vol_scouter

As most of you know, the BSA owns over 144,000 acres in the Sanger de Cristo Mountains called Philmont Scout Ranch after the donor, Waite Philips. You might know that there was a bad fire in the middle of the ranch a few years ago. Now, there are other fires in New Mexico that are threatening and have damaged Philmont. As I have kept abreast of the developments, the damage has thus far not been extensive. When I check on the fires, there is a place to donate but there is these statements: Can any of our more knowledgeable forum members provide some enlightenment as to why this is the case? Thank you in advance!

@ThenNow Very well stated. Thank you for outlining the issues in such a manner. To number 1., I cannot see how anyone can argue that the institution has failed to adequately protect youth from predators. As to number 2., your viewpoint will determine your answer. If you were abused and left Scouting, you will have lost and suffered much without seeing the positive aspects of the program. It is not surprising that you feel that it should be dismantled. The vast majority were not abused and, for the most part, had positive experiences so they see the program as important and beneficial. The views for each of those groups are understandable and expected (note that neither group will have a single view as people are complex). Another group suffered abuse but stayed in Scouting and may have a positive attitude. They may have conflicting concepts as to the best course. Numbers 3 and 4 are complex and do not have enough data to answer. Number 5 is a brilliant observation. My feeling is that Scouting will continue in America. If no BSA, another organization could emerge but likely there will be many separate scouting programs that will make youth protection less likely to be strictly followed. I would argue that a comprehensive single program is best able to enforce strict youth protection policies. All who remain in Scouting need to be zealots to improve and enforce youth protection policies.

@MYCVAStory If this is going to require months more, does that not doom the BSA to Chapter 7? Is there a way that the BSA can exit Chapter 11 before all appeals have been exhausted?

I thought that the UMC and the LDS would be protected forever for claims between 1976 and February 2020. Is that not the case?

The original attorneys (I believe that Lauria was one of them) told the BSA that it would be only 90 days. They indicated the same in front of a few thousand at the National Annual Meeting. The attorneys and the BSA believed based upon history and the ineligible volunteer files that there would be 8,000 to may as high as 12,000 claims. This whole process has been a nightmare for all involved. That is not to in any manner compare the nightmare from child sexual abuse to the financial nightmare for the BSA but to say what the BSA expected and what the claimants expected have all been seriously different. I certainly hope that those of you who were abused can find some solace and a degree of closure.

Actually, the debtor must file a five year business plan that shows that the nonprofit will be financially sound. In order to do that, they must have enough liquid assets to sustain it in the business plan. That means that the BSA will need a substantial amount to carry them until new Scouts are recruited in the fall and recharters occur in early 2023. That is a substantial amount of money.

What is the meaning of the acronym IRO?

For my council, I do not have the numbers to compare from 2020 to 2022. This year, our council had one of the highest growth percentages in the nation at over 18%. That is good except for a loss of between 40 & 50% for 2020 to 2021. My estimate is that the council Scout membership is down about 30% for your same period. The council has limped along financially and will survive if the current chapter 11 goes through. Impossible to know why the loss of membership occurred. Was it mainly covid or chapter 11? I believe it was mainly covid related so we should see another increase this fall. Some CO’s have dropped their units and there is a great deal of anxiety among CO’s. Like you, a decrease in Cub Scouts can be devastating long term. Our Executive Board is trying to get Scouting more in the public eye assuming that the bankruptcy gets settled even if there are appeals. I foresee a long hard hill to get growth above 2019 membership in Scouting that will require getting younger leadership at all levels. I say that as a fellow who has earned leadership after decades of volunteering and will likely need to step aside.

You are far too late. Most all are gone. Lower-level employees have moved up into upper management in the past two years. If you are referring to the chapter 11 proceedings, the National Executive Board sought advice and interviewed firms before deciding upon Austin-Sidley who was supposed to be the very best firm in the USA for their situation. They follow their attorneys' recommendations. So the folks who you wish gone left or were released already.

I believe that the UMC is waiting to get an indication that this plan is going forward. If it does not, then what happens might be considerably different. Though a member of the UMC, I have no inside information.

That review was minimal vetting. They looked at whether the claim was registered with the correct council. If not, it was sent to the correct council. They tried to find any record that would indicate that the claimant had been a Scout, what unit, and were the adults named ever registered in Scouting. That is the most fundamental pieces of information. Most claims could be matched reasonably well. Occasionally, a claimant could not be found in any registration information, the unit number was never known to have existed, the volunteers were not named or could not be found, the named CO had not been a CO. Those claims were not removed, just classed as unverifiable. I do not know the percentage. It was not tiny nor large.

This has been around for at least a decade and I suspect much longer. It is not new or related to recent lawsuits. @yknot and @T2Eagle both make valid points.

My understanding is that there is one council that has only one non-SOL barred lawsuit that would be in a good position if this falls through. All other councils have more. Before the BSA filed for Chapter 11, some suits were settled for several million dollars. It will not require many of those for a council to be in bankruptcy. My guess is that nearly all councils would end up in bankruptcy proceedings within a few years. Of course, that prolongs awards to victims and likely reduces the amount that they can receive. The councils will argue that the camps and offices are core to delivering the mission and that restricted gifts cannot be used. The largesse some believe councils possess is just not there. The victims could face years more of court proceedings for little if any gain. I fail to see that such a course serves them well. I do not see the councils filing chapter 7 and organized Scouting going away.

I think basically everything is sold (trademarks, property, etc.). Then claimants are paid after secured debtors are paid. I doubt LCs would be pulled in. To me, if this plan doesn't go through this path there are two options. Option 1 - Chapter 7 Option 2 - BSA charges all LCs an assessment. Perhaps $500K each, one time charge. If you can't afford it, merge with another council. Lets say half councils merge, they would get $62.5M ... enough to probably last 6 more months in bankruptcy. It is more likely to be successful if the BSA asked for some particular sum of money that the Ad Hoc committee would then determine how is the most fair way to raise the money. This is path is far from a certain approval from the councils. They would rightly be concerned that it would be the first of several appeals. Council Executive Boards would be wary. Especially because if the path fails to deliver a release for the councils, then they will need that money for their own legal defense. One can only hope that this plan goes through because other options are much more damaging to Scouting and will likely only help claimants marginally if at all. Also, other paths will require a much longer time before claimants see any pay out.

I agree with the arbitrary nature of the gray scale. Trying to judge whether a state will change the laws in the next few years is ludicrous. Citizens and politicians could get together in a state where everyone believes such actions will not happen for a swift change whereas another state that seems on the verge of change could take years or never happen. Same thing in trying to assign how likely it would be for a child abuse lawsuit to result in a large award. Historical precedents may or may not hold.

@Eagle1993 Your evaluation sounds likely but I doubt that the BSA can survive while hemorrhaging money to attorneys until 1 August. There has been solid membership growth but I doubt that it can allow things to go on. What a sad situation.

Totally agree with you and @ThenNow. That was the point that I was trying to make earlier.

There was no doubt in my mind that the objection is still applicable. My point is that non-debtor releases were a major component of the BSA plan from the beginning. If the judge felt that the DOJ concerns were valid and nullify the majority of the plan, then she should have ruled in that manner some long time ago. Had she done that the BSA would have submitted a plan for the BSA alone a year or more ago that would have included money that will now be paid to attorneys. So my reasoning is that she will not find the DOJ objections valid or she would have already done so. I realize that she has the right and power to rule however she feels is the correct manner.

Surely this objection initially raised nearly two years ago will not halt this deal. Surely the judge would not allow it to go on this long while the BSA spent >$150 M. She should have made that ruling a year or more ago if it would not allow the non-debtor releases.

Perhaps if we volunteers were to treat it more as an expectation of everyone and not as a burden as coaches seem to do, it will be better accepted.

So I support reporting statistics, trends, findings, etc. Those convicted in a court of child abuse should be listed. My concern with what I read above is that someone could be accused of some action in Scouting that gets him or her ejected from the program. That bar should be relatively low because we are trying to screen out people who might be abusers. However, for their name to then be reported as such when there was no due process or findings in a court of law would seem to improperly impugn their character and be a reason for Scouting to be sued. Should we not eject people who were felt to have inappropriate actions, keep them in a file so they cannot join Scouting somewhere else, add them to statistics, use demographic information to learn how to better screen, but do not publish their names until found guilty?

@1980Scouter You make a valid point. In general, Scouting lost about 50% of the Scouts during COVID and Chapter 11. Those who left over COVID will likely start returning this year with restrictions being dramatically lifted across the country this week. The first question for Scouting is what portion of the 50% who left is due to Chapter 11 and can they be recruited again? (One could also talk about those who left for both reasons but it just complicates and already complex equation.) That is not known. Answering the above will determine where we start. Let’s say that of the 50% who left, half return so the new starting point for Scouting is 75% of the membership of two years ago. Dos Scouting start to grow from there or does it continue a slow decline seen from the late 1970’s? The increased competition for time by other activities has been a factor for decades. Of interest, though the youth population in the USA has been increasing, most youth serving organizations including sports have been witnessing a decline. Can the BSA rebrand itself as an important activity for children? Will current parents start to realize that Scouting is important to develop character and leadership? Will parents decide that returning to outdoor activities is important for them and their children? I think that how those questions are answered will tell the fate of the BSA and Scouting in the USA. Scouting as a movement will not die but it could serve only a small niche market.

This is many of the same people who hired attorneys that are said to be the best in the business for the needs of the BSA and then followed their advice. That seems to be a valued strategy for other parties as it should be for the BSA.

My council is also seeing significant growth after losing ~50% during covid. Parents seem to all be aware of the Chapter 11 but seem unconcerned whereas covid has kept some away. Obviously, we do not know why the 50% who left did so and why they have not to date rejoined.

It is fascinating how people on this and so many other threads always assume the worst about the BSA. I know most of the upper management and National Executive Board personally. They are bright, hard-working, dedicated to Scouting, and honorable. My guess is that the contracts were executed long ago - in the 19 teens or twenties. That the contracts have been misplaced or lost over the many decades and many moves of the national service center. I would further posit that volunteers who wish to see the BSA retain the Norman Rockwell collection have been scouring the landscape for a way to do so. They could have asked Brown and Bigelow to search their files for anything that might allow the collection to be removed from sale due to Chapter 11. I would further posit that Brown and Bigelow did not know that they had the agreement. Clearly, this is only conjecture based on no information. However, incompetence or dishonesty are not in my opinion as likely as other explanations by knowing the people involved.