Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[MattR]

We're going to split the ch11.x thread in 2. The original will be kept as it was intended, for the legal aspects of the case and everything else will go here. In a nutshell, if the judge is dealing with the details of it or the lawyers are arguing over it, it goes in the old thread. Everything else goes here. That means if it's about what's morally correct vs legally correct, it goes here. If it's about the future of the chartered orgs, it goes here. If it's about what the BSA knew when, it goes here. If it's about healing, it goes here. If it's about what YP should look like, it goes here.

Clear as mud, I know. We're trying.

For those of you that are only on this forum to look at one thread, it's time to learn a new trick. Any threads related to the bankruptcy will have the tag "ch11". You can limit what threads you see by using a custom Activity Stream. As described below you have to set either what tags you want or to just display what you're following (in which case you also need to follow the these threads)

If you are on a laptop: Go to Feed -> My Activity Streams -> Create New Stream. You can either explicitly just display threads with the ch11 tag or you can follow both of the threads and just display threads you follow. To follow a thread look in the upper right of the page and click on follow.

If you're on a cell phone: click on Show Filters and set either the Show Me field to only look at the ch11 tag or the Following field to show only the threads you're following. To follow a thread go to the bottom of the page and click on follow.

Once you have that set up all you need to do is use the custom activity stream. If you want, you can use that as your default feed where the Unread Content button is (I guess it looks like a newspaper)

 

[ThenNow]

WSJ has an article found via a site search titled, “Boy Scouts Draw Plan to Settle With Sex-Abuse Victims, Exit Bankruptcy. Here’s What We Know.” It’s been up since 5:44PM yesterday. I’ve been unable to click through. Thinking it may be a placeholder. 

[Sentinel947]

8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

It’s misleading and the brainless MSM report it has real. 

On that note, whenever you become very informed on a topic, you realize the typical journalist is not an expert on the subjects they report on. 

[CynicalScouter]

8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

i don’t understand why these Coalition lawyers statements to the media that they represent 70 000 men means they control their votes.

I looked at the media coverage I don’t get that impression at all if you look at the way they phrased it they say “attorneys representing 70,000” they don’t say “attorneys in control of 70,000”

can you provide an example of media reporting that the attorneys control the votes?

[CynicalScouter]

BSA's latest financials are in.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/24d538eb-17d5-4da0-8e59-11c0f2069ab2_6135.pdf

BSA posting a loss of 6,851,000

So far throughout the 17 months of the bankruptcy, there's a cumulative loss of $99,620,000

Edited August 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

WSJ has an article found via a site search titled, “Boy Scouts Draw Plan to Settle With Sex-Abuse Victims, Exit Bankruptcy. Here’s What We Know.” It’s been up since 5:44PM yesterday. I’ve been unable to click through. Thinking it may be a placeholder. 

 Here's the article but it is paywalled after about 100 words. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case-what-to-know-11630062000

[Eagle1993]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA's latest financials are in.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/24d538eb-17d5-4da0-8e59-11c0f2069ab2_6135.pdf

BSA posting a loss of 6,851,000

So far throughout the 17 months of the bankruptcy, there's a cumulative loss of $99,620,000

Comparing to last update ...

Unrestricted Cash   (June End = $80.8M    July End = $87.8M)

Unrestricted Endowment Balance (June End = $19.4M    July End = $0.9M)

Unrestricted RBT Balance (June End = $66.4M ... July End = $66.5M)

Total Liquid Unrestricted Balance (June End = $166.7M    July End = $154.2M)

If you look at the last several months, the pace of monthly loss of liquid unrestricted balance is increasing.  In July .... we lost $12M, June we lost $8M, May we lost $2M.

I expect August will be bad, but September you will see the trend perhaps reverse with new registrations.  

[fred8033]

@Mattr and all the other moderators ... Thank you for all you do. 

.... I'd say thank you also in the CH11 thread, but it's not strictly about the legalese of the case.    

Edited August 31, 2021 by fred8033

[fred8033]

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Comparing to last update ...

Unrestricted Cash   (June End = $80.8M    July End = $87.8M)

Unrestricted Endowment Balance (June End = $19.4M    July End = $0.9M)

Unrestricted RBT Balance (June End = $66.4M ... July End = $66.5M)

Total Liquid Unrestricted Balance (June End = $166.7M    July End = $154.2M)

If you look at the last several months, the pace of monthly loss of liquid unrestricted balance is increasing.  In July .... we lost $12M, June we lost $8M, May we lost $2M.

I expect August will be bad, but September you will see the trend perhaps reverse with new registrations.  

Not sure if this goes in the CH11 thread or other ...  trying my best ...

Do the negative numbers reflect shutting down of donations?  BSA has always been a donation / gift heavy organization.  Few individuals and organizations want to donate during a bankruptcy.  I'd imagine a bankruptcy completely dries up that funding source.  

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 Here's the article but it is paywalled after about 100 words. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case-what-to-know-11630062000

With permission. Let me know if this doesn't work, please.

WSJ BSA 8.30.21.pdf

Edited August 31, 2021 by ThenNow

[RandomScouter]

I'm pages behind on the ch.11 thread, and I haven't had my coffee yet, so please forgive me if I sound dense.  It sounds like the mods are trying to make a place for the more emotionally-charged topics of discussion and speculations about what may happen (e.g. CO relations) here while leaving ch.11 for the "cold hard facts" of the bankruptcy case.

So, if it's about:

-LC assets (stated numbers, dollar amounts, property values)

-LC contributions (i.e. announcements about they are contributing and how they plan to raise the funds - not our estimations of what they should or might contribute)

it goes here(?) or can they go in ch.11?

 

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Do the negative numbers reflect shutting down of donations?  BSA has always been a donation / gift heavy organization.  Few individuals and organizations want to donate during a bankruptcy.  I'd imagine a bankruptcy completely dries up that funding source.  

Purely anecdotal, but I've heard three people say that very thing. Effectively, "Wait to give so you don't end up contributing to the take of a bunch of lawyers."

[fred8033]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Purely anecdotal, but I've heard three people say that very thing. Effectively, "Wait to give so you don't end up contributing to the take of a bunch of lawyers."

Even without lawyer comments ... which I enjoy as much as the next guy ... it's easy reasoning.  ... My money won't go to help current scouting.  Let the past fund the past.  I'll save my money to help the future.  ... Just like Eagle projects.  It's easy to raise funds to enable a future project.  It's almost impossible to raise funds to pay the debts of a past project.

I'm  wondering if it's materially affecting the bottom line significantly.  I was not sure how much of BSA's national budget reflects "dues" versus "donations".

[SiouxRanger]

On 8/29/2021 at 1:55 PM, swilliams said:

Husband said I shouldn’t have sent it, but what are they going to do?  Fire me?

"Fire me?"

 (The very, very short answer is YES, National can "FIRE YOU." And it has fired volunteers for non-sexual abuse reasons (political), fired units, and sanctioned councils.)

I came across your post while looking for something else.  But I have returned to respond-as I must.

 My conscience will not permit me to pass by your post without comment. Everyone should know the things that I know.

"But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career." --Liam Neeson playing Bryan Mills in Taken.

 In my case, substitute "knowledge" for "skills." And then you have it.

 [What follows is from my personal knowledge of the treatment by National, Region, Area and local council of several of my long-term, highly distinguished in Scouting, friends. I know these things to be true.]

 [Seat belts, please, this ride is violent.]

There is a document published by National entitled "Standards of Membership and Leadership."  It is a restricted document-distribution being limited to National staff, council scout executives, and select senior council staff who have a "need-to-know."

I believe, though could be wrong, that National concealed even the existence of this document for decades, though there is mention in the current bankruptcy of "standards of membership and leadership," I am not clear whether those references are to the particular publication of which I am aware, or some abstract concept of "standards."

(Some time ago, when the need to have a copy of this document would be helpful, a copy appeared in the mail to me, anonymously. A volunteer who knew someone, who knew someone, etc. seems to be the source of the document being sent to me.)

If one offends a Scout Executive, or Council President, ENOUGH, (and perhaps there other individuals in a council's hierarchy one can offend to trigger such a result), one may receive a letter (approved by National, as I understand it), stating, in effect:

"Membership is a privilege and not a right."

"The Boy Scouts Of America has determined that you do not meet its standards of membership and leadership, and is revoking your membership in the Boy Scouts Of America."

"You have the right to appeal this decision within 30 days of the date of this letter.  Send your appeal request and any pertinent documents to ...."

 You will receive a refund check in the amount of the dues you last paid.  (Insult to injury.)

 No statement of the grounds for your dismissal will be provided. Ever.

 And thereby, you will be BRANDED as gay, atheist, or a child abuser in your own hometown, church, community, family.  "What did Tom do???'

Conversation in church pew: "Where's Tom (or Mary) they are always here with their kids?"

"Oh, Tom (or Mary) was thrown out of Boy Scouting."

 "Why?"

 "No one knows.  He (she) won't talk about it. He (she) have just fallen off the radar."

 "Gee, Scouting is such a wholesome program, how could Tom (Mary) debase it so-what horrible people he/she/they are-has a criminal case been filed against Tom (Mary)?  Not taking my kids over there for our usual Friday's sleepover."

(I have no problem with gays or atheists-everyone is just trying to get through the day.  Those folks are not my life, but as I won't let anyone think for me, I ask not that anyone let me think for them.)

 But branded as a child abuser? People tend to think the worst of things, so get thrown out of Scouting, folks will think you are a child abuser.  Even if you are a CPA questioning some accounting issue?  Lovely.

 Does not "Trustworthy" apply to National?  (Well, that it has filed bankruptcy on account of its decades of lies about child abuse-so, apparently not.)

What is the point of the principles of an organization if not to be followed by not only its adherents, but also the organization?

 And expulsion all because you questioned a council budget item that embarrassed some pea-brained volunteer or Scout Executive. And because you volunteered as a scout leader to help your child.

 If you think that a long scouting career of distinguished, meritorious service will protect you.  It won't. I know this to be true.

 The BSA is a Congressionally chartered corporation.  That is rare.

 National titles itself as the "Boy Scouts of America."

 One would think that between "Congressionally" and "America," a banished scout volunteer would be accorded the rights accorded in the Bill of Rights:

To know the charges against you. Nope

 To present evidence (You can, but as you have no idea of the charges, what evidence do you present to rebut unknown charges?  Dutch oven recipes? A list of great restaurants in Gatlinburg? The phone directory of Lower Manhattan?)

 To appear at your hearing and confront witnesses?  Nope.  Can't do that.  You won't even know when or where the hearing will be held. Or who constitutes the tribunal. Or even if they ever meet or read anything you submit.  (Read Arthur Koestler's Darkness At Noon, where the accused are taken into a basement, but shot in the back of the head on their way down the steps to the basement. The accused don't even get the benefit of torture.) And scouting volunteers whose membership is revoked also won't get the right to speak a single word in their defense.

 To confront your accusers?  Nope. You will never know who you offended, or why they were offended.

There is NOTHING in National's "Standards of Membership and Leadership" which accords you any legal rights whatsoever.

 So, if you receive such a letter, get a copy of Franz Kafka's The Trial.  Read it twice.  I have.  It accurately portrays just what you are up against.

 National has structured the "membership game" that, win, lose, or draw, National always WINS!

"Let them hate, as long as they FEAR." (Some French King whose name escapes me.)

 "Work for free, send money, don't question."

Compliant and complacent volunteers, donating money, are welcome.  The troublesome, well, National has its ways.

 I expect that  if the same group of National staffers now employed retain their jobs after the bankruptcy, there will be membership retribution against identifiable posters on this forum.

 It seems to be National's way.

 (As I write this, I am looking at two Banker's boxes of files pertaining to the membership revocation war in my council from some time ago which my spouse wants me to cull. Now they are all so relevant again.)

And they will not be culled.

 It is a question of "finding one's backbone."

 Most folks avoid conflict and dissention-it is unpleasant-but for some, when their line is crossed, they stand up regardless of consequences, and thereby become the leaders National espouses to create but also crushes if their efforts are just too successful toward National.

 Can National FIRE ME?  Yep. And it won't care a whit.

All I can say: "Beware the Mother that eats her children."

And so, National lays down another layer of "Scouting Tradition."

Deceit.

Edited August 31, 2021 by elitts
readability

[ThenNow]

Now, dropping this on the other side of the net. 

With permission. Let me know if this doesn't work, please.

WSJ BSA 8.30.21.pdf