Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[fred8033]

6 hours ago, yknot said:

 Our state United Methodist Church Council issued a statement today saying all Methodist churches should not renew COAs but have the council charter units instead to limit liability. 

Absolutely agree.  Unless the church chooses to actively run, MANAGE AND CONTROL the scouting program, it should be a council charter.   ... Imagine, church elders monthly reviewing PLC notes; approving the troop annual plan; approving camp plans; approving financial spending; keeping event permission slips; etc.  Heck, our church's paid business manager would need to spend significant time on this. 

This might be the only viable option for Catholic charters.  Otherwise, non-Catholic leaders in Catholic charters have a hard time being leaders.  Heck, even active Catholics have a hard time being leaders in a Catholic charter org where they are not members in that specific church. 

Our charter org is changing to a facility use agreement and chartering via the council. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by fred8033

[SiouxRanger]

Hello All.  New here-first post.

I read these forums for hours and hours, and signed up to post this.

So, as I understand the upshot of it all:

1.  That National initially indicated that Local Councils would pay nothing and be protected but now the Local Councils are expected to pay $600 million which will result in the sale of hundreds of Local Council Camps and Council offices, though the National High Adventure Camps will be protected and survive.

2.  That National initially indicated that Chartering Organizations would pay nothing and be protected but now Chartering Organizations are expected to contribute to the Settlement Fund in some amount (unknown to me) in order to be protected from all past claims.

3.  That Chartering Organizations now see themselves, or soon will, that they are passengers on the liability train to Haydes courtesy of the BSA, thereby destroying the "Chartering Organization as sponsor of a scout unit" model.

4.  That National's pension plan which pays pensions to retired Scouting Professionals, and will pay pensions to current Professionals, the single class of persons most benefited by National's decades-long concealment of the abuse problem, will be fully protected by the Bankruptcy Plan. (That is, the second most culpable group, after the perpetrators, will be fully protected whereas current scouts and future scouts will be prejudiced.)

5.  That Local Council camps which serve the vast majority of scouts will be sold whereas the National High Adventure Bases which serve a small percentage of scouts will be preserved.  And the National employees who work for those camps will retain their jobs and earn their pensions.

6.  That after the dust settles, parents, volunteers, and dedicated Scouters will "pick up the slack" and help cover this catastrophe, the professionals suffering financially  only if lay folks don't make good on the losses.

7.  That current Council Executives have a choice of following National's directive that their Council pay the amount expected by National to the Settlement Fund (thereby hopefully sparing the council executive from the corporate ax and preserving their chances of the lucrative BSA pension, OR, bucking National by refusing to subject their council to paying what National demands, and sacrificing their career and their family's future.).  And, won't all of them acquiesce to National's demands and thereby the camps be sold?

 

As an aside-

My very best friend only 2 years ago advised me that a Scoutmaster had abused him.  That he has been in weekly counseling ever since.  My friend holds a Phd.  My friend has NOT filed a claim in respect of the program which my friend believes saved is life.

I have another friend who credits Scouting as saving his life-and I am sure he is right.

I am an Eagle and father of 3 Eagles.  My Scouting resume is 4 pages long.

I am deeply saddened by the damage done to innocent children, and to the dream that once was Camelot.

Were I making the decision, first I'd liquidate National's pension plan, and then the High Adventure Bases.  National policies got the Councils into this mess, and it should be the first to pay the price.

The notion that Councils are "independent" of National is nonsense.

 

[1980Scouter]

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Hello All.  New here-first post.

I read these forums for hours and hours, and signed up to post this.

So, as I understand the upshot of it all:

1.  That National initially indicated that Local Councils would pay nothing and be protected but now the Local Councils are expected to pay $600 million which will result in the sale of hundreds of Local Council Camps and Council offices, though the National High Adventure Camps will be protected and survive.

2.  That National initially indicated that Chartering Organizations would pay nothing and be protected but now Chartering Organizations are expected to contribute to the Settlement Fund in some amount (unknown to me) in order to be protected from all past claims.

3.  That Chartering Organizations now see themselves, or soon will, that they are passengers on the liability train to Haydes courtesy of the BSA, thereby destroying the "Chartering Organization as sponsor of a scout unit" model.

4.  That National's pension plan which pays pensions to retired Scouting Professionals, and will pay pensions to current Professionals, the single class of persons most benefited by National's decades-long concealment of the abuse problem, will be fully protected by the Bankruptcy Plan. (That is, the second most culpable group, after the perpetrators, will be fully protected whereas current scouts and future scouts will be prejudiced.)

5.  That Local Council camps which serve the vast majority of scouts will be sold whereas the National High Adventure Bases which serve a small percentage of scouts will be preserved.  And the National employees who work for those camps will retain their jobs and earn their pensions.

6.  That after the dust settles, parents, volunteers, and dedicated Scouters will "pick up the slack" and help cover this catastrophe, the professionals suffering financially  only if lay folks don't make good on the losses.

7.  That current Council Executives have a choice of following National's directive that their Council pay the amount expected by National to the Settlement Fund (thereby hopefully sparing the council executive from the corporate ax and preserving their chances of the lucrative BSA pension, OR, bucking National by refusing to subject their council to paying what National demands, and sacrificing their career and their family's future.).  And, won't all of them acquiesce to National's demands and thereby the camps be sold?

 

As an aside-

My very best friend only 2 years ago advised me that a Scoutmaster had abused him.  That he has been in weekly counseling ever since.  My friend holds a Phd.  My friend has NOT filed a claim in respect of the program which my friend believes saved is life.

I have another friend who credits Scouting as saving his life-and I am sure he is right.

I am an Eagle and father of 3 Eagles.  My Scouting resume is 4 pages long.

I am deeply saddened by the damage done to innocent children, and to the dream that once was Camelot.

Were I making the decision, first I'd liquidate National's pension plan, and then the High Adventure Bases.  National policies got the Councils into this mess, and it should be the first to pay the price.

The notion that Councils are "independent" of National is nonsense.

 

Very good summary.  I agree with you 100%. Welcome to the forum!!!

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Ya know ... many of us ... at the request of other here ... have toned down our comments about the motivations of those diving these cases. 

The request of others (me) and direction of the moderators was regarding global, general aspersions and negative characterizations. They specifically said it can be appropriate and acceptable to comment on the actions, etc., of attorneys and other players as it is relevant to the case, as in this situation. Also, I see no abusive or derogatory language in either of the posts quoted. I may have missed the point you were trying to make.

[gpurlee]

Welcome to the forums SiouxRanger. Thank you for your post.

You have valid points. It should be noted that established bankruptcy law dictates the priority of some of the claims such as pension funds.

Unfortunately, the fallout from this situation may continue for some time.  

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

My very best friend only 2 years ago advised me that a Scoutmaster had abused him.  That he has been in weekly counseling ever since.  My friend holds a Phd.  My friend has NOT filed a claim in respect of the program which my friend believes saved is life.

Welcome and thanks for a very good post. That’s a dandy for #1!

As to the quoted portion, has he ever unpacked that for you? I haven’t heard anyone else express something to that effect and it may well be a revelation into my experience. Many people are shocked to hear I was abused for years, yet persisted in Scouting to achieve what I set out to achieve. Only as I read what you wrote about your friend did I consider what would have “happened to me” had I dropped out at 11, the time of my first abuse. The picture was not pretty. As those who’ve read my posts know, many things about my Scouting life are precious to me. I took many things to my therapist to dispose of when I first started working with her on all of this, but some mementoes I wouldn’t part with, including my Eagle Certificate and pin, sash, key patches, NESA pin and a few photos. Just prior to the Chapter 11 filing I made a significant move to reconcile with Scouting. Against the advice of family, I wanted to become involved again. Then, two months later, I read the announcement in the WSJ. Thus began the adventure of the BSA Bankruptcy Seesaw Game.

If he’s given you any insight into what he meant, I would welcome it. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

4.  That National's pension plan which pays pensions to retired Scouting Professionals, and will pay pensions to current Professionals, the single class of persons most benefited by National's decades-long concealment of the abuse problem, will be fully protected by the Bankruptcy Plan.

That is due to federal law and has nothing to do with BSA's wishes. In short, all pensions are guaranteed by the federal government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). You cannot attack the pension via bankruptcy and even if the pension became part of the bankruptcy in the event of a liquidation the pension program gets paid out first/near the top. So no, you cannot attack the pension.

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

7.  That current Council Executives have a choice of following National's directive that their Council pay the amount expected by National to the Settlement Fund

No. The decision is the Council's. Precisely because Councils ARE independent entities, the decision on their assets belongs to the Council, not National and not the Council/Scout Executive.

Right now, as I type, all 250 or so Councils are voting or have voted on whether or not to participate. The deadline is July 9. That is a Council vote. The SE/CEs do NOT get to unilaterally decide this.

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

5.  That Local Council camps which serve the vast majority of scouts will be sold whereas the National High Adventure Bases which serve a small percentage of scouts will be preserved.

Frankly, at least in the case of Summit, it isn't clear that selling would do any good. Summit is such a debt sink/money loser that even if sold it isn't clear that it would pay off the debts it had on it even prior to the bankruptcy.

[CynicalScouter]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Ya know ... many of us ... at the request of other here ... have toned down our comments about the motivations of those diving these cases.  How much they charge.  Potential profits.  etc.  

My objections were a) the broad brush that all lawyers were vultures just in it for money and/or to destroy BSA and b) that somehow victims shouldn't be allowed to hire lawyers.

If the argument is "this particular lawyer named John Smith is a vulture, here's why" that's a different argument.

[fred8033]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I read these forums for hours and hours, and signed up to post this.

Recognize that this set of threads and posts are highly one sided. 

• One person's "conceal" is another person's view that BSA did far more than other organizations.  BSA had an exclusion system in place to try to block volunteers before background checks, before computer systems, before the current understanding of CSA and before the current laws existed.
• Strongly debatable whether abuse happened at higher levels than other programs or rest of society.  I know of no cases directly in scouting, but know of multiple cases / incidents in our local music programs, school programs, sports, church, etc.  Over the last 100 years, BSA has easily had 100+ million scouts.  When divided by math and incident rates in other programs, I question whether BSA is different enough to be uniquely called out.  
• BSA could not have "concealed" cases on their own.  Many cases had COs and other groups.  When I read the files, you will often find police reports and other records.  

Demonizing BSA over this is not as clear cut.  Yes, BSA could have done more, but society as a whole failed and did not understand CSA well until the last twenty years.  

[fred8033]

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

The request of others (me) and direction of the moderators was regarding global, general aspersions and negative characterizations. They specifically said it can be appropriate and acceptable to comment on the actions, etc., of attorneys and other players as it is relevant to the case, as in this situation. Also, I see no abusive or derogatory language in either of the posts quoted. I may have missed the point you were trying to make.

Good point.  I was being sarcastic.  This whole thing has smelled.  Definitely some well meaning lawyers, but how this has gone down has always smelled of middle-men seeing a gravy train and not wanting to miss out.  

Victims always deserve to be made whole (if possible), but what's happening will help few.

Edited July 8, 2021 by fred8033

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Good point.  I was being sarcastic.  This whole thing has smelled.  Definitely some well meaning lawyers, but how this has gone down has always smelled of people middleman seeking a get-rich-quick scheme.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. 

[Muttsy]

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

•  
• BSA could not have "concealed" cases on their own.  Many cases had COs and other groups.  When I read the files, you will often find police reports and other

This is very true. The CO’s were the “boots on the ground.” In specific instances the CO had primary responsibility because it selected the leader, it had physical “custody” of the troop and it put the perpetrator in to contact with the victim in circumstances where it failed to exercise “reasonable care.”

The problem is that the CO was not timely warned of the nature and scope of the problem by National. The files were a closely guarded secret at National. The files were a gold mine of criminological data that BSA could and should have used to train and educate scouts and CO’s. 
 

it is shared fault. How you assign percentages of fault is the role of juries and each case often presents slightly different fact patterns. 

[ThenNow]

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Recognize that this set of threads and posts are highly one sided. 

I'm not sure about that, but I'll let others make a run at rebuttal.

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I question whether BSA is different enough to be uniquely called out.  

Other than priests, BSA has been historically clearly unique in two ways: (1) extent to which boys have been available to adults, thereby significantly elevating the potential for abuse; and (2) the undeniable and extraordinary pedestal placement of leaders. It's not coincidence that the Catholic Church and BSA are at the center of the CSA spotlight. (Word used to reference the film.) Here are some excerpts from from BSA literature lifted from this link. Frankly, when I read these things it makes me shudder. As I've said, this is how I viewed my SM. When I initial said that, people here mocked me. Check it out for yourself.

Edited July 8, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The problem is that the CO was not timely warned of the nature and scope of the problem by National. The files were a closely guarded secret at National. The files were a gold mine of criminological data that BSA could and should have used to train and educate scouts and CO’s. 

When I found out BSA hid the internal files and investigations from their own experts hired to review, assess and report on injuries and risks in Scouting, my perspective on highly active and ongoing concealment was signed, sealed and delivered. That was clever, if I do say so myself and I do because I just did.

[mrjohns2]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

When I found out BSA hid the internal files and investigations from their own experts hired to review, assess and report on injuries and risks in Scouting, my perspective on highly active and ongoing concealment was signed, sealed and delivered.

I hadn’t heard about this “smoking gun” of a coverup. Do you have a source? I haven’t watched the documentary or book or what ever, so maybe I’m missing out on a lot of these types of coverup action.