CynicalScouter

There are LCs that, at least publicly, are still absolutely in the dark about what is about to happen to them. And this is in NY, which has a lookback window that is closing soon. Boy Scout bankruptcy may cost WNY councils, but no one knows how much What local councils say Officials at the Greater Niagara Frontier Council in Cheektowaga and at the Allegheny Highlands Council in Falconer told The News that they have not been made aware of how much their councils will be asked to provide. “We don’t know what the actual number is going to be,” said Nathaniel Thornton, Allegheny Highlands Council executive. “We don’t know if we’re going to be asked to contribute or anything like that.” Thornton said he’s also not sure what would happen if the councils were left out of the national bankruptcy case altogether. “Obviously we want to compensate the victims the best way that we can, but other than that I don’t really have a preference how it gets done necessarily,” he said. “I want to be able to help and I want to make sure that scouting can continue to survive. And I think those are the two most important factors that we’re looking at.” Greater Niagara Frontier Council Executive Gary A. Decker declined to be interviewed by phone about the bankruptcy, but he said in an email that the council’s local contribution “is not yet known, because it has not been determined.” Iroquois Trail Council Executive James McMullen did not respond to a phone message.

It would not cover the ABUSER. It would cover the CO since the only claim against them would be civil (not criminal) negligence (not intentional act) in failing in their duty to care for the scout.

It was and is the biggest open secret in BSA: most COs wouldn't know what is going on inside the units if you asked. I once figured that, based on my experience with one unit, that the COR couldn't pick the Cubmaster out of a lineup. All the COR knew is once a year the committee chair showed up with some papers for him to sign and, every so often, left some papers in his box (adult applications) for signatures. That was it. And this is a VERY common occurrence.

The church is completely within its rights to review any and all financial statements as well as approving same. It is, after all, the church's money, the church's Tax ID, and the church's unit. I fail to see the problem. Inconvenient? Sure. Annoying? yes. "Voter fraud"? What does "voter fraud" even MEAN in this context? Are you alleging the Church's vote on your budget will be rigged or somehow some kind of fraud occur? Wha?

When I joined I didn't know this. And there's written documentation, signed by the COs, that indicated they would exercise supervision (the annual charter agreements). And that was in the 2010s. The idea that brand new parents were suppose to intuitively "know" doesn't help. And, in the case of the LDS units, the exact opposite was quite clear and upfront: the distinction between the unit and the sponsoring LDS unit/church was non-existent.

Right, which is what makes the LDS situation for purposes of the bankruptcy more...complicated? The claims (broadly) against the other COs were they they were negligent in failing to adequately supervise the programs and failed in their duty to care for youth entrusted to them. That's broad but hits the main notes. The claims against LDS are, in effect, that they were actively engaged in thwarting reporting and actively engaged in covering up the mess.

Not that I saw/see.

Next scheduled hearing dates filed https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1a937a93-6226-4d6f-b425-3b83355a2462_5309.pdf July 21, 2021 10:00 a.m. (ET) August 25, 2021 10:00 a.m. (ET) September 23, 2021 10:00 a.m. (ET)

The official name was the Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF). A person could be added to the IVF for a variety of reasons, https://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/ There were six categories Perversion Morals Financial Leadership Theft Criminal Clearly for purposes of the sexual abuse lawsuit(s) going back into the 1990s, some of these were more relevant than others. The "Perversion" files, while the biggest subset, were not the ONLY subset, however people mislabel ALL the IVF files as the "perversion" files.

Yep. And a case can be made for 1977-2021 that the COs were covered. The problem is pre-1977 claims and claims that exceed BSA's insurance maximums per occurrence or total.

That's one of the reasons for the facilities use agreements; COs and their lawyers were freaking out. But even that is as you say a risk some COs don't think is worth it anymore.

Yep. Only BSA has now said Coverage only started in 1977 or 1978. Prior to that, the COs were on their own. And there are caps/maxes. So if the abuse victim sues and wins $3 million, BSA (and its insurance) covers the first $X million (depends on the policy year), the rest is on the COs.

The current bankruptcy stay was partially lifted to allow new lawsuits to be filed (but not taken any further than filing). In states like NJ, NY, Arkansas (newly enacted law), NC, this will meant or has meant hundreds of lawsuits are coming against BSA, local councils, and COs. The BSA "umbrella" covers all 3 (BSA, LCs, and COs) FOR NOW. What may likely happen is that if BSA emerges from bankruptcy, it will NOT cover LCs (the "toggle plan") or covers SOME LCs and COs, but not others. That's why the COs like the LDS Church and Methodist Churches have absolutely come out in opposition to the BSA plan: it leaves them to fend for themselves when they feel they were promised BSA protection. Sure, anyone can be sued for anything, but it won't get that far in court. The facilities agreement makes it clear that it is a FACILITIES ONLY agreement. If the BSA unit is sexually abusing kids, the facility that they are meeting in takes NO responsibility and has no liability.

It doesn't. In order to demonstrate liability for duty to care, you have to demonstrate that the federal government took responsibility for the care of that child. Again, BSA is not a government entity. The federal government took no implicit or explicit responsibility for the care of the children within BSA. In any event, this is veering of the bankruptcy topic.

It does protect organizations. At the federal level, there's something called the Federal Tort Claims Act that allows for damage suits against the Federal government. it effectively waives sovereign immunity to a limited extent. Prior to that no, you could not sue the federal government for damages. At the state level, most of the entities you described also have sovereign immunity and are not subject to suit in their own courts. That's why if you want damages against a school district, you go sue (if you can) in federal court. Some states have their own version of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but not all. This became a big deal in Georgia recently where the state's supreme court had rule not only could you NOT sue state agencies in state courts for damages, you couldn't even sue for injunctive relief, either, making it impossible for people to have state laws declared unconstitutional in state courts. The legislature and voters amended the constitution to put in a very, very limited waiver of sovereign immunity into the state constitution to address this.

It can be...only if waived by the government itself. And as I said, the Congressional Charter is not such a waiver.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence. 1) It is NOT that the LCs are "passing liability to COs". The legal argument was and is that BOTH the CO and the LC had a responsibility to operate the scouting program in a way to prevent the abuse in the first place and they were BOTH negligent in how they did it. The CO and the LC had a "duty to care" to see children were not harmed, and they were negligent. Agree, disagree, don't care. That's the legal argument and, more often than not especially after the Oregon courts ordered the IV files released, it's been a winning argument. 2) The LCs are by no means "ceremonial". They operate and oversee the program locally. They were the ones sending (or not sending) materials to the IV files in National. 3) The COs were by no means "ceremonial" either. Now, the COs may have acted that way and neglected to even try to provide a minimum of oversight of the units, but that was their dumb mistake. Maybe if they had paid more attention some (not all, some) of this wouldn't have happened. But they didn't. So, here we are. 4) Congress isn't liable for BSA's actions for the same reason that your Secretary of State's office isn't liable for when it issues a business license/articles of incorporation to a business that then dumps toxic waste in your front yard. The Congressional Charter is an honorific. it is ceremonial. It does NOT make BSA any kind of government entity or Congress liable. It simply says BSA is licensed to do business. PS: I'd argue this has nothing to do with governmental immunity or sovereign but a different species called legislative immunity. In short, passage of a "bad" law (unconstitutional, one you just don't like, one that is abused, whatever) can NOT be used as the basis to sue the legislature in general or individual legislators in particular. I've seen arguments that this is a sub-species of governmental or sovereign and not wholly different. I'm...not persuaded especially when for example the executive branch asserts or imposes on the legislative branch, but that's another story.

I think we are talking two different things. @qwazseand his efforts to use the claims filings in the BSA sexual abuse claims to draw conclusions/make extrapolations about child sexual abuse in general OR BSA sexual abuse in particular. He cannot in any reasonable way do so, for the reasons I mentioned. Data necessary to assess the value of a tort claim in a child sexual abuse claim or track claims. THAT can be done looking at all prior claims, in the manner you are suggesting.

Not my field, but I've got people I know who indicate that a robust study (or meta-anlysis of robust studies) was The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/ This is not about child sexual abuse specifically (it is included in sexual abuse in general), but it DOES show how a proper study is conducted. hey used real scientific data collection methods and probability sampling; not anecdata.

Right, there are ways to Work through INDIVIDUAL sexual assault victims for recollection and Collect data across hundreds/thousands of sexual assault victims (in a scientifically rigorous way) to try and draw conclusions about sexual assault. "I talked with a few people and they said..." doesn't work for either of those two.

Yeah, that's called (at best) convenience sampling. It has precisely 0 statistical worth or value when trying to make generalizations as to a group (BSA child sexual abuse victims). At worst it is called anecdata. Both are scorned if used to try and extrapolate anything about anything. "plural of the word anecdote is not data" as my old research methods professor beat into my head. And there are ways to sample sexual abuse victims with scientific rigor. Relying on a) people you talked to or b) sexual abuse victims who filed claims are poor substitutes.

Maybe? More likely will be BSA telling the COs "read what those pre-1978 or so Charter Agreements actually said. We didn't promise you a thing." That is why the new 2020/2021 agreement spells out, in precise minute detail, exactly how much COs are covered for. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Annual-Charter-Agreement-Charter-Organizations-.pdf The Local Council agrees to: •Provide primary general liability insurance to cover the Charter Organization, its board, officers, Charter Organization Representative (COR), employees, and adult volunteers for authorized Scouting activities. Indemnify the Charter Organization in accordance with the resolutions and policies of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America. “The general liability policy issued to the Boy Scouts of America provides primary liability insurance coverage for all chartered organizations for liability arising out of their sponsorship of a traditional Scouting unit. Evanston Insurance Company provides the first $1 million per occurrence coverage. Additional policies, all providing primary coverage to the chartered organization, have beenpurchased so that more than $10 million in primary coverage is provided. There is no coverage for those who commitintentional or criminal acts. Liability insurance is purchased to provide financial protection in the event of accidents or injury that is neither expectednor intended.”

Because the LCs, COs, and insurance companies are "protected parties". Yes, it is BSA's bankruptcy, but there are 900+ lawsuits naming BSA along with the LCs and COs (or combinations thereof). It is possible for LCs to "join" in on the settlement, as "protected parties", but they have to pay in for the privilege. Take, for example, a lawsuit John Smith vs. BSA and a LC. Right now, that case is stayed pending the bankruptcy; it cannot proceed either against BSA OR the LC thanks to the court's stay order(s). Now, once BSA leaves bankruptcy, the stay is lifted. BSA is immediately dismissed from Smith vs. BSA and LC and the case proceeds as Smith vs. LC. That LC could then immediately make a settlement, could it not? Putting the LCs into the mix NOW allows for one mass "global" settlement rather than thousands of Smiths suing thousands of LCs and getting to the same place: a settlement.

Insurance rights wouldn't and couldn't be determined for years if they have to go through all 82,500 claims. I believe the plan(s) call for the Settlement Trustee to figure this out post-BSA bankruptcy. And LCs I agree: either an aggregate agreement in writing or council-by-council numbers. Ok, how much "missing" information until a person doesn't get a vote? I'm not being mean here, this is what the insurance companies are saying as well.

BSA's been pretty clear about its numbers. What numbers do you think would be hidden or not clear? And how do you propose BSA not do that? In bankruptcy, there is always a "nuisance payment" or "nuisance settlement" scheme where those with a claim can take $X now and waive all claims without having to prove them. Are you suggesting that BSA and the court go through all 82,500 claims NOW to ensure no "voter fraud" (which is what the insurance companies want)? That would take years.