Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

A group of parents will still need public goodwill and liability insurance. 

Exactly. Even of BSA dissolves, we are NOT the same nation as when BSA was founded. There's different laws, different liability needs, etc.

That is not going to change.

[MattR]

14 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Every time I suggest moving on and focusing on what we can do to save what we have I'm either ignored or advised that I can always start another group.  Clearly the point of my comments have been misunderstood. 

Couple of points:

Nobody is ignoring you. I for one am waiting to see what's left.

A lot of people agree with you that fundamentally scouting can't go away, camping is fun.

This is not the thread to talk about picking up the pieces. It's the thread about the legal gears grinding.

That all said, it would be nice to see a young at heart leader that could focus us old codgers into moving past the BSA and dragging it forward. While I have my views I am neither young nor a leader. 

[Cburkhardt]

Dear Moderators and Friends,

Last year some of you may recall that I actively hosted three lengthy postings in advance of the bankruptcy filing.  My purpose was to prepare the way for a great reorganization filing that I believed would result in a plan agreement and approval within six months or so after the filing date.  The discussions were serious and hundreds participated.  COVID destroyed that possibility, leading some claimants   Attorneys to smell blood in the water.  They have gone in for the kill and Scouting as we know it could end.

Several commenters joined claimants attorneys by going for the kill as well, primarily by posting one-liner personal attacks and down arrows against commenters attempting to balance the need to provide justice for victims of past with a desire to continue serving youth in the future.  They comment in disruptive ways and despise every aspect of our the national, council and district structures and volunteer leaders.  They further despise any citizen willing to work for pay to advance Scouting.  

The monitors of this site have chosen to allow the proliferation of often-abusive commentary.  This has led to a diminishment of quality and a need for thoughtful commenters to just take “time off” from the abuse on this site.  I regret to share that I have concluded some of these individuals are acting in concert with interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation.

If the moderators want to restore seriousness of purpose regarding discussion of the bankruptcy on this site, amid the crisis of whether Scouting will have a future at all, some of us might be willing to seriously re-engage.  For instance, the ultimate issue will be upon us in just a few weeks — whether and how much local councils should contribute to the victim’s trust in exchange for a local council discharge.  This should receive a thorough discussion in order to inform viewers on a matter they can impact in their local councils.

I comment  in my own name, am proud of everything I have said and thank Scouting.com for having allowed me to share thoughts during these years of change.  However, I encourage all thoughtful commenters to wait for a thoughtful reply from the moderators before investing serious time in posting analysis on this next, existential phase of the bankruptcy.  If management of this site wants a serious discussion on this potential “final issue”, it can have it.  However, it will need its moderators to directly curtail intentional disruptors.

Sincerely,

cburkhardt

[RememberSchiff]

52 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

...For instance, the ultimate issue will be upon us in just a few weeks — whether and how much local councils should contribute to the victim’s trust in exchange for a local council discharge.  This should receive a thorough discussion in order to inform viewers on a matter they can impact in their local councils.

IMHO this became a foregone conclusion back in June/July when the Court required that Councils provide asset lists and subsequently when both parties hired assessors. Add to that the filing extension date for victims. As I understand, after almost a year, the Court has not formally ruled whether local councils are legally separate business entities nor has it resolved key insurance company liability issues meanwhile validation of victim claims continues.

Given the volume of legal work ahead, it would be helpful to our program and scouts if the Judge ruled, say on Feb 18, 2021, that our 2021 summer camps will not be impacted by ongoing Chapter 11. National lawyers should make that request during Scout Week.

My $0.02,

Edited January 31, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[mrjohns2]

4 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Given the volume of legal work ahead, it would be helpful to our program and scouts if the Judge ruled, say on Feb 18, 2021, that our 2021 summer camps will not be impacted by ongoing Chapter 11.

Do you really think this is moving fast enough to impact camp this summer? I don't think so, but what do I know?

[RememberSchiff]

Just now, mrjohns2 said:

Do you really think this is moving fast enough to impact camp this summer? I don't think so, but what do I know?

Maybe but more likely $ burn rate for attorneys and consultants will.

Wishful thinking on my part that the Judge could intervene?

My $0.01

 

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO this became a foregone conclusion back in June/July when the Court required that Councils provide asset lists and subsequently when both parties hired assessors.

Yes, but the question is how much?

Do I see all four HA bases surviving? No. But how many get sold? 1? 2? 3?

And the other big giant question for Councils is whether they will be forced to pay for claims in which they have no part and there is no look back window? That is what the insurance companies are arguing: why should someone with claims from say Iowa (where there is NO look back window on abuse claims) get a payout? They are arguing, in effect, this should be limited to those 7-12 states that have such lookback windows.

To me that will be the time when the in-fighting comes out. Why should an Iowa council, with ZERO claims against it (that aren't time barred) be forced to pay a nickle? You could say that even if the Iowa council is not LEGALLY obligated to make recompense they are MORALLY obligated to do so, but that's not a Chapter 11/bankruptcy question.

[InquisitiveScouter]

10 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Dear Moderators and Friends,

Last year some of you may recall that I actively hosted three lengthy postings in advance of the bankruptcy filing.  My purpose was to prepare the way for a great reorganization filing that I believed would result in a plan agreement and approval within six months or so after the filing date.  The discussions were serious and hundreds participated.  COVID destroyed that possibility, leading some claimants   Attorneys to smell blood in the water.  They have gone in for the kill and Scouting as we know it could end.

Several commenters joined claimants attorneys by going for the kill as well, primarily by posting one-liner personal attacks and down arrows against commenters attempting to balance the need to provide justice for victims of past with a desire to continue serving youth in the future.  They comment in disruptive ways and despise every aspect of our the national, council and district structures and volunteer leaders.  They further despise any citizen willing to work for pay to advance Scouting.  

The monitors of this site have chosen to allow the proliferation of often-abusive commentary.  This has led to a diminishment of quality and a need for thoughtful commenters to just take “time off” from the abuse on this site.  I regret to share that I have concluded some of these individuals are acting in concert with interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation.

If the moderators want to restore seriousness of purpose regarding discussion of the bankruptcy on this site, amid the crisis of whether Scouting will have a future at all, some of us might be willing to seriously re-engage.  For instance, the ultimate issue will be upon us in just a few weeks — whether and how much local councils should contribute to the victim’s trust in exchange for a local council discharge.  This should receive a thorough discussion in order to inform viewers on a matter they can impact in their local councils.

I comment  in my own name, am proud of everything I have said and thank Scouting.com for having allowed me to share thoughts during these years of change.  However, I encourage all thoughtful commenters to wait for a thoughtful reply from the moderators before investing serious time in posting analysis on this next, existential phase of the bankruptcy.  If management of this site wants a serious discussion on this potential “final issue”, it can have it.  However, it will need its moderators to directly curtail intentional disruptors.

Sincerely,

cburkhardt

@Cburkhardt, there is so much to unpack there.

In general, you cast aspersions at nebulous targets.  When you make a derogatory claim against an unidentified target, it comes across as disingenuous...crying "wolf" but not showing us where the wolf is.  If you want to help your claims, please be more specific.

You make a claim of conspiracy, "...some of these individuals are acting in concert with interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation." without identifying the conspirators (who are posting on this site) or their interests.

It also seems that you genuinely believe that comments posted here have an effect on the outcome of this bankruptcy in different venues, including local councils and the courts.  Do you believe that comments posted on this site influence the actions of Council Boards and Scout Executives across the country? Do you believe that attorneys in the case will use anything said here in their presentations before the court?  I do not reach those same conclusions.

If you want to instruct the volunteer moderators on how to do their jobs, again, please be more specific.  What was a "disruptive" or "abusive" comment that you think the moderators should have taken action on that they didn't?

The public square is open to all ideas and expression.  It is necessary to have free speech to present all points of view to flesh out sound ideas, and eliminate unsound ones.  That's what we do here.  When an idea is presented, it first falls on all of us in this community to expose that idea for its absurdity (without disparaging the person), or praise it for its truth and applicability.  If the idea infringes on someone else's rights or dignity, then we can call on the moderators to act.

What you propose is equivalent to the "cancel culture" and censoring of ideas you don't like.  That should be anathema to any citizen.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[CynicalScouter]

11 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

I regret to share that I have concluded some of these individuals are acting in concert with interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation.

Do you have a shred of anything close to evidence that anyone here is "acting in concert" with "interests seeking to drive the BSA into liquidation"?

Before you start throwing around defamatory accusations, put up evidence or retract.

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

Echoing others, cburkhardt needs to provide more information before heavy moderation would be appropriate.  It seems to me that the posts in this long thread have all been out of concern for the BSA.  To understand what is going to most likely happen when some details emerge and from that develop a strategy will mean that BSA supporters must ask hard questions. 

Those questions about the ramifications must be asked but the responses might be painful and demoralizing but they must be asked.  It is not going to be a time to tell glowing stories that do not reflect the overall situation.  The BSA has offered the National Service Center and all of supply in the $347 M.  We could assume that a final settlement would have those things sold.  It will be hard not to have supply for uniforms, badges, etc.  If councils try to take that over, how is there uniformity?  How will a merit badge not end up looking a little different between councils?  Is there another way to do supply?  Can a remaining BSA restart supply?  How long would that require?  These are not pleasant topics and will affect what happens at the unit level.  However, these tings must be discussed.  How will we as volunteers move forward?  We need to know if there will likely be a replacement supply before speculation makes any sense (for that matter, need to know with certainty that supply will be sold).

Could there be an organized effort to demoralize us - absolutely.  However, I believe that the circumstances will be demoralizing in and of itself.  People roughly smash any efforts to find ways forward can be addressed should they emerge.

I would ask the moderators to consider a temporary need category, with much of the understanding of Issues and Politics, that is for Bankruptcy Impacts and Responses for this discussion.  Hopefully, after a year or so, it could be deleted (archived).  Just my 2¢.

 

 

[JoeBob]

On 1/29/2021 at 10:36 PM, yknot said:

I just think the reality is that scouting is done and that it will be almost impossible to continue it as a grass roots activity. A group of parents will still need public goodwill and liability insurance. 

Sorry @yknot, but I can't disagree more.  The urge to get outside exists outside of 'Scouting'.  The footprint size of a national organization is the only question at stake in this bankruptcy.

The urge to get outside is actually increasing in the populace.  I introduced 4 individuals to hunting this season.  They approached me, I didn't have to recruit them.  3 of 4 killed bucks.  March 20 is opening day of turkey season, and they're knocking on my door.

High adventure?  The Boundary Waters canoe area will still be there, with outfitters. The Appalachian Trail will still be there.  Whitewater rafting companies, that many camps presently subcontract to, will return after Covid.  State parks and federal lands will be open.

Supply?  REI, LLBean, BassPro Shops, and North Face are not going out of business.  (Amazon omitted by intent...) 

Liability insurance?  A small group of parents from the neighborhood don't posses the conglomerate wealth to stimulate saliva in an ambulance chaser.  Small groups also don't have a codified list of procedures to provide a 'Gotcha!'  "'T' not crossed on YPT v.3.21345, and 'I' not dotted on G2SS #6453.b5.  You owe one million dollars."

Now you just have to decide if you'll never take a lawyer's kid rafting so you won't get sued, or you'll always take a lawyer's kid rafting so you'll always have a defense...

[InquisitiveScouter]

A parallel... The US Olympic Committee is a 501 C 3 facing consequences for it's role in cases of sexual abuse of gymnasts.  If the USOC ceased to exist, sporting competitions and the Olympics would continue.  Another group would fill the gap.  the USOC is not sports, and sports is not the USOC.

https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?id=4A4EB912-624B-4706-A6A1-64DC88E20C74

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:07BDl3Txjr0J:https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/olympic-organizations-face-multiple-investigations-by-justice-department-state-attorneys-general/2019/09/13/7e190fa2-d654-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The BSA is not Scouting.  BSA is a corporation that markets their Scouting program (monopolistically?).  If the corporation does not exist, Scouting still will.  Scouting existed in this country before the BSA, afterall.

At the local level, I am not concerned.  Nor am I at the national level...the movement of Scouting will continue in some form or another, with or without the BSA.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Another group would fill the gap.  the USOC is not sports, and sports is not the USOC.

Pretty good example.

USOC is a regulatory and sanctioning body. If you want to get to the Olympics, you have to get there via USOC OR whatever successor organization shows up. USOC is recognized by IOC as the "National Olympic Committee" for the U.S.

USOC is a "monopoly" on access to the Olympics. But that doesn't mean you can't go run around the block if USOC closes tomorrow.

BSA is not a regulator. Internationally, the only thing it would/could stop is some competitor from claiming WOSM status (no one cares).

Nationally, yes, it does have a congressionally-granted quasi-monopoly on "Scouting" (that's the point of the GSUSA lawsuit, it is only a "quasi"). If someone wants to create a scout organization (note the lower case s) and operate they can do so, they just cannot use BSA names, logos, etc.

[vol_scouter]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Pretty good example.

USOC is a regulatory and sanctioning body. If you want to get to the Olympics, you have to get there via USOC OR whatever successor organization shows up. USOC is recognized by IOC as the "National Olympic Committee" for the U.S.

USOC is a "monopoly" on access to the Olympics. But that doesn't mean you can't go run around the block if USOC closes tomorrow.

BSA is not a regulator. Internationally, the only thing it would/could stop is some competitor from claiming WOSM status (no one cares).

Nationally, yes, it does have a congressionally-granted quasi-monopoly on "Scouting" (that's the point of the GSUSA lawsuit, it is only a "quasi"). If someone wants to create a scout organization (note the lower case s) and operate they can do so, they just cannot use BSA names, logos, etc.

The BSA is a nonprofit corporation that does Scouting in the USA.  The BSA and GSUSA have the sole rights to using Scouts, Scouting, etc. when it applies to a program for youth and children. 

The BSA also owns such things as Eagle Scout and the other ranks, the Order of the Arrow, etc.  So a new program would need to develop new ranks, awards etc.  Not a huge problem but the good will and reputation of the US Scouting program would be lost.

There are certainly outfitters for the outdoors though it can be difficult to find gear for Webelos through the first couple of years of Scouts BSA size children and often more expensive.  Once again, an issue but not a fatal flaw.

The BSA has traditionally bought new gear for World Scout Jamborees (WSJ) such as tents that were given to National Scout Organizations (NSO) that struggle in third world countries.  If there is no BSA equivalent, that will cease (will not happen for a while).

The high adventure bases are a bargain for a high adventure trip to have food, housing (tents), logistics, etc. all arranged and not to be handled by the volunteers.  It requires a large organization to manage such properties.  The Appalachian Trail (AT) requires lots of logistical planning and only allows small groups.  I do not know of a sailing rental that would accommodate a group of Scouts and allow them to actually crew the boat.  Not saying that any of these things are impossible but it is not in the ability of most units.  As a boy, my troop hiked part of the AT every year but it was only in a nearby portion and was only on a long weekend.  We did long weekend canoe trips locally but the cost to go far from home was an impediment.  Clearly, high adventure bases are still cost prohibitive for many Scouts and Scouters but they do allow the participants a good value and minimize the time to plan and execute the trip.

We are a large nation and the strong leadership of the BSA means a high fidelity in the program across the country so that Scouts and Scouters can move and it is the same program.  The loss of a strong central leadership to establish uniform standards will be a loss.  I know that many do not like the BSA but whenever you interact with folks from around the country, it is gratifying that the program has high fidelity.

All of this to say that there is tangible benefit to a BSA with supply division.  Scouting will survive if it is eliminated (that I don't think is the likely outcome) but it will benefit from a BSA similar to the current one.

The next several weeks will likely inform us as to how the future will look.  The local councils will be affected as well - likely with a contribution to a claimants trust fund that could be painful to much worse.

Let us all be Loyal to Scouting, Trustworthy with our comments, Kind to one another as we work through these difficult problems, Brave to honestly face the issues, and throughout it remain Cheerful.

[yknot]

On 1/31/2021 at 11:16 AM, JoeBob said:

Sorry @yknot, but I can't disagree more.  The urge to get outside exists outside of 'Scouting'.  The footprint size of a national organization is the only question at stake in this bankruptcy.

The urge to get outside is actually increasing in the populace.  I introduced 4 individuals to hunting this season.  They approached me, I didn't have to recruit them.  3 of 4 killed bucks.  March 20 is opening day of turkey season, and they're knocking on my door.

High adventure?  The Boundary Waters canoe area will still be there, with outfitters. The Appalachian Trail will still be there.  Whitewater rafting companies, that many camps presently subcontract to, will return after Covid.  State parks and federal lands will be open.

Supply?  REI, LLBean, BassPro Shops, and North Face are not going out of business.  (Amazon omitted by intent...) 

Liability insurance?  A small group of parents from the neighborhood don't posses the conglomerate wealth to stimulate saliva in an ambulance chaser.  Small groups also don't have a codified list of procedures to provide a 'Gotcha!'  "'T' not crossed on YPT v.3.21345, and 'I' not dotted on G2SS #6453.b5.  You owe one million dollars."

Now you just have to decide if you'll never take a lawyer's kid rafting so you won't get sued, or you'll always take a lawyer's kid rafting so you'll always have a defense...

There is indeed a greater urge to get outdoors.  The problem is that the urge has decreased within scouting. It's become very advancement and Eagle Scout driven. It's not universally attracting that many outdoors types. I've been pointing this out for a long time. 

Liability issues are more involved than just worrying about whether you have a lawyer's kid along on the trip. You still need to have some kind of insurance, policies and procedures, etc. People may be enthusiastic about it until there is an issue and they are faced with personal liability.