Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[johnsch322]

51 minutes ago, RobertCalifornia said:

When should a claimant receive the court mailing?  I’m on my own without an attorney and I have not received anything yet. I thought October 15 was mentioned somewhere. 

I missed the TCC meeting. I hope they post the video today. 

 

They are to be mailed by the 15th. Then it is up to USPS as to when you receive. 

[RememberSchiff]

10 minutes ago, RandomScouter said:

So, if I read this right, John Lucas says the NJ & PA councils should be giving over 70% of their total assets?  Will that leave them with 2 years' worth of operating funds?  (I thought that was part of it.)  I would be surprised if most non-profits could survive after giving that much.

There are many opinions about what percentage of assets should be contributed.  Northern New Jersey Council's proposed contribution is over 30% of their total net assets.  For those who say LCs should give 'til it hurts, I'm willing to bet it's gonna hurt.

By his math,  NJ councils 78.6%, 2 PA councils that serve NJ 61%.

 

[vol_scouter]

My council is being damaged by the proposed settlement.  The numbers that the TCC wishes are too high and will result in rather rapid bankruptcy.   The councils cannot afford to move all offices from a population center to a camp that is usually remote and an hour or two drive from the current offices.   Wanting the TCC plan is wanting to dismantle the whole of Scouting.   For those who are victims of abuse, this might be a goal or you do not care which are attitudes that I believe most of us understand and accept.   Please understand that there are those of us who wish to see Scouting to move forward with the knowledge that we must make it more protective and must compensate the victims.   For me, I see the TCC as unreasonable and unrealistic.  
 

This is a sad situation where I believe that the victims have been abused by this process.  I am so sorry for all of the pain and suffering over the years and from this process.

[HelpfulTracks]

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 million are being asked to contribute $14.2 million toward a $600 million council share of the proposed $1.9 billion national settlement. 

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million are being asked to contribute another $4 million.

John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million.

The seven councils serving New Jersey residents have remained uniformly silent on the settlement. Their CEOs have followed national instructions to focus on each council's "business as usual," sympathizing with abuse victims but offering little if any information on the settlement's local impact.

However, councils in New York, Iowa and Arizona have begun telling their memberships what their share of the settlement will be, and how it will be financed.

...

The assessments are not divided proportionally according to a state's share of the suits. Northern New Jersey Council has 525 abuse suits, or 42.5% of the state's 1,235 total claims, but is contributing only $3.06 million, or 21.6% of the total assessment for the five councils. 

Source links with more details

https://www.app.com/story/news/2021/10/15/boy-scouts-of-america-sex-abuse-settlement-offer/6076281001/

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2021/10/15/boy-scouts-of-america-sex-abuse-settlement-offer/6076281001/

 

1 hour ago, RandomScouter said:

So, if I read this right, John Lucas says the NJ & PA councils should be giving over 70% of their total assets?  Will that leave them with 2 years' worth of operating funds?  (I thought that was part of it.)  I would be surprised if most non-profits could survive after giving that much.

There are many opinions about what percentage of assets should be contributed.  Northern New Jersey Council's proposed contribution is over 30% of their total net assets.  For those who say LCs should give 'til it hurts, I'm willing to bet it's gonna hurt.

 

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

By his math,  NJ councils 78.6%, 2 PA councils that serve NJ 61%.

 

New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says.....settlement .......with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million.

Okay - i understand the New Jersey numbers - 44/56 = 78%

But the Penn numbers,  58/23 = 252% - Two and a half times their total assets. Which would be impossible to accomplish. 

Am I misreading something, is there a typo, has new math confused me so badly I can no longer do old math?

Edited October 15, 2021 by HelpfulTracks

[HelpfulTracks]

2 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

My observation is the moderators on this site are half crazy.

Half crazy? 

That is generous.

I think they must be full on 100% crazy to take on a moderator role for this site. 

[RememberSchiff]

15 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

 

 

New Jersey's five councils, serving 54,500 youths with assets totaling $56 >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million >>> John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says.....settlement .......with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million.

Okay - i understand the New Jersey numbers - 44/56 = 78%

But the Penn numbers,  58/23 = 252% - Two and a half times their total assets. Which would be impossible to accomplish. 

Am I misreading something, is there a typo, has new math confused me so badly I can no longer do old math?

Yes. It is a word problem worthy of the SAT.

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million.

John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million

so the two PA councils new TCC proposed total is 58-44 million = $14 million

14 / 23

Edited October 15, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[MYCVAStory]

15 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My council is being damaged by the proposed settlement.  The numbers that the TCC wishes are too high and will result in rather rapid bankruptcy.   The councils cannot afford to move all offices from a population center to a camp that is usually remote and an hour or two drive from the current offices.   Wanting the TCC plan is wanting to dismantle the whole of Scouting.   For those who are victims of abuse, this might be a goal or you do not care which are attitudes that I believe most of us understand and accept.   Please understand that there are those of us who wish to see Scouting to move forward with the knowledge that we must make it more protective and must compensate the victims.   For me, I see the TCC as unreasonable and unrealistic.  

Can you share your Council's dashboard as prepared by the TCC and demonstrate the fault with it?  I know that teh TCC has said it's trying to get the BSA to agree to releasing all the dashboards, and has filed motions to do so, but arguments like yours can be validated by all of us only when we see the data.  Then, we can all assess whether the demands are unreasonable or unrealistic.  The TCC said its dashboards and requests would leave Councils with two years of operating funds AND preserve their credit rating.  I find it curious that all we've heard from Councils is "That's not true" but no actual numbers to support it.  When nationally the LC contribution in this horrible plan amounts to less than 20% of available LC assets according to the TCC it raises a lot of questions why Councils haven't been more aggressively fighting the settlement, and suggests the TCC is correct.  There might be Councils like yours that aren't the norm but still, "show me the money" LCs.

[HelpfulTracks]

7 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes. It is a word problem worthy of the SAT.

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million.

John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million

so the two PA councils proposed total is 58-44 million = $14 million

14 / 23

Thanks! I glossed over the "serve parts" part. 

[Eagle1993]

53 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes. It is a word problem worthy of the SAT.

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million.

John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million

so the two PA councils new TCC proposed total is 58-44 million = $14 million

14 / 23

The two Pennsylvania councils are Washington Crossings & Minsi Trails (note that Minsi is one of the members of the Ad Hoc committee).

Total Assets 

Washington Crossings - $6.45M ($5.8M net) ...  $3.9M Net Unrestricted Assets

Minsi Trails - $16.7M ($15.0M net) .... $6.7M net unrestricted

Current Contributions

Washington Crossings - $1.39M

Minsi Trails - $2.58M

Total CSA Liabilities per TCC:

Washington Crossings - $11M - $64M

Minsi Trails - $16.4M - $93.4M

 

The TCC statement indicates the PA councils should pay about $14M (based on $58M total & $44 from NJ).

That would be about 75% of their total net assets or 132% of their total net unrestricted assets ... so my guess is that TCC is calling into question some of their "restrictions".  

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Eagle1993

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Please understand that there are those of us who wish to see Scouting to move forward with the knowledge that we must make it more protective and must compensate the victims.   For me, I see the TCC as unreasonable and unrealistic.  

I know everyone didn’t watch last night. I did. Though gravely disappointed that Dr. Kennedy didn’t give an encore recitation of his feelings on the Hoover Plan, many things were said. John Humphreys, the TCC Chair, made a simple but important point, which goes to my baseball card analogy posted on one of these threads. To paraphrase, “Which one of us goes to by a car and says, ‘Hey! I’ll take it!’ after being shown the sticker price? None of us. We want to reject that ‘offer’ and get to the good old back and forth with the finance manager. That’s what this is, folks.” (John is the guy who says, “folks” and Dr. K the one who says, “gang” just for future reference. This will help you not confuse one with t’other. You’re welcome.)

On my class action case, we sat in one court room and the defendants and their battalion of attorneys sat in another. We had a runner going back and forth pretty much for 8 hours as we batted the ball back and forth. We’re looking to counter here, folks. You feel me, gang? Our turn to serve. 

[Sentinel947]

3 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

My observation is the moderators on this site are half crazy.

I've never seen so much editing and censorship. Some attorneys are lions and some are vultures. Let people speak their mind.

Placing CS in some kind of delayed post prison is silly. Nobody would understand 1/2 of this case without his posts. We sure don’t need his posts censored and whitewashed. Are the moderators simply jealous of his posts?

If BSA fails, what will the moderators do? Sit around in green shorts and red jackets trading old antique patches?  

CynicalScouter needed a timeout. His behavior was abusive, even if I agree with his points more often than not. 

The moderators have a thankless job, so thankless I stopped doing that job years ago, because it was killing my enjoyment of the site. If they chose they could have restricted all discussion of the bankruptcy at the beginning and practically one of the only places for BSA CSA survivors to get information would have never have happened. 

This is basically the only place to discuss this topic on the internet, but there are still rules and standards of conduct and if folks don't like em, they're welcome to go start their own website somewhere. 

 

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Can you share your Council's dashboard as prepared by the TCC and demonstrate the fault with it

Yeah! Hey! What he said! I’ve been beating this drum for many months. Glad someone found that log I tossed in the woods after my arm gave out. 

[johnsch322]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I know everyone didn’t watch last night. I did. Though gravely disappointed that Dr. Kennedy didn’t give an encore recitation of his feelings on the Hoover Plan, many things were said. John Humphreys, the TCC Chair, made a simple but important point, which goes to my baseball card analogy posted on one of these threads. To paraphrase, “Which one of us goes to by a car and says, ‘Hey! I’ll take it!’ after being shown the sticker price? None of us. We want to reject that ‘offer’ and get to the good old back and forth with the finance manager. That’s what this is, folks.” (John is the guy who says, “folks” and Dr. K the one who says, “gang” just for future reference. This will help you not confuse one with t’other. You’re welcome.)

On my class action case, we sat in one court room and the defendants and their battalion of attorneys sat in another. We had a runner going back and forth pretty much for 8 hours as we batted the ball back and forth. We’re looking to counter here, folks. You feel me, gang? Our turn to serve. 

I love it when a customer takes the first pencil. 

[vol_scouter]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yeah! Hey! What he said! I’ve been beating this drum for many months. Glad someone found that log I tossed in the woods after my arm gave out. 

The simple answer is no as that information is not mine to release.  As a board member who knows that we have to raise the money to operate the council every year, the TCC is not reasonable.  The restricted accounts are truly restricted as we have never spent them except for the purposes for which they were given.  The current agreement will be damaging but the TCC proposal will end in bankruptcy soon.

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The simple answer is no as that information is not mine to release.  As a board member who knows that we have to raise the money to operate the council every year, the TCC is not reasonable.  The restricted accounts are truly restricted as we have never spent them except for the purposes for which they were given.  The current agreement will be damaging but the TCC proposal will end in bankruptcy soon.

Please explain. I get the “not [yours] to give,” but your Council is free to release, compare and rebut, no? It’s hard to feel good about refusing disclosure while saying, “They are clearly wrong” without allowing anyone else the ability to see, assess and come to their own conclusion. Simply, it looks like hiding and hiding usually means something is damaging in the report. Just me?