Eagle1993

https://apnews.com/article/politics-congress-sexual-abuse-9e991d917edc0f10b17e586b8f8259d2

Best to contact an attorney. My understanding of the paths forward (if the plan is approved): 1) Take the immediate $3500 payout no questions asked. 2) Go through TDP path. You will likely have to fill out some sort of document with more details. Based on your claims (severity) and state where they occurred (that factors in SOL) they will come out with a value. Note that as of now, the only individuals who get separate payments is LDS victims. So, the chartered org does not factor into the calculation for you or any non LDS victim. 3) Go through the neutral path. Pay $10K up front and $10K before going through a review process that will determine what your payout should have been in civil court. Then the trust will work to collect that for you. Now, since you were pre 1976 and Catholic Church CO, there is a chance you could directly sue the CO at a later date. However, the plan allows COs some time (I think 1 year) to negotiate settlements with the trust. SOL may work against you in the lawsuit; however, lawyers here have stated that SOLs are not necessarily black and white nor treated the same state by state. Again, consult an attorney as they would be 10000000% better at informing you. I think once the plan is approved, there is still a lot of work left to setup the trust and detailed trust processes. While that will take time it should help provide victims much more clarity (hopefully).

I think legal blame really depends on the case. There was an example of a CO who didn't register a leader and allowed the abuse to continue. I think COs are clearly to blame in a case like this. Other cases go to different extremes. For example an abuser was also the parent of the scout and the abuse was never reported to BSA. It is tough to hold BSA liable for that case. I think that is why bankruptcy court is a bad path of addressing these cases. It lumps all of them together, averages out details and comes up with a number. However, allowing tens of thousands of individual cases to be pursued is likely not feasible (BSA would run out of money just paying lawyers). So, bankruptcy is the least bad of a group of bad solutions.

Yes ... I reversed that. Prior to 1976 chartered orgs still face liability and 1976 to present all are covered.

Chartered Organizations are directly responsible for the units where abuse occurred. So, they will face liability in individual cases. How liable they are will vary case by case. Now, I believe only 2 chartered orgs are fully freed from pre 2020 liability (LDS & Methodist) if this deal goes through. The remaining chartered orgs are free from ~1976 and prior liability but could face lawsuits post 76 to present. Councils ... similar. They were responsible for providing oversight to units ... so could be found liable for the abuse. Again, that will vary case by case. 100% of councils are buying coverage through this bankruptcy for abuse pre Feb 2020. So, this is very similar to many other cases where non debtors are receiving nonconsensual releases. What is unique is that nearly 40,000 (or more) chartered orgs are receiving releases for pre 1976 abuse. I think that is why Purdue applies. There is a big question if the bankruptcy & district court will allow the releases in BSA's case.

Ok. I'm going to lock down this for a bit.

April's operating expense hit the docket. BSA is down to $45M of cash. April was an expensive bankruptcy month $16M of spend. Good news is that registration income is >> 2021 as is income from HA bases. Registration went from $4.0M in Apr 2021 to $6.3M in Apr 2022 HA Base income from $2.7M in Apr 2021 to $5.0M in Apr 2022. I haven't seen any update from the court. This wait seems very long. I still lean to her approving the plan, but I wouldn't be surprised if she has found some issues and is making it very clear where the issues (and where there are no issues). We will see...

Our school administrators report to the school board. The school board translates the community beliefs into standards for the school to meet. Taxpayers in my community would likely support keeping BSA out if there was a political argument. The argument would be the DRP. In terms of schooling, we have the highest test scores in the state and typically have National Merit finalists and kids going to most Ivy League schools. My son is on track to take BC calc his junior year and has been offered much more rigor in schooling and academics than I was every provided back in the 80s/90s. That said, I have issues with our school's lack of commitment to vocational ed, sole focus on test scores, excessive rules based on "safety" and lack of partnership with great organizations (like BSA). However, it is the school system that the community wants (pump out great test scores, get ranked in various magazines and see the resulting property values skyrocket). My point wasn't that there are options to change my school (unless BSA drops DRP). My point is that there are schools open to including BSA and councils should encourage units to interact with those schools.

Our elementary school has banned scouts during school hours. We cannot advertise for scouting in any official school documents. Since PTO is independent, we were able to post on their FB page which has limited impact. For several years we were able to put yard signs between the sidewalk & street ... but the school has now banned that and removed/threw away our signs (without notifying us). Our DE was found on school grounds during the day to drop off some flyers to a teacher (who was a Cub Scout leader). The principal saw him and told him to leave immediately (he told me she threatened to call the police, I'm not sure that is true). It has gotten crazy. We spend over $1K per year to rent rooms at the school for meetings and get no support. The scout access act doesn't help as they treat all non school activities the same. When I brought up that they did some announcement for girl scouts (and asked if they could do the same for cub scouts) they stopped the girl scout announcements. Many years ago our Pack was charted by this school. However, after Dale they dropped us and we have never been able to reestablish any relationship. I don't understand councils that would prohibit school interactions. I see the flip side where recruiting is incredibly difficult when you are blocked from the school. Councils should encourage units to work with schools who are interested.

Given BSA's partnership with the NRA and the NRA's hardline stance against gun reform it is tough to see BSA as a neutral party. To be fair though, I am not aware of alternate organizations that provide good gun safety instructor training. I (as does many scouters) want to see BSA continue shooting sports, so I expect that partnership to continue. There is really no point in arguing about this on an online forum. No one will change their minds and nothing is ever done. After we simply accepted the outcome of Sandy Hook with no action, I'm not sure what could ever happen that could result in change.

The issue is this.. If this is true, it is not appropriate. It is one thing for a CC to ask for information and to discuss in a committee (though, it think you should be careful and it should be avoided in more serious charges). That said, I find it odd to think it is appropriate to have an entire Troop meeting to discus the issue in hand. Now, after an investigation is complete, perhaps some report to the Troop is appropriate if changes are required. Otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why it is appropriate to have all members and volunteers involved.

100% agree with this. It is one thing asking a parent to volunteer to be a soccer coach. That takes a few hours a week for a couple of months of the year. Scouting takes more and is year round and a decade. Even the most dedicated have a hard time managing that. I also think while we saw some recovery post Covid ... the impact of Covid may last a long time. I don't mean vax, social distancing or masks. I mean that families saw a life where little Johnny didn't have 25 hours per week of scheduled activities. Sports seems to have bounced back, but things like music lessons, language lessons, scouts, etc. ... where there was only partial commitments are being dropped. I definitely think less burden on volunteers is key and shortening Cubs may make sense. I also think we need to relook at the program. What is special and unique about scouting. Align the program to focus on that. Eagle merit badges, rank requirements, etc. should then be realigned. Finally, a focus on quality and not quantity of units. We have many units limping along. Get scouts into fewer/better units will be best in the long run. I think this will be a tough fix and we may just need to accept being a smaller organization.

I have not seen any details on how to properly conduct a youth protection violation investigation in either a committee or chartered org handbook. I expect BSA would not want committee chairs or chartered orgs to be leading these investigations. This isn't a volunteer's role.

I wouldn't think a committee should be investigating a YPT report that was submitted to the council. Other than cooperating with the investigation, a unit committee should not be involved. If I were CC, I would simply ask the SE if there was any immediate action needed and if not, move on. There are times for volunteers to take the lead. There are times for professionals to lead. This is a time where volunteers should take a step back and let the professionals run the investigation/actions. They have the training, experience and any resulting liability to run a proper investigation. (If they actually do the investigation well .. who knows). @Cecille25I agree with the recommendation of finding a new Troop. Unless the current leadership leaves, I don't think your sons will find much peace. It isn't worth the battle. That said, I expect you should report the change of your membership status to the SE. They should be aware of the actions of the committee.

If you are being targeted for reporting a possible YPT violation, that is a serious issue. I think it goes even beyond the initial case. Unless the output of the investigation indicated the parent lied, I cannot imagine this was an appropriate action. Unfortunately, that has been reported in the past here. Note BSA does have an anti retaliation policy for employees, but I have yet to see one for volunteers. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/controller/BSA_Whistle_Blower_Policy.pdf @ThenNow @MYCVAStory ... do you know if the youth protection changes from bankruptcy require BSA to include an anti-retaliation policy?

Bullying-What_is_Bullying.pdf (scouting.org) Reporting_Bullying.pdf (scouting.org) Myths About Bullying (scouting.org) This is how BSA defines bullying and how to report it. An Imbalance of Power: --> yes, if it was from an adult, there is a clear imbalance of power Repetition --> Not clear. It sounds like it may be repeated. To me, that is the big difference between bullying and just someone being a bit of a jerk. Given what you said, it probably warrants reporting to SE for an investigation to get the full story .. especially if this SM/ASM has been reported in the past by other scouts. It is hard to give much other guidance as it really does require someone talking to all involved.

Depends on how many Bitcoins the foundation was invested in. I think the BSA will stay in Ch 11 as long as the current plan is on the table. They have the liquidity and the foundation will back them up for a few months if needed. The real danger to BSA if this plan is outright rejected (either by the bankruptcy court or fairly quickly by district). In one of the hearings, BSA lawyers indicated the foundation will only loan BSA $ if they are out of bankruptcy. If the foundation sees the CH11 plan rejected, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide they need to save their $ for future BSA and let the current instance burn to the ground in Ch 7. Just a guess from the hearings and looking at their financials. BSA said by end of summer, my guess is they can last longer but not long enough to start a new plan from scratch.

Interesting ... perhaps the judge was reading scouter.com. In terms of multiple appeals, I think it really is pretty simple. If the bankruptcy court approves the case, it will go to district court. However, the plan will start implementing. If district court wants to stop the plan, they actually have to act fairly fast. If it takes them a year+ to review, most issues will be moot (basically, it will be too late to make much of an impact). So, I think we will know pretty quickly if the bankruptcy is over for BSA. Yes, there could be issues within the trust in the future, but I expect it won't take too long (perhaps a few months) to see if district is going to reject the plan. I'm expecting she either approves or has a very detailed rejection that essentially approves everything but a section or two (that can be cured by BSA). I saw a recent ruling Gulf Coast Health which was rejected due to overly broad releases (the judge indicated she would have approved the plan with narrower release language). Note that case was also in Delaware. The areas I thought Judge Silverstein was most concerned was the release language and the TDPs. I'm not sure how she handles this (perhaps she can still approve but in her ruling emphasize how she came to approve). I do think if she was going to outright reject the plan we would have seen that by now.

Part of me is a bit suspicious of the BSA court case here. I wonder if this is a method to try and get GSUSA to drop their own case and remove their claim in bankruptcy court. The $16M is nearly identical to the $16-$17M GSUSA is seeking in bankruptcy.

The GSUSA was arguing that they were not treated fairly in the BSA bankruptcy. The GSUSA was claiming that they have a good case and think they will win in appeal (or at least could win). Then they will seek a fees, etc. GSUSA estimated $17M impact but BSA only offered insurance that would pay a very small fraction of that possible outcome. The BSA's argument was that GSUSA is very unlikely to get $17M. The judge didn't buy BSA's argument. So ... GSUSA's main ask is that post bankrupt BSA backstops the plan. If GSUSA wins $15M and bankrupt BSA plan only gives them $500K, post bankrupt BSA pays $14.5M. I'm not sure if the judge will agree to that, but she didn't like BSA's argument against the request. She did lean a bit on the fact that GSUSA's case was dismissed, so that helped. Not sure where she will land on this.

My guess - it would have to be weeks. Lock all groups in a room and work through language ... understanding that the alt path is likely CH 7. I haven't seen any update from the court. The BSA finalized voting ~March 11 and it has been over a month since the hearing ended. Purdue Pharma (which was a big bankruptcy) took from Aug 2 (voting end) to Sept 13 to get a judge's official ruling but the judge indicated he would approve Aug 27th. (So they knew approval would occur <1 month after the vote). We are over 2 months since the final vote and a month since hearing closed and no clear sign if this will be approved. Is this 1+ time since the hearing closed typical? For those closer to this case, is the mood/discussions that the judge is likely to approve?

@Eagledadsimply said girls are better at planning and boys may feel intimated and back off. He never said that means women belong in the kitchen (nor even eluded to that). https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/battle-of-the-brain-men-vs-women-infographic Perhaps this + the differences in development (female brains mature earlier than male) could lead to some behavior differences between boys and girls in a mixed setting. I read what @Eagledadwrote. I think there is an argument to be made that boys could be better off within a single gender troop with only male leaders. Again, the GSUSA argues for this as well (except for girls). There is some science backs up the differences in brains and I think there could be a logical conclusion that there could be benefits in single gender settings. I am ignoring the fact that gender in and of itself is a complex topic (for example, in my Troop I have one scout that doesn't identify as a boy or girl). I land on the side of coed Troops. For my son, and the Troop I lead, I think coed works. I think seeing female and male leaders who share their interests is great. Seeing powerful women benefits the boys in our Troop. Having girls that can canoe, lash and fish right with the boys helps as well. The girls and boys work well together in scouting situations. So, that is the choice I personally made for our Troop (we have a very closely linked Troop and both male/female leaders). That said, I haven't done much research to determine if there are negative consequences and if those negatives outweigh the positives I have seen. I barely have time to run a half way decent Troop. I think given the differences in development & brain ... there could be an argument made that single gender scouting is better overall.

I never said this ... and I don't think anyone has. If you are going to debate a topic, please do not utilize a strawman argument. I personally support having girls in BSA. My daughter was in Cub Scouts and as of now plans to join Scouts BSA. I have worked with girls in BSA and have found most of them to fit well into the program. My daughter is also a girl scout and has enjoyed that program (and GSUSA has been very adamant about keeping their program single gender). That said, I think @Eagledad has valid points and there is neuroscience that indicates male and female brains are different. Also, I do think there is valid concerns that boys are having greater issues in today's society than girls and we should consider the impact on them by opening up BSA to girls. I fully support boys only units and will be interested to see how they differ long term that coed ones. No one thinks (almost no one) GSUSA is evil or a bigot for thinking their program should be for girls only. I will also say GSUSA discourages male leaders. They want female leaders leading all girl units and are open about it. They see this as key for the development of girls. I think there is an argument to be made that male leaders and all boy units could benefit young boys in a similar manner. I have been impressed with our female leaders in my Scouts BSA unit. They have gone to Philmont, canoe trips and have been critical to many of our outdoor activities. I personally have included both girls as scouts and female leaders in our Scout unit(s) and will continue to do so. However, the experience I had as a scout (with only boys in our Troop and male leaders) does seem different than what I see in my current Troop. Is it better or worse? I'm not sure, but it is different. The one aspect I believe is nonnegotiable is that scouters who are not fans of girls being in BSA is that they follow the scout law when interacting with girls in the program. In my experience, 99% of scouters and scouts do that regardless of what opinion they may hold.

I haven't been watching this thread (was pretty active this weekend in and out of scouts). However, I do think neuroscience does clearly indicate brains are different between boys and girls ... even at birth ... and they definitely develop differently. Is that due to epigenetics, genes or hormones ... the answer is likely yes. Regardless, we do know there are differences in brains between genders. Now, it doesn't mean that every female or every male fit a single gender specific behavior. I think the science indicates that differences in behaviors in a single gender exceed the differences between genders. However, if you talk in generalities, I think you can say there are differences in the "average" boy and "average" girl and their behaviors. I am not aware of the same type of studies that would point to race or religion in terms of brain development. I do agree we have to be careful in this area. I think there are girls that are more into risk taking and adventure than boys and boys that are better in terms of organizing than girls (I see it in my own Troop). However, in general, there are gender differences. How we address those is up to BSA and the units that implement the program.