Eagle1993

When we had girls in our Pack, we combined boys & girls in Scoutbook. You are correct, recording attendance, advancement and calendars are much easier if you have all of the kids of 1 grade in 1 den. The bulk updates work well.

Just for a comparison, if the documents originated about 10-points, now at 4 per page, they are 2 point font. The SEC requires all printed prospectuses to go out at 10-point with some allowances to go as low as 8 point. I question how this was allowed. Again, if you are going to print and mail a document, make it readable. Printing 2 point font and sending it out is nearly worthless. I expect most will probably either ignore and just vote or go to the webpage. However, there are many that do want to read paper. The judge swung and missed. I wonder if the US Trustee is fuming... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/230.420#:~:text=(a) The body of all,as 10-point modern type.

Many claimants are reporting to have received the packet. I have seen some complaints that the print out is 4 pages per page. Some are stating that it is nearly impossible to actually read the documents that went out. Edit: Note that the reports I have seen are from Twitter so those individuals are probably tech savy enough to find the documents online. I think the concern is that those who are not tech savy may to be able to actually read the documents. I wonder who approved printing 4 pages on a single page. At some point, why even send out paper?

I think that is why we have only, so far, limited our adult buddy rule to in camp. It is difficult to manage throughout camp and it seems like it is definitely lower risk out of the campsite. Depending on the year, we typically have at least 6 adults and sometimes as many as 8-10 at camp. I prefer 6 as I feel 8-10 are too many and I spend too much time dealing with the adults. I think with 6 it could work, less it would be difficult to have adult buddies.

Correct. However, at summer camp, if you are an adult alone, no one on one happens randomly ... many times it is unavoidable. Why? Because of summer camp programing, it is difficult to ensure every kid has a buddy with them 100% of the time. That can then be used by pedos as an excuse (hey, I was just by myself sleeping at camp and a scout came into camp). The point is the only way to ensure no one on one at summer camp is to have adult buddies. I know our Troop (and it sounds like others) already do this at the campsite (no adult at the campsite by themselves). It sounds like yknot's Troop does this across camp and I can see why. We are looking into it for our Troop, but haven't decided yet.

We actually already don't allow single adults at our campsite. If you are at our campsite, you need a 2nd adult present. We identified that years ago as a potential risk (many years before I became SM). We also tell scouts that they need to find a buddy when coming back to camp.

How do you determine this? Kids don't report issues for possibly decades. Do you wait until 20 years from now, see that a large number of girls were sexually abused in our program and realize we let a someone in due to the 72 hour rule? I think we need to look at outside experts and they are indicating this is an issue/concern. I would rather not wait to find out this was an issue and we did nothing. To me, we need different rules for Cub Scouts & Scouts BSA. Most CSA reports are coming from Boy Scouts (now Scouts BSA). I agree with @Eagle94-A1 that requiring every adult to register for overnights in Cub Scouts is burdensome, won't make it safer and could kill the program. Most Cub Scout overnights, that I held, had each parent attend. Parents watch their kids and that seems to work. From my understanding of the reports, most abuse occurs is in Scouts BSA. I have no issue with BSA saying any adult who wants to spend overnights in Scouts BSA must be a registered leader. The cost can be paid by fundraising (we don't charge our adults to register as leaders). For the most part, only registered leaders attend overnights at our outings. The only outing where I have non registered adults attend overnights is summer camp. I believe my Troop could manage if this was a requirement and I expect most parents would understand. It would address a concern raised by non BSA CSA experts and I think the program could absorb it with minimal negative impacts.

One issue is that the 72 hour rule is not limited to parents (and to be fair, parents can and have abused; however, there is a bit of a balance). I had a kid's uncle want to go to summer camp with us for 2-3 nights. He didn't want to register. I asked him for a medical form and he refused to fill it out and said he would refuse to attend if asked for that info .. very odd and glad he didn't attend. Looking at recent reports of CSA, many, many seem to occur at summer camps. The potential 1:1 is high there. There is a large collection of non parent adults present. What I found, is that in many cases, kids DO NOT report the incidents. Eventually, one victim is found and then many more come out of the woodwork. So, we need to be careful thinking everything is fine just due to lack of reports. One major area of concern I have is about girls. We have added girls. This is not a debate about adding girls, but girls aged 16 - 19 are the #1 demographic for being sexually abused. Men are by far the greatest perps of CSA. By report, it is nearly 99%; however, many agree cases of women sexually abusing children are higher than reported so some researchers have said that men "only" commit 80% of CSA. Still, we have mostly male leaders (highest offenders of CSA) around teenage girls (highest rate of being sexually abused). This mix is a big concern at summer camps. Any SM knows it is VERY difficult to ensure kids have buddies at all times. Merit badge schedules vary a lot making it difficult for many scouts to ensure they have buddies. I can tell you, nearly every day at camp, I see 10-20 kids walking by themselves throughout camp. Also, when scouts/kids see adults, many will run up to talk. I have had a few times where one of my scouts, walking alone, saw me walking alone and ran up to talk. It is not common, but it has happened. I typically ask them where there buddy is and tell them to go get one. However, there are too many opportunities for this to occur at camp and it concerns me, especially now that we have added girls. Requiring all adults to register does not seem like a major hurdle. I expect that while background checks are not perfect, just asking for the info may scare away potential abusers. We require health forms, so just add the registration to that process. Our Troop is also talking about other possible changes. How do we ensure every kid has a buddy within the merit badge program? Should we ensure adults are never alone (adult buddy system)? The issue I have is that as a Troop, we can work on improvements but we also have to count on everyone else ... and in some cases, based on recent history, that has failed.

I spun off the 72 hour rule discussion here:

True. For example, at summer camp, we have many adults that come for portions of the week who are not registered adult leaders. To be honest, I think summer camps need to tighten up a lot. I have many concerns how they operate today.

You only need to be a registered adult if you spend 72 hours with youth. Exact policy below; All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive.

I break this up into two separate issues. One is what they plan to do for their employees and the other for scouts & scouters. Most larger companies have affinity groups. From what I have been told, they help those who may feel out of place in large organizations with a clear majority of primarily one group (typically white males). My wife worked in the fossil fuel industry out of college. The vast majority of the workers were white older males. There were times where meetings were held at Hooters and she told them she wasn't comfortable meeting at that location. Their response - no issue, you don't need to come. The affinity groups helped make her feel welcome. The baby boomers are retiring in droves. I'm currently working on hiring over 100 employees (primarily engineers & technicians) across three global locations. Demand for labor is high everywhere and competition is tough. There are simply not enough workers coming in right now to replacing those who are leaving the workforce. If you want to compete for labor, you better be willing to pay and offer a welcoming workplace. Plus, you simply cannot just recruit one gender/race. If affinity groups help make your workplace more inviting to a more diverse group, I don't see a major downside. Ideally, over time, they can go away as your workforce and leadership becomes more diverse. However, based on the experience of some of my friends (various non majority races/religions), wife, and recruiting efforts - they have been useful. Now, in terms of the DEI training & merit badge ... I tend to agree it could and should have been integrated in existing merit badges. I would also like to avoid another cyber chip type situation. For the most part, DEI is applying the oath & law to all groups. Personally, I think the bigger issue is that BSA's membership does not reflect the diversity of the youth in the USA. I'm not sure if DEI will help address that, but I think it is more important to understand why we fail to appeal to a broader base of youth/parents is more important than DEI training/merit badges.

One topic I thought I would mention from the TCC's townhall is what they expect to happen if the plan is rejected. There are really three options for the BSA. Exit bankruptcy with no deal. I think at least one church threated that recently (and didn't follow through with that threat). Basically, BSA can exit with no deal and then the individual claims would be pursued in state courts. BSA would have to pay millions in legal fees to defend these lawsuits. TCC doubts BSA will pursue this path and I tend to agree. Declare Chapter 7. BSA has this choice. If they choose this path, a bankruptcy trustee takes over the BSA and the BSA no longer exists going forward. The trustee would take over all HA bases and plan to maximize the return for the creditors. No HA bases, no IP, etc. TCC doubts BSA will purse this path as they don't think BSA would want to turn over Philmont to the trustee. I also agree until BSA really does run out of $ which I think is much later than March next year based on their financial disclosures. Negotiate a new plan. TCC believes this is the most likely path.

Well ... everything is relative. If you take a look at some bankruptcies, you are talking 5+ years of litigation depending on how much fight you want to put up (on both sides). We are only approaching year 2. This is a very complex case.

I believe this was discussed during a townhall or even on one of our threads here. The strategy the TCC would recommend following based on prior cases (for insurance companies that don’t settle) would be: 1) The settlement trust would take a few of the best legal cases they would have and sue the insurance companies in state court. 2) Insurance companies would likely lose and could lose big (based on their experience in other CSA cases). 3) Negotiations would be ongoing as more cases would be brought. 4) Eventually there would be a much higher negotiated settlement. The number floating around for Hartford is $8B in liabilities. I doubt they give that with strong language and table pounding. However, if they see the trust is willing to sue them in state court they may be willing to significantly increase their offer. Right now, there isn’t much incentive to maximize their offer as the Coalition and BSA are looking for a speedy deal.

This is very tough to predict. As you say, those claimants who watch this closely will likely reject the plan. I have a hard time believing there will be even 66% approval let alone the 75 - 90% needed. The recent Talc bankruptcy had nearly everyone on board (TCC, FCR, debtors, bunch of lawfirms, etc.) and even then they barely got past the 75% mark. From what I can tell... BSA is claiming the Coalition represents 80% of the claimants (or about 65,600). However, 15,000 of those are AIS. Those claimants will be getting a letter from Tim Kosnoff that says vote no. I have a hard time including them in the Coalition. So, really, the Coalition is closer to 50,600 claimants. Lets say best case for the BSA/Coalition ... 90% of the 50,600 vote yes (and everyone votes). That would be 45,540 yes votes. Now, the rest will be getting letters from the TCC & their lawyer(s) saying vote No. Lets say only 10% of those vote yes. That would yield another 3,190 votes. Assuming everyone votes and the motivation to vote is the same (I don't buy that as I expect no votes are more motivated) the result is 48,730 yes votes and 33,770 no votes or or 59% approval. My guess ... that is likely the ceiling for the yes votes at this time. I think that there is likely a range of 45 - 60% approval that wouldn't shock me. I would be surprised if it <45% ... if that is the case, the Coalition should be removed as a mediation partner and trustee as they have no clue what their claimants want. If >60% I would also be surprised, not shocked. However, I expect the current plan won't go forward unless the vote approaches 85 - 90%. At that point, I think the TCC is the one to probably reassess and determine what remaining issues they would need to see to support the plan. Regardless of the results of the vote, it will help the BSA, TCC and other parties narrow in on who needs to move more ... so every vote counts.

Note that I moved a few posts to the other thread to keep this one a bit leaner.

Boy Scout abuse survivor recounts horror for first time, says settlement is ‘massive step forward’ https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/boy-scout-abuse-survivor-recounts-horror-for-first-time/ Boy Scouts' settlement plan unjust, Arkansas victims say https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/20/boy-scouts-settlement-plan-unjust-victims-say/

My father was an industrial arts teacher for decades. Back in the 1980s, instead of sending kids who were interested in trades to his class, they sent the kids who couldn't behave. Over time, unfortunately, most kids who could behave were shuffled into college prep classes. As those changes occurred, schools began to stop investing in that equipment. Long story short ... many schools may not actually have that equipment. Perhaps the labor shortage in the trades/truck drivers/etc. is an indication of our failures over the last 20-30 years to encourage the trades as much as we encourage generic college degrees.

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival. Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?

Kosnoff is reporting his letter to clients (I believe that would be all AIS ... about 15,000) has gone out. He is advocating to vote down the plan.

Actually, if I remember correctly, there was a time before the RSA where the case was headed back to a hearing. BSA asked for a delay to work on mediation, the TCC objected but the Coalition concurred. I think that was the first sign of a break between the TCC/Coalition. I expect if it was the TCC alone, they wouldn't have signed onto the RSA. Again, these are just guesses watching the info I have. I think the Hartford deal was a mistake. It came in April of this year, I believe. Around the same time the council contribution was increased to $425M. Before that date, councils I think were going to contribute $300M. I doubt the TCC will support the RSA with Hartford removed any longer. I would expect they will reject the TCJC as well plus look for more from LCs (and do the LC by LC release just like COs). So, when the BSA knew they had to pump up the offer, they got $125M more from LCs and a headline number of $650M from Hartford. Yes, a bad deal, but just like increasing the immediate payout from $1,500 to $3,500, it was about getting enough attorneys onboard to get a vote to hopefully get the plan approved.

That is true. BSA went all in with Hartford to get this latest deal.

At first I was baffled, but I think it is clearer now. I think there was 0% chance any plan would go to a vote with an LC payment of just 20% of their assets without more, immediate, money coming in. So, where to go for more money? Hartford. Harford probably realizes they owe billions but are willing to settle quickly for much less if given the chance. That allowed BSA to offer a bigger immediate number, allowing enough law firms to get their quick profit and move the plan to a vote. If the BSA didn't get the Hartford deal, I really think they faced two options. Greatly increase the LC contribution (probably by $600M+) or go with a BSA only exit. Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements. That was a mistake that was corrected.

This is not true. The Coalition is asking for $15 - $18M directly from the BSA. It is in the plan. The judge is questioning this and will decide at the hearing. This is on top of the 40% most will charge. Kosnoff is not in the Coalition and will not get that $15M to $18M even if the judge approved it. In the plan document, there is a chart that shows the Coalition payment. As it increases per month, it takes money away from the claimant settlement. When I have more time I’ll post that. Edit: The chart can be found here. Per the plan, the BSA direct payment to the trust in terms of cash is really a calculation based on: BSA's Unrestricted cash/investments minus BSA's withheld cash (you can see they plan to retain more the longer this takes) Professional Fees ... these are the fees paid to their lawyers, TCC, FCR, Omni, etc. Coalition Fees ... if the judge approves (this is Kosnoff's point) Other Fees... JPM exit fee and several other taxes/fees You can see the Coalition Fees would directly take money from the trust. This is on top of their 40% commission from each of their represented claimants. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf