Chapter 11 Announced - Part 10 - Post Confirmation Hearing/Judges Ruling

[TheRealDK]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Welcome back, Dr. Kennedy. Many thanks for your input. I look forward to your release from incarceration and the lifting of the gag order. 

Thanks ThenNow.  You and me both.   Want to frustrate the hell out of a university professor?  Tell him he can't speak freely.   That day will come.  Survivor patience has been coming in handy.  I'm looking forward to the next Town Hall.  Back to the cave for me....

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, TheRealDK said:

Back to the cave for me....

Aha. I get it now. DK + that day will come = The Dark Knight Rises. It's all clear to me now. "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough...sometimes people need their faith rewarded." I love solving riddles and I nailed this one. Oops. Ought not say "riddles" in the context of this conversation.  

Edited June 17, 2022 by ThenNow

[SiouxRanger]

On 6/17/2022 at 1:01 PM, TheRealDK said:

I'm looking forward to the next Town Hall.

VERY nice to know there will be at least one more Town Hall.

I hope Town Hall's continue through the entire course of the District Court review and any appeals.  (The cave is shallow-thanks for your work.)

The TCC is the only party to this proceeding that speaks (sincerely and plainly so) to issues of principle.

Many of us were drawn to Scouting by the principles it espoused.  Principles worthy of a life seeking to attain them and spent practicing them in an unprincipled world.

That those principles appear to have been sacrificed historically on the altar of the Bottom Line is distressing enough, but even after that sacrifice having been exposed, it appears that the Bottom Line has prevailed over principle,  judging from the elements of National's Plan(s), as National proposed before the advent of the TCC.  

Were it only so that that National had taken the initiative and proposed Plan(s) took the high ground and itself proposed meaningful Youth Protection reforms, and thereby commenced its effort to restore its reputation and instill confidence in its customers (parents), insurers, CO's, LC's, just everyone it deals with.

So, what price to National to implement meaningful, independent Youth Protection measures?  A billion dollars?  National spent that already, in addition to its reputation.  National put its very existence at risk historically on the altar of the Bottom Line-a version of "let's bet the farm."  It is essentially a "what we have or nothing" bet.  

Being compelled to implement such measures and not offering such measures on its own accord, offends the principle that when a disaster happens on someone's watch, that someone steps up and explains to those affected that they understand the cause and have implemented measures that it will never happen again.  And explain those preventative measures.  All to reassure those affected and to restore reputation and confidence in that someone.  That is the sincerest form of apology.

Merely apologizing, but taking no meaningful remedial action, is no course to preventing similar future disasters and does nothing to instill confidence or restore reputation.  But that is the course National has taken.  

National is a reluctant penitent.

Just who will trust a reluctant penitent?

National, being in the "people and principle business," appears not to understand either.

I recall a line from the movie Bridge On The River Kwai:

"Madness...madness."

As an aside, I am of the impression that National's Plan, to be approved, has to demonstrate that National's Plan, as approved, will likely allow it to survive 5 years.  To what extent, I wonder, will National's Plan(s) (or lack thereof) regarding Youth Protection measures to restore its reputation affect an evaluation of its business viability?

Edited June 19, 2022 by SiouxRanger
ADDED: Youth Protection measures to last paragraph.

[Eagle1970]

15 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Were it only so that that National had taken the initiative and proposed Plan(s) took the high ground and itself proposed meaningful Youth Protection reforms, and thereby commenced its effort to restore its reputation and instill confidence in its customers (parents), insurers, CO's, LC's, just everyone it deals with.

So, what price to National to implement meaningful, independent Youth Protection measures?  A billion dollars?  National spent that already, in addition to its reputation.  National put its very existence at risk historically on the altar of the Bottom Line-a version of "let's bet the farm."  It is essentially a "what we have or nothing" bet.  

 

The day that insurance carriers compete for writing BSA liability coverage with no sex abuse exclusions, we will know they have done right.  Given my diminished faith in BSA and humanity as a whole, I'm not holding my breath.

[skeptic]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

The day that insurance carriers compete for writing BSA liability coverage with no sex abuse exclusions, we will know they have done right.  Given my diminished faith in BSA and humanity as a whole, I'm not holding my breath.

"Humanity as a whole" is the key phrase here.  And BSA at any level cannot fix that, no matter how many lawsuits or dollars are offered.  That of course is the problem from day one.  People in BSA are part of the larger existence, "Humanity", or the human species.  And controling all of them is not possible, only watching as well as you can to keep the evil ones away.  And even then, as is shown, no manner of rules or methods are fool proof.  Meanwhile, society continues down the sump while it destroys many of the most overall positive options in its existence.  The panacea that somehow we all will be secure from the worst of the larger group is simply that, a panacea.  

With that in mind though, we also need to try and assure that the safeguards are never let down and that we follow up, even if we are almost positive the problem is not real or is overblown in some manner due to a personal vendetta or simply misunderstanding.  

[ScouterDavid]

On 6/16/2022 at 3:25 PM, fred8033 said:

We are really extending a tangent.  ... but ... Would LCs be liable for pension?  If McDonalds went chapter 7 and had under funded corporate pensions, I don't think the mom&pop individual franchise stores would share the corporate pension debt.  Similar for BSA &LCs.  ... BUT ... that's a whole massive ugly wart of a debate we've had before.  The legal separation between BSA & LCs.

I think the BSA pension plan is a single employee plan, meaning that the NC and LCs and jointly and individually liable for the pension plan liability shoud it fail. that would be catastropic for LCs and the government doesn't care - they would just wnat the $$.

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, ScouterDavid said:

I think the BSA pension plan is a single employee plan, meaning that the NC and LCs and jointly and individually liable for the pension plan liability shoud it fail. that would be catastropic for LCs and the government doesn't care - they would just wnat the $$.

It would be interesting to understand further.  BSA and LCs are all independent companies in effectively a franchise like model.  (yet another item that could be argued) ... BSA works like a benefit service provider for LCs ... I can't find any PBGC specifics on this, but what I do read makes me think each LC could be liable for the unfunded part for their employees.    I could not envision LCs becoming liable for the pensions of BSA national employees including BSA national employees functioning as registrars and scout shop employees.  ... but then again, this ain't simple stuff.

[vol_scouter]

54 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It would be interesting to understand further.  BSA and LCs are all independent companies in effectively a franchise like model.  (yet another item that could be argued) ... BSA works like a benefit service provider for LCs ... I can't find any PBGC specifics on this, but what I do read makes me think each LC could be liable for the unfunded part for their employees.    I could not envision LCs becoming liable for the pensions of BSA national employees including BSA national employees functioning as registrars and scout shop employees.  ... but then again, this ain't simple stuff.

My understanding is that BSA will pay the PBGC first.  They get the first opportunity to fulfill any deficit and only if there is not enough money would they go to the councils.  The model is one where the BSA performs HR functions for itself and the councils.   The BSA cannot hire or fire in the councils with only a single caveat.  All professional positions council or national council require that the professional be commissioned that is a function of the national council.  The national council could revoke a commission that would then make someone no longer qualified to hold that position.   Otherwise, the national council cannot directly affect council hire and fire decisions.

[ALongWalk]

At what point did the BSA discontinue allowing new hires to take part in the pension program?

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, ALongWalk said:

At what point did the BSA discontinue allowing new hires to take part in the pension program?

Around the 2017 plus or minus a year or so.  There are still retirement plans but the defined benefits plan is no longer available to new employees and employees who have not been there for a considerable period of time.

[Eagle94-A1]

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Around the 2017 plus or minus a year or so.  There are still retirement plans but the defined benefits plan is no longer available to new employees and employees who have not been there for a considerable period of time.

And there was an attempt to to redefine the plan for professionals who had been in the system for decades as well as retirees. I remember the big stink it was causing.

[vol_scouter]

Some professionals had been working for the BSA for a considerable time and had their defined benefit plan frozen so that they could not make further contributions.  I believe that retirees did not see any changes to their plans but those who had not retired saw some reductions.  
 

Even with those changes, the PBGC says that the plans are underfunded.  If the BSA emerges from Chapter 11, the business plan calls for adequate funding.  Should the BSA file for Chapter 7, there will need to be payments made into the PBGC to make up for the contributions that the BSA would have made.  
 

Also, any national employees near retirement will retire with a Chapter 7 filing. 
 

The survivors will most likely fare better with the BSA surviving with a Chapter 11 filing. 

[Eagle1993]

As part of the plan, BSA councils are kicking in an extra $100M that would have gone to pension fund as the councils said the fund was already larger than needed at the time of the plan. 

I definitely agree most claimants would be better off in Ch 11, but some would be better off in Ch 7.  I certainly hope the judge comes back with an approval as it seems like we are running out of time.  At some point they will hit cash flow issues.  As long as Jambo 2023 is on, I think we are ok.  If you see BSA cancel 2023 it may be a sign the bankruptcy is taking too long and they need to save cash. 

[fred8033]

4 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Also, any national employees near retirement will retire with a Chapter 7 filing. 

Near retirement?  Or just vested?  Even if just a little amount, I'd expect anyone with 10+ years has an amount vested that would be protected by the PBGC.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by fred8033

[Eagle94-A1]

I believe  5 years is the 100% vested mark.