Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[CynicalScouter]

Rio Texas Conference Methodist churches advised not to recharter units in 2021

The Methodists are going to be leaving en masse before this is over. And that disastrous status conference (where the COs confirmed they were being thrown under the bus) comes up.

Quote

A few days after the BSA filed a revised plan on July 2, the Bankruptcy Court held a status conference. During that conference, one of the Ad Hoc Committee’s [of Methodist Churches, not to be confused with the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils] outside counsel (1) pointed out to the Court some of the issues and impacts the revised plan has on chartered organizations and (2) voiced support for extensions of certain unreasonable timelines associated with the revised plan. He noted the importance of the Boy Scouts ministry, both to the Church and to the BSA. He highlighted how the revised plan does not treat chartered organizations fairly and emphasized that such treatment could lead United Methodist chartered organizations to reconsider their relationships with the BSA. It was clear the judge heard our concerns, as well as how important chartered organizations are to the BSA’s future viability.

Because of some of the proceedings and how they affect our church’s exposure we are recommending that no church renew a charter with the Boy Scouts at this time. Some of the chartering language has been changed to limit the coverage of a chartering organization through BSA insurance. Other language may negatively affect our relationship to whatever agreement is reached in the Bankruptcy agreement. The communication continued:

While the Ad Hoc Committee is not recommending that local churches cease their Boy Scouts ministries at this point, it does recommend that chancellors advise their annual conferences to promote/suggest one or more of the following approaches to Boy Scouts ministries:

When a charter comes up for renewal, the local church can tell the Local Council it will not sign a new charter and will only agree to an extension of the existing charter through December 31, 2021. When the charter comes up for renewal, the local church can tell the Local Council it will only agree to enter into a Facilities Use Agreement recommended by the General Commission on United Methodist Men (form can be provided) and that such agreement will only extend through December 31, 2021. Whether or not the charter is coming up for renewal, advise the Local Council that the local church wishes to immediately terminate the charter at least until the conclusion of the bankruptcy, or that the charter must be converted to a Facilities Use Agreement which will only extend through December 31, 2021.

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

To give some idea of how much the COs are not happy, in addition to the Methodists in at least 3 areas I know if telling their folks to stop rechartering plus the Catholic dioceses (two that I know if), the LDS has just Friday pro hac vice requested a new lawyer to their legal team from Latham & Watkins bankruptcy division.

The COs are going to mutiny here, more than they already have. They are NOT happy with BSA throwing them under a bus.

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[gpurlee]

This letter was sent to every United Methodist conference throughout the nation a couple of days ago advising them to discontinue with the traditional charter agreement. While it is still up to the individual congregation to make this decision, this recommendation will carry a lot of weight. And will likely move other denominations to take similar action.

The mediations with the denomination have clearly been contentious at times.  If the BSA loses the support of the chartering organizations, it is difficult to see how it can successfully move past the impacts of the bankruptcy and the pandemic.

Edited July 17, 2021 by gpurlee

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

If the BSA loses the support of the chartering organizations, it is difficult to see how it can successfully move past the impacts of the bankruptcy and the pandemic.

Okay. No surprise. Several of you saw this percolating and said as much. I only have old school CO points of reference, now adding those you guys have given me. Other than being engaged in a cage match with a multi-headed beast, is there any good explanation for this redux of “Throw Mama from the Train,” sans Danny and Billy with COs playing the mothers? (It’s strained, I know, but I had to get that film title in somehow!)

Edited July 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Oops. I just to referred myself, by extension, as a beast. Being an attorney, please don’t censor my comment. I did not intend to revive the now expired and verboten.  

Edited July 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[gpurlee]

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Other than being engaged in a cage match with a the multi-headed beast, is there any good explanation for this redux of “Throw Mama from the Train,”

There are multiple points of contention between the chartered organizations and the BSA at the present time. Perhaps the most contentious one is a court filing a few months ago as part of the restructuring plan. It included a section that discussed insurance and chartered organizations. It is important to understand that for decades chartered organizations were told that "the BSA has your back" and would provide adequate insurance.

It came as a shock to the CO's to discover that the BSA was essentially stating there was no insurance coverage for past claims.  Three reasons were stated and varied according to the specific year. (1) The CO's were not listed as an additional insured, (2) the insurance coverage for a specific year had reached its cap and was exhausted or (3) there was insurance but the CO was responsible for "very high deductibles."

You can imagine that faced with the prospect of thousands of potential lawsuits, this was not well received news for the CO's.

So now, many of the CO's are joining in the refrain of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ..."

 

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

is there any good explanation for this redux of “Throw Mama from the Train,” sans Danny and Billy with COs playing the mothers?

Two reasons, one legal one practical

1) I believe BSA's argument in its filings with respect to the COs is that BSA never promised COs 100% full coverage for everything, that there were limits and that the agreements did not promise the COs what the COs were lead to believe they promised: unlimited indemnification. This is going to be a point of contention for some time to come.

2) Practical: it is going to be hard enough to get an agreement involving BSA plus 250 local councils. Trying to get a global plan (including all the COs) is just not in the cards right now. The attorney for the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils talked about "phases" and that the first phase was focused on BSA and LCs but that now that those were settled (they aren't, but anyway) attention would turn to getting a plan/deal for the COs. As you can imagine, and what I was told by my Council with respect to the Catholic diocese in my area, the COs are not buying it.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, gpurlee said:

(1) The CO's were not listed as an additional insured, (2) the insurance coverage for a specific year had reached its cap and was exhausted or (3) there was insurance but the CO was responsible for "very high deductibles."

Yep. I forget which filing (third amended plan I think) but that's exactly what caused the COs to absolutely freak out: they were told (or lead to believe) for years BSA had them 100% covered.

[ThenNow]

37 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

There are multiple points of contention between the chartered organizations and the BSA at the present time. Perhaps the most contentious one is a court filing a few months ago as part of the restructuring plan. It included a section that discussed insurance and chartered organizations. It is important to understand that for decades chartered organizations were told that "the BSA has your back" and would provide adequate insurance.

It came as a shock to the CO's to discover that the BSA was essentially stating there was no insurance coverage for past claims.  Three reasons were stated and varied according to the specific year. (1) The CO's were not listed as an additional insured, (2) the insurance coverage for a specific year had reached its cap and was exhausted or (3) there was insurance but the CO was responsible for "very high deductibles."

You can imagine that faced with the prospect of thousands of potential lawsuits, this was not well received news for the CO's.

So now, many of the CO's are joining in the refrain of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ..."

Thanks. I apologize that my smart alek question made it less than clear. My real question is, knowing how critical the CO relationship is, why the “get off the bus, Gus”? That was even better.

Edited July 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Practical: it is going to be hard enough to get an agreement involving BSA plus 250 local councils. Trying to get a global plan (including all the COs) is just not in the cards right now. The attorney for the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils talked about "phases" and that the first phase was focused on BSA and LCs but that now that those were settled (they aren't, but anyway) attention would turn to getting a plan/deal for the COs. As you can imagine, and what I was told by my Council with respect to the Catholic diocese in my area, the COs are not buying it.

Sorry. I spoke too fast. Yes. That was my multi-headed beast point and confirms my sense of the why. It seemed clearest and most logical to me and the legal makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Edited July 17, 2021 by ThenNow
Again, tutu fast...

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

My real question is, knowing how critical the CO relationship is, why the “get off the bus, Gus”? That was even better.

How critical is the CO concept? To me, not at all since 99% of COs don’t do anything other than provide space free of charge. What happens if organizations don’t provide space free of charge? The organization crumbles. It has been hard as our troops and pack have been a wandering group of pandemic refugees. It is hard to grow when you meet outside of a school with no access to bathrooms or each unit meets at member houses backyards. Not easy. 

[gpurlee]

The Girl Scouts do not use the CO model, so obviously the council based model is an option.

In a good CO, there can be many benefits. Our CO has provided thousands of scholarship dollars over the year, allowed us to host and has supported numerous fundraising events, been a source of merit badge counselors, has provided support for the PRAY (God and Country) program and many other things.  It has provided a bus for trips in the past. We have had our own Scout meeting room since 1926.  It has sponsored us for over a century, so it is in the DNA of the church and the units.  The program is represented on our council of ministries as an integral program and is listed as a priority for the church.

Even if we follow the United Methodist conference recommendation and switch to a council based model, I full expect the relationship to continue. We just sent one of our leaders to the UMC/Scouting conference at Philmont which just concluded a few hours ago.  

Assuming that the BSA survives and that the national UMC relationship is not damaged beyond repair. 

[DavidLeeLambert]

An attorney representing three abuse plaintiffs in three separate cases in the State of New York has filed a motion to allow the stay to be lifted, only for the purpose of adding a Chartered Organization to each case before the Statute of Limitations window closes again.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f8deaeb1-fb2c-4f3d-9e67-434ca96e5d0b_5582.pdf

 

• Case 806601/2020 in Erie County. Against the Greater Niagara Frontier Council and alleged abuser Robert L Eberhardt. Adding Rescue Volunteer Hose Company No 1 of Cheektowaga, NY. Victim born about 1968, abuse from 1977-1981 (Cub Scout program).
• Case 807731/2020 in Erie County. Against the Greater Niagara Frontier Council; the alleged abuser, John J Gruber, is deceased. Adding St Paul's RCC Church Society of Kenmore. Victim born about 1964, abuse from 1974-1975 (Boy Scout program).
• Case E173403/2020 in Niagara county. Against the Longhouse council and Peter A Byrne. Adding St Margaret's Church d/b/a Holy Name Society. Victim born about 1954, abuse in 1966 (Boy Scout program).

None of the alleged-abuser names in these three cases appear in the public portion of the IV files.   I did find a news article (WKBW Buffalo, August 2019) quoting a different plaintiff who also alleged abuse by Robert Eberhardt. Neither of the living alleged abusers appears on the New York sex offender registry.

I don't know whether any of the plaintiffs are abuse claimants in the bankruptcy case, but they probably are, since they filed their cases in July and October, 2020. However, BSA itself is actually not a defendant (yet) in any of these three cases; in each one, only the local council is named.

807731_2020_Brian_D_Driscoll_v_Brian_D_Driscoll_SUMMONS___COMPLAINT_1.pdf 806601_2020_John_C_Bobeck_v_John_C_Bobeck_SUMMONS___COMPLAINT_1.pdf E173403_2020_Robert_A_Rein_v_Robert_A_Rein_SUMMONS___COMPLAINT_1.pdf

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, gpurlee said:

Assuming that the BSA survives and that the national UMC relationship is not damaged beyond repair

Isn’t the damage TBD, based upon how far under the bus and irretrievable they become? Are they already out of reach, in terms of getting under the channeling injunction? If they start getting named and teed up to be lit up in the window states with no BSA air cover, it’s kaput, ja? It doesn’t feel to me like BSA is going to reach back and fetch COs at this point. If they did opt for a rescue, what would it entail? My view on all this is overly simplistic, I know.

Last disjointed thought. Though it may be better for some survivors to have open season on COs, I don’t see it as a great benefit to all. I may be missing it. The whole scenario also looks pretty cold hearted and two-faced from my club chair. Let’s see. A Scout is trustworthy. Strike that. Hm. Loyal? Never mind. Start over. A Scout is helpful. Debatable, but I’ll give them that one through and abundance of grace. Friendly, Courteous and Kind? Nah. No gimmes. I’ll let them run the table from there, with the exception of Brave. Definitely not Brave...

Edited July 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

 

9 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

gpurlee said:  This letter was sent to every United Methodist conference throughout the nation a couple of days ago advising them to discontinue with the traditional charter agreement.

gpurlee said:  ... contention ... insurance ...

mrjohns2 said:  How critical is the CO concept? To me, not at all since 99% of COs don’t do anything other than provide space free of charge. What happens if organizations don’t provide space free of charge? 

mrjohns2 said:  ... It is hard to grow when you meet outside of a school with no access to bathrooms or each unit meets at member houses backyards. Not easy. 

Even without the latest lawsuit and insurance issues, charter orgs should sign the agreement. 

Signatures mean something.  Words on the paper set expectations.  If you don't plan to fulfill the words, don't sign!   COs need to do-what-they-say and say-what-they-do. 

• Encourage training (lack of training is fault). 
• Maintain membership (unregisterd adults / youth is admitting it's out of control). 
• Follow BSA program, GTSS, etc (not following indicates rouge program) ... etc ... 
• Review unit leader apps.  Make follow-up inquires to confirm moral, educational and emotional qualities.

It's not just about after-the-fact libability.  It's about doing hat you say you will do.  If you don't plan to actually do what is in the agreement, don't sign.  It's not an honorific documents.  It's an "agreement".

Our charter org is absolutely glad to provide space.   I suspect they'd even donate fund or materials.  The real issue is their signing this agreement says they want to take responsibility they don't want.  I  hugely agree they should not sign.

Churches and public facilities will continue to support community organizations like the scouts.   Even without the current COs, units can find space.  Even cheaply rent space.   

This is about making the CO agreement match the current reality.  Most COs agree to provide space.  Very few actively oversee teh scouting program.

"WHAT IF" ... Latest registration costs are skyrocketing.  What if current unit leaders decide to help families that are tight on funds, by not registering their scout.  Scout can participate, but BSA won't know about cub's advancement ... except AOL does t really matter?  Slso, adults will be minimized to save pack cost.   ... So some adults and scouts are not fully registered.   Would the CO know?  Would the CO know they are taking responsibility for that?  

 

 

Edited July 18, 2021 by fred8033