CynicalScouter

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Your kidding right! The Catholic issue was on the news almost every day.

Not until the 1990s and the Boston Scandal. Since then, it has. But prior? Nope.

16 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

But, most folks can't think of a single incidence from in scouting. In fact, most parents will say when it comes to sexual abuse, Scouting is a safe place.

Which was pretty much exactly what happened with the Catholic Church until the dam broke with the revelations of the scandal in Boston in the 1990s. After that, it all came out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States

Moreover, as I've said, it isn't like people are advertising this.

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

“Everything is great...keep rock-n and roll-n with your Troop!” 

Right, because the argument goes that it does no good to focus on things we have no control over.

Can a den leader in Pack 123 do a thing about the bankruptcy? No.

Can they even vaguely explain it? No.

I would hoped that the COUNCILS would provide more information to give parents and leaders, but I cannot fault unit level leaders for not having the time or energy to try and track down this information.

4 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

As to the latter.  Past abuse doesn't really come up often.  When it does I tell them that to my knowledge we've never had any incidents in our units' past. 

Right, I will tell you that it is the adults and I've gotten several versions of "I've been in scouting XX years and never heard about it."

To which my response is "Well did you think BSA or the victims are going to advertise 'I was abused' or 'John Scout was abused'?"

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Per BSA Rules & Regulations

Policy Concerning Political Questions The Boy Scouts of America must not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, chartered councils, Scouters, or members, involve Scouting in political matters. However, this must not be interpreted to prevent the teaching of ideals of patriotism and good citizenship as required to fulfill the Boy Scouts of America’s purpose. Faith-based teachings incorporated into the Scouting program by religious chartered organizations in a manner consistent with the Bylaws are not considered political matters. This policy does not prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from expressing its opinion upon matters of governmental concern when considered in its best interest by the governing body of the Boy Scouts of America. This policy does not limit the freedom of thought or action of any Scouter or member as an individual in a manner not directly or indirectly implying a connection to Scouting.

I think it is great they participated; however, I do not believe they should have associated scouting (by wearing their uniform) on their stance.

Yep. The news report indicated that commission reached out to National. I would be a stern letter/warning is on its way to Troop leadership now.

29 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Hmm, I'm trying to understand why the girls are wearing BSA uniforms. Something isn't right.

Barry 

Depends on whether this is considered a "political event".

https://troopleader.scouting.org/policy-on-scout-participation-in-political-events/

Policy on Scout Participation in Political Events

Uniformed unit members and leaders may participate in flag ceremonies at political events and may lead the Pledge of Allegiance; however, they should retire after the ceremony and not remain on the speakers’ platform or in a conspicuous location where attendees or viewers could construe their presence as an endorsement or symbol of support. In addition, photos of candidates or Scouts in uniform or with BSA marks and logos are not allowed in political campaign materials of any kind.

Volunteers and professionals must be alert to situations that would imply BSA favoritism for one candidate over another. Strict observance of our longstanding policy against the active participation of uniformed Scouts and leaders in political events is mandatory.

And this applies to Scouters https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/bsa-scouter-code-of-conduct/

Quote

On my honor I promise to do my best to comply with this Boy Scouts of America Scouter Code of Conduct while serving in my capacity as an adult leader...I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training, including but not limited to those relating to...Advocacy on social and political issues, including prohibited use of the BSA uniform and brand;

Just now, johnsch322 said:

Question to current scout leaders. What do you tell current scouts and or their if asked about the current bankruptcy and the child sexual abuse in the past?

Bankruptcy: I tell them everything is in flux and that while we hope BSA survives we told the First Class/Star/Life folks to not wait and try to make Eagle ASAP.

Abuse: Ye, it happened. No one doubts it. What the court is trying to figure out is how much BSA has to pay for letting it happen in their watch.

https://county17.com/2021/10/07/teens-share-their-book-concerns-with-commissioners-during-special-presentation/

8 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

Yet, aren't these the same sentiments the BSA and my LC used to justify their actions to not share adverse information with law enforcement about my abuser.

Yep. More concern about the program and less about the scouts/victims.

Look the other way.

Don't talk about it.

Maybe it will just go away.

Focus on the positive, don't worry about the victims.

Got to keep those campfires burning. No matter what.

8 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

It disgusts me to read posts on this forum complaining why aren't abusers being held directly accountable. 

This sentiment, which permeates many of the BSA defenders in this forum, disgusts me as well. As if a victims to justify or defend themselves or why they are seeking restitution from BSA?

The argument seems to be that victims are not "real" victims or really seeking "justice" unless they go after EVERYONE involved in the sexual abuse, starting with the perpetrators.

I am so happy that BSA-defenders get to sit in judgement of VICTIMS and decide whether the VICTIMS are doing enough.

You know what folks? You do NOT get to decide whether VICTIMS are or are not doing enough to YOUR satisfaction. They have every legal right to pursue BSA (and the LCs and COs) in civil court/bankruptcy court.

To sit there in smug condescension and say that you are not a "real" victim or that victims are only seeking "vengeance" unless they also try to seek out the perpetrators?

I got news for you: the perpetrators did not file for bankruptcy protection to protect their assets from child sexual abuse claims. BSA did.

The perpetrators did not spend millions on an ad campaign asking for victims to come forward. BSA did (as part of the bankruptcy claims bar date).

How DARE the BSA-defenders sit there and judge whether or not the VICTIMS have done enough. The VICTIMS have SUFFERED ENOUGH. As far as I am concerned, they do not have to justify a THING to you from a moral standpoint and from a LEGAL standpoint they will have to provide evidence of their claim, but no judge is going to say "You cannot recover damages from BSA because you did not find the perpetrator".

I'm going to give you all a little lesson in civil procedure: it is called an impleader. If BSA wants to make the claim that it is not liable for the abuse because the perpetrator was at least partially responsible, then BSA (let me repeat this) BSA can go file a third-party-impleader complaint against the perpetrator. The BSA can then get damages recovered/back from the third-party/abuser.

The classic example is Mary files a lawsuit against John for rear-ending her car at a stoplight. John then impleads Susan who rear-ended HIS car into Mary for his own damage (John's car) and the damage that happened to Mary's car. Susan is now co-defendant (in the case of Mary vs. John and Susan) and third party defendant (John v. Susan).

In the case of BSA: Scout is abused by Scoutmaster BUT the BSA and the LC are negligent for allowing the abuse to occur.

Scout sues BSA and LC (Scout vs. BSA and LC). Then BSA and the LC sue Scoutmaster for recovery (BSA and LC vs. Scoutmaster).

The case caption would read

Scout, Plaintiff vs.

BSA and LC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintffs

vs. Scoutmaster, Third Party Defendant

If BSA-defenders absolutely insist that the victims are only seeking "vengeance" unless they also sue everyone else, keep in mind that at this point that shifts the legal burden. The burden NOW is on BSA if it fees that the "real defendant" should be the perpetrator to find that person and file a third-party-complaint or impleader and make the abuser a co-defendant.

In closing, BACK OFF THE VICTIMS and start asking BSA more questions.

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Also mentioned as the failed Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis bankruptcy: two plans (victims plan and archdiocese plan) simultaneously submitted and rejected, back to mediation they went.

I looked. The votes came back in May 2017

Quote

Of the 447 people eligible to vote, 406 people participated in the voting process. The plan submitted by the Creditors’ Committee received 94% of survivors’ votes and 93% of the survivors who participated voted to reject the plan proposed by the Archdiocese.

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/media-advisory-voting-complete-results-tallied-in-archdiocese-of-st-paul-minneapolis-bankruptcy-case/

That said, the judge STILL rejected both plans, even though 90%+ of the survivors were in favor of their plan.

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Archdiocese-Ballot-Report-Tabulation.pdf

The udge ruled in effect NEITHER were confirmable in December 2017.

• Memo: Denial of Plans
• Order Denying Confirmation of Archdiocese Plan of Reorganization
• Order Denying Confirmation of Unsecured Creditors Committee Plan of Reorganization

My May all sides reached a deal that was confirmed in September 2018

• Confirmation Order

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

With that being said I see an incredible hill to climb for a yes vote. 

Yep the question now becomes

1) Does the plan get 50%?

2)  66 2/3% (which would allow for a BSA only release/toggle plan)?

3) 75%+?

I think 1 could happen.

I've said before I see no chance of 2, and 3? Forget it.

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

4) 18,000 claims are post YPT implementation.  The non financial aspect was watered down in this plan, that will change (focus is on oversight & IV files).

Right now that "Evaluating Entity" can only make suggestions. BSA is under NO obligation (except for limited data reporting) to do anything the Entity asks them to do. And the oversight committee has NO specific number of seats for victims; they could be outvoted and overwhelmed.

What I want to see is something like a monitor with enforcement powers, the ability to terminate BSA folks at will, etc. Similar to what some stronger police monitors have when police departments get put under consent decrees.

And YP that means something and isn't hidden. Do what USA Gymnastics has done: report data and yes, name names of scouters (in the case of USA Gymnastics it is coaches) that have been removed.

Right now I can pull up a list of List of Suspended and Restricted Persons. https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/suspended_members.html

BSA will be forced, I think, to do this for BSA folks thrown out of scouting.

38 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA LCs & LDS are not in bankruptcy.  Therefore, the passing floor will actually be higher.  In some cases that is 75% and other cases it is 90%.  

I didn't know that either. There was mention of a statute that applied ONLY to asbestos cases of 75%+ but that was used as a frame of reference only.

So, BSA needs 66 2/3% to get out (or a cramdown). But the LCs and COs (and LDS is in the COs category) is going to be even higher.

Also mentioned was the failed Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis bankruptcy: two plans (victims plan and archdiocese plan) simultaneously submitted and rejected AND accepted (Stang misspoke), back to mediation they went.

32 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

There are many times more stories such as yours for every victim.

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served?

Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The problem with a low ball offer in this situation is the ramifications of what that might mean if it is accepted.  

See Hartford deal, Supra.

If (big if) if the Hartford deal is OKed Century and the smaller insurance companies have NO reason to come in a penny higher per claim in any future settlement talks.

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

or it requires a level of financial restitution that is not achievable because that level of assets does not exist.

Here is a hint: when the majority of LCs have to pay out less than 14% of current assets to get out from underneath millions upon millions in liability? That isn’t fair.

Just now, johnsch322 said:

I will go further and assume you are not a claimant/victim

Good bets. I will never fathom people who defend the BSA (and LCs) at all costs, no matter what.

4 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

are the actual abuser not responsible for some of the predicament?

BSA decided to go into bankruptcy.

BSA decided to try to cut a deal to get 3rd parties covered by their bankruptcy (LCs and COs).

They own this mess.

By the way and I know this first hand for my council: there are TONS of donors ready to come in and fund after the BSA and/or LCs come out. Trust me: the $500 million that the LCs have to put up will be back in place inside of 3-5 years.

Cry me a river.

I wish I could sit in on the TCC tonight but will just wait for the video tomorrow.

Just now, HelpfulTracks said:

For me that is absolutely part of the equation. 

And what is the exchange rate? 

How many Cub Scout campouts absolve BSA from its civil liability for a Tier 1 child sexual abuse, hmmm?

BSA cannot and should not use today’s children as human shields for its corporate negligence in how it handled child sexual abuse.

1 minute ago, 1980Scouter said:

for 6 months operating capital should go to the fund.

The TCC plan discussed in April was even more generous: LCs could keep 2 years operating expenses.

45 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Second, what is in the interest of current and future scouts is included in my concept of fair. This was not a problem they created

I consider the current scouts secondary indirect victims of BSA’s. bad choices. The judge has said she is considering their interest in seeing scouting survive. But victims don’t just disappear because the organization does good works elsewhere.

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

mission of this case nor has it ever been. My opinion. Emergence is paramount.

Yep. If the councils want to be discharged they need to go into their own bankruptcies and not try to dodge.

47 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My council is contributing quite a bit that will require a long time to recover.

Then you are the exception.

Most councils are offering 14% or LESS of assets. Many are below 10%.

The LCs are holding out IN GENERAL. And when this plan blows up and the BSA toggle-plans out the 1600 lawsuits against LCs go live. Then we will see some real dollars for victims. Then LCs will rewlly start to pay.

As previously noted: the 40+ councils that make up CA, NY, and Hawaii/Guam have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases the day BSA leaves bankruptcy. The next day those lawsuits go “live” and about a day after that those 40 councils go into bankruptcy themselves.