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

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, Protoclete said:

But also, honestly, it took until this last week to be able to simply assign people who have been registered as leaders to new positions in the online system. I can't even get a decent report on how many scouters are qualified for which awards or an accurate list of all former Eagle scouts living in my district with the database and tools we have. 

True, but having a court ORDER you, on pain of contempt, to do something is going to move things a lot faster. That's why this HAS to be part of the settlement, and TCC has made it clear it will be asking for YP changes.

Want to get those reports done quick? Make it clear failure to comply will result in the council and/or BSA national facing contempt sanctions. That will light various fires under people.

That's NOT to say TCC will support Clery-type reporting, but it would be what I'd be asking for.

No more hiding things away in those IVF files. It does NOT have to mean that a person is named ("John Doe, Scoutmaster for Troop 123") but it could be

Quote

A unit leader was found to have violated BSA YP regarding failure to maintain two-deep leadership. The unit leader was reprimanded and given remedial YP training.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

On 5/5/2021 at 7:57 PM, MYCVAStory said:

As well, graphical mapping showing Council properties, overlap, and because the TCC was challenged to do so, the properties that could be contributed to a trust while those retained would serve capacity needs.

The way I read this, the TCC is showing how camps can be sold off while remaining camps can still provide coverage for all scouts.  So even if BSA can win the argument that camps are necessary, the other argument is that there is excess capacity of camps, so many can be sold off. 

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So even if BSA can win the argument that camps are necessary, the other argument is that there is excess capacity of camps, so many can be sold off.

Given the complete and total collapse in BSA membership even prior to COVID (decline of 37% from 2000-2019, and that was BEFORE LDS left) that's a strong argument.

LCs have an infrastructure built and developed for a scouting population of 3-4 million (1955-2004) when, if BSA is very, very lucky, like stupefyingly lucky, it will emerge from bankruptcy and COVID with 2 million (which is what it was in 2019, just before LDS left) and more likely 1-1.5 million, which was the number of scouts in 1944.

I also suspect that TCC is claiming that some of these "restricted' camps are not as "Restricted" as the LCs claim they are.

Edited May 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MattR]

I'm locking this until I pull out a sub thread about need vs want. I'm not deleting any posts. Just give me a sec.

I'm back. NO POSTS WERE HURT IN THE MAKING OF THIS MOVE.

If you can't find your old post it might have gone here:

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by MattR

[RandomScouter]

I've been following this thread since the beginning (last Feb.).  I don't have a background in law, nor have I ever been party to a bankruptcy proceeding, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I could explain the judge's role.

Isn't it her job to rule on motions and say "Yea, HA bases are both sacred and restricted" or "Nay. The HA bases are not restricted."  It seems like she isn't doing much, but isn't she the one person with the authority to tell the BSA to get a move on and make some determination in who gets a seat at the mediation table?

I could be completely wrong, but that's why I'm asking.  Thanks.

 

Most of what I know about legal proceedings comes from watching Matlock and the Peoples' Court (with Judge Wapner), in other words, I don't much at all.

 

[CynicalScouter]

43 minutes ago, RandomScouter said:

Isn't it her job to rule on motions and say "Yea, HA bases are both sacred and restricted" or "Nay. The HA bases are not restricted."  It seems like she isn't doing much, but isn't she the one person with the authority to tell the BSA to get a move on and make some determination in who gets a seat at the mediation table?

Sorta, but someone has to move first. Let me explain and this is how things GENERALLY work so, keep that in mind.

1. In order for her to rule on a motion, one party has to formally put into writing EXACTLY what the problem is and EXACTLY what they want to judge to rule. Along with this motion they will usually file supporting paperwork such as a Brief in Support or something like that listing out the legal arguments.
2. The other side(s) get to then file its Brief(s) in Opposition or support or both. Opposition isn't always clear cut: so for example if BSA filed a motion to declare the HA bases restricted, someone else could file a brief in opposition that says ("Yeah, sure, Philmont is, but the other three are fair game, here's our legal reasoning as to why.")
3. The other moving side then typically gets one last bite (Movant's Brief in Reply and Support) to say why they are still right and the opponents are still wrong.

There's a principle in law called "Case or controversy" and it means in a very, very condensed version that courts will NOT rule on a specific question of law or fact until SOMEONE drags it in front of them and says "Rule. Now. Please."

No one has specifically asked the judge to rule on HA bases, so she won't.

If BSA wants an official holding from the court that the HA bases are restricted, BSA just has to file that motion tomorrow and start that 1-2-3 process.

If TCC or some other party wants an official holding THE OTHER WAY, they can do the same.

Much of this is due to the fact that there is ongoing mediation. If one of the parties takes a portion of that mediation discussion (e.g. JP Morgan struck a deal with BSA regarding Summit) and puts in front of the judge, then the other sides get to pounce and say what a bad deal it is, which is exactly what happened.

If, however, the mediation is deemed by one party as an an impasse, they can take that one portion (status of HA bases, status of LC assets vis-a-vis BSA National), drag it in front of the judge and say "Rule. Now. Please." with that three step process I discussed earlier.

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Much of this is due to the fact that there is ongoing mediation. If one of the parties takes a portion of that mediation discussion (e.g. JP Morgan struck a deal with BSA regarding Summit) and puts in front of the judge, then the other sides get to pounce and say what a bad deal it is, which is exactly what happened.

If, however, the mediation is deemed by one party as an an impasse, they can take that one portion (status of HA bases, status of LC assets vis-a-vis BSA National), drag it in front of the judge and say "Rule. Now. Please." with that three step process I discussed earlier.

So can it be inferred that the mediation is possibly making progress if essentially nothing large has been rules upon that would mean that it is in the deal making?  Could the parties still be terribly far apart?  Or does it not mean anything?

[CynicalScouter]

 

19 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So can it be inferred that the mediation is possibly making progress if essentially nothing large has been rules upon that would mean that it is in the deal making?  Could the parties still be terribly far apart?  Or does it not mean anything?

There is no way to tell anything when it comes to mediation. It is a black box in a black hole of nothingness. Let me explain and speak to the HAs for a second.

Mediators, like judges, will only discuss what is dragged in front of them. Unlike judges and arbitrators ("Rule. Now. Please.") it is more conversational ("Talk about THIS. Now. Please.")

If the parties don't want to talk about it, neither do the mediators.*

For all we know, the reason we have not heard a peep about the HA bases (other than Summit) is because

There's universal agreement on the other 3 HA bases (other than Summit) being restricted

OR there's universal agreement on the other 3 HA bases (other than Summit) being UNrestricted

OR it may be Summit is the tough nut that they decided to crack first and kick the other HA bases down the road

OR it may be that the HA bases are part of a much larger conversation about "core" properties that also include local camps

OR

OR

OR

etc.

*EDIT: This is why, when you saw the judge order mediation in Florida, she did NOT order what they needed to talk about because she doesn't know what the hold up is OR (if she has a confidential mediation statement, which she may) she knows what SOME of the holdups are, but won't say in open court what SHE thinks the biggest sticking points are because she's not neck-deep in these conversations.

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mrjohns2]

On 5/8/2021 at 8:59 AM, CynicalScouter said:

No more hiding things away in those IVF files. It does NOT have to mean that a person is named ("John Doe, Scoutmaster for Troop 123") but it could be

Quote

A unit leader was found to have violated BSA YP regarding failure to maintain two-deep leadership. The unit leader was reprimanded and given remedial YP training.

I think this type of on-going measurement would be useful. As an engineer and project manager, this data could drive systemic improvements that could be borne out in future data. This is a good idea. 

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I think this type of on-going measurement would be useful. As an engineer and project manager, this data could drive systemic improvements that could be borne out in future data. This is a good idea. 

Or, conversely, that if a Council were to report NO YP violations in the prior 12 months that you should either

1. Emulate their training system because they have achieved a level of perfection not seen in human history or
2. Start poking around because no one group or organization can ever be THAT perfect suggesting either their data's crud, their reporting practices are crud, or something's crud.

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[mrjohns2]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Start poking around because no one group or organization can ever be THAT perfect suggesting either their data's crud, their reporting practices are crud, or something's crud.

This is very similar to the work our company does to improve our manufacturing safety. There is a safety triangle of near misses, then first aids, then recordable injuries, then lost work day injuries, then a fatality. 
 

Data shows you will have near misses. You should study them and improve to eliminate these close calls. Luck is often the difference between a near miss and a fatality. 
 

No reported near misses means you have a culture of hiding these close calls. Something needs to change or you could have a serious injury even though it looked “perfect” up to that. 
 

I bet YPT data would work in a very similar fashion. 

[CynicalScouter]

Things to look forward to for this week

1) TCC's objection to the BSA's disclosure statement. I expect it to be frankly anti-climactic. We all know at this point most of the points. BSA is still not disclosing precisely how much the LCs will contribute, how much the insurance companies will contribute, etc.

2) Agenda! What, precisely, is on the agenda in terms of motion practice for the May 17 hearing.

3) Three days of mediation in New York.

4) TCC will have a townhall call May 13.

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Today's batch of redacted a sexual abuse letters made it on the docket.

Two things I hope everyone takes away

1. There's a reason why YP and Guide to Safe Scouting exist as they do today. Every one of these letters you can just tick the boxes and see every section of YP and GSS directly created to address these types of claims and crimes.
2. These are VERY detailed, even with the redactions. Times, dates, names, locations. Anyone hoping that BSA will skate because of faulty memories is in for a rude awakening.

 

[RobertCalifornia]

All the letters are terrible to read. I’ve just about read enough.

I did find it interesting that 3 or 4 of today’s victims have been, or still are in prison. 

BSA and LC’s will have to feel more pain around 1.5-2b and Hartford and Chubb need to be thinking around 30b is my guess. Insurance should pay more, but my guess is 1/3 of the 103b is more realistic assuming that they want to stay in business.

After vetting and assigning values, that might get a victims settlement around 1/3 of what they deserve and allow all businesses and BSA to survive.

At the low ball 103b valuation filed by TCC, each of the type of sexual abuse monetary award levels would basically be 1% for each billion in the settlement. 

Non-touching/other $50,000 X 0.01 X #(billions in settlement) = victim award - attorneys fees

10 billion = $5000

I believe TCC said their formula might have an additional +multiplier for #of times and then a -multiplier for statute of limitations variables.

Valuation

Edited May 10, 2021 by RobertCalifornia
Long winded

[CynicalScouter]

Archdiocese of San Francisco has now made an appearance in the case for its claims against BSA.

BSA's trick of cutting a deal with Hartford and leaving COs out to dry is backfiring spectacularly.