Eagle1993

Well, we may now see if KR’s and some of the aggregators actions are legal. I expect some of what is being provided was what Kosnoff has been alluding to on Twitter. Kosnoff on Twitter Dear friends, thanks for your thoughts and prayers, well-wishes and support. I want you to know that my deposition was probably the most gratifying day of my 41 year career. They will try to suppress my testimony and evidence from public view. They will fail. A hammer blow 4 U.…. You gotta wait til herroner rules on the motions to seal from public view. This may take a while. Hopefully not because this balloting mess has been struck today by a thermonuclear created by the Coalition. Lucas has been dragged through the mud when he deserves a medal. KR’s firm is now asking the judge to seal the discovery. Haven’t seen anything regarding the deposition. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7e135f1b-e37f-4862-97ca-52df8b10704d_7395.pdf

The email went out and probably caused some confusion. The best way to handle that was for attorneys to simply contact their clients and reinforce their recommendations. By making a fuss, the Coalition brought far more attention to the email. That probably got even more claimants to view it and or forward it. Claimants who are suspicious of this whole thing may now be further suspicious of the big push to not read the email. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reaction of BSA and coalition to the email results in more no votes than the initial email. How do you guarantee someone will read a document? Tell them not to read it. I’m looking forward to Dec 14 and seeing the vote count. Most of the news before then seems to be just noise.

I think this is the “big” news. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coalition-of-abused-scouts-for-justice-secures-support-from-ad-hoc-committee-to-appoint-survivors-to-local-council-boards-301429165.html

One thing I do question is BSA’s drive to start new units. If you have a group of scouts and some willing parent volunteers and Troops really close, it could be better to just join that Troop.

Camp Indian Trails just sold. $3.4M vs estimated value of $1.6M. Purchased by a county to be turned into a park via the American Rescue Act. https://www.hngnews.com/milton_courier/news/local/article_ebdc021b-1f1c-5974-b28d-7c8bd9e52a70.html

Another hearing tomorrow. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/58ffd639-8ef1-47e7-841e-36ea38c1e32c_7327.pdf Insurance companies are demanding BSA provide details on the claims tables. The judge agreed back in October and the BSA produced about a million pages of documents. However, many of the details are listed as withheld due to privilege. Various insurance companies are pushing back on discovery. Insurance companies pushing to get groups to comply with discovery about proof of claims (several different insurance companies and a variety (primarily coalition) law firms I don't see much or anything about the email ... so perhaps that has settled for now. The TCC appears to be negotiating with various insurance groups regarding their requested discovery. They appear to have agreed to allow that negotiation to proceed without asking the judge to jump in yet. To me, the biggest question, is the POCs. If the insurance company finds questionable POCs and they really impact the law firms with large numbers, you may see some big impacts. What happens if they find 15 - 20K claims were falsely filed and never vetted? If history is repeated, the judge will exclude their votes. It will be interesting if she forces the hands of Slater Slater Schulman and Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. Both are coalition members with thousands of claims that are a bit suspect.

No. The Tweets and all reference to those tweets were removed. Your comment was fine; however, since it included the tweet it was removed. As you asked. It sounds like something was mentioned about an announcement tomorrow. I'm not sure where this came from (perhaps the Coalition townhall). Perhaps someone knows.

One of the concerns we have brought up early about the bankruptcy is that BSA seems only focused on CSA. One can argue if the payments are sufficient or not, but BSA seems to have completely ignored the other financial perils it faces. In particular, the massive debt it entered into bankruptcy with (when you include Summit) and the fact they are adding $100M to that debt, if not more. Well, I think the first shoe is dropping on how we are going to pay that debt down. Here are the Philmont trek rates: 2022 12 Day - $1,295 9 Day - $1,200 7 Day - $1,000 2023 12 Day - $1,490 9 Day - $1,375 7 Day - $1,150 2020 (as reference) 12 Day - $1,025 9 Day - $850 7 Day - $650 2020 - 2023 % Increase 12 Day - 45% 9 Day - 62% 7 Day - 77% I'm not sure if we are seeing this elsewhere (Sea Base for example). BSA needs to pay down the Philmont loans ... I expect these massive price increases are the plan. (Note I also expect some of this is to pay higher salaries and deal with inflation pressure, but expect loan repayment is the big driver.

My experience that I am seeing are assets that are listed as restricted by the BSA and LC and TCC but are going for possible sale anyway. TCC did consider restrictions. That said, I’m sure LCs don’t agree with what the TCC is saying. I think the main point of the article is that LCs or COs shouldn’t be part of the National BSA bankruptcy. If there are CSA claims, they should proceed in state court. If they lose cases or believe they don’t have enough money, then they should enter their own bankruptcy.

Looking at this further, they don't seem to have a CSA expert in the mediation team left. They have a former bankruptcy judge and Timothy Gallagher who's focus seems insurance (and 1/2 his pay is from insurance companies). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/823873_812.pdf Finn gave up $1,500/hr walking away from this.

Paul Finn didn't sign the last mediator report. Looks like he had a lot of experience in CSA mediation: https://www.nadn.org/paul-finn I expect everything he did was protected so he can't talk. I wonder why he quit.

If it was my district, I would ask other units to share ideas of events they put on, camping locations, hiking spots, etc. and share them with the new unit. Perhaps even see if some units would be willing to invite the new Troop to their events. Trop XYZ would invite this new group of scouts & parents along. The new group would be in their own patrol. Perhaps by going to 2-3 other Troop/s outings, the new Troop would start seeing how other Troops operate and start forming their own culture aligned with the one they like best. I agree with starting with setting up patrols and youth leadership early and give them the list of ideas (ones that the adults are willing to support). Let them select and then get out camping, hiking, etc. I would look a bit at advancement as I do see kids who earn advancement as more likely to stay onboard, but advancement should be done as part of outings.

@PeterHopkins While our recruiting went well, I am still not convinced BSA is on a path to rebound. I'm stepping down as CC of our Pack (as my daughter is dropping out). I had a meeting with our current CM (parent of a 5th grader) and new CC (has many kids so will be in a while). We all agreed ... for 95%+ of our pack, scouting is not their primary activity. Sports, school, family all rank higher in the priority list. I think it dropped further down the list during the pandemic (family time increased in priority). This is just a hunch from conversations with families, so I'm willing to admit we are wrong. Our new Committee Chair owns a healthcare IT company and is an executive of two others. He understands leading businesses, how to raise VC funding, etc. He believes BSA expects far too much from volunteers. Parents are willing to help out here and there, but to expect the amount of time BSA expects exceeds most parents willingness to volunteer. Our CM is also a GSUSA Troop leader. She says BSA is much more complex to lead than her GSUSA Troop. GSUSA is pretty simple, you have a few parents get together and lead their own grade's group of girls. There is no complexity of Packs, Charter Org/CORs, etc. She said that stuff is draining energy from just leading your group of kids. So, even though recruiting went well for us, I am still concerned about the future. While some here talk about Wood badge, most units barely have volunteers to even have enough YP trained leaders to allow outings to occur. Your experience is likely not unique and is probably the norm for many units, especially given long term trends.

The only issue I would have with the proposal is to reject some individual votes (or change them to yes). Given that the voting deadline is a month away, most law firms have plenty of time to undo any damage (if any actually occurred). This is mildly entertaining as we await the final voting numbers.

Boy Scouts Abusing Bankruptcy System https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/the-boy-scouts-are-abusing-the-bankruptcy-system

I partially agree, but I expect there would have been an argument about the ballot regardless of this email. A lawyer indicated Omni/BSA messed up earlier by sending information directly to their clients (after agreeing not to), causing confusion. This lawyer of 1,600 clients said it took them a long time to address the mistakes of Omni/BSA only to now see the email from Kosnoff/TCC cause more confusion. He indicated that he wants communication to his clients to stop and only go through state counsel (he did not indicate what he recommended in terms of voting). The judge agreed and said even corrections should only go out if state counsel approves. There are many claimants that have law firms that have been actively engaged and communicating with them. I think these claimants with engaged counsel will be fine. Their lawyers probably already told them to delete Kosnoff's email and just listen to them (regardless of what they are recommending). The issue will be claimants with counsel who are absent (ahem ... AVA). However, I expect they are already confused given the size 4 font mailing, hundreds of pages of legalese, multiple ballot options, etc. Just add Kosnoff's email to that pile of confusion. You can see the confusion in the letters listed in the docket. It appears TCC, BSA and others have agreed to a remedy for this email which will be set this week. By the time we get to vote analysis of the bankruptcy, I expect the email will be old news. Yes, Stang's law firm will have a bit of a red mark (depending on what discovery finds) but I don't expect any major change to the course of the bankruptcy. Note that even if there is a big YES vote, there are parties that will slice and dice it various ways. By council, by CO, by $3500 payout, by SOL. The judge will have to rule on each of these. In the end, unless we see 95%+ approval, I expect she will push for further mediation. The vote is really going to be a tool to see what side needs to give in more.

The judge said that since AIS clients are represented by 3 firms and those firms are not aligned, it gives greater weight to the point that the TCC should not have gotten involved. I expect if TK couldn't get a forum to reach coalition members of AIS, that could have been brought up to the court. In terms of AIS TK & KR were both in the hearing, their lawyers spoke but they didn't. AVA was completely missing. I am curious if Omni is releasing the results of the vote or just the vote totals. One law firm indicated half of their clients have voted (I believe they are doing a master ballot). In terms of next week, a lot of focus on why that email was sent out by the TCC. From the sounds of it ... there are two questions. 1) Why was it sent to all claimants. .... That COULD be just a clerical error. 2) Why was it sent to anyone. Clearly that wasn't a clerical error and was deliberate. Was is appropriate to even send it to AIS clients will be the question then. Someone from TCC stated they got approval from their ethics counsel to send out the email ... the judge found that interesting that they determined it should go through ethics counsel, indicating they knew there could be an issue sending it out. Most of this seems to be noise and may lead to sanctions against the TCC. It doesn't appear to have any impact on counting of votes nor the plan.

Based on judges is approving the TCC to send a letter: - Letter to go out from TCC attempting to correct the issue - Lawyers should be able to remove their claimants from the distribution of this updated letter - She also ruled on the language of the letter, taking in points from all sides. But she says the TCC does not need to include to language they don't agree with. She is VERY upset about this and there is a hearing next week. Discovery is ongoing to determine how this could happen. Her point is questioning why TCC is sending out even to AIS clients let along all claimants.

12,000 votes have come into Omni (but may be 1 week behind in terms of reporting) Hearing going on now about the Kosnoff letter that went out and how to correct that issue.

The difference is passwords in the clear could lead to stolen ballots. Custom phone app ballots that do not register no votes are clearly wrong. If these items are true, they are not just part of the game. Lawyers advocating for their clients and recommending a course of action, as long as it is being done in the clients interest, is perfectly fine. Some of Kosnoff’s acquisitions, if true, would be illegal or could call into question the entire vote from certain groups. So, if true, they should go to the court.

This is a good point. I think a good start is to look at the 3000 claims in bankruptcy post the year 2000. Someone should be reviewing those, how did they occur. Who did the abuse, how did they get registered? Did the unit, CO, camp follow BSA policy, etc. Then ... could there be changes to rules/policies that would have prevented the abuse? Finally, would those rule/policy changes destroy the program (for example, we could require every kid to have 2 adult guardians/parents present but that would clearly destroy the program). I tend to agree, the ideas we have generated here have not involved much if any changes at the unit level. More along the lines of reporting and more openness at the national BSA level. Perhaps the biggest question is COs and absent CORs. But to be fair, it is not clear that any of the proposed changes in this forum would have actually prevented abuse in today's scout program.

I don't think the 72 hour rule is restricted to parents or guardians.

I was wondering how pack recruiting was going in other areas. Our Pack (I'm actually dropping out but am still involved now) did well (we nearly doubled our size. That said, we are still down 40% from a few years ago, so while great compared to 2020, not great compared to 2018. Our council seems to have done well, hitting its recruiting target. Now, the key is how many reup in fall of 2021. Again, I think good recruiting is relative and probably still will show a decline since 2019.

I also agree, if some of Kosnoff's tweets are accurate (passwords in the clear, questionable eBallots, etc.) those should be raised to the court as well.

To be fair, the official TCC response to the plan is to vote NO and their letter had to be approved by court. Having the TCC send out a state counsel's letter, without court approval, seems to be a pretty big violation. If they only sent it to AIS, it probably would have been ok. BSA is asking that TCC never forward state counsel emails any longer (I think that is fair) They are also asking TCC to notify BSA of any major notification, giving 48 hours notice (perhaps they can negotiate the notice.) Finally, they are asking TCC to send an email out. That email I have an issue as it seems to emphasize voting YES. I think an agreed upon correction is fair, but it should be balanced and correct. I personally have issues with the plan, but regardless of what side you fall, this should be a fair vote with every claimant being informed of the various parties opinions. This letter could have skewed the vote unfairly (by perhaps putting out false information).