Eagle1993

METHODIST CHURCH 3,443 BAPTIST CHURCH 2,774 CATHOLIC CHURCH 2,280 LATTER‐DAY SAINTS 2,236 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1,470 LUTHERAN CHURCH 1,198 EPISCOPAL CHURCH 503 These are the top 5 COs identified by # of claims. Now, I expect these numbers to grow and change a bit as many scouts probably do not even know the CO for their unit. As lawyers are able to obtain roster data from LCs, I expect CO impacts to clarify more. Note that there are individual churches listed throughout the CO list.

I think the judge has to rule on that; however, her last hearing she said the plan wasn't ready. Insurance companies just filed paperwork to delay the April 29 hearing ... it appears they are stating there must be at least 28 days for review, before a plan can be approved for a vote. Given the plan is not ready (per the judge) even now, there is no way April 29 hearing can proceed as previously stated. Note that even though the insurance companies & TCC are both stating the plan is garbage, my guess is that is likely all they agree on.

There is a lot in this document. I tried to highlight a few key areas I thought were interesting. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/885873_2566.pdf It appears that the mediation last week was almost worthless. The TCC's analysis is showing the LC contribution is substantially lower than what they believe they can pay Almost no agreement on payments from any insurance companies Two major religious institutions have been part of the mediations, but have not offered anything as part of the mediation. Major decisions (estimation of damages from district court, decision on HA bases and if they are available for the settlement, JP Morgan debt) must be decided before a plan can even be considered. Based on the above, the judge should reject the plan. There is a lot more in the document, but those were my major takeaways. I think there is a hearing next week. I'll be interested to see what the judge says. I know she raised concern over the spending on the case, but she hasn't taken much action to force closure. Perhaps she can remove the exclusivity clause and allow the TCC to offer a plan. I would expect she could rule on the LCs and HA bases (or at least set hearings and close out on these open decisions). I'll reference this article again. Sometimes you simply need to get decisions made within courtrooms before a settlement can be reached. I certainly hope she starts expediting any decisions within her control. https://mediatbankry.com/2016/05/05/dont-let-this-happen-to-you-milwaukee-archdiocese-bankruptcy-part-three-the-in-court-slugfest/

I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message. The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that it does seem that he cares about the BSA and sees the value of the program. He has mentioned how impressed he is by what he sees from many of the comments .... volunteers who spend much if not most of their free time working to provide children an experience that is unique and provides life long value. That said, he was sexually abused in the worst way by his Scoutmaster. No one within the BSA prevented it or took action (as far as he can tell). I think its good for us to hear from victims that don't simply say lets eliminate the BSA. It doesn't mean you or anyone has to agree with everything or anything said, but it's not bad to hear the message. Now there are victims out there that are simply saying end the BSA. I would agree with you that there is no point for them to join our forums. @ThenNow doesn't seem to be in that group.

If the goal is 0 Covid, we will never do anything. I don't think that should be the goal. The goal should be to ensure our healthcare system is not overrun and that we don't see massive death. If we follow "science" we know that the vaccines are highly effective and are effective vs the variants. A surge and massive death is not going to happen regardless of what we do this summer (based on everything known today). Ramp up vaccines and work on expanding testing to find hot spots ... otherwise we should be reopening. By this summer, I expect every adult who is at any sort of risk has had a chance at the vaccine. Kids are far less at risk for serious complications with Covid. It's time to get them back to their activities.

Nearly all of the ideas I can think of is at a higher level (in terms of reporting, etc.). If a unit strictly follows today's YP, I cannot think of any real changes that wouldn't simply kill most youth organizations. @qwazse brought up interesting points but I'm not sure how we could change unit level YP policies to address it.

I was hoping this one can be specific on specific recommendations that could improve safety. Those others were more about society. I'm really curious, in today's (and tomorrow's) society what changes can we make to improve safety. There will be specific changes as part of the Chapter 11 settlement. If we are to have scouting, we need scouting to work safely in the society we have today. What does that look like?

To me, all of these should be reported. Reporting shouldn't be reserved for actual crimes, it should be any violation. In EHS, we are expected to report "near misses". Those are then used to improve training & processes. The written communications is a great one. So many times, I receive an email from a scout directly to me with no one on the CC. I immediately respond to that scout + parent + leader and remind them to never email me without an adult. We use Troop Track as it automatically includes parents on all emails (so this only happens when they email me from their personal account). I would be fine if BSA says ... please, go ahead and report every email. It seems crazy, but perhaps if that level of reporting is encouraged, these "minor" issues could identify a systemic breakdown. In my organization, every call to service is considered a complaint. We have a full time team that looks at every complaint to determine hazard (non, minor, serious, critical, etc.). Every complaint that is serious is then investigated by engineering, QA and risk management who then determine root cause, corrective actions (if required) and if our overall system is still at an acceptable risk. These teams process hundreds of thousands of complaints a year. It sounds counter-intuitive, but more reported violations of YPT may actually result in a safer organization. https://www.ehstoday.com/safety/article/21915434/study-encouraging-incident-reporting-leads-to-improved-safety-culture https://www.safeopedia.com/help-me-help-you-10-ways-to-get-employees-to-file-incident-and-near-miss-reports/2/6079

I think in terms of the bankruptcy settlement, a long lasting legacy that is appropriate given the large number of victims, is for the insurance companies involved to agree to fund an independent agency like the IIHS but for youth protection. This could improve safety not only at BSA but all youth serving organizations. (Note: if you would want to discuss what BSA can do to improve youth protection, that could be in the linked topic above.)

I just started a new topic about ideas to improve safety. To me, outside of the camp property loss, is the other major outcome to expect from the bankruptcy.

Ok .. .that Chapter 11 topic drifts a lot, so I thought one area I struggle with is how we can actually reduce abuse in BSA (and youth organizations). I went to websites of BSA, GSUSA, Trail LIfe, 4H, Boys and Girls Club, AYSO and the BSA is the ONLY organization that talks about Youth Protection on their main page. I volunteer for sports teams, GSUSA and BSA ... BSA is the only one that required me to sit through 2 hours of training. These are not complaints, they are just brief comparisons as I am attempting to see what is out there that BSA is not doing. My one thought on how to improve safety comes from industry. In particular, the automotive industry. Over the last decades, cars have become more safe. There is no debate ... a crash that would have killed you 20+ years ago may leave you with minor injuries today. So, how did they do this? Was it lawsuits ... somewhat. Was it standards ... a bit. Was it legislation ... not so much. The number one reason cars are more safe today, is the IIHS. The IIHS is funded by insurance companies who have to pay claims when their drivers are hurt/injured. The IIHS safety ratings help drive insurance rates of cars ... but more than that ... they are public data that tells consumers which cars are safer. Do we need a IIHS for youth organizations? Essentially, an independent body of experts that can review the training, procedures, etc. for all major youth organizations that buy insurance and rate their safety level and have that publicly available. To be clear, each youth organization is not the same. Having a STEM team work on computer code is less dangerous than having a patrol go for a hike in a mountain range. So, it would be good to provide categories just like IIHS does. Think truck, sport car, van, SUV vs Outdoor/scouting, sports teams, STEM. I think, over time, this could improve safety protocols across all youth organizations. Just a thought on something that worked in another industry.

Your post stated "Youth Protection Training protocols used today were enacted" which is what I quoted. I did not re-word a post. We use different protocols today than in 1990. If you stated "when no one on one youth and adult contact started" I would agree. Youth Protection Training protocols are far beyond no one on one contact and two deep leadership. For instance, BSA only recently decided that 18 year olds are not considered adults in terms of Youth Protection Training.

This is incorrect. The training used today is new (~3 years old). Yes, that was when 2 deep leadership and no one on one contact started but BSA has been making various updates since. There was also changes to the background check process recently. This has been an evolving area for BSA and most youth organizations. Claiming there was a hard line in 1990 and no changes since is false.

I honestly don’t think that will be the trade off anymore. I used to think giving up an HA base may save a local council camp... but I doubt that is true. If BSA can prove it’s a restricted asset they should keep it. If it isn’t restricted then it should go to the trust.

Its disappointing that they are not more specific. What is missing in today's YPT and B2A. I have various sport and Girl Scout leaders who have taken BSA's YPT and are impressed. I'm sure there are improvements, I just haven't heard anything significant that says the whole organization should be destroyed and today's youth should not have access to any High Adventure camp or scout camp. Perhaps some of these individuals should talk with the hundreds of thousands of scouts that will be robbed of this opportunity. So, is she promoting Trail Life? Is that what she and Kosnoff want? Destroy BSA and promote Trail Life? Or Ben Carson is talking about starting Little Patriots. If I were them, I would take her statement as an endorsement.

https://thecirclenews.org/environment/the-boy-scouts-land-grabs-sexual-abuse-and-bankruptcy/ Native American News and Arts article ... a bit of everything ... but a big point that if Boy Scout Camps that were native lands have to be sold, they should be given back to Native people. Example camp listed above.

To me, that is why the BSA should be open book and show how much each council will contribute. If the low/no contributions are all coming from councils that are at low risk, perhaps that is acceptable. Or, perhaps, those councils are left out of the settlement. That way, the TCC is not removing future claims from councils with no payment in return. I'm not sure if that is an option, but I think you hit the real issue in this case which may be why a settlement is extremely difficult if it includes protection for all councils.

To be clear to all ... the Milwaukee Archdiocese was appealing. They won the lower court ruling but then lost on appeal. The courts ruled the transfer was illegal. They appealed to the Supreme Court and likely realized they would lose so they settled. We will likely see an example of this with Summit. Is Arrow WV a separate organization or is it really a shell organization fully operated by the BSA. TCC appears to be preparing to file lawsuit against JP Morgan about Arrow WV. That may be the test case of all of the council property ones that exist.

When did you quit? I'm talking now, not 2014 and prior. I would agree that during Dale it probably got rough. My ASM was clear when we discussed this recently .. it helps. He has talked with Harvard, Yale interviewers ... it helps. Notre Dame ... helps. We have had Eagle Scouts do well at Ivy through mid tier colleges. We have examples. That said, it won't help if you can't answer questions. He has said it show perseverance and achievement of a goal. I think parents make the mistake thinking their son/daughter just needs to get Eagle Scout on the resume and they're golden. If they go to an Eagle mill, I don't see the benefit. (Yeah, its on the resume, but did they really learn anything?) Now, if while earning Eagle, your son/daughter got over a fear, learned new skills, took on a role they wouldn't have been comfortable with, lead a team, failed, succeeded, etc. ... that is the real value. Then they take that value and explain it during an interview and its a winner. The rank on the app is really just a minor part of the story .. the value is what they did to earn that rank.

I tend to agree. The only value I see is that the trademark owner could charge BSA a fee to keep using Eagle Scout rank going forward. BSA knows Eagle Scout pulls in some recruits. Perhaps its paid by charging a fee when submitting an Eagle Scout application. Every ES app is charged $50 which goes to the trademark owner. That could be a $1M per year annuity. You might be able to get something assuming BSA survives and there is a 20 year agreement to use Eagle Scout as the top rank. Assuming a 5% rate of return and $1M of annual payment going forward and a 20 year agreement, the Eagle Scout Rank would be worth about $13M today. Again ... its only valuable if the BSA survives. If that rank transfers as an award for another organization, I think the value drops a ton as it won't be seen in the same light.

If a camp is sold and its used for camping or conservation, it makes bitter pills easier to swallow. I've seen a camp sold and all the trees cut for a lumber company. Yes, I know it has to come from somewhere, but there is nothing more sad then seeing a former scout camp clear cut.

I have a ASM who interviews for a top 10 school and talks with the interviewers from Harvard, Yale, etc. Eagle Scout is a BENEFIT. He is nudging his sons to get there as well. It can vary how much of a benefit based on the interviewer, but it is a benefit. Yes ... BSA organization was not looked on well by higher education when it excluded gay scouts, but for the most part that didn't tarnish the Eagle Scout rank. Internally we may question age or rigor but externally that is not questioned nearly as much as we may think. Trying to get this back to bankruptcy a bit ... it is a very valued asset. There are articles even today as Girl Scouts have yet to amplify their Gold award in the same way BSA has its Eagle. In terms of value ... how much would a GSUSA or even TrailLife pay for the Eagle Scout trademark?

One my my ASMs is an interviewer for an elite college (top 5 school for business, journalism, etc.) top 10 overall. Eagle Scout is a benefit on applications. How much of a benefit probably depends on who interviews you. I went to a state school, but apparently, elite colleges have one of their alumni interview you and they then tell the college what they think. I have never heard or seen any evidence it is a strike against applicants.

I would think most councils knew in 2018 of the financial peril of BSA. It was documented in their annual report. https://scoutingwire.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2017-Annual-Report-Combined-FINAL-App-Version.pdf

I would be careful assuming those will be deemed valid. Take a look at the Milwaukee Archdiocese cemetery trust fund. You'll see some familiar names. 3 years before going into bankruptcy, the Milwaukee Archdiocese moved a large amount of $ into a trust fund to maintain cemeteries (and marked it as restricted assets). The OCC (think TCC) said it was an fraudulent transfer. So, expect the TCC or lawyers to sue to say those easements/deed restricts are not valid.... Note below that this case was headed to the Supreme Court (possibly) but a settlement occurred so the case was moot. Perhaps we are simply headed to a slugfest for the next 4 more years ... we will see... https://mediatbankry.com/2016/05/05/dont-let-this-happen-to-you-milwaukee-archdiocese-bankruptcy-part-three-the-in-court-slugfest/