Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[johnsch322]

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Well, if he is/was, they did the right thing.  Yes?

 

The bigger question would be why was he allowed into the BSA to start with?

[Eagle1993]

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The bigger question would be why was he allowed into the BSA to start with?

This is venturing far from bankruptcy so we may need to move some comments.  This is a very limited screen shot. Who knows.  Perhaps by pervert they mean gay.  Perhaps the first incident BSA became aware of, they put him on this list.  Would need more info to truly know.

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Perhaps by pervert they mean gay.  Perhaps the first incident BSA became aware of, they put him on this list.  Would need more info to truly know.

No. Three boys in one city where he was SE and was a professional Scouter in two previous cities and states. In this instance, the first boy was interviewed along with his parents and found to be credible. Scouter resigned after hearing the report. BSA recommended him for a new job with a different company. Haven’t research that at all.

Sorry to have posted it. I could state all the relevance, but I’ll retract. Hold up the “little flashy thing” and forget you ever saw me. *poof*

[johnsch322]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Sorry to have posted it. I could state all the relevance, but I’ll retract. Hold up the “little flashy thing” and forget you ever saw me. *poof*

“Oh, the red button there kid. Don’t ever, ever touch the red button” 

[InquisitiveScouter]

12 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

The bigger question would be why was he allowed into the BSA to start with?

He met the one criteria most councils, districts, CO's, and units feel forced into:  he had a pulse.

Edited December 22, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[ThenNow]

44 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

He met the one criteria most councils, districts, CO's, and units feel forced into:  he had a pulse.

University of MI grad. Twenty-two years a professional Scouter. BSA told him to “leave town” or the parents were going to meet with the DA. His response? “If I don’t leave town, will BSA pay for my legal representation.” To its credit, the LC and Regional said, “Um. How about, NO!”

[DuctTape]

On 12/21/2021 at 7:23 PM, Eagle1993 said:

This is venturing far from bankruptcy so we may need to move some comments.  This is a very limited screen shot. Who knows.  Perhaps by pervert they mean gay.  Perhaps the first incident BSA became aware of, they put him on this list.  Would need more info to truly know.

That was my initial thought reaction as well.

[SiouxRanger]

No longer sure where to post this, but an update on my Catholic Diocese and rechartering our troop.

1.  The parish priest signed a traditional rechartering agreement.  Then, soon thereafter requested the original be returned to him. That was done.

2.  District Executive asked that all data be uploaded as if rechartering was progressing normally, even though the DE knew that the parish was not willing to sign any rechartering agreement, at that point.  That was done.

3.  Chartered Organization Representative asked DE to provide written confirmation, before Janary 1, 2022, that the unit would be "officially rechartered" without a rechartering agreement from the parish., AND that BSA insurance would cover troop activities after 12-31-2022.  No response.

4.  Our troop has not paid for rechartering as we figure we don't know what we are getting for the money. We have a concern that BSA won't be able to provide a year's worth of services for a year's worth of fees. The DE has not asked for payment.

5.  We have no further word from the parish regarding whether or not the parish will recharter at all, or if it will recharter on the traditional basis, facilities use only basis, or something else. So, another 30 days, more or less, have passed, and passed the start of another scout year, and no meaningful guidance from the parish or council. We are not sure if we have a BSA authorized unit, insurance coverage, or whether we have authority to conduct typical troop operations.

Personally, I don't think these questions are likely to be answered with any authority or certainty until after the BSA Plan is approved, or some successor plan is proposed and approved, or there is an agreed resolution.  Perhaps we will have a definitive answer and known path before summer camp? That is my most optimistic estimate.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

Personally, I don't think these questions are likely to be answered with any authority or certainty until after the BSA Plan is approved, or some successor plan is proposed and approved, or there is an agreed resolution. 

A successful BSA bankruptcy plan will not solve re-chartering concerns.  The cat is out of the bag.  COs are questioning the mismatch between signed documents and the mostly independent scouting programs happening in their building. 

"If I were the business administrator", I'd want the signed words to match intent and reality.  Anything else is negligent; morally and legally.  

I hope your troop's situation goes well.  Hopefully a friendly smile and constructive thinking will smooth the future.

Edited January 3, 2022 by fred8033

[SiouxRanger]

15 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

A successful BSA bankruptcy plan will not solve re-chartering concerns.  The cat is out of the bag.  COs are questioning the mismatch between signed documents and the mostly independent scouting programs happening in their building. 

"If I were the business administrator", I'd want the signed words to match intent and reality.  Anything else is negligent; morally and legally.  

I hope your troop's situation goes well.  Hopefully a friendly smile and constructive thinking will smooth the future.

I don't fully understand your post.

My suspicion is that my troop's situation is the same as all the Catholic troop's situations in the entire Diocese.  I don't know just how many Catholic chartered troops there are in our Diocese, but maybe 20 or 30.  Maybe half that or twice that.  My point here is that however many troops (and packs) that are Catholic sponsored, all are in limbo (so-to-speak).  And that is not a good thing as we are now in a new scout year.

I agree that "signed words should match intent and reality," but we have a bankruptcy proceeding of National in which the "signed words" of National does NOT match intent and reality.

National wants to abandon its responsibility to the Settlement Fund folks, and in the words of Winston Churchill, Vol VI, Triumph And Tragedy, his Nobel Prize winning history of WW II, in his Theme of the Volume:

How the Great Democracies (National BSA)

Triumphed, (Passing off the details of settling abuse claims to the Settlement Fund folks and walking away from the mess)

and so

Were able to Resume (running BSA Scouting National on the same failed model that got National into this hideous mess)

the Follies (without any meaningful Youth Protection going forward)

Which Had so Nearly

Cost Them Their (but for a stressed interpretation of just what the bankruptcy law is intended to protect which might drag them from the fire)

Life (Continued operation of National by the professional culture at National that got the concept of "Scouting" into the scandalous mess.)

BSA sold its "bona fides" with a friendly smile for decades, generations, and America bought it, but that "friendly smile" was false and has damaged thousands of children and created hundreds of millions of potential liability.

National KNEW of the abuse claims and concealed the problem for about a century. And thousands were abused during a good part of that century-and they could have been spared. 

And it does not appear that National took any measures effective to spare children. All, please correct me if I am wrong.

I have posted before that I am not a claimant.  I am a best friend of a claimant entitled who elected not to file a claim.  I have known him for over 50 years and only in the last 3 or 4 years did he reveal to me his abuse. I was shocked by his revelation.

My profile describes my scouting history. It is extensive.

Another poster has posted that only Claimants/Survivors should have a say in National's plan going forward, but I do not agree.

Not being a claimant, but someone heavily involved in my troop and local council, and clearly concerned in the balancing act of allocating assets between Survivors/Claimants and local councils (and affecting those Councils;' ability to continue to provide the Scouting), my position is that the Claimants/Survivors should be PRIMARY.

And if that costs us Council camps, and even Philmont (where half my heart lies), how can Scouting as a principled organization continue if it denies the shame and damage of its history.

BSA cannot move forward until it has remediated and assuaged the past damage it has done.

And if that price is costly, so be it.

How can an organization based on the principle of "Trustworthy" cripple and damage children and call itself "Trustworthy?"

 

 

[Eagle1993]

During Kosnoff’s deposition Tancred brought up a question about Chartered Organizations and the BSA.   Kosnoff actually had a lawsuit against the BSA dismissed as the BSA argued that chartered organizations are the ones ultimately responsible for the units and therefore they should not be liable for sex abuse.  The judge agreed.  To me, that should have been the warning to all charter orgs.   Now, in that case, the charter orgs were defunct so the claimants had no where to go … but it showed that BSA was willing to use charter org agreements as cover when needed. 
 

While Kosnoff mentioned this case and Tancred seemed to know about it I haven’t found it in the news.  It could go back a while.  

[MikeS72]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

4.  Our troop has not paid for rechartering as we figure we don't know what we are getting for the money. We have a concern that BSA won't be able to provide a year's worth of services for a year's worth of fees. The DE has not asked for payment.

So when you say you have not paid for rechartering, do you mean you have not paid the $75 charter org fee, or you have not paid the fees for each individual Scout to recharter?  I could see units where an entire Diocese has not committed one way or another being treated like those of us sponsored by the Methodist Church and not paying the $75, but still submitting paperwork and paying for Scouts and leaders.  Without at least paying for the members of your unit, I would fear that once the grace period for submission passes you would no longer be a unit.

Edited January 3, 2022 by MikeS72

[fred8033]

6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I don't fully understand your post.

My apologies.  I thought I was clear.  I did not mean to trigger a button.  ...  My point was we (more than just your CO ... but I'd expect your diocese too) are in for long-term re-charter issues.  Before bankruptcy, my COs (and others I'd expect) signed the recharter agreement but never really comfortable with it.   They signed to help scouts.  ... That's the past though. 

We are now past a transition point.  COs will want the recharter agreement words to match what they are doing.  Or more correctly 100% question why they are signing a charter when all they are doing is providing a place for scouts (a community group) to meet.

 

6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

National KNEW of the abuse claims and concealed the problem for about a century. And thousands were abused during a good part of that century-and they could have been spared. 

And it does not appear that National took any measures effective to spare children. All, please correct me if I am wrong.

This has been debated over and over.  We can all feel righteous indignation, but it's not that simple.  

 

6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

how can Scouting as a principled organization continue if it denies the shame and damage of its history.

Past is never pretty and rarely holds up to today's judgement.  I view this as a judgement of almost all organizations in the past.  Blame goes far and wide. 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by fred8033

[Armymutt]

13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

During Kosnoff’s deposition Tancred brought up a question about Chartered Organizations and the BSA.   Kosnoff actually had a lawsuit against the BSA dismissed as the BSA argued that chartered organizations are the ones ultimately responsible for the units and therefore they should not be liable for sex abuse.  

I think the BSA is right to a degree.  They had no way of vetting volunteers for most of the history of Scouting.  All of that should have been done where the rubber meets the road.  Once the information reached BSA's level, it should have acted to revoke the charter and make sure the local police were notified.  Ultimate responsibility should lie with the COs.  

[Eagle1993]

11 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Ultimate responsibility should lie with the COs.  

Based on BSA's model, I think there is shared responsibility in many cases.

Vetting of volunteers and ensuring units operate per BSA rules is the CO's responsibility.  

Creating the rules is BSA's responsibility.

If the issue is found with a unit not following rules ... then the CO should be considered liable.

If the issue is found with a gap in the rules ... then that falls on the BSA.

If a combination ... then shared liability.