Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[RememberSchiff]

...seems confusing to me.

The National Executive Committee (NEC) is composed of salaried employee(s) of the BSA and volunteers.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7fa16e42-d9c3-4214-84ce-569e998048f9_5763.pdf

Declaration of Devang Desai …

...I am a volunteer member of the National Executive Board (the “NEB”) and the
National Executive Committee (the “NEC”) of Boy Scouts of America (the “BSA”). I have served as a member of the NEB and the NEC since May 2018 and May 2020, respectively.

(in my experience, serving on both an Executive Committee and its overseeing Executive Board would not be permitted.)

...

NEC. Pursuant to the BSA’s bylaws, subject to certain specified exceptions, the NEC, a twelve-member delegation of the NEB, has the duty and authority to manage the affairs of the BSA. The NEC is comprised of the National Chair, National Chair-elect, National Commissioner, Immediate Past National Chair, Standing Committee Chairs, Chief Executive Officer, and two members-at-large recommended by the National Chair or National Chair-elect.

Pursuant to the BSA bylaws, as of May 2020, no member of the NEC was permitted to simultaneously serve as a member of any local council executive board.

I (Devang Desai) am a member of the NEC. A current list of the members of the NEC is attached as Exhibit E.

10. The NEC includes, among others, the National “Key 3,” who are responsible for
guiding the BSA organization as a whole: the National Chair (Daniel G. Ownby), National
Commissioner (Scott Sorrels), and Chief Executive Officer and President (Roger Mosby). The National Chair and National Commissioner are volunteer positions.

 

Exhibit E (page 24 of case pdf)

BSA National Executive Committee Members

 

1.Dan Ownby  (also on NEB)

2. Scott Sorrels (also on NEB)

3. Roger Mosby (employee, also on NEB)

4. Jim Turley (also on NEB)

5. Michael Sears (also on NEB)

6. Nathan Rosenberg (also on NEB)

7. Skip Oppenheimer (also on NEB)

8. Devang Desai (also on NEB)

9. Alison Schuler (also on NEB)

10. Thear Suzuki (also on NEB)

11. Jack Furst  (also on NEB)

12. Brad Tilden (also on NEB)

 

The 72-member Executive Board (NEB) is listed in Appendix B of https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7fa16e42-d9c3-4214-84ce-569e998048f9_5763.pdf

From wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Executive_Board_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Executive_committee

Edited September 3, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle1993]

I thought the BSA lawyer said they would follow up on status (perhaps a plan) this week.  Any updates?  The disclosure hearing is approaching (September 21).  What is the drop dead date for BSA to file and updated Disclosure statement & Plan to hit that timeline?  

[vol_scouter]

Professionals have no vote on committees and serve as staff to the committee.

[Gilwell_1919]

14 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

To be fair his tweets may have a negative affect on scouting.  It may make parents think twice about having their children part of a scouting organization. But it also may have a positive effect.  It may prompt government legislation to oversee and investigate. It might make parents who have children in scouting to be more vigilant and act more proactively about child abuse.  If you listen to the interview he gave in which the link was posted in this forum you will hear him talk about the history of the abuse, the effects of the abuse and possible solutions for further abuse and lastly the possibility of the eradication of BSA in the form that it is today. I don't believe he is trying to put the spotlight on himself (ego) but rather on the problem and what he wants for his clients.  As a disclaimer he is not my representation in this bankruptcy.

Again, valid points here!

[CynicalScouter]

43 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I thought the BSA lawyer said they would follow up on status (perhaps a plan) this week.  Any updates?  The disclosure hearing is approaching (September 21).  What is the drop dead date for BSA to file and updated Disclosure statement & Plan to hit that timeline?  

Lauria said "soon" and "in a few days" she "hoped" as it related to RSA.

There is a possibility that they will either a) try to bring forth RSA 2.0 (3.0?) or b) skip and go right to the disclosure and integrated the points they agreed to into that.

As for drop dead date, that depends. Under the rules I believe (and I am not as conversant with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure) 28 day notice under Rule 3017.

Quote

Rule 3017. Court Consideration of Disclosure Statement in a Chapter 9 Municipality or Chapter 11 Reorganization Case

(a) Hearing on Disclosure Statement and Objections. Except as provided in Rule 3017.1 [which deals with small businesses and is NOT relevant to BSA], after a disclosure statement is filed in accordance with Rule 3016(b), the court shall hold a hearing on at least 28 days’ notice to the debtor, creditors, equity security holders and other parties in interest as provided in Rule 2002 to consider the disclosure statement and any objections or modifications thereto.

HOWEVER in the past BSA has asked for expedited/reduced time limits. I am sure they'll make the case that the 28 days should be waived because they are only making "minor edits and revisions" if they submit a Plan 5.0 and opposing counsel will object, etc.

And the court always has the power to reduce deadlines established by the rules "for good cause shown".

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts]

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

What I know of Mosby comes largely from this forum.

But I see a pattern here, and it troubles me.

My experience with my local council, at district and council level, was that when there was bad news to deliver to a volunteer (we no longer want you to be Chairperson of District Boy Scout Outdoor...etc.) the appropriate level professional, DE, or mid level council staffer, would recruit a volunteer senior to the volunteer to be ousted, and have the senior volunteer to the dirty work.

Thereby, the face of the "ugly" would be that of a volunteer, not a professional.  I saw it time and again.

And so, Mosby, not of the Movement, it appears to me that he has been hired as the "senior volunteer" in my example, to deliver the bad news and he will be out the door when the dust settles.  He may or may not be complicit in this.

And thereby, senior National staff will remain nameless and faceless.

(So, the proof of my prediction will be how long does Mosby stay on post-bankruptcy?)

Those are really two different issues.  Farming out the responsibility of delivering of bad news to a subordinate (volunteer or otherwise) is just plain poor leadership and a dereliction of duty as far as I'm concerned.

Hiring someone specifically to lead through a re-organization or bankruptcy or other major change with the understanding (whether implicit or explicit) that it's going to be a temporary gig is pretty much standard practice in large organizations.  You don't want the people in charge who "created" the problem to remain and you want someone who can evaluate the situation without existing relationships clouding their judgement.  But at the same time, you know that whoever is responsible for drastic changes within an organization is likely going to have to generate a whole lot of hard feelings among the existing staff.  So the best option is to hire someone to come in and re-tool, then replace them with a 3rd person who can move forward without all the animosity.

[CynicalScouter]

15 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

To be fair his tweets may have a negative affect on scouting.  It may make parents think twice about having their children part of a scouting organization.

He has 4,409 followers.

I think folks are way, way overstating his persuasive power over parents.

Yes, I know that for us in this BSA bankruptcy discussion, he's a figure and perhaps a key one (I think that overstates it when you consider he's ostracized from the TCC, the Coalition, and 1/3 of the AIS).

As I said before: he's loud. He's the "public face". But the idea that parents of scouts know who he is? Nope.

Edited September 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

The 72-member Executive Board (NEB) is listed in Appendix B of https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7fa16e42-d9c3-4214-84ce-569e998048f9_5763.pdf

Yeah, that's insane. 72 people?!?!?

But this list reminded me of something folks have complained about, that BSA leadership is still in place from when the abuse took place and/or that it had been in place for decades.

So, let's take a look. I was able to get from the IRS 990 for the NEB for 2011 and want to compare it today

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/2011Form990.pdf

Of the 72 member board, 30 are listed on the IRS 990 form as NEB in 2011.

Which means a LOT of the people that drove BSA Into the ditch in the last decade are still driving the bus.

2021	2011 Roster?
Howard Bulloch	Yes
Dennis Chookaszian	Yes
Keith Clark	Yes
Kent Clayburn	Yes
Ron Coleman	Yes
Phil Condit	Yes
Rick Cronk	Yes
John Cushman	Yes
Douglas Dittrick	Yes
John Donnell	Yes
L. B. Eckelkamp Jr.	Yes
Jack Furst	Yes
Brett Harvey	Yes
Aubrey Harwell	Yes
Lyle Knight	Yes
Frank McAllister	Yes
Drayton McLane	Yes
Skip Oppenheimer	Yes
Tico Perez	Yes
Wayne Perry	Yes
Frank Ramirez	Yes
Bob Reynolds	Yes
Jim Rogers	Yes
Nathan Rosenberg	Yes
Randall Stephenson	Yes
Rex Tillerson	Yes
Jim Turley	Yes
Steve Weekes	Yes
Gary Wendlandt	Yes
Jim Wilson	Yes
Tanya Acker	No
Glenn Adams	No
David Alexander	No
Lisa Argyros	No
Bray Barnes	No
Scott Beckett	No
David Biegler	No
Janice Bryant Howroyd	No
Dan Cabela	No
Ray Capp	No
David Clark	No
Wes Coleman	No
Joe Crafton	No
Charles Dahlquist	No
Devang Desai	No
Craig Fenneman	No
Robert Gates	No
Gordon Gee	No
John Gottschalk	No
Jenn Hancock	No
Ray Johns	No
Ron Kirk	No
Dave Moody	No
Ellie Morrison	No
Jose Nino	No
Dan Ownby	No
Doyle Parrish	No
Jeanette Prenger	No
Steve Rendle	No
Bill Rosner	No
Jim Ryffel	No
Alison Schuler	No
Michael Sears	No
Wes Smith	No
Scott Sorrels	No
Bill Stark	No
David Steward	No
Thear Suzuki	No
Brad Tilden	No
Frank Tsuru	No
Tom Yarboro	No
Dr. Steve Zachow	No

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Muttsy]

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I said before: he's loud. He's the "public face". But the idea that parents of scouts know who he is? Nope.

Trump tweeted his way to the Presidency. What matters is how he advises the AIS law firms’ 16000+ clients about the present or future Plan. As it stands now, does he really need to be very persuasive? Take 3k now before attorneys fees and we can’t say whether the insurance carriers have any money or ability to pay anything close to a reasonable settlement despite their massive exposure. Century may have little or nothing; Hartford’s obligation is ratcheted to a Century 1.3B payment, which it probably doesn’t have.  And Chubb who owns Century has no obligation to infuse it with more cash as per the 1996/99 transactions the details of which are in a black box that judge says must stay there. And then the installment of a valuation special master to determine claim values binding on the carriers is a road to years of appellate litigation. 
 

There are many other law firms that will recommend a no vote. Who knows where the TCC and 2/3rds of AIS will stand when it gets down to it? 
 

Kosnoff doesn’t need to be influential or Twitter-powerful.  Most survivors know how to count. 
 

If BSA escapes with a cram down, how much will it escape with? How viable is a Reorganized BSA without its COs and LCs, most of whom will probably just fold their tents. Some will file Ch 11’s.

Is the judge still so enamored of the BSA that she would cram down over the overwhelming rejection of the survivors? She seemed different at last Monday’s hearing  I sensed she was disgusted at how badly BSA played it’s hand in this bankruptcy. And she is borderline hostile to the Coalition who have only been “constructive” in terms of larding their own pantry  

 

 

[Gilwell_1919]

11 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

... quality programs to increase membership.  Quality program and increasing membership is what drives most executive committee and board members.

Therein lies my frustration... the ever ambiguous "Program". LCs/LDs tell donors and parents, during their "Investment in Character Campaigns" (ICC) or other Friends of Scouting fundraisers, that the money goes to pay for “the program”. When talking to BSA professionals, they always use ambiguous terms like "program" or "youth activities" so they can illustrate something grand they are delivering to youth. The last time I checked my personal and unit bank accounts... Scouts and Scouter pay for everything they do. They pay for national membership fees, event fees, training fees, camping fees, and unit fees before they even get into the costs of buying uniforms, camping gear, and other items needed to participate in "the program". Even when scouts sell popcorn, they only get a small commission, but it generally only covers national and council fees/events; it does not cover the costs of where 90% scouting actually happens, which is at the troop or pack level with volunteers and parents (that is the real “program”). BSA national and LCs constantly say they exist "for the kids", but the kids (and their families) pay fees for everything LCs/LDs have on their programs. All these costs are compounded by the fact that volunteers do 99% of the work at the district events, and a good majority of the council events... yet volunteers have to pay LCs/LDs to attend these events... there is no discount for their volunteerism. So where do all these fees go? What are they paying for? From my experience, LCs/LDs are simply professional fundraisers - professional beggars, if you will, that use the good name of scouting and the hard work of volunteers to solicit donations from high-end donors who do not realize those funds do not directly benefit the youth - at all. 

I do not know anywhere in the world where workers (*read volunteers) are forced to pay to be able to work. Those volunteer scouters then have to pay council-level and national fees to complete mandatory training (I'm talking about IOLS & BALOO). Volunteers, who drive "the program" have to pay for their mandatory in-person training, and other volunteers (seasoned scout leaders) coordinate and teach 99.9% of those trainings, which they have to pay to teach. LCs/LDs make money off the training that volunteers perform. 

We all know that LCs are made up of districts with DEs whose whole focus, outside of fundraising, is getting new charter organizations to sponsor a scout pack or troop. Why? Because that increases membership, which is more fees they can collect. The problem is that LCs/LDs set up these units, collect fees from them, but then do not care how run-ragged the volunteers get from selling popcorn and other "products", and actually giving a week-in/week-out "real program" to the scouts in their units. In some cases, when I was a District Commissioner (DC), it drives volunteers to the brink of nervous breakdowns. But who really cares? If a unit folds, DEs will get more in the pipeline ready to be chartered by an organization.

Again, 99% of all scouting happens at the Unit level by volunteers (remember, all volunteers have to pay to register with National BSA and their LCs, direct contact leaders have to pay to become trained, they have to pay to attend council/district events, and they have to pay for everything at the unit level - scouts get nothing for free). At times, these volunteers pay out of pocket so low-income kids can participate in the scouting program (whether that is to pay for event fees or buy equipment their families cannot afford). These volunteers arrange meetings and activities for the scouts, and they have to pay their LCs 30% of any fundraising for the right to use the "BSA Logo"; if a unit conducts a fundraiser without paying this "use fee", councils have their legal teams go after that unit - as a DC, I had to get involved a dozen or so time when this was happening because the LC wanted their 30% cut in little cub scouts were selling drinks at community events to raise money for their pack. Really? In addition to every other fee collected, BSA still wants more money from little kids trying to raise funds to buy themselves camping equipment? There is nothing anyone can say to justify that type of behavior. 

Granted, units sell popcorn and camp cards to raise money to pay for activities at the district and council level (camporees, jubilees, day camps, summer camps, etc.) But, units generally get small percentage of the "profits" their LCs makes on popcorn and camp card sales. But, what ever small amount goes back to the units... it generally gets placed in the "unit account", which is nothing more than a credit at council, which can only be used to pay for council and district programs, activities, and events. Units cannot use it to buy things like tents, sleeping bags, unit campouts, or anything else the unit may do. It is essentially like the “company stores” that used to make their employees rent tools, pay for housing, and other fees to be able to “work at the company” and then most of the workers ended up in debt to the “company” and working for free. I am glad this was outlawed years ago, but it is rampant in BSA – who do it under the guise of a “youth program”. 
 
Let's look at the costs scouts and scouters pay for "the program". There is the annual re-charter, which costs about $126 per scout/adult scouter. $66 goes to national and $60 goes to the LCs (this is, of course, changing). There are other fees and different levels, and some LCs have different fee levels, but that is the "average" of what most scouts have to pay (adults are about half). As an example, a unit with 50 scouts and 25 adult volunteers would pay about $7900 per year to re-charter. This fee, which is carved up by the councils and National BSA, only covers annual fees just to be in the scouting program. Nothing actually goes to the scouts or benefits them in any way.

After that enormous fee, scouts and volunteers have to figure out how to raise money to actually pay for the scouts to do things and to purchase rank badges, books, patches, and other items required by BSA, as well as pay for things like LC summer camps/day camps and district activities/camps (remember, councils also get 30% of these fundraising events as well). 

Generally, this forces units to charge scouts annual/monthly dues, charge scouts for monthly campouts, charge scouts for unit activities, and charge scouts for pretty much anything they do. Of course, this is in addition to what scouts have to pay when they attend a LC/LC camp or activity. To put this into perspective, here is an average cost for a scouting year (per scout).

• $126 (annual membership)
• $200-$300 (annual troop dues to pay for patches, rank items, and other BSA mandated items)
• $240-$300 per year for unit campouts
• $350-$450 per year to attend a Council Summer camp (varies by Council)
• $2500-$3500 per BSA High Adventure (Philmont, Sea Base, Bechtel, Norther Tier)
• $250 per year for misc. things like Order of the Arrow, NBZ, Mic-O-Say, and other BSA sanctioned events.

Needless to say, scouting can get expensive. But, after all those fees are paid... LCs/LDs run an annual Investment in Character Campaigns (ICC) and/or "Friends of Scouting" wherein their paid professionals go to unit meetings and solicit more donations from families - the money goes directly to councils. LCs say these ICC donations pay for the scouting program, but, in reality, it goes into their general operating funds to pay for the salaries of the people that work for each LC (most of which engage in fundraising at some level). 

So, again, what program? Wen scouts want to go to summer camp, high adventure, or anything... they have to pay for it.  So what costs are being covered by the LC??

Additionally, LCs will run "Friends of Scouting" fundraisers (some call it different names) which are fundraiser dinners and luncheons wherein deep-pocket donors pay to attend the event. At those events, LC professionals will shamelessly get scouts in uniform to talk about their "great experiences" to get these donors to give large sums of money. Again, this money does not go to pay for anything for scouts... it goes into the LC's general operating account. Scouts still have to pay all of their fees for membership and activities.

Next, LCs have large camps and large endowment funds. As an example, a LC may have a camp worth millions of dollars and they may have endowment funds worth tens of millions of dollars. But, scouts have to pay fees every time they step foot on any LC camp - units are never "free to use" LC camps for camping. LCs will also say those fees go to pay for upkeep, utilities, and other things, but a lot of camps are in shambles because LCs never put money back into them.

If we look at a typical summer camp, the average fee is $350-$400 per scout to attend a 5-day camp (this does not cover any travel costs to get to that camp). The camps are staffed with seasonal camp staff that get paid ridiculously low salaries, and some of the younger staff that are scouts do not get paid at all (these are Counselors in Training). Most of the time, these staff members are even required to purchase their own supplies and equipment to run their programs. In really bad camps, the medics have to purchase their own first aid and medical supplies.

As far as I am concerned, LCs charge incredible fees to scouts, but put very little back into "the program". A lot of the money LCs generate is to pay to hire new "scout professionals" whose sole focus is to fundraise and solicit donations.

I'm sorry this is so negative... I hate to be so negative (especially on a holiday weekend)... but I get frustrated when I hear the ever ambiguous "for the program" language during a discussion. I'm sorry, I have seen what goes into the LC/LD program budgets, behind the scenes. Volunteers do the work, LCs/LDs chop the food/equipment budget to a bare minimum, and then volunteers have to figure out how to make it work for the sake of the youth attending. Most of the time, volunteers, like myself, pay for a lot of things out of pocket to make "the program" work. It sounds cynical, but it true. 
 
 

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

What matters is how he advises the AIS law firms’ 16000+ clients about the present or future Plan. As it stands now, does he really need to be very persuasive?

My point was to address the issue that his tweets were somehow stopping parents from taking the kids into Scouting. They aren’t.

it was not to address the separate issue of how persuasive he is with claimants/clients.

I remain convinced he probably does have the ability to ensure no BSA plan gets 2/3rds.

 

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

the judge still so enamored of the BSA that she would cram down over the overwhelming rejection of the survivors?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to I do recall that during the May hearing the judge brought up the point that the individual current scouts have an interest in seeing scouting survive that is separate and independent and needs to be considered. I interpret her comments not as being “enamored” with BSA but as is recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of scouts in the United States it could potential see their program collapse and that those current children have to be a factor as well as the victims.

As for “overwhelming objection”: there is a vast vast difference between 60% of victims voting no (which would be an “overwhelming objection”) and 60% of victims voting yes BUT the plan failing for lack of 66%

[CynicalScouter]

19 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

These volunteers arrange meetings and activities for the scouts, and they have to pay their LCs 30% of any fundraising for the right to use the "BSA Logo"; if a unit conducts a fundraiser without paying this "use fee", councils have their legal teams go after that unit -

I’ve been in three councils and never had this happen.

BSA does require units complete a unit fundraising application for council to approve but I have never had to pay a fee or has council take any cut whatsoever. Typically the DE simply looked it over to make sure we weren’t doing anything we were not allowed to (soliciting donations, raffles, etc.) and signed it on the spot. 5 minutes tops. No cuts or fees or whatnot.

Edited September 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Muttsy]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I’m not sure what you’re referring to I do recall that during the May hearing the judge brought up the point that the individual current scouts have an interest in seeing scouting survive that is separate and independent and needs to be considered. I interpret her comments not as being “enamored” with BSA but as is recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of scouts in the United States it could potential see their program collapse and that those current children have to be a factor as well as the victims.

As for “overwhelming objection”: there is a vast vast difference between 60% of victims voting no (which would be an “overwhelming objection”) and 60% of victims voting yes BUT the plan failing for lack of 66%

Fair points. But to be clear I don’t see this being a plan encompassing LC’s. With a Toggle plan or the TCC’s yet to be unveiled Toggle plus plan, a simple majority is all that’s needed. But even that assumes she would ever approve a plan that doesn’t meet the “best interests of the creditors test which means the Crown Jewels of some of them would need to be sold. 

[MikeS72]

21 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

All these costs are compounded by the fact that volunteers do 99% of the work at the district events, and a good majority of the council events... yet volunteers have to pay LCs/LDs to attend these events... there is no discount for their volunteerism.

Not in my council.  When the council program fee was instituted a couple of years ago, it meant an end to fees for district events such as Cub Family Camp, District Shooting Sports days, District Camporee, BALOO/IOLS training, etc.  Council also lowered the costs for much of the Council level adult training.