Chapter 11 announced

[Eagle1993]

25 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My point is - let's just be honest about the tradeoff here.  Increased settlement for claimants results in fewer program assets (camps) for kids.

100% correct and this is going to be painful.  I want my son to have the experience of going to Philmont that I never got.  I would love for him to go to Summit for a National Jambo. More that that, I want him to be able to go to the annual summer camp at a BSA site, to Klondike (which is held at a BSA camp) and my daughter to have a crossover at a BSA camp.

I believe the only way to get any outcome that preserves any part of BSA is to be 100% transparent and open book.  Get a full accounting of usage of every council property.  Full accounting of every councils financials.   If there are deed restrictions on properties, show them and have them vetted by the court. Then, make a fair offer that is likely a large percentage of available assets.  I think that leads to survival and likely the best outcome for our program.  

I think the BSA is not being fully transparent and that is risking our entire program.  Perhaps it is an impossible ask given the size and scope of the effort required given the timelines that need to be met.  The good news, for now, is the program continues.  We have scouts going to Philmont and a great signup for summer camp.  I have 4 Eagle Scout patches here, waiting on upcoming EBORs.  I just hate seeing these clouds on the horizon. 

[ThenNow]

30 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

What do I believe?  I expect there are likely thousands of claims where BSA failed to protect children and should be financially responsible.  Let's assume 5,000 total.  Just a guess, who knows.

So, 5,000 total ... what should we pay for each instance of child abuse we let happen that we could have stopped.  $2M each?  That is $10B.  How long will it take to get to 5,000?  2 - 3 years?  Just to end up back at something we cannot afford?

To me, we should to a real top down look and determine what we need to survive as an organization and offer up everything else.  I don't think we did that and now I think by not doing that we risk everything.

For what it's worth, in the days after filing last February, people I know who work in this space and with/against the BSA in the past, were all estimating in the high range of 5,000-8,000 claims tops. If something got crazy, a bit over 10,000. This situation? I certainly never expected and suspected foul play in July. Just my reaction and sniff test.

The "top down look [to] determine what we need to survive" goes to the heart of the emotional responses you get from me, the one (?) survivor claimant in the forum fray. The effort and offer from the BSA doesn't match their stated goal or the mournful apologies. It just doesn't and everyone sees that. Lowballing a case like this is an invitation to backlash, which we are now seeing. (See my comment regarding, "sprinkled with contempt.")

Set aside the future and intrinsic value of what Scouting has been, for many, and can be for many, many more. I concede. Set aside the SoL's issues and the debate about whether it should or should be applied. It can reasonably be debated on both sides. However, regardless the number cases, the BSA was definitely negligent and allowed men to cause serious damage to boys in the care of the organization. I believe mine was one of those cases of negligent oversight and please trust that my claim of abuse is legitimate and significant.

With all the caveats and since I will not pretend to be disinterested or 100% altruistic, how do you place a monetary value on the damage done to me, my family, my career, my state of mind, my future and my financial situation? If anyone can say anything other than, "There is no string of numbers behind a dollar sign that rises to that level," then I will be shocked and dismayed. It is from that point that I commend the idea of a top down assessment. To me, that acknowledges the situation, doesn't try to deny the reality that the horse has long since left the barn and represents a sincere, good faith effort to put your [their] money where your mouth is. "Equitable compensation to all victims of past abuse," they said it very publicly and their counsel repeated it multiple times. They started this. They said it. They invited us to come forward and file. And, with that Plan, the are not demonstrating they meant what they said.

[mrjohns2]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Equitable compensation to all victims of past abuse,"

$6000 is not that for sure. 

[yknot]

I think we need to reboot. BSA was facing a situation that was not survivable: huge multi million dollar payouts on a limited series of lawsuits. When it became obvious BSA was facing not dozens but hundreds of such lawsuits, it sought bankruptcy protection in order to survive. It now appears it may be facing thousands of such cases. Whether it's 8,000 or 80,000 almost doesn't matter. I think the poster who said BSA should assess what it needs to survive and offer everything else was right. This isn't a situation where you survive and get to keep the Ferrari, this is a situation where you survive and get to keep some tires, an axle, and some wood.  

Edited March 3, 2021 by yknot

[ParkMan]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

100% correct and this is going to be painful.  I want my son to have the experience of going to Philmont that I never got.  I would love for him to go to Summit for a National Jambo. More that that, I want him to be able to go to the annual summer camp at a BSA site, to Klondike (which is held at a BSA camp) and my daughter to have a crossover at a BSA camp.

I believe the only way to get any outcome that preserves any part of BSA is to be 100% transparent and open book.  Get a full accounting of usage of every council property.  Full accounting of every councils financials.   If there are deed restrictions on properties, show them and have them vetted by the court. Then, make a fair offer that is likely a large percentage of available assets.  I think that leads to survival and likely the best outcome for our program.  

I think the BSA is not being fully transparent and that is risking our entire program.  Perhaps it is an impossible ask given the size and scope of the effort required given the timelines that need to be met.  The good news, for now, is the program continues.  We have scouts going to Philmont and a great signup for summer camp.  I have 4 Eagle Scout patches here, waiting on upcoming EBORs.  I just hate seeing these clouds on the horizon. 

I think we're very much on the same page here.

I'm all for finding a level where the BSA and LC can really contribute to a meaningful settlement.  What I fear is that regardless of what the BSA offers, the lawyers will continue to call it shameful.  $500+ million is a lot of money but it's called shameful.  Is 2x or 3x that going to change anything?  Scouting simply cannot get to $1,000,000 a claimant - it's just not there.

I have no idea how one arrives at a reasonable number.  Open every book and have an independent audit of everything and pay that - perhaps that's it.  Of course then we'll get into debates about what is really needed and what is not.  The lawyers for the claimants will always try to extract more and more - it's their job and obligation.

What I worry immensely about is that by making this discussion so abstract (i.e. national and LC having assets of $4 billion or vilifying national and LC), we're hiding the real conversation.  People are picking sides and trying to figure out the winners and losers.  Really - the only winners here are lawyers.  Everyone else here loses.  

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

What I fear is that regardless of what the BSA offers, the lawyers will continue to call it shameful. 

It is an accurate statement that plaintiffs' attorneys will come out of this with goodly coin and may be the only winners. Yes, they have seen a case pull down $19M and change. Cha-ching. All other beans are small potatoes. I get it. As said above by the trixy odd number wizard, there are layers of players. I am not a plaintiff's attorney. I am my attorney. I am a claimant. I did not want this. No way this is sliced will I make off with the a big fat chunk of the pie.

When I say, the it's "shameful," I am not looking at $500M, in the aggregate, and am not speaking as an attorney. I'm looking at the $6000 and the "I'm sorry" card. I am not looking at $500M as a payout from the sale of my startup. That's YUGE! I am looking at $500M compared to the value of an organization that has - whether on its own books or in conjunction with "franchises" or "affiliates" or "subsidiaries" or whatever - a great deal more assets than that. Everyone who has done any research into the LC's knows it to be true. I'm not talking about whether selling properties detracts from the future experience of Scouts. It does. Are there workarounds? Of course. Will they be as exceptional? Probably not. Will they be equally valuable in the experiential elements that matter. I bet they can be.

So, again, is it right to invite "all victims of past [sexual] abuse in Scouting" to file claims to receive equitable compensation and offer $6000 out of the gate? Regardless the intended negotiation strategy, which no one seems to be able to discern, this was a very bad idea. I haven't heard anyone but the Chair of the AHC, BSA and their attorneys that can say it is with a straight face.

If I had been advising them at the outset, I would have been sure to temper the language of their public statement to at least infer that there could be caveats, limitations or exceptions to the "all victims" call. I don't know if that can be understood without experiencing the impact of the "hope that sprang eternal" when we heard that call. For me, I thought, "This could be my measure of redemption and something to give my family for all they have lost because of me."

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I'm don't think $6000 is the right number. Let's say the right number is $1,00,000. What if the BSA doesn't have that? What if they only have $50,000 per legitimate claim?

As I've tried to be, I'm going to be very transparent. When I read the press coverage and looked at the Plan to confirm the $6000, I cried. If it had been $50,000 I would've felt very differently. I would've believed they were taking this seriously. Factor into that the non-commitment commitment of "asking for a voluntary contribution" from the LC's and you have a sucker punch to the gut (or front kick in the elsewheres). As in, "What they hell have the LC's been doing in mediation and negotiations all this time? They've been mucking around in the numbers, data, asset valuations and appraisals for months, and many of these Councils new full well this was coming back in early 2019. They have hundreds of abuse cases teed up against them and not a single one of them is committing anything...at all??"

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Really - the only winners here are lawyers.  Everyone else here loses.  

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Toss in a select group of politicians and several technocratic “experts” and you might just have my vote.

[RememberSchiff]

This topic has wandered to McDonalds and dodgeball. Lets try to remain in the USA and on topic. Thanks, RS

@MattR  @John-in-KC

[TAHAWK]

Speaking of LCs.  When I got back in Scouting in 1981, I joined Greater Cleveland Council.  That council was surrounded by Great Trail Council, Firelands Area Council, Northeast Ohio Council, and Warren Council.  Only the first of these entities exists today.  

Twenty-seven years ago,  Warren Council, down to two employees, merged with Northeast Ohio Council and the bankrupt Mahoning Valley Council (Youngstown after the steel industry collapse).   Think in terms of Seras and Kmart merging.  The merged council was named "Western Reserve Council."

Twenty-six years ago, Firelands Council merged with two other Councils to become Heart of Ohio Council.

In 2017, Western Reserve Council, down to two employees, was disolved.  What had once been NorthEast Ohio Council and most of what had been Warren Council went to Greater Cleveland Council.

The new aggregation was named "Lake Erie Council."   I don't know if thiswas a  merger of dditional territory into ane xisting entity  or in every sense the creation of a new entity. Mere volunteers are not privy to such information.  Decisions surrounding the merger were made by a committee formed proportionately of Scouters from Greater Cleveland Council, from the portion of Heart of Ohio joining with Cleveland, and from the portion of Western Reserve Council joining with Cleveland.  

At the same time (2017), Heart of Ohio Council dissolved.  What had mostly been the dissolved Firelands Council, the northern part of Heart of Ohio Council, became part of the council to be named Lake Erie Council.  The remainder to the south of what had been Heart of Ohio's territory became part of Buckeye Council.  

 

What had been the disolved MAhoning Valley COuncil and the southern edge of what had been Western Reserve Council becasme part of "Great Trail Council."  In that case, the decisions weem to be made solely by Great Trails Council people, or so it was said by those feeling imposed upon.

I have no knowledge of the terms of the various mergers and dissolutions. Were liabilities assumed, and, if so, what liabilities?  

Lake Erie Council ended up with two camps that were not Greater Cleveland Camps. 

 

One, has a very large trust fund with a strong reversionary clause and living family members to keep an eye on compliance. 

The other camp, Camp Stigwandish, was sold last Spring for the announced reason that the expense of  bringing the camp up to BSA standards (It had been starved of financing for over twenty years,.)  was not "practical" given the steadily declining revenue and declining membership of Lake Erie Council.  The Ohio EPA had taken enforcement action aginst that camp due to a failed septic system, leading to termination of its summer camp program.   It is located ten miles from the nearest point on the shore of Lake Erie, an area of severe economic depression because most of the economy depended on the Mahoining Valley steel industry which went bottom-up almost fifty yeasrs ago.  Think boarded up Wlamerts and mcDonalds. Beautiful rolling ground for a camp.  Little level ground.  Three ponds.  Alos, it is minutes away fro the main camp, Beaumont Scout Reservation.

I also do not know what control, if any, BSA or any council has over settlement.  In normal business "general liability policies," the insured has no control over settlement.  The insurance company does have a duty not to unreasonably expose the insured to liability in excess of coverage limits by refusing to make a "reasonable" settlement offer within policy limits.  I donlt know what the policy limits are in this case.

 

Lawyers expressing the goal of litigation as destruction of the defendant(s) would seems to have conflict of interest issues with their clients, unless they have been uniformly instructed by the clients that destruction of the defendant(s), not monetary payment, is their goal. 

 

This litigation is a basket of snakes. 

[qwazse]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...

There have been job losses for executives, does that count?

[fred8033]

11 hours ago, Armymutt said:

That's still nowhere near the variety that Philmont offers.  It's fun, I agree, but Philmont has a much richer environment.  

Philmont should become Philmont National Park.      I'd visit.  

[yknot]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Philmont should become Philmont National Park.      I'd visit.  

Frankly, that's what I hope for most. That some of these larger properties, either HA bases or larger council properties, somehow get converted into federal, state or county parks. One thing no one is talking about regarding a total or partial liquidation is that having that many large acreage properties come on market at around the same time would only lead to fire sale prices. There are only so many entities in the U.S. that would have the financial means or interest to purchase large tracts, many of which are in depressed, inaccessible or less than marketable places. It could lead to fire sales, which also does not benefit claimants. One way I could see the federal government assisting would be to put together a package deal of purchasing a collection of plum BSA properties to add to the national parks system, or for states to do so more locally on a case by case basis. I'd love to hear from some property folks about whether that is a viable possibility. I'm kind of more concerned about making sure some of these really historic properties remain wild and accessible and don't wind up being condo enclaves and golf courses. 

[ParkMan]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...

While I cannot speak to senior executive salaries, I know that several executives have been laid off.  Right now they are thinning the executive ranks as they reduce the numbers of areas and regions.  Both national and local councils have been laying off staff as well.

Why is this a concern for you?

Edited March 4, 2021 by ParkMan
typos