CynicalScouter
-
Content Count
3410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by CynicalScouter
-
-
6 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:
BSA rules are made by BSA committees. They are just as enforceable. Each committee has at least one staff member that represents the professional staff.
Yep. As I said: if I am a lawyer reading this forum (and we KNOW they are) these comments about how it isn't not REAL because it is just volunteers are exhibits in the next court filing about how BSA is not really taking YP seriously.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:
Exactly, the OA National Committee is volunteers. By BSA, I mean professional and legal staff.
Oh, so BSA volunteers cannot legally get BSA in trouble? YP doesn't apply to them, only professional and legal staff?
This conversation is useless. Pretend Mic-o-say is not doing what it is clearly doing under the direct auspices of BSA
QuoteMic-O-Say serves as a leadership enhancement program of the Heart of America Council designed to help the Heart of America Council fulfill its mission of preparing the young people of Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.
Hey, hey. It's ok. Just keeping looking the other way.
There is no use trying to persuade you at this point.
-
1
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:
No Mic-O-Say is not associated or recognized by BSA or the OA.
Uhhh...
https://www.hoac-bsa.org/mic-o-say
QuoteMic-O-Say serves as a leadership enhancement program of the Heart of America Council designed to help the Heart of America Council fulfill its mission of preparing the young people of Eastern Kansas and Western Missouri to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.
If I am the attorneys for any of the abuse victims with claims against Heart of America Council, I'm going after them hammer and tongs.
Again, I've called, others have called, BSA won't lift a finger.
So, tell me again how BSA takes YP seriously?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:
Or BSA national could force them to.
Yep. And they won't. But remember, BSA takes YP "seriously"...until the donors start to complain.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, yknot said:
Pick through here. You'll find a lot.
However, if you think shirtless youth wearing loincloths, even over shorts, in the company of adult men in camp ceremonies in the woods for no reason is not inappropriate from a youth protection standpoint, then that's the explanation for why this kind of thing persists.
This times 10,000
Expect him to turn a blind eye just like everyone else at national does.
again I called the 800 number and reported it and absolutely nothing happened.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, klleboe said:
I guess I’m just really confused with a lot of the nuances of the disclosure statement regarding closed/open states. My son is well within his SOL, but our state is considered a grey state I think? Are they just grouping by state SOL, or by individual case SOL?
While we can offer our opinions and conjecture about the settlement in general, or for the "average" victim in order to answer questions pertaining to your particular son you need to speak with your attorney. Only he or she can tell you exactly what the ramifications are in your particular case.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:
I work with several national staff and national OA on a regular basis, I can guarantee they would want to know
Go Google and FB search the photos that are dated this summer. I would post but the mods would disapprove and frankly it comes close to child pornography.
I will be very, very happy when an external monitor comes into BSA and starts to clean house. Perhaps some people losing jobs and positions will get the message through.
Nothing else does or will.
I want to also see council by council reports of the number of YP violations reported and results. BSA needs to stop hiding.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, yknot said:
Scouts Native American appropriation and you'll find plenty of photos that show youth barechested in loincloths and they are current.
Exactly. I have seen it too. Personally called the 800 scouts number.
National doesn’t care and will not lift a finger.
My council, thanks heavens, won’t put up with this garbage.
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:
Where is the DOJ/U.S. Trustee in this?
Possibly not interviewed or have a no comment.
keep in mind the UST is in record/ in briefs at least questioning the use of channeling injunctions like this for third party not debtors. I would expect at confirmation the UST to oppose much/most of this Plan.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.
They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.
The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.
I'm sorry folks, but I just literally can NOT get over this. The Coalition is now arguing that ANY examination of the aggregators must end because the judge, in accepting the solicitation plan that allows all 82,500 claimants to vote, has in effect mooted discovery in to HOW those claims were generated.
Somehow I doubt that's what the judge thought she was doing, but who knows at this point.
QuoteWhile there arguably was not a plan in front of the Court when the Rule 2004 Motions were filed and the 2004 Discovery Order was entered, there undoubtedly is now. Further deliberation concerning the Original 2004 Motion and Rule 2004 Motions is not necessary. While the Coalition might dispute the factual premises for the Original 2004 Motion and Rule 2004 Motions and reserves all rights to object to any particular discovery request, there is no reasonable dispute that discovery does not require an award of Rule 2004 relief by this Court.
-
Just now, Eagle1993 said:
Huge news if true.
Kosnoff has always said the AIS will not use master ballots and the other two firms have agreed to that from the start.
It is also a question of whether victims look at $3500 as an insult and vote no or a sign of defeat.
-
2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
The reporter has been following the case and the only questionable thing I see is that $19 comment.
The $19 comment comes directly from BSA's own table/chart. It refers to Tier 6 abuse in a closed state. It appears PDF page 41 of this BSA disclosure statement.
-
1
-
-
And what do you know: The Coalition is also objecting to Rule 2004 discovery as well.
They are NOW arguing that with the court's approval of the solicitation plan, Rule 2004 discovery about how the proofs of claim were generated is now done. Forgeries? Misuse of names and signatures? Done. The aggregators are now off the hook.
The argument is, in effect, that now that the court has agreed to allow all 82,500 claimants to vote, there is no legal basis for Century to examine or ask to examine how those claims were generated.
-
Coalition trying to defend their fees at all costs. They have filed a response to Century's request for clarification.
-
14 minutes ago, skeptic said:
Not sure USA Today is a very reliable source from most of what they publish.
The data they have is EXACTLY the same data published by the BSA as part of its disclosure statement. Unless the BSA is lying?
The data comes from the BSA disclosure statement. PDF pages 40-42 of this document.
I reformatted it here to avoid referring to abuse types (I called it Tier 1-6, the disclosure statement spells it out). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf
Base Min
Base Max
9.63% of Base Min
Open
Gray 1 Midpoint
Gray 2 Midpoint
Gray 3 Midpoint
Closed Midpoint
100.00%
60.00%
37.50%
17.50%
5.50%
Tier 1
$600,000
$2,700,000
$57,771
$57,771
$34,663
$21,664
$10,110
$3,177
Tier 2
$450,000
$2,025,000
$43,328
$43,328
$25,997
$16,248
$7,582
$2,383
Tier 3
$300,000
$1,350,000
$28,886
$28,886
$17,332
$10,832
$5,055
$1,589
Tier 4
$150,000
$675,000
$14,443
$14,443
$8,666
$5,416
$2,528
$794
Tier 5
$75,000
$337,500
$7,221
$7,221
$4,333
$2,708
$1,264
$397
Tier 6
$3,500
$8,500
$337
$337
$202
$126
$59
$19
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:
I agree, this is violation of several policies. Please provide those locations and dates and I will gladly take it to national myself.
National won’t lift a finger. Several camps and OA events still do this. No one says boo.
-
1
-
-
https://money.yahoo.com/survivors-soon-vote-boy-scouts-222712191.html
“A USA TODAY analysis suggests that as many as half of those who filed claims could end up with a few thousand dollars – a fraction of what their counterparts have been allotted in more than a dozen bankruptcy cases involving Catholic dioceses.”
-
So last week the BSA filed a motion for a protective order in effect declaring anything and anything Century has ever asked for as protected by mediation privilege.
Now, the TCC has come out in opposition to that motion.
As I read the TCC is arguing
- BSA is way out of line closing off entire lanes of inquiry by making everything "mediation privilege".
- EVEN IF the BSA wants to make everything mediation privilege, the time to do that is after someone demands the discovery. Not to seek a peremptory order.
-
12 minutes ago, fred8033 said:
Paid does not mean trained or effective or answerable
As we have now quite clearly learned, the failure of volunteers to police or self-police child sexual abuse has cost BSA almost everything.
As the Catholic Dioceses have now done, BSA needs to do. If these people through their lack of diligence are going to get the BSA or LCs in civil liability as it relates to child sexual abuse, they need to be taken out of the equation OR placed under the direct oversight of a paid professional. In the Catholic model this is called the "Safe Environment Coordinators".
After that I'd stick in each unit a mandatory Youth Protection Compliance Officer (Catholic = Safe Environment Compliance Officers) and make the position mandatory to recharter. For example, under current BSA rules to charter a Scouts BSA unit you need 5 people: a Scoutmaster Committee Chair, COR, and at least 2 Committee Members. I would mandate either a 6th person as Youth Protection Compliance Officer (not this wishy washy "Youth Protection Champion") or make one of the mandatory committee spots that position.
And note the word is COMPLIANCE. Not "well, YP gets in the way, so we just need to ignore it". Nope. Compliance means compliance.
Put some heads on pikes (which is why I also want Local Councils to report annually data on number of volunteers removed/purged/punished for YP violations) and then maybe I'll believe BSA is serious about YP.
-
21 minutes ago, yknot said:
BSA is still in effect covering up youth protection violations today. How otherwise do you explain, for example, the continued existence of units that parade youth wearing loincloths? BSA is aware but ignores it, presumably for concerns about membership and money.
Yep. YPT goes out the window when the donors get mad enough.
-
15 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:
I am sure that my district could establish a committee to do this with volunteers, as could many others.
So a group of untrained volunteers is going to have program safety oversight? Jurisdiction over child sexual assault?
Yeah, we'll be right back where we were. That's why the TCC insisted, rightfully, on at leas the national level a monitor. I'd go one step further have demand BSA hired 200 independent monitors, one for each council, to ensure YP compliance. Every Catholic diocese, for example, has this (Office for the Protection of Children, Office of Safe Environment).
I'll start to take BSA seriously about sexual abuse when it has 1 such DEDICATED PROFESSIONAL per council.
I would NOT be shocked if the outside professional that would be appointed to review BSA's YP policies made a similar recommendation given BSA's track record.
https://www.usccb.org/node/25794
-
Official agenda for October 5 is up
QuoteMATTERS GOING FORWARD
1. Debtors’ Motion For Entry of Order (I) Scheduling Certain Dates and Deadlines in
Connection with Confirmation of the Debtors Plan of Reorganization, (II) Establishing
Certain Protocols, and (III) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2618, filed 4/15/21). -
43 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:
It's going to be interesting to see how this shakes out and whether all the high numbers the Coalition has been throwing around really become reality.
The victims are going to be hearing in one ear direct from their attorneys "Take the deal. There's more money coming. This is just a down payment."
QuoteThe Coalition and the FCR have worked tirelessly on behalf of survivors to negotiate the terms of the Plan, which will provide over $1.7 billion (likely more) to be paid to survivors. It also provides the framework for substantial future settlements that will increase the recovery for survivors.
And on the other side the TCC (and for that matter some attorneys with victims who do NOT have time barred claims and others) junk the deal.
-
17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
- First .. they require their professional staff to interview volunteers prior to approval. BSA outsources this work to COs.
- Second .. they require their volunteers to have monthly meetings with their professional staff. BSA has volunteers that have never met staff.
In light of the fact that COs have utterly abdicated their responsibility to do these functions, I would expect that the external expert brought into to review BSA's policies will mandate this.
-
1
-
1
YPT Changes in TCC Proposal
in Issues & Politics
Posted
Anyway to bring it back to the main point: what the TCC's proposal for YP reform in the BSA might entail.
Unlike BSA, which selected its own "outsider" to review the BSA YP policies (and made 100% to tell BSA it was just oh so perfect!) the TCC is so much superior.
There will be a Child Protection Committee that include outsiders and especially survivors. Here's my only fear: the composition of the committee is ambiguous: all that is required is that within 6 month the committee will be formed and include "members from the BSA, Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, and the Coalition (including survivors)."
I would suspect BSA and the LCs will do everything they can to pack that committee with cronies and insiders with token representation by survivors. If it were me, I'd have specified a 9 member committee: 1 BSA crony, 1 LC crony, 7 survivors (3 TCC, 3 Coalition, 1 TBD).
The Committee (which I pray I am wrong about it being a stacked deck) will then be consulted when BSA selects the "Evaluating Entity". Here it may not be a person, "entity" may mean a group (e.g. a university department or center that is focused on child abuse) And that's the other thing: the Entity MUST be an expert in child sexual abuse. Gymnastics USA survivors made sure that NO ONE within that organization would have control over their similar entity.
The Evaluating Entity is going to tell the BSA how BSA needs to start doing annual reporting. No more hiding the data.
There will be changes to YP based on the recommendations of the Evaluating Entity. Here are some of mine
That's just a start.
BSA needs to get the message: the days of hiding the dirty laundry in IV files is over.