Eaglein87

So anyone want to take guess as to whether a CO (church) in this case will want to take risk of sponsoring any current or future BSA Troops?

Not all CO's just the ones where the alleged SA took place. I would think that a prosecutor would go after National, and all those involved which would include Chartering Org especially if it was a church (deep pockets). When it happens (because it will) will not bode well for CO sponsorship of BSA Troops. Already hearing grumblings from CO's on this issue. Church members are wary of possible litigation that may Trickle down. We have a major problem folks.

Does anyone know if Chartering Organizations have been named in any of these suits?

I bet there are some criminal prosecuting attorneys on this board that could chime in on local organization liability. I’m willing to bet everything is on the table. Non of this discussion is meant to trivialize what happened to some individuals. It’s horrible all around and I think we are about to start getting to the details of what happened over many years. It is wrong that these assaults were hushed up from the very beginning.

So article puts in play sale of locally owned assets like summer camp facilities, HE (Philmont) etc? So far have heard no way that happens. Also article puts number of SA’s at 250. If so seems like National and local councils will be advisaries if they try to make them sell. Most likely the properties owned by councils where SA’s took place. A lot of ugly stuff is going to come out. This will not be pretty. The minute that the prospect of liability by a Charter organization comes into play, even if just a perception, could mean devastation for Scouts. Wonder how many of the large successful troops out there are Chartered by churches. Most I would bet as is case in our council/district. Perception in the event of turmoil is important to address. Need to be proactive not play catch-up. Anything other than the cryptic email from National an hour before the NYT article was first published?

I wish other districts/councils would also attempt to do some "damage control" instead of staying silent.

Great response. Showing leadership.

Poaching is actually illegal. Taking members from another group to their detriment not illegal. Troops compete for members already. Problem is decision to do such has caused GSA to file suit. Not thought out. BSA knew they had to grow membership after a 20% reduction and the solution was add girls. Just one other decision not fully vetted that may end up hurting rather than helping.

"erode its core brand identity" by making girls think that girls are now part of Boy Scouts. Not much of a leap for girls to think I don't need to join Girls Scouts I can just join the Scouts BSA with my brother (part of BSA marketing at cub level). It's absolutely poaching. The reason for the lawsuit is that GSUSA realizes if they do nothing there is a good chance their numbers will drop more than it already has. I have no skin in GSUSA game as my boys are both in Scouting. The point is that poor decisions are being made that is resulting in more damage for BSA and there is no accountability for those making the poor decisions.

Nobody said owned. That is a ridiculous comment. GSUSA sure feels like BSA is trying to take their membership. Just ask them or oh yea they felt so much so they filed a lawsuit.

It's not the one thing that will take down Scouts. It's a multitude of factors. True that the current leadership is not responsible for handling of assaults that occurred a while ago. Most however may have had a position on Bechtel. Also the idea to replace the LDS numbers with girls poaching girls scout membership resulting in additional litigation. The ones responsible for these go-ahead decisions should be evaluated and removed if need be. You can't keep making "feel good" decisions that do not solve the problem or make it worse. Seems like there is a lot of Scout experience on this board and I bet most were not consulted/polled on their views of these major issues.

Since you have experience in such matters would you say the financial situation should be somewhat dire to have to go down this road?

Can anyone confirm costs on Bechtel? Is it true that the cost is close to the total BSA endowment? Some articles out there claim such. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/west-virginia-mega-camp-adds-boy-scouts-troubles-flna6C10643112 "Costs are rising. Initially budgeted at $176 million through 2013, the Summit's cost is now estimated to reach at least $350 million by the end of this year and $439 million by the end of 2015"

Can anyone comment on the ownership/relationship between Philmont and BSA National. Would Philmont be immune from divestiture brought on by Bankruptcy? How much funding does Philmont receive from BSA National? Also last thing BSA needs is a bailout by US government. Would be the worst case scenario.

"When the founders of Scouting started the program, there were not 2,000,000 members and almost 100,000 units." And it is headed back. Anyone who defends the actions of BSA National is putting blinders on. Bankruptcy is not a sign that past decisions you have made are fiduciary sound. So somebody tell me how Bankruptcy is a sign that we have competent leadership at the top that are making decisions in the best interest of the Boy Scouts. "Bankruptcy is protecting the assets of the organization" is true but is like rearranging chairs on the Titanic. The honest question that has to be asked is how did we get here. For those of us who really care about Scouting plan for what Scouts will look like in the future where National influence is greatly reduced.