CynicalScouter

But they set the recommendation. They only want to hear what they want to hear. And as I recall the last time a survey was done (insta-palms?) the results were ignored and/or hidden. They. Don't. Care.

"We have files full of people we bounced out due to child abuse/pedophilia." Had they admitted and specified, rather than hid, the insurance premiums would have been higher.

Right. Like this Sure, I might support that if there were meaningful, measurable metrics used for the minimums. If, however, the standards are "amount raised for national", not so much.

And here comes the backpedaling. And a survey (in which they do not allow you to offer new ideas, just want you to approve theirs).

How would the insurance companies have know if Scouts National leaders were lying to the insurance companies? You can say "everyone knew" but looking back we now know: no, not "everyone knew".

Here's a copy of National's lawsuit against the insurance companies. Note the timeframe: the policies date to the 1970s. You seem to be under the impression that the premiums were paid "for years". That isn't how this worked. National signed insurance agreements with them EACH YEAR. So this isn't "years of premiums". The question is, for example, in 1971 did National sign the insurance agreement for that year and nevertheless withhold info? The insurance companies are claiming (rightly probably) that National knew but did NOT tell the insurance companies when the policies were signed back then. And given National's action/reaction, I fully believe they knew and opted NOT to tell the insurance companies in 1970s. PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION.pdf

Two reasons: 1) Some of the policies covered accidents. This was not an accident. 2) The policies were based on Boy Scouts NOT withholding information from the insurance companies. The Insurance companies are claiming, in effect, that Boy Scouts failed to fully disclose therefore the insurance agreements are void.

Part of the problem is this: those people are not being sued. This is a suit against the corporate entity called Boy Scouts of America. If this was a lawsuit/bankruptcy against say XYZ Corp. that makes widgets, the people who lose out there are shareholders and other unsecured creditors. If the widgets were defective or harmed people, the worst case scenario is XYZ Corp goes bankrupt, the shareholders and unsecured creditors are up a creek without a paddle, and the secured and other creditors get to pick at the carcass. The CEO and other executives of XYZ corp would have no personal liability, and neither would be other people who bought XYZ Corp widgets. This is the problem with trying to keep a charity/not-for-profit running post bankruptcy. If the organization does good, the court is NOT going to want to outright kill it. But the fact is that Boy Scouts of America is an incorporated entity, which means that it "owns" the liability, especially since states repealed, relaxed, or opened up their statute of limitations on abuse.

Most online ads have nothing whatsoever to do with the site owners preferences and therefore, the answer is no.The way ads are offered up is one of three ways: 1) The ad company's automated system scans the site, sees what words the site uses, and matches ads. It is why for example so many ads about the Scouts lawsuit appear on this page. Lots of politics gets discussed on Issues & Politics. The ad company's algorithm then thinks "lots of political talk on this page/website, better send along the ads tagged/keyword politics." 2) The ad company scans your browsing history (the cookies in your browser or IP tracing) and offers you ads. Search Amazon for widgets and then come to this site. Odds are, you'll get offered some ads for either a) Amazon or b) widgets 3) Mass blasts. It is election season and the ad companies are getting lots of political ads. There's no algorithm (1) or search logic (2) you will simply get more political ads because there are more political ads being purchased and therefore have to be placed on websites. So no, generally speaking when a website owner enters into an agreement with an ad company to put their ads on the website, they have no control over ad content.

If true, and I think you may be right, then plaintiffs lawyers are back to plan #1: take 10 cents on the dollar today. I still believe in the end National limps away from this and is not liquidated but is simply a shadow of itself with minimal staffing and barely any real support. Everything shifts to the Councils which creates a whole other mess but that's another story.

I will also say one more thing: Simply because SOME plaintiffs lawyers want to nuke Boy Scouts does NOT mean a) that is what ALL plaintiffs attorneys want and b) they can or will get a judge to sign off. There seems to be a misunderstanding that one particular plaintiffs attorney will get whatever he wants from the judge. That is simply not a given. Moreover, as I pointed out, there is a presumption AGAINST forced conversion into a liquidation. Especially if they are trying to compensation to victims. I can see a situation where National and plaintiffs reach an agreement like the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement where every year for the next 25 years National will deposit from its revenues a certain amount into a Victims Fund to pay out victims. Failure to make such a payment then converts from the Chapter 11 to the Chapter 7. From a victim's perspective and the judge's, which would you rather have: 10 cents on the dollar TODAY (which is what they would get if they completely liquidated National) or 80-90 cents on the dollar over the course of the next, say, 20 years.

Yes, if push comes to shove the judge can convert but not simply because the settlement is too low but because the payments aren't being made OR because the debtor is acting in bad faith OR in the "best interests of creditors and the estate." 11 U.S. Code § 1112. Conversion or dismissal EDIT: Additional reasons for (forced) conversion of a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7. In re Costa Bonita Beach Resort, 513 B.R. 184, 200-01 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2014) (quoting Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1112.04[7] (16th ed. 2011))

The leaked document I found on reddit was shown to all BSA staff was released as a definitive document. Not a draft. Now with all the pushback, they are having to backpedal and get their story straight. This does not inspire confidence.

First, welcome. Second, you need to speak to your charter organization's legal counsel. This is a very, very delicate thing and the answer is going to depend on who is the legal parent or guardian of that scout. If you withhold information from that scout's legal parent or guardian, you put your troop and the chartered organization at legal risk. It may be that this answers the question. But it may not if you do not know for sure who is the legal parent/guardian of record. EDIT: One more note. Depending on your state's guardianship laws, even if the grandparent has been named the scout's legal guardian, you still may not be allowed to simply deprive the parent of information regarding the child's whereabouts. All the more reason your chartered organization's legal counsel needs to be brought into this. NOW.

The head of the chartered organization, referred to in Scouting literature as the "executive officer." These may sometimes be the same person. "The Chartered Organization Representative (COR), who will be appointed by the Chartered Organization." See the Chartered Organization Representative Guidebook. As for how, the only way I've seen it done has been to offer up a new person. Simply going to the Chartered Org itself or the EO thereof and complaining never, ever, ever works. What I have seen work is "Hey COR thanks for your service, would you be interested in letting so and so have a chance?" or easing the person out with a replacement already picked. Remember: the COR was put there by the Chartered Org. You have to in effect convince the Chartered Org was wrong in the first place or is wrong now to keep this person around AND that someone else is willing to step up. I know at lots of units whose COR remains only because no one else wants the position/is scared of the position.

Not sure where that is coming from, is there a source?

Ok, I have not been around scouting that long, but I have never, ever, ever heard of a council demanding certain dollar figures being raised or else no recharter. Council fees are one thing, can't do anything about that I'm afraid National allows them to be directly tie to recharter. But mandatory targets for fundraising? No way.

No, but National's ability to issue council charters is. And I cannot think of ANY bankruptcy I ever heard of where the court ordered the chartered entity to relinquish their congressional charter (and I looked). Remember: they filed a Chapter 11 (reorganization) not a Chapter 7 (liquidation). You might have an argument that National surrendered its ability to function entirely with a Chapter 7, but that is not what it happening.

Not cynicism as much as legal; in other words I think the plaintiffs would like it, but I cannot find a legal basis that would force a Congressionally chartered organization to return their charter to Congress. In other words, yes, plaintiffs will drain national and the councils dry of funds, but not utterly shut them down. This goes back to the Dale lawsuit when certain members of Congress tried to revoke the Scouts Charter. During the debates the argument was that a) the organization could return its charter to Congress b) all applicable members of the chartered organization die (e.g. Grand Army of the Republic, United Spanish War Veterans, Veterans of World War I of the United States) or c) Congress could revoke the charter it BUT a court couldn't do so.

I do not see a bankruptcy judge approving any plan which results in the elimination of National in its entirety, forcing the organization to return its charter to Congress, and disbanding/liquidating 200+ councils. It may be what some plaintiffs lawyers want, it does not mean they will get it. That said, I see a crippled National and 100 mega-merged Councils that may or may not operate cooperatively or well. As for minimum standard from 1910-1913 there was none. From 1913- they standard was they had to have a charter from National.

It was in an email to me when I asked for the Churchill reports and an official copy of Scouting Forward: Plan to Lead and not just a screencap.

Right, that's what the lawyers want: all council assets including endowments. It remains to be seen if they get them. As for mega-merging, depends on why it failed. For example, when LDS left I know several councils in Utah mega-merged because it made no sense to have a council with 12 units. And breaking a failing council into smaller ones doesn't always make sense either because now you could get a council that is district-size or smaller. As for letting the community form a new council, I am not sure I understand. The only way that would work (that I can see of) is that a new entity is formed and incorporated (NEW COUNCIL, LLC), any and all staff or board members of OLD COUNCIL, LLC are removed, and all assets of OLD COUNCIL, LLC are transferred to NEW COUNCIL, LLC. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?

National's statement on the leaked documents/screen caps.

Churchill was selected a year ago. According to the presentation at National Annual Meeting, it was chosen because Winston Churchill was a leader in a time of change. The discussion of the name "Churchill" is at 49:00 in the General Session Video. They 6 committees are "Churchill groups" and their plans are "Churchill projects".

Not national, but other councils, yes. Alamo Area Council https://www.alamoareabsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AAC-COVID-19-Warning-and-Waiver.pdf South Texas Council http://southtexasbsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/STCBSA-COVID-19-Warning-and-Waiver_June-2020_fillable.pdf Daniel Webster Council https://nhscouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Unit-Activty-Meeting-Guidance-2.0.pdf Great Smokey Mountain Council https://www.easttnscouts.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Camp-Property-COVID-Forms.pdf