Eagle1993

Any updates from the TCC townhall?

Didn't the TCC agree to the extension last time only because local councils promised to provide roster information along with CO details? I wonder if Local Councils complied.

The only major hurdle stopping progress right now is Hartford, and the paths to clear that hurdle are limited. There were rumors of a new settlement with Hartford but so far, nothing concrete. Once the Hartford deal is cleared, I don't see the BSA or TCC/Coalition delaying the closure of bankruptcy on CO negotiations. At that point, each CO will either be on this train or at the station. I expect that many COs see the writing on the wall that they are being left behind. BSA will need a plan to efficiently charter units without COs as we enter in rechartering in the next month. I do expect BSA will fight hard to keep LCs as part of the deal ... harder than they would fight for COs. That said - if the Hartford deal (or perhaps the Coalition payments or lack of Century/Chubb discovery) destroys the current RSA, I expect BSA would be willing to leave bankruptcy with a National only deal. Definitely less than ideal. @MYCVAStory has mentioned this many times. There is no guarantee that all legal avenues will be covered by this bankruptcy and claimants should ensure they have legal representation in state court. That could be for COs and/or LCs depending on the outcome. TCC has mentioned this multiple times as well. Nothing is in stone yet, hopefully we see more progress soon.

So it really means a few different paths, correct? 1) Proceed with the current Hartford deal. The TCC/Coalition said that is a non starter, so nope. 2) Renegotiate the Hartford deal. I'm sure discussions are underway, so we will see. 3) Submit a plan with the Hartford deal that is rejected by claimants. I believe that would then allow a 2nd plan to be submitted to claimants without the Hartford deal. However, that will add months and months to the timeline. 4) Go with the BSA only plan ... but perhaps that would still be a breach of the BSA agreement, so this may be a no go. So, unless I am wrong, it seems like the options are renegotiate or submit a plan that will be likely to fail. Is there any other option?

I have been looking at that Purdue Pharma bankruptcy and the US Trustee was pretty much ignored. I doubt the US Trustee will be able to derail to outline of the deal (she had that chance earlier). I expect #4 insurance will be the big battle and discussion. Does the TCC and Coalition go in blind and agree to a total package, hoping for gold at the end of the rainbow in terms of insurance payments. Do they fight for a settlement up front now that the judge denied discovery. Do they abandon the current path and decide to go after them in state courts. Who knows ... but I expect this is the big discussion right now. CO's, if they want, could buy their way into the deal. I expect the lawyers for the Coalition may be happy to leave them out as they can then sue them in state court. Right now, my guess is almost no CO is included in the final deal and there will be hundreds of lawsuits against them over the next few years. I agree with your comment about the judge ... she wants this case done. She seems to be fair (she doesn't want to have it overturned on appeal) but the time for testing theories has passed.

I thought the RSA was approved. What is the hold up? It really comes down to: Charter Orgs - While BSA would love to get them included, I see almost no chance they allow this to delay final resolution. BSA wants out and probably believes they can handle the damage from some COs leaving more than the damage from staying in bankruptcy. I expect this is probably not the primary cause of the delay. Coalition fees rejected - If anything, I would think this would hasten a deal as the Coalition is not getting an upfront payment. Now the only way for them to collect is to get a deal complete. So, while it may cause some angst, I would be surprised if this is the reason for any delay. Hartford - I absolutely believe this is gumming up the works. BSA will sign anything, so it is likely a negotiation between Hartford & TCC/Coalition. I don't expect the current Hartford deal to stick long term (I believe they only have the right to have a vote on their current deal). However, Hartford knows they can drag out this whole process a long time ... so this may be a time vs $ discussion. Chubb/Century - I have to think the Judge's rejection of sharing details caused some strategy changes by the TCC/Coalition. What if ... Century only pays out $250M and Harford a few hundred more. Instead of billions you are talking a total settlement for 84,000 claims of less than $2B. Less legal and admin fees that doesn't leave much. So ... perhaps, a total deal may not make sense now. Perhaps it makes more sense just to close out National BSA and leave LCs, COs and their insurance companies to battle in state courts. I'm sure all of this is going through mediation/discussions which is leading to the delay. If the judge struck the Hartford deal & agreed to discovery of Chubb/Century we would have probably already seen the RSA formalized for the late Sept hearing. Her two rulings there just threw a major wrench in the process and now we wait. In terms of councils, info has dried up. I haven't heard of any more townhalls, email announcements, etc. I'm curious if the Ad Hoc committee shut that down as technically, the deal is in limbo. There was a surge of info after that RSA ruling, but nothing recent.

Does anyone know if there will be a National Jamboree in 2023? The one in 2021 was postponed and as of now it appears there will not be a National Jamboree in 2022. I know there is a World Jamboree in 2023 but was hoping there could be a National one as well. We are attempting to determine our High Adventure plan for the summer of 2023 and National Jamboree was the top choice.

I think they are close to violating this; however, they have pretty much banned all outside groups which probably makes them safe from lawsuits. We can reserve rooms (which we do) but we cannot have access to kids during the school day or have any posters, provide materials, etc. Our schools don't even provide public class lists like most do. We have a lot of lawyers in our community ....

We have been pretty much banned from any easy recruiting at schools. No flyers, no signs, no scout talks no announcements, nothing. It has killed recruiting. What we have been able to do is find parent emails and put info up on next door and Facebook. While that helps, it pales in comparison to what we have been able to get in the past. JSN is late Sept for our Pack… we are hopeful to see a rebound as we need to refresh our volunteer ranks.

I’d did and it looked bad. I will say I have been more impressed with people like Bryan Wendell, Richard Bourlon and Anthony Berger. I’ve found them more accessible than most professionals and while in some cases I don’t agree with all decisions at least I see some transparency and communication from them. I’ll also argue that BSA has been doing a great job improving their IT. That said, BSA needs to improve their transparency, reduce their board and hold members accountable, get inspirational leaders (inspirational for youth) who are held accountable by members. This is not just an issue since bankruptcy. I’ve been impressed by other scouting orgs who seem to have more transparency and get to hold their leaders accountable. Hopefully after bankruptcy we will see change, but I’m not holding my breath based on what I am seeing now.

A large board is in the 20 range most of the time. If BSA was successful, it wouldn't be an issue. We have 70 board members with no info. UK Scouting has 21 board members and I can read their discussion about growth and actions they are taking. The BSA board structure is a joke and provides no real oversight, no transparency. We are bankrupt and shedding scouts. UK is worried about 0.3% growth in 2020. They are posting their discussion points on the web. I'm sorry, but there is no defense of our National Executive Board or whatever they are called. They are hiding and have been hiding for as far back as I can see. We are bankrupt and have been in decline. We are taking on massive debt from this bankruptcy and NO ONE is really talking to us other than a few councils and most of them provide minimal info. We find snippets of info and pass them on Scouter.com, Facebook and Reddit. Where is Mosby? If I were leading an organization through bankruptcy, I would be doing weekly video updates. I would be thanking my volunteers. I would be encouraging them to stay the course and know that we will respond. I would spotlight a great council, Troop, Pack. Something. I would invite a key National staff member on to discuss a critical topic. Here is Richard B ... head of safety, lets talk safety in scouting. Perhaps I just can't find his frequent updates. I know it took him months to write anything to us when first selected. Right now he is MIA! Where is the board asking him why he isn't reaching out to the volunteer corp? No, instead they are saying he is our long term Chief Scout. OK. UK has Bear Grylls and we have Mosby. Twitter influence has been mentioned several times. Bear Grylls has 1.5M followers and tweets about scouts frequently (Aug 24 quick example). Roger Mosby has 12 followers and last tweet was Dec 2, 2013 about a car accident. Perhaps not apples to apples. UK Chief Commissioner, Tim Kidd - 8,406 followers tweeted about scouting yesterday. UK Chief Executive Matt Hyde - 9.7K followers, tweeted about scouts 5 hours ago. Again, Mosby, 12 followers, ZERO tweets about scouts. Kosnoff has more twitter followers and tweets about scouting than our CEO who is hauling in massive $$. I want my Scout Executive to be able to hike Mount Baldy with a full pack while live streaming, and then hike down to camp, and have a call with a leadership team about membership grown, program changes and CO relationships. I have a hard time seeing our key 3 doing this right now. Our leadership is lost and has no idea how to operate in the 21st century. Whatever they (the board) are doing is not working and hasn't been working well for many years. It is time for a change.

UK Board of Trustees ... great pics and bio https://www.scouts.org.uk/about-us/our-people/board-of-trustees/ They post their meeting minutes .. .example here https://cms.scouts.org.uk/media/12573/tsa-agm-minutes-2020.pdf A bunch of info here: https://www.scouts.org.uk/about-us/our-people/board-of-trustees/national-board-of-trustees/ Similar BSA Executive Committtee Links ... could someone post them? I did some searching on souting.org and other spots ... other than Wikipedia I can't find much.

How often have the rejected decisions/recommendations submitted to them by the Chief Scout/professional leadership? How often have they forced the firing or denied hiring an individual recommended by professional staff? They didn't even vote on the most important decision BSA has faced in 100 years (the RSA). 100% voted to allow in girls. 100% voted to allow gay adults as leaders. I think both of those votes were the correct direction for the organization, but I am VERY suspicious when boards vote 100% in favor of something when there are 70+ members. It makes me think they are running into the exact issues large boards often face. There are MANY studies & articles that argue for smaller boards. http://policylinkcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/What is the best size for your board.pdf https://www.sumptionandwyland.com/resources/sumption-wyland-articles/what-is-the-right-size-for-your-nonprofits-board WE HAVE >70!!!

My guess is that we have so many board members that the individual typing out their contact information got carpal tunnel and filed for workman's comp. Kidding aside, I wonder if the real reason they don't list their email addresses is because they don't take the role that seriously and/or they don't have any real power. They remind me of the GE board. One new board member once asked “What is the role of a GE board member?” An older director volunteered: “Applause.” I think a much smaller board is needed so they feel the responsibility of the position. Being 1 of 72 makes it easy to point to others or feel almost no ownership of the outcome. Being 1 of 8 or 12 would make that each board member role 6 to 9 times more powerful. That is actually good as it would also mean they would also feel the responsibility of their decisions and perhaps we can get a board with real ownership of the BSA. Perhaps then, we could see their names & contact info.

I thought the BSA lawyer said they would follow up on status (perhaps a plan) this week. Any updates? The disclosure hearing is approaching (September 21). What is the drop dead date for BSA to file and updated Disclosure statement & Plan to hit that timeline?

Council Impacts BSA will leave Ch 11 in major debt. Councils will leave with smaller endowments, debt and less camp properties. We have already seen a change of regions/areas within the National org. I expect 2022 will kick off a start of council consolidation discussions. I would not be surprised that the number of councils we have will be cut in half in 2-3 years. I think this is highly likely (perhaps not 50%, but major consolidation). Program impacts Given the collapse of Venturing, what comes next from 18 - 25 year olds. Given concerns about youth on youth ... will BSA continue having 17 year olds and 11 year olds in the same program? I think it would be great if BSA relooks at something new to do with 18 - 25 year olds to keep them engaged ... perhaps the Rover Program. My fear is that BSA decides, based on lawyers and insurance feedback, that they need to break apart Scouts BSA. I would put a Rover program as highly likely (it is already in pilots). The break apart of Scouts BSA is not likely ... but a small fear I have. I also think there may be "simplification" of program offerings. Cub Scouts already saw that with adventurer elimination. I wouldn't be surprised if there some other areas eliminated that would simplify the program. National will have less people to maintain program offerings, so they will focus on the higher volume aspects. Medium likely. Coed Units & DRP ... I could see this go many different ways. I lean to BSA handling this poorly. I don't expect this will change in 2022. I expect they will wait 3 years and 2025, just when BSA is starting to recover, BSA decides it needs more controversy and removes DRP & allows coed units. CO impacts . BSA will officially launch a method for units to be chartered by councils. I think this is highly likely. YPT changes More oversight, more reporting metrics, more training. Perhaps DEs need to sign off on volunteers instead of or in addition to CORs. Not sure of major changes, other than the possible breakup of Scouts BSA mentioned earlier. Costs All costs will increase. Uniforms, fees, HA bases, etc. Everything will go up.

I've always found their updates a bit odd. If I believed every press release about their growth, I would expect 500,000 members by now. If they spent the same amount of time getting units started as they do in bashing the BSA, they may have grown more by now. Bashing BSA should be reserved for members of scouter.com, BSA COs and claimant attorneys.

They have been around for awhile. They typically pop up whenever BSA is in the news (gays, transgender, girls and bankruptcy).

Ok, I moved some of the non legal discussion to the other thread.

Comparing to last update ... Unrestricted Cash (June End = $80.8M July End = $87.8M) Unrestricted Endowment Balance (June End = $19.4M July End = $0.9M) Unrestricted RBT Balance (June End = $66.4M ... July End = $66.5M) Total Liquid Unrestricted Balance (June End = $166.7M July End = $154.2M) If you look at the last several months, the pace of monthly loss of liquid unrestricted balance is increasing. In July .... we lost $12M, June we lost $8M, May we lost $2M. I expect August will be bad, but September you will see the trend perhaps reverse with new registrations.

Agreed and your points here may end up being the death of Scouts BSA as it stands. 18 years old isn't a light switch. To be more safe, we may need to follow the UK model, Scouts 10.5 - 14 ... Explorers 14 - 18 and Network 18 - 25. I think there is a bigger risk for 17 year olds hanging out with 13 year olds than 18 year olds with a 17 year old. I wonder if in 5 - 10 years if BSA is forced to change based on insurance policies & litigation potential.

As mentioned before in this thread, allow 18 year old seniors to be registered as youth. While that doesn't help 19 or 20 year olds, it addresses the biggest issue. I would have the rule be for Scouts BSA Youth change to: Youth can join Scouts BSA if they have completed the fifth grade and are at least 10 years old, OR have earned the Arrow of Light Award and are at least 10 years old, OR are age 11 but have not reached 18 OR have not completed 12 grade and are under 19 years. To age into Scouts BSA: Complete 5th grade and at least 10 years old Earned AOL and at least 10 years old OR 11 years old To age out of Scouts BSA Have not completed 12th grade and under 19 years old OR have not reached 18 years old So, this would allow seniors in high school to finish scouts BSA with their friends. It also puts a hard break at 19 AND allows those kids that graduate high school at 16 to continue in scouts until they are 18. Another option is to break up Scouts BSA into younger/older youth programs, but I'm not sure that is the best decision. We use the grade level to start Scouts BSA but not to end it. Again, this doesn't fix everything, but it would help allow Seniors in high school to finish scouts with their friends. Right now, they cannot.

Siblings have the exact same rules as other scouts for tenting per YPT. That is why I am wondering, per YPT, can an 18 year old adult leader be with their younger scout sibling without violating BSA policies. The way they are written today, it looks like they cannot be one on one. I know the sibling scenario is ridiculous but it goes to two points. 1) BSA requiring you to follow YPT outside scouting events. While they can recommend and should make clear that you cannot simply call something a non scouting event to get around YPT, they should not include non scouting events under their rules. I expect this is violated all the time. (For example, I know a lot of scouts have sleepovers at a kids house who is an adult leader. 99% of the time not parents are not registered adult leaders therefore violating 2 deep.) 2) We need a better way to handle 18 year olds … and likely 19 & 20 year olds. Venturing doesn’t help as they follow the same YPT today. I also agree that having a 18 year old (or even 17 year old) one on one with a 11 or 12 year old could be a risk. Today’s rules make it nearly impossible to have a 18 year old ASM unless you ignore aspects of YPT outside scouting or they have no friends in scouts.

I’ll also add that my case is common. Most 18 year olds likely have friends in scouts. Many 18 year olds likely go to school with scouts. My guess is many if not most 18 year old “adult leaders violate YPT outside scouting activities. I think it is a good area to clarify to help keep them in BSA without having to look the other way on aspects of YPT.

I thought so as well, but couldn't find any acceptations for family. At this point, it looks like he will not register. I talked with a few in our Troop and technically, if he keeps his participation to less than 72 hours he is fine. 18 year old Eagle Scout ... sorry buddy, take a hike as the BSA doesn't need you. What is crazy is that 18 year olds don't even count as adult leaders for 2 deep leadership... so 18, 19 & 20 year olds are pretty much considered nothing but a liability to the BSA (outside the hundred left in Venturing). To me, BSA should allow high school seniors to finish as youth in the program (as long as they are under 19). That would solve a ton of issues that I am starting to see (including having to Eagle before senior year).