. Often, land given or purchased many years ago were not great pieces of land. They often have covenants on how the land can be used. Our council has a primitive camp that has covenants that require it to be sold only to another non-profit for youth activities. The property does not perk so development is not possible even if one could get around the covenant. Also, it has been said that a non-profit cannot be forced to give up things that are core to its mission. Summer camps are core to the mission of Scouting. This is severely punishing youth who had nothing to do with past events.

The SBR was very expensive and the BSA has continued to make improvements. At one point in time, the debt was ~$400 M so I would not be surprised that the BSA actually owes ~$350 M on the property. It does not make sense that it is worth $350 M when what is owed is subtracted from the total. This is the one part of the assets that has not made sense. Has anyone seen a valuation for the Norman Rockwell paintings?

So I do not understand where the very real debt for the Summit Bechtel Reserve shows up in the accounting. The BSA owed ~$400 M just a few years ago on the land and buildings. There were payments on the property but I do not believe that debt has been paid off. This is not from a note taken out recently (unless it was restructuring the debt) because it dates from the purchase of the property about a decade ago. The $350 M would seem to be the value of the property and improvements but not the debt. Where is that considered?

Here is an Excel plot (with no alterations except to add the title so I cannot be accused of manipulating the graph) of the last 30 years of claims that the TCC was discussing as being so terrible. Certainly, any occurrence of child abuse is too many but the trend is certainly dramatically decreasing. There have been over 2 million members during most of the time of this graph and those members were not static so that every year some join while others leave. Since I do not have actual tenure information, let us assume that the membership turns over every ten years (it is more frequent than that but let's consider a worse case scenario) then there would have been a three turnovers in 30 years or ~6 M individual Scouts. So 11,000/6,000,000 = 0.00183 or 0.183%. The trend is decreasing that number so the TCC seems to be picking only the facts that are flashy and do not clearly reflect the entire situation. While 11,000 is large, the trend is dramatically decreasing and the percentage of the members is small over the last 30 years. Using the same TCC supplied table, there were 480 claims in the last 10 years which is 480/2,000,000 = 0.00024 or 0.024%. Seems to me that the BSA is combating child abuse effectively though it must continue to drive that number down. The real vigilance must come from the parents.

fred8033, Thank you for this post. You did a better job expressing my sentiments than I would have been able to do. Please keep posting. Over the past decade, I have personally known all of the upper leaders of the BSA and they all believed that a single youth abused was far too many because it is an evil act. When comparisons are made with other non-profit leadership of similar sizes, the BSA often pays less than those other large non-profits. The CSE has a number listed that includes things other than salary such as entertaining and travel so that they get paid far less than what is stated in public. The National K3, National Executive Committee, and the National Executive Board set the overall policies, programs, approve salary structure, etc. With the exception of the CEO, all are volunteers. The most influential volunteers were Scouts and are or were unit level volunteers. These people are concerned about the youth.

That is National policy to have valid YPT at recharter. If the recharter is online, a lack of YPT is flagged and you cannot go forward until the deficiency has been corrected as I discovered this year. To me, the reluctance to take the training more often goes something like this. The volunteer says to themselves "I do not molest or harm children and will not in the future so why should I have to take this again?". Whereas we should all be happy to take this every year because the training is not only about the different ways in which a youth could be abused but also about what characteristics and incidents should make us concerned and report a volunteer. STEM Scouts began requiring yearly YPT to renew for the next year and it was well accepted.

Having many rules and policies does make Scouting challenging to adhere to all such rules and policies. However, units find ways to adhere to the rules and policies while running a challenging, fun, and rewarding program. In my council, Youth Protection is followed and considered an inviolable policy. It is not questioned. I have heard many units cancel activities, even at the last minute, if there YP could not be satisfied. It is seen as the best way to protect youth and volunteers from any suspicion of impropriety. Almost to the person, all volunteers whom I know across the country support YP policies.

The BSA has engaged the nation's foremost experts in child abuse, experts from law enforcement, attorneys, and victims of abuse to develop and inform the new Youth Protection program that has dramatically decreased abuse.

The premiums should decrease because all suits up to and before 16 November 2020 are to be handled by the trust to be formed so the liability is only since that date. Also, the improved Youth Protection program appears to have dramatically decreased the number of possible suits. It is my understanding that this in not anticipated to be a problem. What actually occurs could not follow logical analysis.

The outstanding programs at the high adventure bases (HAB) would no longer exist if taken by the federal government. There are limitations on group size in many of the parks and monuments. Remember Bruce Babbitt as head of the Department of the Interior under Clinton who banned Scouts from the parks? His policy was modified but who is to say a ban could not happen in the future.

You requested information about the unanimity of the decision that could be of help to the plaintiff's attorney's. Hopefully, everyone sees this.

The BSA had the YP standards in place before the CDC issued its guidance.