Eagle1993

The 2020 fees are too high. Way too high for Cub Scouts.

Forgot Scout’s Life. $235

Hello new Lion Scout. Here are your fees.. $25 - New Scout $25 - current year registration $75 - Next year registration $25 - Council fee $50 - Pack fee $13 - Shirt $10 - Lion kit $223 ... you can make the check out to....

We did the opposite. I have to charge $25 new scout signup fee + registration fees. We dropped our Pack fee for now.

Ugly numbers, especially if you look at 2019. Scouts BSA ... not too bad considering. Long term concern if Cubs don't increase. Explorer posts ... my guess a bunch shut down as I'm sure PO and Fire Departments would not look at working with youth groups during Covid. It will probably take until 2022 for this to start recovery. No idea what % would return. Cubs ... very little recruiting in 2020, AOL cross overs and drop outs as Cub Scouting via zoom is ok but not great. To me, units that survived should see a bounce this fall. The bigger concern is loss of units ... it takes a lot of effort to restart a dead Pack. Venturing/SS ... I think Venturing is dying and I would be surprised if there is a bump in that number. I think our district lost our only Venturing crew. SS I expect will bounce back up if they were part of the drop.

If the TCC can prove the JP Morgan loans are actually unsecured debt and the HA bases are non restricted assets, that is a several hundred million dollar win. I don't expect TCC or lawyers representing claimants to let these go without a fight. (I watched groups fight for four years over ~$50M). The back & forth is expected ... the bankruptcy court will need to rule, followed by appeals process. I do think BSA (and JP Morgan) should defend their position. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea which side is correct. What I don't understand is how they can try and proceed with a plan without these major decisions decided (at least by the bankruptcy court).

I think Venturing may fade away but Sea Scouts will remain fairly stable in or outside BSA. I see almost no value to them staying in BSA. When I talk with our local Ship, the leader spent an hour complaining about the BSA and that it provides nothing. I guess I question why stay in the BSA at that point ... create a stand alone organization without the burden of BSA overhead. On the BSA side, if they are not going to invest or do anything with Sea Scouts ... then why keep them? It is definitely concerning based on the comments above that leaders in BSA don't even know they exist. At that point, it is simply a $50M liability waiting in the wings... Again, I'm 100% pro Sea Scouts and think its a great program. I hope my son joins when he is old enough. The leaders I talked to are great. I just question if the marriage with BSA is the right fit going forward. FWIW, this debate is meaningless as BSA is headed in the opposite direction. I didn't realize it, but they expanded into STEM Scout Labs.

I think the money is not the reason, but spinning off non core programs still makes sense. My personal experience... several years ago my organization had a lot of variety of products with low volumes. Even the low volume products made money, but they distracted our sales and R&D teams from our core products. We ended the non core products, focused our efforts on the core ones and are growing. I don’t expect this will happen, BSA is more likely to fade under a slow moving bureaucracy than take the aggressive actions needed. They are making good choices to reduce number of layers, I just think more aggressive actions are needed. - Reduce offerings to core (eliminate Lions, Tigers and only keep Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA) - Further reduce spending at any layer about Council - Merge councils, reduce leadership spending... focus spend on programs and DEs - Offer more options for training - Eliminate units that are poor performing and avoid new units until there is clear capacity and leadership to ramp up

My bet is there are meetings, discussions, legal and insurance aspects, IT, etc. Heck, they spent time trying to merge with Venturjng and debating age limits... so they are spending time on the program. It causes lack of focus... same with Learning for Life, Explorers and I would argue STEM. Many worthy and great ideas... but we need to get back to basics and have the entire BSA professional and volunteer Corp focused on providing the best 2nd grade through 18 YO scouting program. Again, I love many of these programs, but BSA is in serious trouble and needs to focus.

Agreed. I think these programs should continue, just not under BSA. When in crisis, it’s good to relook at the mission and refocus. Merge councils, let the best take over weak ones. Same with units. With focus, you clarify the mission and improve performance of the organization.

When you see quantities drop like this, it is hard to argue we have a lot of quality units.

Some Wisconsin numbers (not a big LDS state)... 2018 63,283 Youth 830 Packs 652 Troops 128 Crews 18,576 Adults 9,567 Learning for Life/Explorers 2020 33,457 Youth 641 Packs 658 Troops 79 Crews 12,560 adults 2,178 Learning of Life/Explorers The loss of Packs is concerning as is the ratio of Packs to Troops. Venturing is dying. There is no pipeline that feeds the program. I also think that adding girls to Troops likely cut off some of the interest. I hope the 2020 numbers are post recharter. If these are pre recharter ... UGH! We better have a great recruiting this fall.

That was a LONG document. I reviewed the redline a bit ... looks like the major changes $1,500 payout option for those that select it (if the plan is approved). Updated dates Clarified process for firms voting for their claimants. BSA will need written evidence for each claimant that they agree to have their legal representative vote for them or BSA will send the ballot directly to the claimant. (Before, it appears they would have allowed the firm to sign a document stating they have approval to vote). Tight timeline to submit those documents to BSA as well.

I believe the TCC talked about this in one of their townhalls. They said they will get to put in their recommendation. It is common practice in bankruptcies and the BSA will lose that aspect of their strategy. I expect if the BSA pushes and the court rules in their favor, TCC and easily appeal, delaying the whole process. Since I expect this plan to fail (both versions) I wonder what is BSA's next move.

My 2nd dose of Pfizer was really rough ... but probably better than getting the virus. I understand the vaccination hesitancy here, especially with mRNA versions. I hope most will get a vaccine when more of the public is vaccinated (or more traditional vaccines are approved) and we (hopefully) see limited adverse reactions. I don't think we need to hit 100% ... 80% would be big win. I am concerned that if not enough people get the vaccine, more variants will be produced until one breaks through the existing vaccines. At minimum, perhaps we can turn Covid into a mild cold or flu vs what it was or could be. Note that I just got off a call with my team in India. It is pretty bad there with multiple team members having close relatives die from the virus. While our healthcare system is much better than theirs, I really think some of these variants are much worse than the initial strain. The good news is it seems that vaccines help against their variant.

I think the no 1 on 1 is a good idea in life. I would never want to be with a kid that is not my own without someone else around. If my son's friend comes over and I need to drive him home ... my son will come with. Now ... the 2 deep leadership ... I'm sorry, but that is excessive. My son has friends come over (including a scout) and I may be the only one at home. If BSA cracks down on this, I'll drop my BSA membership. I wonder if BSA bans single parents as leaders as it is very likely they would have this situation happen frequently.

BSA looking to settle with someone who got hurt in a fall at Summit. $3M ... primarily from insurance. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee370ded-4028-485a-8e3c-6efe453bac3b_2719.pdf

The people responsible for the abuse goes beyond the abuser. It goes to volunteers, employees and the organization that let it happen. I go back to the Scout's Honor article and book. This dates back to 1991 and shows how BSA knew they had a problem, but kept it quiet. I recommend reading the articles ... it shows why the BSA is where it is today. https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/1991_05_20_Boyle_Scoutings_Sex.htm https://www.amazon.com/Scouts-Honor-Patrick-Boyle/dp/1559583657

Wow ... this volunteer needs to go immediately. I would report him as well. There should be no place for him in any unit or any council. There are some grey areas where someone may be perceived as flirty. This one is clearly way over the line when multiple women are reporting that he is openly asking about sexual activities. BSA is not Tinder.

Agreed ... but if the BSA runs out of cash to pay lawyers, what choice do they have? I can't imagine BSA's cash situation is good right now. I know BSA is using Ch 7 as a threat. Perhaps JP Morgan can keep giving them loans, but JP may get antsy with these other lawyers added.

I think we may look back and see a huge strategic error with the Hartford settlement. Why even go there. I'm starting to see a narrowing window for BSA to escape a Chapter 7. I expect the only chance is give up the HA bases, withdraw the insurance settlement and move on. The other side knows there is likely 10's of billions of dollars at stake with the insurance side. They can be patient, filing lawsuits against National HA bases, LCs, COs and insurance companies. Note that these are lawyers directly representing claimants ... not the TCC ... so they can file suit against LCs and COs. (I don't think the TCC lawyers actually directly represent claimants). Again, I expect much of the focus will be the insurance policies, but the tone is definitely changing here.

I copy pasted incorrectly. There are actually 4 lawyers from Robbins Russell added to the mix. Lawrence S. Robbins https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/lawrence-s-robbins/ Joshua S. Bolian https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/joshua-s-bolian/ Ariel N. Lavinbuk https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/ariel-n-lavinbuk/ William J. Trunk https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/william-j-trunk/

Looks like multiple lawyers added as part of a lawfirm. Also add to the mix one Ariel N. Lavinbuk. Focus on bankruptcy, breach of contract and fraudulent transfer law. He writes for Slate, Harvard and Yale Law Review. Also added is Ariel N. Lavinbu. He is another Supreme Court litigator who has the highlight of winning a $4.6B lawsuit against the Country of Argentina. Is it normal to see major lawyer changes this deep into bankruptcy hearings? I’m curious what the thoughts are from our lawyers in the forum seeing the discovery requests followed by an addition of a fairly major law firm.

Lawrence S. Robbins Added as a lawyer for the coalition of abused scouts. Apparently he has Kosnoff’s approval. He has argued 18 cases in the Supreme Court and testified as a witness in major cases - as recently as Trump’s Impeachment (he was Mary Yovankavitch’s legal counsel). The discovery requests followed by adding a big legal gun makes me wonder where this is headed. BSA’s negotiation with Hartford appears to have blown up in their face. National needs to figure how to get out of this mess... the current counsel seems to be failing.

I believe it is considered grass roots as it is not directed by a council or BSA. The council president is a volunteer role ... so he is a BSA volunteer. I'm actually surprised someone so high up in scouting (a Council President & National Board Advisor) is basically saying BSA may die. To me, I wish more would step up and say this out loud.