Eagle1993

We are now two months after the hearing ended. I'm shocked it is taking this long. Articles from early May indicated people thought the judge would be back "soon". BSA likely has 1 shot at this ... if district or appeals reject the plan, I'm not sure BSA has the cash to withstand the impact. Plus ... I start wondering the impact on BSA from inflation, higher interest rates, market crash (impacting endowments), etc. They really need to exit bankruptcy soon and I'm not sure anyone thought it would take more than 2 months for a decision. This article (not sure if it was posted previously) really summarizes what the judge has to decide. She knows this plan will have to be approved by district and then likely to be appealed. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/04/25/664463.htm She spent a lot of time on this topic: The way it was left, I have to say it seemed like the non settling insurers made some pretty strong points. The judge kept asking why she needs to decide this. I think the TDP/Neutral path language could be the #1 issue holding her up. I don't know for sure, but she seemed very concerned about this area. The other area that I know externally there is a lot of focus is third party releases. While some of the release language may be an issue ... I actually didn't get the sense that she had an issue including COs or councils in the plan. I wouldn't be surprised if she came back with some minor fix requests, but an all out removal of COs/Councils would shock me. There is a chance another court could rule otherwise, but for Judge Silverstein, I get the sense she was fine with the total package.

Judge would have kept it if either party wanted to proceed.

Looks like the debtors & settling insurers agreed to the delay. This came from an objection to the delay of litigation until Sept 12, 2022 (it was a quote from the hearing) So ... one way I look at this. - BSA during the hearing argued that state court cases (primarily with insurance companies) be allowed 90 days after plan approval. - BSA THEN submitted a request in early May that the judge delay state court cases until September 12th. - Insurance companies objected saying, among other things, that BSA argued for 90 days ... why do they need more? Just give them the 90 days. - As of today, 90 days is September 11, 2022. So basically, the request from BSA back in early May is meaningless as we still do not have plan approval. It is likely plan approval will push the state court cases beyond the September 12th date BSA requested. Therefore... no point in the hearing. That is my guess.

I do wonder given the timing if we are not looking at an approval. The judge said she would be back with a ruling soon (at the close of the hearing) AND mentioned multiple times she knew timing was critical. I would have thought if it was a straight plan approval we would have heard by now. Yes, she has to work on the wording of her ruling/order, but I can't imagine that taking months. There is a chance ... but each day that passes makes me think a straight plan approval is not in the cards. I also expect a full out rejection of the plan is also not likely. Again, if she saw this plan as severely flawed she would have ruled quickly and told the sides to try again. I'm leaning to a plan rejection (as I don't think she can change the plan) but with a very carefully worded ruling that leaves the door open to a relatively quick fix. She may be very specific on the sections she agrees with and the area(s) she cannot approve and why. This could lay the groundwork for all sides to quickly address those issues in the plan and get to a plan approval. That could be why it is taking months (as she wants to be very careful on how she words the likely rejection). I don't see this as her taking a summer break. She kept court going for late nights and long days during the hearing to keep the plan on track. I checked her calendar and is was pretty clear ... so I expect she is putting is some long hours on this ruling. Just a guess ... but if the headline is "Judge rejects BSA bankruptcy plan" I wouldn't immediately panic and think all is lost. It could mean she just laid out a path to a plan modification that will win at district and appeals.

We have discussed, in the past, the differences between UK scout leadership (open meetings, smaller board, etc.) and BSA. UK Scouting has seen record membership growth since 2013, though it was impacted by Covid (and now since seen a bounce). BSA ...well, you have seen our numbers. Then ... I look at what is going on in the UK (just the first few videos I found): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1V4THmgTEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBH8Mzf65iI https://twitter.com/BearGrylls/status/1488554069341917189 If you watch the last video, there are 10,000 people who are attending a Jubilee party. This isn't a dedicated scout celebration, this was a celebration where scouts were featured. During the scout segment, Bear Grylls drops in on a rope from the ceiling. Looking at the UK, you frequently see Kate Middleton (who actually volunteered for a Cub Pack) wearing the neckerchief and talking about scouts frequently. Matt Hyde is out, generating media and positive messaging about scouts. Now I look to BSA. Our national leadership is completely absent from national media. I have see no ability to get scouts highlighted at major events (how about the super bowl, NBA, MLB, NHL, PGA, New Years Eve, Oscars, etc.) They, for the most part are absent outside dedicated scout stories (which are limited). Where are our Bear Grylls, Kate Middleton, etc. ambassadors? Bear Grylls was named Chief Scout at 34. Young, energetic, media savvy. While Twitter is definitely not the only method to measure social media footprint of our leaders, I think it isn't a bad metric. From what I can see, Roger Mosby is the only one with an an account (in his name) and he has 14 followers. Every leader in UK scouting has an account. Jennie Price (their board chair) only has 113 followers. The rest have over 1,000 each and many tweet about scouting frequently. So... what impact does this have? It gets kids and parents aware of scouting. They realize it is a current activity .. not something from the 1950s. (I had a parent who didn't realize Cub Scouts still existed). It generates positive opinions of scouting. Yes, I'm sure UK scouting has bad media from time to time ... but it is offset by the frequent positive messages. While I don't think we need to fully copy the UK model, we should consider the path they took and the results they are seeing. Let's get a Chief Scout executive in his or her mid 20s - 40s. Someone with a great vision of scouting, understands today's parents & youth, is energetic and represents scouting ideals and today's media. Then find appropriate ambassadors who are respected by the majority of Americans and can spread the idea of scouting. In general, most parents I have talked to have a slightly positive opinion about scouting. However, other activities typically rank much higher in terms of importance. Creating a national narrative about the values of scouting could change that.

Primarily because everyone will have moved on. During the trial, there were expert witnesses who indicated there could be a large number of false claims. There are also those who indicated that there are others who didn't file claims. BSA will want to move on. I don't think it would help for them to argue, 10-15-20 years from now that ... hey, we had a less rapes than reported.

Nothing.

53 days since the hearing closed How are we to read the tea leaves where there is no tea nor leaves. I took a look at some of her past rulings ... and her approvals seemed to come fast (days/weeks after the hearing). I did see she rejected the Vivus plan but kept the record open to avoid killing the plan. Then after some additional work from the DOJ and others, she approved the plan a month later. Who knows ... but 53+ days is a long time.

Directed by Irene Taylor, Executive Producer Brian Grazer & Ron Howard Streaming on Hulu & release scheduled in New York & LA June 16 Will focus on alleged century-long sexual abuse cover-up by the Boy Scouts of America. It will also explore the declining membership and bankruptcy case. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/boy-scouts-doc-trailer-abuse-scandal-leave-no-trace-1235159517/

I like the spirit of this idea; however, I doubt most if any scouts can really do a great job on a statue. I could only imagine an arm falling off in a year or two. Perhaps scouts can help spot weld some of the pieces together and a few professional welders can finish with good clean tig welds. I would be more optimistic if they just cut the statue in half or thirds. They really cut it up a lot. I wonder if it would be better to just melt down the bronze and have someone do a new casting.

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.