Chapter 11 announced

[Armymutt]

13 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I don’t know what you are talking about. Growing up, we were a very middle class troop. No trailer, lower middle class Chicago suburb. We drove to the boundary waters. We packed our own food; no backpacking food, too expensive. We rented some of the waterproof bags, but the rest we lined with garbage bags. We did a 12 day canoe trip for about the cost of summer camp. This was just in the notational forest or what ever public lands. 
 

The more I hear about the evening program at Phimont, I’m confused. I thought it was wilderness - not some re-enactment dress up program. 

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

[T2Eagle]

18 hours ago, ThenNow said:

This is a question borne both out of curiosity and my interest in the health and safety of kids.

Are there "model" structures or relationships between the various entities that can be put forward as exemplars? I'm sure some of you have it dialed in to a science. This is how it's done in other context with great success. To borrow from the franchise discussion, this is why and how the good ones succeed wildly: strict adherence to replication. Even as I say that it dawns that as volunteer driven it lacks financial incentive, effectively downgrading the engine of the model. The V12 becomes a Volt. It was a thought. "Here is what works and this is how to do it, if you manage to pull it off."

The CDC has issued some guidelines.  As I stated in a previous post, most youth serving programs are providing pretty similar rules these days.  Broadly: no one on one contact, background checks, mandated reporting of violations, no corporal punishment, constructive discipline, no tolerance for humiliation or bullying, etc.

I have a problem both with overly restrictive rules from BSA and units that don't bother following them.  While realizing that not all slopes are slippery, when you have the view that I don't have to follow this rule about lazer tag it becomes a little easier for someone with less judgment to decide not to follow the two deep leadership rule "just this once." 

I don't think there's anything wrong or dangerous about lazer tag, but I also think there are 1000 other fun thigs you can do so why bother do the one that's prohibited.  Dodge ball seems sketchier to me.  As both a youth and adult I've seen it lead to bad outcomes: bigger, more skillful kids throwing an object at smaller, less skillful kids just makes it too easy for things to go wrong, through either negligence or malice.

BSA should be more careful about the restriction's they impose, and much much more transparent about why.  When their rules either are arbitrary, or seem arbitrary because they aren't well explained, they lead to the situation I described where it becomes easier to ignore both the dumb ones and the important ones.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf

[InquisitiveScouter]

What we really have here is a bevy of groups with different, yet sometimes aligned, goals:

1.  Abused Scouts who are seeking justice

2. Fake abused Scouts trying to get a score money.

3. Lawyers who are genuinely concerned for their clients in seeking justice

4. Lawyers who are trying score money.

5.  BSA Corporate types who want to preserve the organization, and genuinely care about abused Scouts, and are seeking some way to address both.

6.  BSA Corporate types who want to preserve the organization at all costs, don't care about abused Scouts, and will say or do anything to make the organization look good.

7.  Volunteers (the real lifeblood of the organization), who are saddened by the situation, and want this dealt with appropriately so we can "heal" and continue delivering a quality program.

and this list goes on and on and on...

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

What we really have here is a bevy of groups with different, yet sometimes aligned, goals:

As a certified oddball and registered pedigreed odd duck, I'm onboard with the odd numbers. 

[vol_scouter]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Got it.

Personally, I don't believe that, "the well runs dry in July," rhetoric. I've not heard anyone on the claimants' side verify that apprehension and it sounds tactical, to a negotiator's hears.

The BSA must file a five year business plan that is sound and provides a reasonable method to remain in business.  This will require a level of liquidity that the BSA will not be able to have past July 2021 according to estimates from late spring early summer of 2020.  The membership decrease was worse than had been predicted even that late into the year so I doubt that the forecast would have improved.  So this is not rhetoric.  From reading all that I can about this Chapter 11, it seems that most will not be well served for the BSA to be liquidated with the pension plan poised to consume most of the money.

Since you have said that you are a claimant and have a professional role as an attorney, is it actually acceptable for you to request information from members of the ad hoc committee?  That seems like asking to get into the opposing team's huddle.

[InquisitiveScouter]

10 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

While realizing that not all slopes are slippery, when you have the view that I don't have to follow this rule about lazer tag it becomes a little easier for someone with less judgment to decide not to follow the two deep leadership rule "just this once." 

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

[InquisitiveScouter]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As a certified oddball and registered pedigreed odd duck, I'm onboard with the odd numbers. 

Lol...totally did not plan it that way

[vol_scouter]

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

What we really have here is a bevy of groups with different, yet sometimes aligned, goals:

1.  Abused Scouts who are seeking justice

2. Fake abused Scouts trying to get a score money.

3. Lawyers who are genuinely concerned for their clients in seeking justice

4. Lawyers who are trying score money.

5.  BSA Corporate types who want to preserve the organization, and genuinely care about abused Scouts, and are seeking some way to address both.

6.  BSA Corporate types who want to preserve the organization at all costs, don't care about abused Scouts, and will say or do anything to make the organization look good.

7.  Volunteers (the real lifeblood of the organization), who are saddened by the situation, and want this dealt with appropriately so we can "heal" and continue delivering a quality program.

and this list goes on and on and on...

Though I know almost all of the BSA upper management and many employees in the country, I know no one who fits your category 6.  That said, I am not denying that such individuals may exist, from my experience, they are rare.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

Though I know almost all of the BSA upper management and many employees in the country, I know no one who fits your category 6.  That said, I am not denying that such individuals may exist, from my experience, they are rare.

I know two...

[vol_scouter]

17 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

The CDC has issued some guidelines.  As I stated in a previous post, most youth serving programs are providing pretty similar rules these days.  Broadly: no one on one contact, background checks, mandated reporting of violations, no corporal punishment, constructive discipline, no tolerance for humiliation or bullying, etc.

I have a problem both with overly restrictive rules from BSA and units that don't bother following them.  While realizing that not all slopes are slippery, when you have the view that I don't have to follow this rule about lazer tag it becomes a little easier for someone with less judgment to decide not to follow the two deep leadership rule "just this once." 

I don't think there's anything wrong or dangerous about lazer tag, but I also think there are 1000 other fun thigs you can do so why bother do the one that's prohibited.  Dodge ball seems sketchier to me.  As both a youth and adult I've seen it lead to bad outcomes: bigger, more skillful kids throwing an object at smaller, less skillful kids just makes it too easy for things to go wrong, through either negligence or malice.

BSA should be more careful about the restriction's they impose, and much much more transparent about why.  When their rules either are arbitrary, or seem arbitrary because they aren't well explained, they lead to the situation I described where it becomes easier to ignore both the dumb ones and the important ones.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf

The BSA had the YP standards in place before the CDC issued its guidance.

[mrjohns2]

21 minutes 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.  

Define richer? There are plenty of National Parks and National Forests with backcountry backpacking. For example, Glacier National Park. To me HA would be simple to replace compared to a Jamboree. One can do plenty of HA on their own, you just need to want to. Again, if you are looking for unspoiled backcountry, our country has plenty. If you are looking for an all day hike with an evening of mine exploration or logging camp experience, no, not really available. Then again, that isn't what I am looking for in a HA trip. I am looking for hiking in an unspoiled wilderness where you encounter no one. 

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Since you have said that you are a claimant and have a professional role as an attorney, is it actually acceptable for you to request information from members of the ad hoc committee?  That seems like asking to get into the opposing team's huddle.

Did I ask for information from the Ad Hoc Committee? What I did wonder out loud about is whether there are LC's that don't believe the AHC is representing their interests and if it has any real force or effect on the process. I represent myself as to my claim and have no formal professional role beyond that.

Some may find this an interesting side note and others not. The chairman of the AHC is attorney Ricky Mason, also the President of the BSA's Greater New York Council. Mr. Mason's firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, happens to represent JP Morgan Chase, which may or may not have an interest of note in this matter.

Hm. Life is curious and follow the money. Write it down.

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[T2Eagle]

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The BSA had the YP standards in place before the CDC issued its guidance.

Yup, they were part of the committee that worked on the guidelines.  

[T2Eagle]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Did I ask for information from the Ad Hoc Committee? What I did wonder out loud about is whether there are LC's that don't believe the AHC is representing their interests and if it has any real force or effect on the process.

Some may find this an interesting side note and others not. The chairman of the AHC is attorney Ricky Mason, also the President of the BSA's Greater New York Council. Mr. Mason's firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, happens to represent JP Morgan Chase, which may or may not have an interest of note in this matter.

Hm. Life is curious and follow the money. Write it down.

  If Mr. Mason is representing his council than his sworn duty is to represent his council, irrespective of what other clients his very, very large firm may represent.  I always find it unseemly to question the integrity of someone in our profession without evidence.

To your original question, in a group of hundreds of councils there's certainly going to be a wide variety of opinions.  My understanding in my own council is that we'll end up paying in order to put this all behind us, and there really isn't a good alternative.  I suspect that's the median position.  It's a very open question of law whether the councils are or are not so controlled by national that their assets have to be treated as if they're national's assets.  It would take years and at least an appellate court decision to settle that.  I doubt either side will see it as in their interest to roll the dice and go that far.

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

If Mr. Mason is representing his council than his sworn duty is to represent his council, irrespective of what other clients his very, very large firm may represent.  I always find it unseemly to question the integrity of someone in our profession without evidence.

Actually, he's purportedly or ostensibly representing your Council and all the others, as the Chairman of the AHC. If you want to remain beyond reproach, avoid all possible appearance of conflicted interest. Take it as you like. As I said, I was pointing out  something that may be of interest. To me, whether as a claimant, attorney, spectator or person interested in the future of Scouting, it's worth noting. Perhaps he was the one and only option to chair the AHC and be the lead negotiator in contexts that include the major creditors. Again, what do I know...

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow