Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[Eagle1993]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA's lawyers told the court August was the out-of-cash date.

Tough to predict.  Who knows what the legal fees will be over the next several months. Probably pretty close, but then in Sept they start getting cash from new registrations.  I also wonder if they can dip into their endowment.  That could carry them through 2022 I expect.    

[Eagle1970]

Anything short of full and honest (and prompt) disclosure by the BSA is unacceptable.  Spending settlement money on unnecessary filings is just more of the same.  BSA is responsible to the damage they caused me and so many others, by blatant disregard and pure negligence in allowing unvetted "leaders" to have private custody of young children.  And each time I see another legal tactic it makes me care a little less about its survival.  I'm torn on the whole topic.  I worked so hard for my Eagle, Order of the Arrow and other achievements but they were all relegated to a box of memories so tainted by the abuse, I can't even see them as valuable.  Other than here, I never tell anyone I am an Eagle Scout.

[skeptic]

16 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

As someone who personally knows most of the upper management and executive board of the BSA, yes, I believe that they are honorable men and women who have hired the best attorneys to represent the BSA that they could find and are following the advice of counsel.

The BSA is paying for the best attorneys available and follow their advice.  Why the course is not something that is clear.  The BSA would be foolish to not do as they are advised.

You cannot provide where the money originated to purchase and prepare the Summit for the first National Jamboree.   My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA.

" My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA. " 

Surely, most that still follow this whole heavily skewed discussion understand that NOTHING that reflects anywhere positively on the BSA side will be believed or accepted by Cynical.  Yes, I purposely leave the second part of his tag off, as I cannot fathom him actually being a Scouter, and he shows no connections in his profile.  He may be, but he long ago appears to have lost the very basic precepts, based on his ongoing vendetta on here.  I could be wrong, and just not understand; but that is the impression I get.  

I do though thank him for the difficult to find info he furnishes, even if it is always presented in a negative manner.  Other than the legal things he and T & N share, I personally feel this whole thread has pretty much become their field to plow.  At least T & N shares his reasoning and seems to want a survival in some manner.  JMO of course.  

 

[CynicalScouter]

20 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Surely, most that still follow this whole heavily skewed discussion understand that NOTHING that reflects anywhere positively on the BSA side will be believed or accepted by Cynical. 

To be clear, I've made it clear from the start that I do think BSA has done positive things.

1. They opted for bankruptcy. I know many people who think that was stupid and BSA should have fought these abuse suits, one at a time, for decades.
2. BSA is to be commended for at least paying lip service to the idea that, regardless of statute of limitations, they want to help abused scouts. HOW MUCH they want to help is TBD.
3. I actually support the decision of Mosby et al to remain silent at a time when people here and elsewhere have criticized them for that. The more BSA officials talk about the bankruptcy OTHER THAN THROUGH THEIR LAWYERS, the worse it can be.
4. I firmly believe and have said that the Guide to Safe Scouting makes perfect sense in light of the fact that 90-99% of it can traced back to lawsuits filed against BSA National, LCs, and/or units.

Now, that said

1. I can remember sitting and watching BSA National officials state at the NAM and elsewhere, unequivocally and in no uncertain terms, that the bankruptcy would NOT have ANY impact on local councils and their assets. And local councils relaying that message to units and local donors/funders.
   I knew at the time that there was NO way National could make that kind of promise and that they were either a) naive b) stupid or c) deliberately lying. Now, with council after council selling camps, the truth comes out.
2. I absolutely 100% believe that BSA is being less than honest and forthcoming with its financials with respect to the abuse victims and IN PARTICULAR Summit/Arrow, WV and the...interesting financing used, plus its refusal to allow the judge or other parties to examine their financial records on this.
3. I absolutely 100% believe that BSA (and the judge and others) have let this drag out way, way too long without addressing the big questions, including but not limited to, whether LCs are mere appendages of National for purposes of assets. That's not entire BSA's fault, there's plenty of blame to go around.

So, I'm sorry. But I refuse to play the sycophant and assume that everything BSA tells me is 100% truth (or Truth).

My sons remain in Scouts, BSA. They are in the troop as am I. I've been involved since they were Cubs.

I want to see BSA survive. But unless it starts to step up now, or literally in the next few weeks (money runs out in August or September) and starts to offer more to these sexual abuse victims that $6000 and a "we are sorry", they aren't going to survive.

You, of course, are free and welcome to accept whatever BSA National tells you at face value, unquestionably and without a moment hesitation or thought.

But keep in mind: 84,000 sexual abuse victims and their families put similar blind, unquestioning faith in BSA National, local councils, and COs to ensure their sons were not raped. That didn't turn out so well.

Edited May 1, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

NOTHING that reflects anywhere positively on the BSA side will be believed or accepted by Cynical.  Yes, I purposely leave the second part of his tag off, as I cannot fathom him actually being a Scouter, and he shows no connections in his profile.  He may be, but he long ago appears to have lost the very basic precepts, based on his ongoing vendetta on here.  I could be wrong, and just not understand; but that is the impression I get.  

I know he has responded, but I will give my take. In addition to his engaged involvement as a Scouter and dad, I've read many of his posts on other threads. I didn't seek them out, they were just part of topical threads that interest me. (I have too much time on my hands.) Other than on the Grooming/Psychobabble thread, his demeanor is much different and his contributions clearly evince his love of and commitment to Scouting. I read he is frustrated to the point of personal dismay (he took time off to get his "head straight," I believe it was) and I believe longstanding frustration has morphed into anger at inaction, inconsistency, lack of honorable behavior and excess. I may be wrong. Sometimes, his anger and frustration are very front and center, especially since the First Amended Plan dropped. It's worth noting the sheer volume of information he has culled through and absorbed in order to be able to present things as he does. I don't think someone who hates Scouting would invest that much time. Like me, I think, he needs information to feel in control of things that are out of my control. Unless he's writing a book about the demise of Scouting from a one time Scouter turned V for Vendetta, he must care about the present and future of Scouting. Think about what he pours out here. Seriously.

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I do though thank him for the difficult to find info he furnishes, even if it is always presented in a negative manner.  Other than the legal things he and T & N share, I personally feel this whole thread has pretty much become their field to plow.  At least T & N shares his reasoning and seems to want a survival in some manner.  JMO of course. 

As for me, I appreciate you saying that. CS often says things (before) I do more and, then, more eloquently and with much more information and background. I don't have any Scouting context that's not "Then," as in 1972-1979. After being assailed a on this forum a number of times, I tend to hold back because I really don't want to attack. I'll defend myself and my fellows, however. It's curious to me that some who accuse of less than scout-like behavior display the same in their reactions, on occasion. Oh, well. We're humans. As I've said, I'm not the enemy and most don't know what I've done for Scouting as a relative outsider since I departed. I do value my time in as a Scout and pulled out my pins and cufflinks and started wearing them in late 2019. I'm looking at my framed Eagle certificate out of the corner of my eye. Blame it for any and all typos. 

My goal in coming here and speaking up was to gain and give perspective. Many who've DM'd with me know more about my story and what I mean by that. For me, when I saw what the TN LC did in the summer of 2020, that's when my antennae sparked and I started to question motives, sincerity and whether this might actually provide some recompense to the victims/ survivors. That fear of funny business is being reinforced monthly, if not weekly. It makes me sad. My family who know SOME of my story want the BSA nuked. They don't understand what appears to them to be akin to Stockholm Syndrome or some such. As with CS, my feelings and relationship to Scouting Then/Now is complicated. 

I don't care for the implication that we've hijacked the thread. The moderators have kindly body checked me several times, and I appreciate it. They break off threads that wander too far or shut down other topics that got to the whipping post stage. If CS has taken the engine and I'm shoveling coal on a runaway train, that speaks ill of them. I've seen anything BUT lack of proper moderation and healthy facilitation. Personally, this is a great outlet to learn and express my view and, maybe, that of other victim/survivors. I continue because I have been repeatedly invited to continue, publicly and privately.

PS - I do love that "Skeptic" is dogging "Cynical." I think I'll write a short story. It's too perfect, in an ironic and philosophical way.

Edited May 1, 2021 by ThenNow
Edit - the Eagle certificate's fault

[yknot]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

" My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA. " 

Surely, most that still follow this whole heavily skewed discussion understand that NOTHING that reflects anywhere positively on the BSA side will be believed or accepted by Cynical.  Yes, I purposely leave the second part of his tag off, as I cannot fathom him actually being a Scouter, and he shows no connections in his profile.  He may be, but he long ago appears to have lost the very basic precepts, based on his ongoing vendetta on here.  I could be wrong, and just not understand; but that is the impression I get.  

I do though thank him for the difficult to find info he furnishes, even if it is always presented in a negative manner.  Other than the legal things he and T & N share, I personally feel this whole thread has pretty much become their field to plow.  At least T & N shares his reasoning and seems to want a survival in some manner.  JMO of course.  

 

My opinion is that this has been one of the best threads on this site--great, timely, and unique raw information, excellent analysis and multiple perspectives even when they differ, and thoughtful moderation. That's sad, because it's not a program thread, which is where I think most of us would rather be. But in our current reality, I feel it is helping all of us try to wrap our minds around the incomprehensible. I have no doubt that there are some individuals in the BSA upper tier organization that I would respect and trust. However, the ones I have encountered so far, as well as some of the incomprehensible actions taken by national, have not inspired trust or confidence. I'm willing to listen to others who have had other experiences and would be delighted to ultimately have my faith restored. But it has got to be restored with more than words. I have to see some things going in a different direction. So, if I'm a dwarf, I'm not Cynical or Skeptic, but maybe Hopeful? 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

But keep in mind: 84,000 sexual abuse victims and their families put similar blind, unquestioning faith in BSA National, local councils, and COs to ensure their sons were not raped. That didn't turn out so well.

I occasionally relay small bits of these interchanges to my therapist. She is a specialist in child sexual abuse and, during her PhD, did her practicum treating convicted sex abusers. Her father was a prison chaplain and I find her a fascinating and incredibly good therapist and person. Anyway...she muses out loud about how those who think the victim/survivors and vampire attorneys are unjustly trying to victimize Scouts and Scouting would feel if they or their boys were among the 84,000. I know, I know. People say, "It wouldn't make any difference. I would still feel the same," but that is utterly disingenuous. You don't know it - CAN'T KNOW IT - because you've not lived it. You don't know what a "disease of the soul" is if you or someone you know didn't or doesn't have one. I do recommend you think about the abuse scenario I mentioned, though. Really, really, really think about it.  

Edited May 1, 2021 by ThenNow
Dang Eagle certificate...

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

My opinion is that this has been one of the best threads on this site--great, timely, and unique raw information, excellent analysis and multiple perspectives even when they differ, and thoughtful moderation.

This is the other message about this forum: these are matters that directly impact scouts (sold camps, fees going up, councils in distress) and there is literally no other forum to get this info.

1. BSA National cannot breath a word because, well, their lawyers are telling them (wisely) to a) shut up and b) keep shutting up.
2. Your Local Council, both professionals and volunteers, are either a) unaware of what is going on or b) being advised that if they are told things (like by, say, the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils) they too fall into the "shut up and keep shutting up" group.
3. The BSA subreddit gets some things sometimes, but the moderators have effectively forbidden any conversations about the bankruptcy.
4. The FB groups, and I belong to several, simply devolve into "hate the lawyers, BSA did nothing wrong!" rant fests and contain random guesses of people who haven't read a single pleading, they just know a) the abuse victims (outside of maybe 1 or 2) are all liars b) all lawyers are evil and c) BSA can do no wrong.

[qwazse]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

...Scouts and Scouting would feel if they or their boys were among the 84,000. I know, I know. People say, "It wouldn't make any difference. I would still feel the same," but that is utterly disingenuous. You don't know it - CAN'T KNOW IT - because you've not lived it. You don't know what a "disease of the soul" is if you or someone you know didn't or doesn't have one. I do recommend you think about the abuse scenario I mentioned, though. Really, really, really think about it.  

Well, obviously, the victims who are convinced that filing suit does them no good would not be among the 8 in 10,000 scouts/alumni who have joined this class action.

The totality of victims who’ve ever opened up to me were abused outside of scouting. Nevertheless “disease of the soul” is apt.

[ThenNow]

39 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Well, obviously, the victims who are convinced that filing suit does them no good would not be among the 8 in 10,000 scouts/alumni who have joined this class action.

Not sure what this means. I didn’t file suit. Not ever. Not still. I filed a claim in a Chapter 11 as a prompt and polite RSVP to a gilded invitation. An invitation sprinkled with fairy dust and promises of “understanding, equitable compensation” and great “outrage” at my suffering. So, whatchu mean and what’s the relevance?

No comment on the universal invitation to contemplate being among the victims, in person or through a child? No need. No one has so I have my answer. I don’t mean this as directed to you, necessarily.

Edited May 2, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

45 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Nevertheless “disease of the soul” is apt.

Indeed. Shame is an insidious and deadly malady for many. For others, it introduces us to all manner of additional psychological and physical harm and destruction.

[vol_scouter]

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can remember sitting and watching BSA National officials state at the NAM and elsewhere, unequivocally and in no uncertain terms, that the bankruptcy would NOT have ANY impact on local councils and their assets. And local councils relaying that message to units and local donors/funders.
I knew at the time that there was NO way National could make that kind of promise and that they were either a) naive b) stupid or c) deliberately lying. Now, with council after council selling camps, the truth comes out.

If you recall carefully, at the Denver NAM, the attorney from Sidley Austin representing the BSA was who confirmed those assertions.  Perhaps, all concerned were surprised at the direction that the bankruptcy has taken.  All seemed to believe that the process would not require much time and that negotiations would result in a settlement.

One could argue that a negotiated settlement was never likely based on the differences seen today but that was not what was believed.

The Summit was purchased at great expense and has not been paid off.  My guess is that what is owed is near or greater than the assessed value.

At that Denver NAM, I had a visitor representing a large national scale organization who was amazed and very complimentary at how open the BSA was in discussing all the issues.

Many attribute decisions to all sorts of incompetent or nefarious reasons but having been peripherally involved, that has not been the case.  The best decisions have been reached based upon the best information available at the time.  Unfortunately, the actual course has not gone as planned or anticipated.  In my view, it is, as is often the case, due to many different things that were not anticipated or of the magnitude that has developed.

It seems to me that the claimants representatives are publicly advocating for an amount of money beyond the ability of the BSA and the LC's to produce.  It is not clear that the insurance companies are contractually obligated and able to pay what is being demanded.  The CO's signed a charter agreement where the BSA assumed liability so it is to be determined whether the CO's have actual financial liability.  One way or the other, it is not clear that the $102 B is a feasible amount.  That is a large impediment.

No doubt that both sides are doing some posturing to try to get the settlement that they wish.  Hopefully, there will be a breakthrough where the BSA and the LC's survive and legitimately harmed persons get meaningfully compensated.  

[mrjohns2]

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Anyway...she muses out loud about how those who think the victim/survivors and vampire attorneys are unjustly trying to victimize Scouts and Scouting would feel if they or their boys were among the 84,000.

This is the reason why family members are not allowed juries. We would feel destroyed. We would nor be good arbiters of justice. 
 

Funny, I dislike the lawyers seeking windfalls, but don’t feel that those abused aren’t entitled to a large settlement. I don’t feel like they are victimizing current Scouts. In general, the whole situation makes me sad. 

[skeptic]

Okay, while I still feel that the tenor of the discussion from Cynical Scouter is not just cynical, but often vicious.  That is me though.  I might have a different opinion if I were to discuss with him directly.  I saw a sea change in the direction of National by NOT putting a professional into the Chief position.  I think that wherever possible, the volunteers should be more visible and have more sway.  On the other hand, I admit to having had a very poor interaction with some National level volunteers in 2010, gentlemen from the OA.  I had approached them in regard to my view on alternate adult requirements that allowed dedicated men who put their "whole" family first, but were key to their units, especially the outdoor program, but did not have the flexibility to spend a week in summer camp without shortchanging their whole family due to limited vacation time.  That opinion was based on a fine ASM who was thoroughly trained, including all the outdoor courses, including backpacking training with first aid.  He was the lead for over three years on many weekend and 3 day outings, but he had two younger daughter and only limited vacation.  So, he chose to spend that vacation with his whole family.  I put him up for adult membership when his son became eligible.  I wrote the reason why I felt they should induct him, making the point of his pushing 40 days and nights of camping and backpacking with the troop, and his advanced training, including Trail Boss and the noted first aid.  I suggested that the intent of membeship for adults was their demonstration of support of the outdoor program, which he did in spades.  I had seen men inducted with only one or two summer camp experiences and almost no weekend or short term camping and hiking.  To me, he was far a far better example.  Oh, I should note that twice, before this, he had gone to camp with his personal tools and done needed repairs, as he was a welder and steel worker.  Anyway, the portly high level OA men with whom I spoke talked me down and basically belittled the idea and said there could be no exceptions, period.  Well, that of course is not true in and of itself.  The ":Chief of the Fire", the council Executive, has the option to override that requirement, though ours at the time would not, refusing to even consider it.  So, his son was elected, but his dad could not go through the ordeal with  him.  The man finally worked out his schedule, with his wife's help, as well as earing more vacation time for longevity, and then he was accepted.  But that was almost three years later, and it left a very bad taste in his mouth and all of my unit adults, and even the youth that understood what happened.  And I have had to deal with a number of really bad district executives and at least two very poor Council exec's.  Thus, the skeptic part tag.  

So, I will try to overlook my annoyance at the tone, and accept that most on this forum still are for the BSA's survival and finding a better path.  Please accept my apology for perhaps being a bit too judgemental.  Thanks for the time.

 

[ThenNow]

15 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

If you recall carefully, at the Denver NAM, the attorney from Sidley Austin representing the BSA was who confirmed those assertions.  Perhaps, all concerned were surprised at the direction that the bankruptcy has taken.  All seemed to believe that the process would not require much time and that negotiations would result in a settlement.

One could argue that a negotiated settlement was never likely based on the differences seen today but that was not what was believed.

As you say further in your post, I agree that magnitude took the BSA by surprise. Other factors, too, but I won't reiterate what I've already said. For many on the victim/claimant side, it was less shocking and some publicly predicted an enormous number of claims. I can't quite imagine the shock and stunned silence in the BSA board room when the finally tally came in following the Bar Date. 

15 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Many attribute decisions to all sorts of incompetent or nefarious reasons but having been peripherally involved, that has not been the case.  The best decisions have been reached based upon the best information available at the time.  Unfortunately, the actual course has not gone as planned or anticipated.  In my view, it is, as is often the case, due to many different things that were not anticipated or of the magnitude that has developed.

I have little knowledge of the BSA's decisions and decision-making processes prior to the Chapter 11 filing, but since it does seem like a fair measure of weak "game" and "clock management." To me, that's what looks like incompetence. Not so much a lack of inherent skill or ability among the leadership or counsel, but the unwillingness or inability to pivot, throw out the old playbook, change cleats and personnel (if needed) and adapt to the field of play before them. As I've said before, it looks like a canned approach that was meant to work with a max claimant pool of 8,000-12,000. Continuing to behave in a way that may have worked in that context when the stakes are 10x that, looks like either: (a) stupidity, which we all agree is not the case; singular motive and not one that favors "equitably compensating" abuse victims; or (c) stark denial. Yes, we practiced for playing a high school team, but don't worry. I know we know take the field against the All Blacks, but it'll be fine. We have a game plan plan. We stick to it and we can do this.

15 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

It seems to me that the claimants representatives are publicly advocating for an amount of money beyond the ability of the BSA and the LC's to produce.  It is not clear that the insurance companies are contractually obligated and able to pay what is being demanded.  The CO's signed a charter agreement where the BSA assumed liability so it is to be determined whether the CO's have actual financial liability.  One way or the other, it is not clear that the $102 B is a feasible amount.  That is a large impediment.

It is more than they can pay. There is insurance and they definitely can and are obligated to pay a big ol' chunk. Can they pay the full amount(s) that may fall to them? I don't know. Hartford's joy at the settlement and statements/inferences from executives about dodging the bullet of potentially enormous liability under the outmoded policies and weak "coverage defenses" said it all. If we had an agreed upon estimation of value, it would go a LONG way to knowing what, who and how much by each.

15 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Hopefully, there will be a breakthrough where the BSA and the LC's survive and legitimately harmed persons get meaningfully compensated.  

I, for one, agree with you. I don't know what that looks like, but I hope so too. For my selfish healing, I would like to be in Scouting with my grandkids, provided equity is done here and the YPT gaps are tightened.