Eagle1993

In terms of bankruptcy, if I’m the future claimant rep I’m calling off support for this plan. The number of younger claimants and the value of their claims could explode with this info.

It sounds like they created the role in 2010… it has created the new full-time position of Youth Protection director.

If it is MJ I will be interested in what he shares as it will be current. If any leadership hid abuse they should be fired and possibly prosecuted. I’m not ready to say it will end the BSA, but if it is current and as bad as it sounds, it definitely could.

Ok, I think that is enough. I believe @HelpfulTracks has answered the question. I understand you are looking for a specific amount and the answer was provided in terms of general beliefs. You are clearly at a point where you will have to agree to disagree.

I also think camps near your higher concentrations of scouts is important. Asking a Troop to drive 3+ hours for summer camp is perfectly reasonable. Asking a pack to drive 3 hours for a weekend overnight is tough. Asking a parent to drive (or bus a kid) 3 hours each way for a day camp is not feasible. I could be convinced that there may be plenty of camps in certain areas (for example, one could argue that in Wisconsin, there are an abundance of camps). However, in many cases these camps are far from population centers to the point where they are only useful as summer camps. BSA needs a combination of properties. Some close to population centers that could be used for cub scout day camp, weekend campouts and camporees ... perhaps these can be smaller & simpler (for example, no need for a shotgun range or advanced waterfront). Then, some larger camps that could be far from population centers (for residendent day camp & summer camps).

Ok, I moved a bunch of comments to the general bankruptcy thread here: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32769-bankruptcy-everything-but-the-legalese/ I also hid a few comments from all sides that just resulted in some generic back and forth arguments. Those didn't really fit in this thread nor the other one. I left in the back and forth that was specific about camps. Camps are a major source of assets for the bankruptcy settlement and also a major aspect of scouting. So, I think it is fair to have a camp specific discussion. I understand all of this ties together, so once this specific topic seems to have drifted again, we can just lock it and move on. Unlocking...

BSA is betting against this. I'm not sure if it is in the current plan, but previously BSA agreed to big penalties if they grow much beyond their current business model (which shows <1M scouts until 2025). BSA had agreed to pay $50 per scout they register above certain thresholds. In addition, they agreed to pay $150 per scout who registers at a high adventure base above certain thresholds. These payments would be made to the trust settlement. Now, they can get out of those payments by immediately paying off the large loan they are giving the trust.

There are many different bankruptcy topics in this forum so we wanted to help map out the various topics below. If you find more to add, send a DM and we can add. Current active discussion regarding the latest on the Chapter 11 case: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32791-chapter-11-announced-part-6-plan-50tcc-plan-tbd/ Active discussion about the bankruptcy and various impacts outside the legal case: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32769-bankruptcy-everything-but-the-legalese/ Discussion about former youth protection director and concerns about BSA: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32828-former-youth-protection-director-on-the-dangers-in-scouts-bsa/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-534495 Message to abuse survivors: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32626-to-the-abuse-survivors/ List of camps/properties lost to bankruptcy: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32538-bankruptcy-losses/ Discussion on council camps as part of the mission of the BSA https://www.scouter.com/topic/32825-council-camps-as-part-of-the-mission-of-bsa/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-534392 Youth Protection changes in the TCC proposal: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32814-ypt-changes-in-tcc-proposal/ Statement by the UMC: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32795-statement-by-the-united-methodist-church/ Bankruptcy rift with religious partners: https://www.scouter.com/topic/32802-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-creates-rift-with-religious-partners/ Prior bankruptcy threads (locked, but can be viewed for background discussions) https://www.scouter.com/topic/32751-chapter-11-announced-part-5-rsa-ruling/ https://www.scouter.com/topic/32676-chapter-11-announced-part-4-revised-plan/ https://www.scouter.com/topic/32608-chapter-11-announced-part-3-bsas-toggle-plan/ https://www.scouter.com/topic/32556-chapter-11-announced-part-2-after-the-big-slow/ https://www.scouter.com/topic/31928-chapter-11-announced/

While I side with the opinion that BSA LCs should provide more funding, to be fair, claimant attorneys that represent 80% of claimants have signed onto this deal. BSA is looking to negotiate an exit and their lawyers are now working with a group of attorneys who believe the current plan is fair. It is now up to claimants to determine if they agree. If they don't, or don't in a large enough number, then it is back to the bargaining table. However, at this time, I don't think we can blame BSA for the offer if the bulk of claimants attorneys agree to it ... if there is any anger against the current plan, the coalition attorneys should bare the brunt of the outrage.

What is Bates White experience in other cases in terms of child sex abuse claims? Claro seems to have a lot of experience in other cases. I wonder if the judge will take that into account.

Let us know when they subpoena scouter.com.

The docket is bursting today with documents. A lot of discovery requests all around. Several now pulling in individual COs (specific churches, etc.).

Subpoena by Zalkin served against a variety of councils and COs including churches, schools, Etc. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/02f5f86d-8578-44db-b1e2-ba2559be6308_6549.pdf

I actually am shocked by some parents. Parents that barely slow down their car to drop a kid off at a park or building not even checking to see if any leader is present. I’ve shown up at meeting places in empty buildings to find a loan scout there who was dropped off by a parent (I told him I had to leave the building until another leader arrived). We don’t mandate YPT for all parents but sometimes I wonder if we should.

Per BSA Rules & Regulations Policy Concerning Political Questions The Boy Scouts of America must not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, chartered councils, Scouters, or members, involve Scouting in political matters. However, this must not be interpreted to prevent the teaching of ideals of patriotism and good citizenship as required to fulfill the Boy Scouts of America’s purpose. Faith-based teachings incorporated into the Scouting program by religious chartered organizations in a manner consistent with the Bylaws are not considered political matters. This policy does not prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from expressing its opinion upon matters of governmental concern when considered in its best interest by the governing body of the Boy Scouts of America. This policy does not limit the freedom of thought or action of any Scouter or member as an individual in a manner not directly or indirectly implying a connection to Scouting. I think it is great they participated; however, I do not believe they should have associated scouting (by wearing their uniform) on their stance.

So a similar timeline for BSA would be April 2023.

Major points that I heard on the TCC townhall. . 1) LCs can pay a LOT more ... 3X current offer and still be fine financially. 2) BSA screwed up with Hartford. Once this deal is rejected, that deal goes away. Hartford risk is >>>>> more than what was committed. 3) This plan sucks 4) 18,000 claims are post YPT implementation. The non financial aspect was watered down in this plan, that will change (focus is on oversight & IV files). 5) LDS offer is too low 6) BSA offer is ok, but only because they hid money all over the place, making it difficult to get to ... they can last much longer. 7)If plan is rejected, TCC will push to get their plan out for a vote. 8 If both plans are rejected mediation (and mediation continues) 9) The trust structure currently could give a TON of money to the people who run it ... that needs to be changed.

Very interesting update during the TCC townhall regarding the vote: Per bankruptcy code, 66% of each claimant class must approve the plan. That means, 66% of the voters must approve the plan (not 66% of 82,000, but 66% of the votes). Now the kicker... BSA LCs & LDS are not in bankruptcy. Therefore, the passing floor will actually be higher. In some cases that is 75% and other cases it is 90%. So, the bare minimum is 66%; however, the court will likely need to see a much higher percent vote for the plan if LCs & LDS (non bankruptcy groups) are included. This was a surprise to me.

Not sure. I clicked the hide all and then Facebook went down for half a day.

I do not believe that is a fair comment. While I believe some LCs can definitely afford more, there is clearly the FCR & Coalition who believe the deal is appropriate. So, I don't think this is someone defending the BSA/LCs at all costs. We can disagree on the amount, but this is not someone asking for a $0 settlement. It is an offer. If there is anger by claimants, I would direct it more at the coalition lawyers and FCR. Again, I am one who believes many LCs could (and probably should) pay more to get out of this bankruptcy alive. I think the vote could fail and is likely not a 90%+ slam dunk. That said, I will continue to say there are legitimate arguments to defend this deal that is not from a defend BSA at all costs stance.

This appears, at least to me, similar to the debates over adding girls, gay scouts and gay youth. I generally agree that for the most part, few if any will be swayed either way by the back and forth. Hopefully it can be done in a scoutlike manner so at minimum you have the benefit of learning where each side is coming from. This is a tough debate. There is simply not enough money to go around. BSA even if liquidated including all of its LCs could not come close to what is really needed to pay victims. In addition, many of us want BSA to survive and we know BSA was not in great shape before bankruptcy ... so how much funding can truly be provided while still allowing BSA & LCs enough to function & survive is not an easy answer. I hope everyone who has an opinion feels open sharing it. I would ask to be careful to not attack fellow forum members and allow them to respond or not respond based on their personal choice. If there is a specific comment that appears to not be scoutlike, please report it by clicking the three dots.

I think this is true for all attorneys involved, except the coalition attorneys. Perhaps they are, but I'm not fully convinced.

Let's let the forum member respond. I think there is enough room for many views regarding this topic.

This document has a pretty good way to help determine "fairness" by council. Exhibit G is the TCC's summary and Exhibit G-1 is BSA's response. Clearly fair is a personal opinion, but the two sides make arguments in this document. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

On a personal note, my Troop's summer camp was sold due to this bankruptcy. At the closing ceremony grown men cried as it was the last summer camp closing they would be attending at that camp. I have ashes from that camp fire in my office. So, it is painful in many cases as this is being repeated nationwide. I know many councils seemed to have lack of money going into this bankruptcy. That said, when I see the actual council finances on display, by blood starts to boil. It is clear that many councils sat on huge endowments/investments, claimed they were poor and sold camps. So, to be fair, some of my thoughts are influenced by my history of seeing councils abandon what I think is valuable in scouting to save what I think is only valuable to a few council leaders. National BSA - for the most part, yes. I think the offer is fair. LCs - varies. I think some LCs are providing more than a sufficient payout to get their liability waved. Others are probably about right and still others the offer is embarrassingly low. On net, you are probably correct that LCs can contribute more. As I mentioned earlier, their assets have risen a lot during this bankruptcy. Some are able to cover with less than the increase of their asset increase since Feb 2020. Hartford - I have no clue. I tend to think no, but someone in the industry may be able to convince me otherwise. Charter Orgs - yes .. I actually think COs shouldn't have to pay anything. While technically they signed paperwork, I have yet to find a CO ever have to pay for a scout related sex abuse case. Unless there is a instance where the CO clearly violated BSA policy, I don't think they should have to pay. My guess is the vast majority of the 84,000 are not due to CO negligence (just a guess, so I could be proven incorrect here).