Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[SiouxRanger]

15 hours ago, fred8033 said:

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

But I do think it is "that simple."

IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE!

When, EVER, was it acceptable to sexually abuse children?

CHILDREN.

Ancient Greece?

Would YOU, YOU calmly accept your children having been so abused? 

The U.S. has had "age of consent" laws, I would think for a long time. It is not even a question of statutory "r.....e." (A systematic survey of those laws, and when enacted and such is a piece of legal research work and not needed for this discussion).

National has NO EXCUSE.  It knew children were being abused, damaged, and systematically concealed the problem from parents and insurers. And thereby protected the "glorious careers" of Nationally commissioned guardians of the purity of the male youth of America.

And total ruin followed.

 

[SiouxRanger]

I was treated poorly by a high school football coach during my high school career, as were a number of my classmates.

My children attended the same high school.

I advised them of the coach's "proclivities" and that they were to report to me any ill-treatment by that coach, as I would have their back, and would take care of it.  Nothing ever developed.

On another account, a soccer coach screamed and threatened my oldest son, a soccer referee.  It frightened him.  He was a child.  I secured the removal of the coach from the program.

Please tell me WHEN did we, you, society, decide to provide no or limited protection to children?

[yknot]

29 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I was treated poorly by a high school football coach during my high school career, as were a number of my classmates.

My children attended the same high school.

I advised them of the coach's "proclivities" and that they were to report to me any ill-treatment by that coach, as I would have their back, and would take care of it.  Nothing ever developed.

On another account, a soccer coach screamed and threatened my oldest son, a soccer referee.  It frightened him.  He was a child.  I secured the removal of the coach from the program.

Please tell me WHEN did we, you, society, decide to provide no or limited protection to children?

Listen, no one in scouting wants kids to be hurt, and especially not the folks on this forum. Some say some silly things, but that's only out of ignorance. Most of the people here would pull out the brass knuckles if they ever kinew, heard, saw, thought something bad was happening to a kid. We're going to figure this out. We, as a society, are going to do better going forward. This bankruptcy case is going to help with that. 

[MattR]

13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

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

I completely agree with this. However, there does need to be a discussion of what that practically entails. What's the true cost of chartering a troop or pack and if there's only a facility use agreement then who is going to cover those costs? Someone needs to be responsible, at the unit level, to make sure the rules are followed and the scouters are of good character. I assume that's the major cause of failure.

Our CO insists on a COR that they trust go to the majority of events as they want to see the adults and scouts in action that they signed up to watch over. Who at the council will cover this if it's a facility only agreement?

The facility use agreement is a bandaid trying to fix a much bigger problem. When I was an SM I felt responsible for every scout as if they were my kid. New adults got extra attention not just because I was trying to be helpful.

This comment is less about the legal aspects and more about running a program parents will feel comfortable with.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

I completely agree with this. However, there does need to be a discussion of what that practically entails. What's the true cost of chartering a troop or pack and if there's only a facility use agreement then who is going to cover those costs? Someone needs to be responsible, at the unit level, to make sure the rules are followed and the scouters are of good character. I assume that's the major cause of failure.

Our CO insists on a COR that they trust go to the majority of events as they want to see the adults and scouts in action that they signed up to watch over. Who at the council will cover this if it's a facility only agreement?

The facility use agreement is a bandaid trying to fix a much bigger problem. When I was an SM I felt responsible for every scout as if they were my kid. New adults got extra attention not just because I was trying to be helpful.

This comment is less about the legal aspects and more about running a program parents will feel comfortable with.

Exactly on target.  I'm glad to hear your COR attends to audit the program.  But, that's very rare.  

It's why I don't view the facility use agreement as a band aid though.  We need the COs to say they are NOT owning the program so that we start asking ... well who is responsible?  One of the problems has been friendly COs signing a document they think is honorific and breaking a chain of responsibility.  

 

[MattR]

But most COs don't have the desire, energy or whatever to be responsible so the simplest response is not to charter units. I don't see any councils that have those resources either. So where does that leave us? It could just be much smaller and better than before, fewer COs/units of higher quality. It would be nice if National had some way to develop that but let's be real, who is going to say fewer, better units is the better approach? Hence, that's why I think the facility use agreement is a bandaid.

BSA is focused on the short-term of just getting through the bankruptcy and I understand that, but unless they also take a long view they'll be back in the same situation. Assuming they want to grow they need to find a practical way to ensure good oversight. 

[skeptic]

The best solution is for people to follow the rules and actually report concerns as needed.  Then, as soon as possible, deal with the issue and any actual violators, no matter how connected.  And, BSA, at all levels must be sure to validate any refusals beyond their power to deal with the issues.  That means authorities than poo-poo things, people that make threats of legal action with no foundation other than trying to intimidate, and also document any family choices that are made to NOT do something.  Lots of grey area, and unless there is validation of actual attempts to do the right thing, it will still come back on them.  Again, just a view based on what has come out over time, both recently and in the past.  

Of sourse, if we had any people with guts, they would also find a way to overhaul the whole legal approach to these types of things, BSA, or other areas.  

[fred8033]

37 minutes ago, MattR said:

But most COs don't have the desire, energy or whatever to be responsible so the simplest response is not to charter units. I don't see any councils that have those resources either. So where does that leave us? It could just be much smaller and better than before, fewer COs/units of higher quality. It would be nice if National had some way to develop that but let's be real, who is going to say fewer, better units is the better approach? Hence, that's why I think the facility use agreement is a bandaid.

BSA is focused on the short-term of just getting through the bankruptcy and I understand that, but unless they also take a long view they'll be back in the same situation. Assuming they want to grow they need to find a practical way to ensure good oversight. 

I cringe saying it ... as I like larger BSA troops ... perhaps GSA is the future model.  Ditch the charter model.  Smaller troops (GSA troop = BSA patrol).  BSA directly working with unit leaders.  Smaller structures.  Community orgs (churches) provide meeting spaces.  Local councils provide the bigger camping opportunities with staffed camps. 

Some really nice benefits.  Smaller, more dynamic, fresher units.  Less troop infrastructure.  

[Eagle94-A1]

20 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Some really nice benefits.  Smaller, more dynamic, fresher units.  Less troop infrastructure.  

Also one major drawback: mandatory months-long popcorn, and possibly other, sales with little money going to units.

While some councils do provide great customer service, others do not. I do not know of any units in my old district's territory that do popcorn sales as we receive negligible support from the council. In fact more contact is done with the office staff than professional staff. As for discount cards, last time those were available, NONE of the vendors were in our area. Kinda hard to sell when nothing on the card is available.

Another drawback is lack of continuity. How many GSUSA troops are 10, 20. 50, 75, 100 years old? How many GSUSA volunteers have been around 5, 10, 20, 40+ years?

Edited January 4, 2022 by Eagle94-A1

[ALongWalk]

Can someone give me a quick rundown of where the BSA bankruptcy proceedings stand at this time? I try to follow on the other threads but get lost in the legalese and tangents. 

[fred8033]

Waiting December vote results to be processed by court. 
Expecting plan to be rejected.  
Expecting months (or longer) investigating (deposition, court filings, etc) the December vote  
Expecting months (or longer) finding the next step.
 

Edited January 10, 2022 by fred8033

[PACAN]

The current status is "the song that never ends".

[fred8033]

My personal view ... Zero chance of victims getting money in 2022.  Even if the Dec 2021 plan was accepted, victims face many months of evaluating claims, money passing to law firms that then pass to victims.  That itself could easily take the rest of the year.  If a new plan / mediation, etc needs to happen, we're then into 2023. 

Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in Sept 2019.  No money has gone yet.  Bankruptcy is in question.  ... BSA filed six months later with a more complex bankruptcy; more complex victimization and more complex questions.  

Given past performance, I would not be surprised if 2023 passes too.  

[johnsch322]

11 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

My personal view ... Zero chance of victims getting money in 2022.  Even if the Dec 2021 plan was accepted, victims face many months of evaluating claims, money passing to law firms that then pass to victims.  That itself could easily take the rest of the year.  If a new plan / mediation, etc needs to happen, we're then into 2023. 

Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in Sept 2019.  No money has gone yet.  Bankruptcy is in question.  ... BSA filed six months later with a more complex bankruptcy; more complex victimization and more complex questions.  

Given past performance, I would not be surprised if 2023 passes too.  

More than ready to wait another year if it means getting an equitable settlement.

[johnsch322]

4 hours ago, ALongWalk said:

Can someone give me a quick rundown of where the BSA bankruptcy proceedings stand at this time? I try to follow on the other threads but get lost in the legalese and tangents. 

Because of my hectic work week I only just now watched the TCC's Town Hall from last week.  I would recommend you take 20 minutes and watch it.  I also recommend it for all those who are not survivors as it will gives good information about where the Bankruptcy is sitting, why, and what the next steps are.