Eagle1993

Directed by Irene Taylor, Executive Producer Brian Grazer & Ron Howard

Streaming on Hulu & release scheduled in New York & LA June 16

Will focus on alleged century-long sexual abuse cover-up by the Boy  Scouts of America.  It will also explore the declining membership and bankruptcy case.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/boy-scouts-doc-trailer-abuse-scandal-leave-no-trace-1235159517/

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

...now if part of the statute could be put back together by scouts, that would speak to our character, say akin to our cracked Liberty Bell. 

my $0.02,

A Boy Scout Merit Badge Camp at Sikeston Career and Technology Center (MO) is hosting a welding event for scouts to gain hands-on learning experience with welding.

”Right now, we have around 130 to 150 participants,” said Welding Instructor Brent Trankler.

“It’s an exposure to a skill in trade that they might not get to see. We’ve used it as a recruitment tool for my class here and we get a lot of kids interested in it at youth,” Brent Trankler said.

“These activities include wire welding, stick welding, oxy fuel cutting, some virtual welding machines that were donated by Lincoln Electric and we also have a black smithing event,” said Trankler.

https://www.kfvs12.com/2022/06/03/more-than-150-boy-scouts-attend-welding-event-tomorrow/

 

I like the spirit of this idea; however, I doubt most if any scouts can really do a great job on a statue.  I could only imagine an arm falling off in a year or two.   Perhaps scouts can help spot weld some of the pieces together and a few professional welders can finish with good clean tig welds. 

I would be more optimistic if they just cut the statue in half or thirds.  They really cut it up a lot.  I wonder if it would be better to just melt down the bronze and have someone do a new casting.    

https://apnews.com/article/politics-congress-sexual-abuse-9e991d917edc0f10b17e586b8f8259d2

10 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

So am I correct in my understanding that since my abuse was pre-1976 (Catholic Church Sponsor) and they will not be released, that I will receive a mitigating factor in the calculations?  Even though under State law they are protected by SOL....

Best to contact an attorney.  My understanding of the paths forward (if the plan is approved):

1) Take the immediate $3500 payout no questions asked.

2) Go through TDP path.  You will likely have to fill out some sort of document with more details.  Based on your claims (severity) and state where they occurred (that factors in SOL) they will come out with a value.  Note that as of now, the only individuals who get separate payments is LDS victims.  So, the chartered org does not factor into the calculation for you or any non LDS victim.

3) Go through the neutral path.  Pay $10K up front and $10K before going through a review process that will determine what your payout should have been in civil court.  Then the trust will work to collect that for you.

Now, since you were pre 1976 and Catholic Church CO, there is a chance you could directly sue the CO at a later date.  However, the plan allows COs some time (I think 1 year) to negotiate settlements with the trust.  SOL may work against you in the lawsuit; however, lawyers here have stated that SOLs are not necessarily black and white nor treated the same state by state.  Again, consult an attorney as they would be 10000000% better at informing you.

 I think once the plan is approved, there is still a lot of work left to setup the trust and detailed trust processes.  While that will take time it should help provide victims much more clarity (hopefully).

54 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

COs ... I can't blame them much ... CO ownership was always more honorific than liability ownership ... all people involved in the paperwork knew that.  BSA professionals.  unit leaders.  CO leaders.   Except LDS, most unit leaders were not chosen by the CO except in honorific terms ... can you sign this form?  It was more signed after-the fact and for awareness.  ....  Even twenty years ago, few believed the liability that the forms are now implying.  ... COs thought they were doing a good deed for the community.  Giving space.  Supporting a good community program.  ...  Similar to opening their building for elections or a community meeting.  

Councils ... I don't blame them much either ... THIS IS MY VIEW.   It might not be popular.  ... From what I've seen, it was the standard of care for the time.  If they removed the perpetrator and tried to track the person to keep them out of scouting, they did more than many organizations.  

I believe the circle of blame is ... #1 the perpetrator ...  (less than #1)  #2 the other adults in the unit (leaders, parents, etc) ... (less than #2)  #3 local community (police, school, etc)  ... police were often involved but could not pursue.  schools were the experts with adults working with kids and where scouts recruited ...)  ....   #2a the experts ... CSA was really not well understood or managed or prevented or educated until last twenty years.  I hate marking this has #4 of the outward radius from most blame as the real issue is CSA was not well handled until recently.  I had #2a as #4 except it was the real cause.  CSA was not well understood until last 20 years.

 

I think legal blame really depends on the case.  There was an example of a CO who didn't register a leader and allowed the abuse to continue.  I think COs are clearly to blame in a case like this.

Other cases go to different extremes.  For example an abuser was also the parent of the scout and the abuse was never reported to BSA.  It is tough to hold BSA liable for that case.

I think that is why bankruptcy court is a bad path of addressing these cases.  It lumps all of them together, averages out details and comes up with a number.  However, allowing tens of thousands of individual cases to be pursued is likely not feasible (BSA would run out of money just paying lawyers).  So, bankruptcy is the least bad of a group of bad solutions.

13 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

If I understand everything that I have read you may have said liability backward.  As I understand the insurance issue Charter Orgs were not specifically covered PRIOR to 1976, and could therefore be left holding the bag for any claims from whenever the abuse may have taken place, up to 1976.

Yes ... I reversed that.  Prior to 1976 chartered orgs still face liability and 1976 to present all are covered.

1 hour ago, Tron said:

This absolutely absurd; the private owners of Purdue Pharma are the target of the third party waivers. Are you attempting to say that Councils and Charter Organizations own BSA national?

Chartered Organizations are directly responsible for the units where abuse occurred.  So, they will face liability in individual cases.  How liable they are will vary case by case.  Now, I believe only 2 chartered orgs are fully freed from pre 2020 liability (LDS & Methodist) if this deal goes through.  The remaining chartered orgs are free from ~1976 and prior liability but could face lawsuits post 76 to present.

Councils ... similar.  They were responsible for providing oversight to units ... so could be found liable for the abuse.  Again, that will vary case by case.  100% of councils are buying coverage through this bankruptcy for abuse pre Feb 2020.

So, this is very similar to many other cases where non debtors are receiving nonconsensual releases.  What is unique is that nearly 40,000 (or more) chartered orgs are receiving releases for pre 1976 abuse.  

I think that is why Purdue applies.  There is a big question if the bankruptcy & district court will allow the releases in BSA's case.

Ok.  I'm going to lock down this for a bit.

2 minutes ago, Ojoman said:

School administrators and teachers are paid with tax dollars.

Our school administrators report to the school board.  The school board translates the community beliefs into standards for the school to meet.  Taxpayers in my community would likely support keeping BSA out if there was a political argument.  The argument would be the DRP.

In terms of schooling, we have the highest test scores in the state and typically have National Merit finalists and kids going to most Ivy League schools.  My son is on track to take BC calc his junior year and has been offered much more rigor in schooling and academics than I was every provided back in the 80s/90s. That said, I have issues with our school's lack of commitment to vocational ed, sole focus on test scores, excessive rules based on "safety"  and lack of partnership with great organizations (like BSA).  However, it is the school system that the community wants (pump out great test scores, get ranked in various magazines and see the resulting property values skyrocket).

My point wasn't that there are options to change my school (unless BSA drops DRP).  My point is that there are schools open to including BSA and councils should encourage units to interact with those schools.

On 5/29/2022 at 4:31 PM, Ojoman said:

You have a school board, PTO/PTA and direct access to administration. I have never had a school refuse to talk with me and once they understand the benefits to the kids (we are both in the business of preparing kids for the future and to be good citizens) we were always able to work out a mutually agreeable solution. If even one grade brings in a fireman, EMT or police officer to speak to kids, guess what, that represents an outside group. Many schools bring in people from humane or SPCA groups. It's all about relationships and too often we have let those languish.  

On 5/29/2022 at 11:03 AM, Tron said:

Our elementary school has banned scouts during school hours.  We cannot advertise for scouting in any official school documents.  Since PTO is independent, we were able to post on their FB page which has limited impact.  For several years we were able to put yard signs between the sidewalk & street ... but the school has now banned that and removed/threw away our signs (without notifying us).  Our DE was found on school grounds during the day to drop off some flyers to a teacher (who was a Cub Scout leader).  The principal saw him and told him to leave immediately (he told me she threatened to call the police, I'm not sure that is true).  It has gotten crazy.

 We spend over $1K per year to rent rooms at the school for meetings and get no support.  The scout access act doesn't help as they treat all non school activities the same.  When I brought up that they did some announcement for girl scouts (and asked if they could do the same for cub scouts) they stopped the girl scout announcements.  Many years ago our Pack was charted by this school.  However, after Dale they dropped us and we have never been able to reestablish any relationship.

I don't understand councils that would prohibit school interactions.  I see the flip side where recruiting is incredibly difficult when you are blocked from the school.  Councils should encourage units to work with schools who are interested.

Given BSA's partnership with the NRA and the NRA's hardline stance against gun reform it is tough to see BSA as a neutral party.  To be fair though, I am not aware of alternate organizations that provide good gun safety instructor training.  I (as does many scouters) want to see BSA continue shooting sports, so I expect that partnership to continue.

There is really no point in arguing about this on an online forum.  No one will change their minds and nothing is ever done.   After we simply accepted the outcome of Sandy Hook with no action, I'm not sure what could ever happen that could result in change. 

2 hours ago, elitts said:

Yep, I can easily see an exchange going something like:

SE:  "I can't give you any information at this stage, if you want to know what the complaint entails you'll need to speak with the aggrieved party."

Turns into:

CC: "The SE can't tell me what happened so you need to tell me what the issue was that got reported so that we can discuss it with the committee and figure out what needs to be done"

Turns into:

Parent: "The CC is demanding I turn over a copy of my report so they can investigate it"

The issue is this..

Quote

Now this committee member is wanting to hold a meeting of all members and volunteers to discuss the YPT infraction

If this is true, it is not appropriate.  It is one thing for a CC to ask for information and to discuss in a committee (though, it think you should be careful and it should be avoided in more serious charges).  That said, I find it odd to think it is appropriate to have an entire Troop meeting to discus the issue in hand. 

Now, after an investigation is complete, perhaps some report to the Troop is appropriate if changes are required.   Otherwise, I have a hard time understanding why it is appropriate to have all members and volunteers involved.

26 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well kind-of.  Certainly the social issues had an impact on membership, but I suspect it's not the lion's share of the issue.  A very significant issue has been scope creep in sports combined with the increasing rate of 2 working parents in families. 

1. Many of those sports that were once seasonal have become year round or 3-season endeavors.  Tennis, Lacross, Baseball, Field Hockey, Soccer, etc..  So where once a kid might do scouts for 9 months and just stop long enough for a sport season, now their whole year is tied up so they just skip scouts entirely.  And the reason BSA started moving earlier and earlier isn't purely to bump up membership numbers, it was to try and get those kids engaged with Scouting before they were getting involved in sports hoping that then they'd be more likely stick with scouting, at least on a part-time basis.
2. With more and more families having two parents working, the amount of time they are able to spend on their children's extra-cirriculars is much more heavily limited that it was in the 60s-70s.  And since scouting at any level is significantly more parent involved than sports, it tends to lose out when it comes to parent interest even if the kids are still interested.  Unfortunately, there isn't much of a way to get that to change, but I suspect the suggestions I've seen to keep Cubs to just 3-3.5 years is probably a good start cause it lessens the parental burn-out.

100% agree with this.  It is one thing asking a parent to volunteer to be a soccer coach.  That takes a few hours a week for a couple of months of the year.  Scouting takes more and is year round and a decade.  Even the most dedicated have a hard time managing that.

I also think while we saw some recovery post Covid ... the impact of Covid may last a long time.   I don't mean vax, social distancing or masks.  I mean that families saw a life where little Johnny didn't have 25 hours per week of scheduled activities.  Sports seems to have bounced back, but things like music lessons, language lessons, scouts, etc. ... where there was only partial commitments are being dropped.  

I definitely think less burden on volunteers is key and shortening Cubs may make sense.  I also think we need to relook at the program.  What is special and unique about scouting.  Align the program to focus on that.  Eagle merit badges, rank requirements, etc. should then be realigned.   Finally, a focus on quality and not quantity of units.  We have many units limping along.  Get scouts into fewer/better units will be best in the long run.

I think this will be a tough fix and we may just need to accept being a smaller organization.  

On 5/23/2022 at 6:27 PM, Cecille25 said:

I called national and spoke to them via their hotline. The Committee hand book doesn’t specify how to deal with YPT infractions since they are not really the group to investigate a report. The Charter Organization Rep handbook is the one really supposed to be involved with council and resolving diputes along side the organization exec. They are also the ones who are supposed to make sure that they appoint those in the committee and troop that will uphold the scout values since they indirectly represent the charter organization. In all my years they have never had an say as to who is picked for any position… it was just whomever stepped up to the plate. 

I have not seen any details on how to properly conduct a youth protection violation investigation in either a committee or chartered org handbook.  I expect BSA would not want committee chairs or chartered orgs to be leading these investigations.  This isn't a volunteer's role.  

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

It is likely that we will soon get a reply to this thread from a member of the troop stating that the situation has been misrepresented, and the actual issues are being handled with discretion by the committee.

 

I wouldn't think a committee should be investigating a YPT report that was submitted to the council.  Other than cooperating with the investigation, a unit committee should not be involved.   If I were CC, I would simply ask the SE if there was any immediate action needed and if not, move on.  

There are times for volunteers to take the lead.  There are times for professionals to lead.  This is a time where volunteers should take a step back and let the professionals run the investigation/actions.  They have the training, experience and any resulting liability to run a proper investigation.  (If they actually do the investigation well .. who knows).

@Cecille25I agree with the recommendation of finding a new Troop.  Unless the current leadership leaves, I don't think your sons will find much peace.  It isn't worth the battle.  That said, I expect you should report the change of your membership status to the SE.  They should be aware of the actions of the committee.

1 hour ago, Cecille25 said:

Well I am in shock. The CC retaliated and without informing me removed me from being secretary of the troop. These folks are disgusting. 

 

If you are being targeted for reporting a possible YPT violation, that is a serious issue.  I think it goes even beyond the initial case.  Unless the output of the investigation indicated the parent lied, I cannot imagine this was an appropriate action.  Unfortunately, that has been reported in the past here.

Note BSA does have an anti retaliation policy for employees, but I have yet to see one for volunteers.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/controller/BSA_Whistle_Blower_Policy.pdf

@ThenNow @MYCVAStory ... do you know if the youth protection changes from bankruptcy require BSA to include an anti-retaliation policy?  

Bullying-What_is_Bullying.pdf (scouting.org)

Reporting_Bullying.pdf (scouting.org)

Myths About Bullying (scouting.org)

This is how BSA defines bullying and how to report it.  

• An Imbalance of Power: --> yes, if it was from an adult, there is a clear imbalance of power
• Repetition --> Not clear.  It sounds like it may be repeated.  To me, that is the big difference between bullying and just someone being a bit of a jerk.

Given what you said, it probably warrants reporting to SE for an investigation to get the full story .. especially if this SM/ASM has been reported in the past by other scouts.  

It is hard to give much other guidance as it really does require someone talking to all involved.  

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Estimates as to how long BSA can last on life support waiting for a Chapter 11 confirmation?  What do the tea leaves say about the imminence of Chapter 7?

Depends on how many Bitcoins the foundation was invested in.  

I think the BSA will stay in Ch 11 as long as the current plan is on the table.  They have the liquidity and the foundation will back them up for a few months if needed.

The real danger to BSA if this plan is outright rejected (either by the bankruptcy court or fairly quickly by district).  In one of the hearings, BSA lawyers indicated the foundation will only loan BSA $ if they are out of bankruptcy.  If the foundation sees the CH11 plan rejected, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide they need to save their $ for future BSA and let the current instance burn to the ground in Ch 7.

Just a guess from the hearings and looking at their financials.  BSA said by end of summer, my guess is they can last longer but not long enough to start a new plan from scratch.

11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Just landed on the docket, whatever this means.  

Minute Entry: The Court will not be ruling on confirmation at the omnibus hearing on May 25. The only matters going forward at the omnibus hearing are those listed on the agenda. - RE: [9714] Order on Omnibus Hearings scheduled for 5/25/2022 at 02:00 PM US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware (LJJ) (LJJ)

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=3552&tagid=1153&dateFrom=05/15/2022&dateTo=05/21/2022

Interesting ... perhaps the judge was reading scouter.com.  

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I can't think of any direction this will go that won't lead to huge frustration for many.  If any part of this bankruptcy moves forward, this will be a long cycle of multiple appeals.  It's one reason I always thought it would end with a BSA only bankruptcy with other cases pursuing insurance, LCs and COs.  ... I never thought it would get this far.  ... Not the first time I've been wrong in my life. 

In terms of multiple appeals, I think it really is pretty simple.  If the bankruptcy court approves the case, it will go to district court.  However, the plan will start implementing.  If district court wants to stop the plan, they actually have to act fairly fast.  If it takes them a year+ to review, most issues will be moot (basically, it will be too late to make much of an impact).  So, I think we will know pretty quickly if the bankruptcy is over for BSA.  Yes, there could be issues within the trust in the future, but I expect it won't take too long (perhaps a few months) to see if district is going to reject the plan.

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Lastly, she can call in some parties to suggest her direction and see if they can cure a conflict prior to the final ruling.  But at this date, unless it''s happened and we don't know, it's probably past that.

I'm expecting she either approves or has a very detailed rejection that essentially approves everything but a section or two (that can be cured by BSA).  I saw a recent ruling Gulf Coast Health which was rejected due to overly broad releases (the judge indicated she would have approved the plan with narrower release language).  Note that case was also in Delaware.  

The areas I thought Judge Silverstein was most concerned was the release language and the TDPs.  I'm not sure how she handles this (perhaps she can still approve but in her ruling emphasize how she came to approve).  

I do think if she was going to outright reject the plan we would have seen that by now.

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

I'm not sure if the judge will agree to that, but she didn't like BSA's argument against the request.  She did lean a bit on the fact that GSUSA's case was dismissed, so that helped.  Not sure where she will land on this.

Part of me is a bit suspicious of the BSA court case here.  I wonder if this is a method to try and get GSUSA to drop their own case and remove their claim in bankruptcy court.  The $16M is nearly identical to the $16-$17M GSUSA is seeking in bankruptcy.

15 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Other than getting Bankruptcy Court permission to pursue their trademark case, I think the only connection to the bankruptcy was that they filed a claim.

The GSUSA was arguing that they were not treated fairly in the BSA bankruptcy.  The GSUSA was claiming that they have a good case and think they will win in appeal (or at least could win).  Then they will seek a fees, etc.  GSUSA estimated $17M impact but BSA only offered insurance that would pay a very small fraction of that possible outcome.  The BSA's argument was that GSUSA is very unlikely to get $17M.  The judge didn't buy BSA's argument.

So ... GSUSA's main ask is that post bankrupt BSA backstops the plan.  If GSUSA wins $15M and bankrupt BSA plan only gives them $500K, post bankrupt BSA pays $14.5M.  

I'm not sure if the judge will agree to that, but she didn't like BSA's argument against the request.  She did lean a bit on the fact that GSUSA's case was dismissed, so that helped.  Not sure where she will land on this.

On 5/13/2022 at 6:39 PM, fred8033 said:

Quick?  Quick in bankruptcy proceedings is three months or more.  

My guess - it would have to be weeks.  Lock all groups in a room and work through language ... understanding that the alt path is likely CH 7.

I haven't seen any update from the court.  The BSA finalized voting ~March 11 and it has been over a month since the hearing ended.

Purdue Pharma (which was a big bankruptcy) took from Aug 2 (voting end) to Sept 13 to get a judge's official ruling but the judge indicated he would approve Aug 27th.  (So they knew approval would occur <1 month after the vote).

We are over 2 months since the final vote and a month since hearing closed and no clear sign if this will be approved.  Is this 1+ time since the hearing closed typical?  For those closer to this case, is the mood/discussions that the judge is likely to approve?

1 hour ago, yknot said:

No, but as Moderator you are defending the comments of someone who essentially did. You tell me how else to read that comment and now some of yours. Maybe show some of the things that have been posted here to some random women, maybe even outside your immediate orbit, and see what their reactions are. I'd be curious to hear. Personally, I've got a houseful of livid people here. Maybe tell some of your girl scouts that the reason they can't be in mixed gender troops is because they like to menu plan too much. See how your Twitter feed blows up. 

@Eagledadsimply said girls are better at planning and boys may feel intimated and back off.  He never said that means women belong in the kitchen (nor even eluded to that). 

https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/battle-of-the-brain-men-vs-women-infographic

Quote

In studies examining connections within the brain, it has been found that women tend to have stronger connections side to side, which could lead to better intuitive thinking, analyzing, and drawing of conclusions. Men, on the other hand, tend to have stronger connections from front to back, which can result in heightened perception and stronger motor skills.

Perhaps this + the differences in development (female brains mature earlier than male) could lead to some behavior differences between boys and girls in a mixed setting.  

I read what @Eagledadwrote.  I think there is an argument to be made that boys could be better off within a single gender troop with only male leaders.  Again, the GSUSA argues for this as well (except for girls).  There is some science backs up the differences in brains and I think there could be a logical conclusion that there could be benefits in single gender settings.   I am ignoring the fact that gender in and of itself is a complex topic (for example, in my Troop I have one scout that doesn't identify as a boy or girl).

I land on the side of coed Troops.  For my son, and the Troop I lead, I think coed works.  I think seeing female and male leaders who share their interests is great.  Seeing powerful women benefits the boys in our Troop.  Having girls that can canoe, lash and fish right with the boys helps as well.  The girls and boys work well together in scouting situations.  So, that is the choice I personally made for our Troop (we have a very closely linked Troop and both male/female leaders).

That said, I haven't done much research to determine if there are negative consequences and if those negatives outweigh the positives I have seen.  I barely have time to run a half way decent Troop.  I think given the differences in development & brain ... there could be an argument made that single gender scouting is better overall.