Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I thought you might find that interesting, though clients seldom drive cases of this type, which loops back to the motives and goals of certain attorneys.

I believe it. But there's a word for this: exsanguination.

If I take a pint of blood from the average person, no biggie. Two pints? Ok. Three? Er, fine. Four pints? Whoa.

Past 4 or 5 pints, you risk the person bleeding to death. And that is the average person.

So we have lawyers (and clients), like those with the TCC, who want to take as many pints out of BSA without killing it. Replace "blood" with "money" and "pints" with "millions" and adjust accordingly.

So, if BSA is forced to contribute $100 million to a victims fund? Fine. How about $1 billion? Er, maybe if it has a firesale on HA bases and liquidates everything up to but not including the office staplers at HQ.

The problem is NO ONE KNOWS THE MAGIC NUMBER.

Guess wrong one way and the victims get less than they could have.

Guess wrong the other way and BSA's dead inside of a few years anyway because they've lost too much infrastructure to survive.

Now, play that same scenario out over 200+ councils.

Kosnoff et al. want BSA dead. I'm not talking about them and their ilk.

I am talking about TCC and lawyers like them who want to get as much as they can but NOT kill BSA outright, both for their clients and yes for themselves.

That's the tricky part here.

 

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

"Say little. Write less. As to your clients, they refer all inquiries to you."

Good lawyer/client advice.

Bad PR advice in which the impetus is to get out on front of the story, set the narrative and broadcast/promote your message.

From a PR perspective, I want Mosby (and other BSA National leaders) on the air touting the message that BSA is a great organization and that the bad days are behind it (they are not of course because WE ARE STILL IN BANKRUPTCY COURT).

From a legal perspective, I want Mosby locked away in a room and as far away from cameras as possible.

 

[ThenNow]

You are obviously very intelligent, highly invested, extremely articulate, a problem solver and angry. I'm curious, what is the most frustrating: (1) the inability to control the process and thereby solve the riddle; or (2) the prospect of losing Scouting? (And yes, I am now wearing my therapist hat as well as the wingtips.)

[ThenNow]

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

The BSA should be out there holding events, on new shows, wherever they can be having conversations about how important it is to develop youth in our complex, challenging world.  They should be the advocate for helping kids solve problems, be prepared for the future, for being leaders.   They should be leveraging the BSAs history to talk about how to keep kids safe in a scary world.  They should be driving initiatives pushing for national registries for adult volunteers.  They should be offering the BSA collateral to any youth organization that wants it.  

I worked in Washington, DC on two separate gigs. One, for a Member of Congress and the other many years later as Exec. Director of a Policy office. I believe this is precisely on point. The element I see missing is the critical secret weapon in these situations: surrogates.

When an individual is in a difficult situation and cannot afford to have anyone officially affiliated with them speak in their defense, they release the carefully chosen surrogates. If well selected, their ability to offer commentary and support is a key leveraging strategy to influence public opinion and bolster the position of the principal. I've wondered where the power players are who are deeply involved with and still love Scouting. In this critical moment, crickets...

Edited February 25, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

(1) the inability to control the process and thereby solve the riddle; or (2) the prospect of losing Scouting?

We don't know what this looks like.

1) Never before has a Congressionally chartered organization gone into bankruptcy. Can you even liquidate something Congress has given perpetual life to?

2) We have no idea the number of victims. When John Jay did its study of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church it found 11,000 accusations across 52 years. The 2012 "Vatican Report" suggested closer to 100,000 and a cost of $2.2 billion

BSA is looking at 95,000. Even if only 10% are credible, that puts you closer to the John Jay study (11k). That's still horrific given that the Catholic Church is so much larger than BSA ever was.

3) Everything else that's happened to BSA. Even if not a single scout was ever abused a single time ever, BSA has taken absolutely devastating losses in membership. Some of it is society (GSUSA, 4H and all such groups are losing members; this goes back to "Bowling Alone" -Americans just are not social anymore). Some of it is because BSA is "too liberal" (letting girls in, letting openly homosexual leaders in), Some of it is because BSA  is "too conservative" (only let in girls and openly homosexual leaders after being dragged kicking and screaming to that point). Some simply look at BSA as old, antiquated, and out dated. Others object because they view it as too soft and safe.

Oh, and did I mention COVID, which killed outdoor programming for many places for almost an entire year? Yeah, that too.

There are just too many variables to be able to determine what changing one will mean because we can't control for the others.

Sure, maybe 10 years ago BSA could have paid out $1 billion to a victims fund and been able to shrug it off. But now? Today? in March 2021 (when the plan is supposed to come out)?

And what happens if BSA today pays out $1 billion and the membership declines keep happening. Is BSA just going to be back in bankruptcy court in 3 years anyway?

You heard about "Chapter 22" and "Chapter 33" companies: business that in a short span have to file Chapter 11 twice ("22") or even three times ("33").

My concern is not losing BSA in 2021. I've maintained the view BSA National will be left a hollow shell with little to no assets and forced to rebuild.

My concern is than by 2023-2025 BSA is back in bankruptcy and this time looking at Chapter 7.

 

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Mike Rowe?

Zach Galifianakis - Eagle Scout - Hangover Star - Between Two Ferns ... 

[RememberSchiff]

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

We don't know what this looks like.

1) Never before has a Congressionally chartered organization gone into bankruptcy. Can you even liquidate something Congress has given perpetual life to?

Always a first.

Granting a corporation "perpetual existence" is not the same as the federal government guaranteeing perpetuity. Corporations go out of business all the time.

My $0.01

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Granting a corporation "perpetual existence" is not the same as the federal government guaranteeing perpetuity. Corporations go out of business all the time.

True, how does a court under Chapter 7 order the liquidation/termination of that which Congress established as "perpetual"? Does it somehow find 36 U.S. Code § 30901(c) unconstitutional?

Quote

36 U.S. Code § 30901(c) Perpetual Existence.—
Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.

The only other times in history a Congressional chartered organization ceased to exist was when all the member died. For example, the Grand Army of the Republic (Union veterans group) ceased to exist when the last Union veteran died.

That's why I suspect that what comes out of this is a BSA National that is a hollow-shell. A zombie-BSA if you will that consists of ONLY that which Congress mandated by law

1. An incorporate entity under 36 U.S. Code § 30901
2. With a board under 36 U.S. Code § 30903
3. The purpose of the board/entity to "promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916" under 36 U.S. Code § 30902
4. Said board with certain powers (typically of any corporate board) under 36 U.S. Code § 30904
5. And the exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words associated with Boy Scouts of America under 36 U.S. Code § 30905
6. That must deliver an annual report to Congress under 36 U.S. Code § 30908

And that's it. Like I said: nothing left but the staplers on the desks at HQ.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ParkMan]

23 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Zach Galifianakis - Eagle Scout - Hangover Star - Between Two Ferns ... 

Excellent suggestion.  I know that many would think this would be in jest, but this is a wonderful idea.

Imagine a Scouting campaign that showed real successful people and how Scouting helped them.  Back in the 60s/70s I think there was a thing like this about astronauts.  Today make it about media people.

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I worked in Washington, DC on two separate gigs. One, for a Member of Congress and the other many years later as Exec. Director of a Policy office. I believe this is precisely on point. The element I see missing is the critical secret weapon in these situations: surrogates.

When an individual is in a difficult situation and cannot afford to have anyone officially affiliated with them speak in their defense, they release the carefully chosen surrogates. If well selected, their ability to offer commentary and support is a key leveraging strategy to influence public opinion and bolster the position of the principal. I've wondered where the power players are who are deeply involved with and still love Scouting. In this critical moment, crickets...

To use another political concept, I essentially keep thinking of a concept I heard a lot about in the Clinton days - triangulation.

Instead of the BSA defensively responding and requiring surrogates to defend it, why not simply own their history and become an advocate for those that were harmed?

In essence, change the narrative.  If someone wants to talk about 95,000 abuse cases - talk about 95,000 abuse cases.  Ally with the people making the claims.  Ally with the people leading the cause.  Don't make it about victims vs. the BSA.  Make it about Scouting being a leader in protecting children.

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Instead of the BSA defensively responding and requiring surrogates to defend it, why not simply own their history and become an advocate for those that were harmed?

This is where the attorneys come in and say, "No can do." Too many ways that can go south. Quickly.

There are two specific examples illustrating the degree to which the internal message has been and is being managed. Check out the Mosby and Turley statements last year. Not once is the word "sexual" used. Lots of references to "victims," "abuse" and "harm," but no mention of the type, source or nature. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

29 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Ally with the people making the claims.  Ally with the people leading the cause. 

Here's the problem with that from a legal point. While that may make great PR, if they do so it could be twisted by the attorneys for the claimants and a blanket admission that ALL 95,000 claims are valid.

This is what BSA said when the claims window closed.
 

Quote

"We are devastated by the number of lives impacted by past abuse in scouting and moved by the bravery of those who have come forward," the scouting organization said in a statement.

"We are heartbroken that we cannot undo their pain.

"We intentionally developed an open, accessible process to reach survivors and help them take an essential step toward receiving compensation. The response we have seen from survivors has been gut wrenching. We are deeply sorry," the BSA added.

Ok, great. But I will absolutely assure you that entire statement was cleared through legal. Multiple times.

Putting out Mosby or someone else to "ally" (note the word here) "with the people making the claims" creates two massive problems.

1) The first is what I mentioned: if they "ally" with all 95,000 claimants, that could be seen as a concession that ALL 95,000 are valid.

2) "Ally" against who exactly? Claimants lawyers? Again, while it might be tempting to make this BSA vs. the "evil plaintiffs attorneys" that a) will never be legally cleared by BSA's own lawyers and b) will inevitably be twisted into "BSA vs. victims".

Edited February 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Check out the Mosby and Turley statements last year. Not once is the word "sexual" used. Lots of references to "victims," "abuse" and "harm," but no mention of the type, source or nature. 

Exactly. Look at the November statement after the claims window closed.

• Abuse.
• Bravery of those who have come forward. Not "Victims".
• Pain.
• BSA reached out to "survivors" (that does NOT concede that all those who "came forward" are "survivors")
• Gut Wrenching
• "Deeply Sorry" but not specifically for what

By this point, even the word "victim" is dropped in favor of "survivor" and again, without conceding all or any of the 95,000 are "survivors".

And this is with no doubt a combined review by legal staff AND PR people.

Now, put Mosby out there. He is either going to

1. Be limited to patronizing gerealized platitudes that come off as disingenuous
2. Constant repeat of the phrase "There is ongoing litigation and mediation so I can't comment."

The idea of Mosby announcing he is "allying" with the 95,000 claimants is simply not going to happen.

Is it a defensive crouch? ABSOLUTELY. But for right now, it is the best legal strategy, even if a lousy PR one.

[vol_scouter]

CynicalScouter and others have made valid, cogent arguments why the BSA should not engage in a PR campaign until the bankruptcy case has concluded.  I concur with them.

There is another part to this idea and it will impact any PR campaign - the enormous cost of a cross media campaign.  When I was a youth in Scouting, there were three televisions stations and no cable.  Newspapers were better read and had more subscriptions (though there were more viable papers then).  It was easier and proportionately less expensive to mount a truly nationwide campaign then.

Now, with ABC, NBC, and CBS reaching far fewer people, the many cable channels and social media, even large wealthy corporations must be selective in their approach.

Who would we wish the BSA to reach?  It is active in social media and reaches a good deal of the youth nd young adults though likely it is the ones already in Scouting.  That is an extremely important group but it will not likely result in a lot of new members.

So whom would we pick to make appeals?  Children and youth?  Young adults?  Parents of Scout age children?  Perhaps, older people without Scout age children but who might be a donor?  National thought leaders for support?  The same message will not be effective in all of those groups but the messages cannot appear to conflict.

The point is that this will be a very expensive endeavor.  Coming out of bankruptcy, there will be many financial needs.  How does the BSA balance them all?

I predict that this will be a topic of criticism because we tend to see things through multiple kinds of glasses and the BSA cannot blanket all media with different messages.

Someone above noted that national coverage is on abuse, lawsuits, trademark issues, etc. while local Scouting events garner much more positive press.  Seem to me that rather than look to national, we should look to ourselves for the PR through our councils.

 

[ParkMan]

40 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This is where the attorneys come in and say, "No can do." Too many ways that can go south. Quickly.

There are two specific examples illustrating the degree to which the internal message has been and is being managed. Check out the Mosby and Turley statements last year. Not once is the word "sexual" used. Lots of references to "victims," "abuse" and "harm," but no mention of the type, source or nature. 

Thank you.

I will recognize that I'm describing a goal more than a solution here - but it strikes me that must be cases nationally where organizations and politicians have been able to craft a PR strategy that takes historic bad acts and lawsuits and turns them into a positive message.  

I understand that these approaches must make lawyers squirm - but there has to be a way here.  My sense is that the BSA typically has something of a bunker mentality.  As such, I expect that the discussion in the national offices are indeed focused on limiting exposure in the lawsuit. 

I appreciate all that has been said here by you and others.  I suspect that these sorts of issues are why the BSA has always had a very weak PR presence.  It's why despite the population of the US going up, participation in program has gone down.  It's why the BSA has routinely been late to respond to trends in demographics.  It's why the BSA has been overshadowed time and time again in the media.  Good PR strategies and hard and require skilled, knowledgeable people to run them.  They know how to deal with the concerns of lawyers and lawsuits.  They require teams to be proactive and understand the media process.  In short, we need the PR team of Apple, not of Blackberry.  Sadly I think we hired the Blackberry team.

I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree here.