Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[ThenNow]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

I also see a need for legal representation when it gets to the point of being in front of the trustee. The lawyers who just sat back and did nothing and if they continue to do nothing will find that their clients will get next to nothing. And they will get their cut of next to nothing. I think this is why the TCC is pushing for claimants to have representation. Of course if I was a lawyer I might feel I could represent myself. 

I don’t entirely think so, beloved brother. Those with well-stated open state claims could sail and skate with little involvement. Cases in point, some of our fellow don’t even know who represents them. That’s ghastly and telling. I don’t see that magically changing. Open to be wrong. I’ll just add another hash mark to my poop sheet.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, elitts said:

And with that we are going to need to let the discussion of contingency fees die folks. 

Please don’t delete my last post. I was submitting nearly simultaneously.

[HelpfulTracks]

On 9/3/2021 at 12:42 PM, Gilwell_1919 said:

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.
 

Perhaps this is how your council runs, though I have my doubts.

Many scout family's cannot afford FOS and other giving, and they do not. Even among those who can afford it, very few do give anyway. 

As for endowments, ours is no where near enough to run the council without any other funds, I suspect there is no council in that position. 

Yes, the fundraising does go to cover the professionals fees, but not just the DE's and SE. They go to cover the salaries of the registrar(s), accounting, rangers, program support. 

As for Scouts getting nothing for it, no in our case. The cost of summer camp would be much much higher for one. The cost of equipment, fuel, and materials to keep a camp in working order is enormous. On the water front alone there is maintenance of docks, motor boats, sail boats, canoes, paddle boards and safety safety equipment, swimming pins and water features. Camp sites require plumbing and electric repair, erosion maintenance, tent pad/Adirondack repair and maintenance. Rifle, shotgun and archery ranges require similar maintenance as do the rifles, shotguns, bow and arrows. COPES course must be maintained, structures need maintenance, ropes and cables replaced. Bikes, and bike trails, hiking trails, camp fire arena and more must be maintained and repaired. Kitchens, dinning halls, medical and admin facilities need to maintained. Vehicles need to be maintained and replaced.

All of those places need to be staffed and even at the lowest pay levels it comes to thousands of dollars per week. And much more for trained personnel like COPE director, life guards, shooting sports personnel, medical staff (we have MD or PA, Nurse and medic on staff each week of camp). All those people need to be housed and fed. 

On top of normal fundraising, those same DE's and SE raise funds from donors, to build new dinning halls, campsites, and activity features. Which can easily run into millions of dollars. 

Summer camps would cease to exist with those professionals raising funds 

On top of that is they support they give volunteers. I have served in numerous district and council positions, including Training Chair, Commissioner, Lodge Advisers and more. It would have been considerably more difficult, if not impossible, to do my job without the professional support of local staffs. 

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

All of those places need to be staffed and even at the lowest pay levels it comes to thousands of dollars per week. And much more for trained personnel like COPE director, life guards, shooting sports personnel, medical staff (we have MD or PA, Nurse and medic on staff each week of camp). All those people need to be housed and fed. 

My council weathered the storm (no layoffs) but I was on an email chain about training for another council during which it was noted that promotion of events and a slew of other things were not happening for summer camp, at which point the SE chimed in "You all complained about professionals, now see how life is without them."

That did not go over well, and I sympathize with him (he had to lay off half his people) but the point's valid. Professional staff exist to full roles volunteers cannot or will not perform.

[PeterHopkins]

@SiouxRanger- As someone who has provided tax and financial advice to attorneys who regularly work on a contingency-fee basis, I can say that many find it difficult to strike a balance between enjoying the fruits of their success and building a war chest for the next case. Those who can master delayed gratification end up with the most successful careers, because they can take on bigger, more complex cases an hold out to get better settlements.

I've seen such attorneys get sucked into cases that they underestimated and were unable to bankroll. It's not a pretty sight. It's worse when they have partners pressuring them to settle. Their clients end up not getting the deals they should.

Edit: Sorry, I posted this before seeing that the discussion of contingent fees was closed.

Edited September 27, 2021 by PeterHopkins
Apology

[ThenNow]

In my combining for news, I found this a good piece. It focuses on religious organization COs.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/september/boy-scouts-church-lawsuit-abuse-bankrupcy-liability.html

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

combining

Oops. ‘Combing’. Trawling. Dredging...

[skeptic]

Our Methodist unit is struggling of course with the vagaries of this whole situation.  Our pastor and congregation support our presence, but we also have moved to the facility arrangement.  We do not know what may transpire from here of course, as the "Case" may go myriad directions with the fickleness of the courts and so on.  

I received a link to the most recent broader article, that talks ALL CO's from our COR and Committee Chair.  He, like me, has had a number of assurances we are still considered part of the Church outreach and will so remain if at all possible, even with the Charter change.  Here is what I told the COR:

"

We will not change those that choose illogical bias over logic and reality.  We will never make any program completely safe.  We CAN come close with adherence to our in place YP guidelines and always following up on ANY concerns voiced or actual issues that come to light.  Make the parents completely involved if possible, and possibly occasionally review the YP basics with them all, and if any changes occur, make them aware.  

    It is a no win scenario in our particular society with its insistence on always trying to assign blame to anyone with even a tangential contact or involvement." 

[CynicalScouter]

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It is a no win scenario in our particular society with its insistence on always trying to assign blame to anyone with even a tangential contact or involvement

Except that as was brought up in court this morning, the COs did not have "tangential contact or involvement". They signed EVERY adult application.

Since at least 1920, the COs and the Institutional Heads of the COs signed documents (the annual charters) that indicated the COs were taking responsibility for the scouting leaders. It was the COs and their IHs that signed every single adult leader application (or its earlier iteration).

So the abuse took place on the COs watch. ThAT they were asleep at the switch or allowed the abuse to happen in the first place (again, we are NOT talking about reporting the abuse after the fact) is neither here nor there. They signed the charters. They own the mess.

The biggest joke of BSA for the last 100 years has been the polite fiction that the COs were actually engaged in any kind of real oversight. The BSA deluded itself into thinking that was what was happening, but the reality is most COs were simply signing whatever paper was put in front of them.

And now they are paying the price for their negligence. I've got no sympathy for organizations that simply signed off on people they barely even knew and then let those people loose on children.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[skeptic]

Naivete and simple trust in the supposed responsible nature of those reaching out to help with youth and others.  As we all know, it is not just youth that have been victimized by individuals in whom we may have put undue, or too shallow trust.  We always come back to the same thing; you will not eliminate tese things completely.  But we can, have, and are improving the oversight methods.  It still comes back to our tendency, as basic humans, to often trust too much for various reasons.  That is part of the human condition, and in most cases, it works.  But, obviously, not always.  That cannot be stopped if we are to have any real level of societal interactions.  

[yknot]

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Except that as was brought up in court this morning, the COs did not have "tangential contact or involvement". They signed EVERY adult application.

Since at least 1920, the COs and the Institutional Heads of the COs signed documents (the annual charters) that indicated the COs were taking responsibility for the scouting leaders. It was the COs and their IHs that signed every single adult leader application (or its earlier iteration).

So the abuse took place on the COs watch. ThAT they were asleep at the switch or allowed the abuse to happen in the first place (again, we are NOT talking about reporting the abuse after the fact) is neither here nor there. They signed the charters. They own the mess.

The biggest joke of BSA for the last 100 years has been the polite fiction that the COs were actually engaged in any kind of real oversight. The BSA deluded itself into thinking that was what was happening, but the reality is most COs were simply signing whatever paper was put in front of them.

And now they are paying the price for their negligence. I've got no sympathy for organizations that simply signed off on people they barely even knew and then let those people loose on children.

I don't follow your logic. Why is delusion an excuse for BSA but not for COs? BSA also signs a chartering agreement with each Council, which basically stipulates an annual health assessment of units and several supervisory tasks. At least once a year, BSA, through its district and Council designees, would have been alerted if a unit was not following bylaws, etc. No one could blame BSA if a case occurred in units that were out of compliance and the BSA was unaware for the first months of charter, but at the end of the one year term, they should have been aware and should have revoked the charter, as they expressly state is their power in the Council chartering agreement. Many of these cases, however, took place over years and even decades. 

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, yknot said:

Why is delusion an excuse for BSA but not for COs?

Because whereas BSA was active in trying to keep the amount of sexual abuse happening quiet at all costs, the COs were "merely" negligent in failing to actual monitor and supervised the adults they were signing the applications for.

Neither has an excuse in my book.

 

[SiouxRanger]

On 9/21/2021 at 6:47 AM, ThenNow said:

Hey, now. Don’t be dragging me down into your mud wrestling EIN racketeering scheme! (I’ve had way more than 15 minutes of incarceration on top of my fame and misfortune, by the by.)

We're 7 days into more bankruptcy drama-you had your chance to get into the EIN mud wrestle tussle-it ended days ago.

[skeptic]

Guess this should be here.  Have reached out to Council as to how we do this?  I should be covered anyway as a retired educator; but not sure how that gets linked.  May be an opportunity for the Fingerprinting merit badge?  https://apnews.com/article/california-recall-business-california-legislature-child-abuse-cc67021945d6cf68606f3333d14a847e?fbclid=IwAR0niFEEQ_pQsopxp-8L2bBP37MZFbvwzO3w9rAJSiNXQih8fzuaXGYYwR0

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Guess this should be here.  Have reached out to Council as to how we do this?  I should be covered anyway as a retired educator; but not sure how that gets linked.  May be an opportunity for the Fingerprinting merit badge?

According to the law https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB506

Quote

An administrator, employee, or regular volunteer of a youth service organization shall undergo a background check pursuant to Section 11105.3 of the Penal Code to identify and exclude any persons with a history of child abuse.

Section 11105.3 of the Penal Code reads as follows https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=11105.3

So, I would expect that there will be implementing regulations issued by the CA Department of Justice. For example, if the person was "cleared" under 11105.3 how long is that valid for? A year? A month?

What if a teacher (just giving an example here) clears the background check in 2019. Is that sufficient for registering as a Cubmaster in 2022?