Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Local Counicls now must provide $300M is cash and $200M in appraised land.

    Did anyone happen to see or calculate an average of the per LC net assets from the BSA summary statements? Very curious how the averages compare. The contribution side is going to be very small in comparison, me thinks. And then, those asset numbers are from the BSA and not BRG. (The contribution side is about $1.8M, yes?)

  2. 51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    It looks like BSA may exit bankruptcy with no assets (including no endowment) other than 4 HA Bases and $500M in debt.  When they increase annual fees to $150 each scout (Scouts Canada numbers), realize that $75/scout is likely paying the interest on the $500M in loans.

    So, it looks like they will make it out alive, but limping. Are you guys in any way surprised and/or heartened? Some were 99.99% certain total annihilation was drawing nigh. 

  3. 57 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Council number went from $425 to at least $500M.  I'll be curious to see if it is a council by council settlement or if there is an overall agreement for all councils if a certain number is met.

    Same. This concerns me. I don’t see how this number is in any way an adequate representation of LC exposure or ability to pony up for it. How is this acceptable to the Coalition and will some LCs still resist and take their chances? So many questions. I wonder if this deal allows BSA to sneak the direct abuse claims (since 2.18.20) under the channeling injunction binkie. 

    I’m also very curious to learn the TCC’s view, since they have not yet signed on. At these numbers, if this is global, we’ve gone from $6100 to about $9000. WooHoo. Phhhtttt. I believe in our TCC and pray for a better outcome than this.

  4. 10 minutes ago, yknot said:

    It also was and is a different environment. Before two deep, the whole advancement process in scouting with scoutmaster conferences, sign offs, skills demonstration, etc. created a lot of opportunities for a predator to cut a kid from the herd. In 4H, it's pretty much all public. You don't do anything with an adult leader, you exhibit at a fair, you present to a group, etc. There were also a lot more moms involved in 4H as both leaders and chaperones. In my opinion, women have traditionally been more vigilant about who is doing what with kids and keeping track of where they are, although I think many more men have started adopting those strategies as well. Traditionally, a lot of the scouting program has tried to minimize 'mom hovering' especially at the troop level, but it seems there may have been a downside to that. There is no other youth organization that does that except for maybe some of the marquee sports cultures at the older ages.

    This mirrors my secondhand 4-H experience. No sleeping in the woods apart from parents. Most all activities in public and with groups of kids and parents. If I were to simplify and use the same activity, camping, this is how I would compare Scouting and 4-H:

    * Scouting (pre-serious/recent YPT) --> Men and boys hiking, swimming and tent camping in the woods for weekends and even weeks.  

    * 4-H --> Overnight camping in a family's backyard with a fire pit and s'mores.   

  5. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    she was also being told that mediation was on-going and such.

    To append, she was also told BSA was excluding mediation parties in favor of others. So much so that the TCC was told to go home from one of them, not contacted in several cases while "mediation was progressing nicely" and Chubb was not included at all in others or for extended periods. All of that should have gotten her off her duff, in my humble view. 

  6. 36 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    4-H had less occurrences.   I don't buy it.  4-H has lots of private opportunities and lots of youth-adult interaction.  What I do buy is either the incidents took a slightly different form that people don't interpret as so ugly or the program has suck lose boundaries that people don't strictly interpret it as a 4-H issue.

    I'll give my favorite caveat right upfront: I'm asking, not poking.

    Are you a 4-Her? As I've said before, I'm not but experienced it through my sister for about six years. We are very close, as I am with her daughter. That's not first hand, but I was at events, their farm, talked with my niece a great deal...

  7. 6 minutes ago, jr56 said:

    Unfortunately, I guess there is no financial incentive to settle this any time soon. 

    If they're being truthful about August as the trigger point for "headlong into poverty," BSA certainly does. Insurers? Definitely not. Survivors with substantial claims and/or those not wanting an early exit? We can and will be as patient as necessary.  

    • Upvote 1
  8. 13 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

    Is it just me or is this dragging on and on?  The next court date not until July 21st?  Good grief, the attorneys are making a fortune by prolonging this.  Surely there can be something more done than having a hearing every 45 days.

    Definitely not just you. I'm twisting in the wind and heat over here. Finally drafting my letter to the judge and touch on what this horrible attenuation is doing to me and other survivors. Recounting the abuse is not so much my thing. I prefer to talk about impacts. I'm pretty sure she doesn't get the psychological explosion the filing alone was to many of us, let alone the Proof of Claim process, the claims aggregating and mining, the fee drain, droning he said/she said in the hearings, and her consistent failure to rule on motions and resulting delay. My daily prayer (I'm short on hope) is that some happy news will drop from the mediation limbo any day.

  9. 18 hours ago, qwazse said:

    And the corporate response (documented by whistle-blowers) was to begin ad campaigns targeting youth.

    I'd be careful how you phrase this and attempt to make a distinction. In the midst of my abuse during the 70's, when BSA was fully aware of what was going on, the marketing was pretty hot and heavy. I'm not saying the two contexts are exactly parallel, but a clear comparison is easy. (As to Big Tobacco, fill in any product liability debacle. Let's toss that one if you'd like.) The comparison trips out like this:

    1) Defect - broad opportunities for access to boys --> predation and abuse;

    2) Knowledge and recording of incidents of abuse impacts arising from defect;

    3) Failure to adequately protect and disclose risks;

    4) Ongoing marketing and sales, continued broad access and opportunities for abuse;

    5) More abuse;

    6) Abuse/injuries known and recorded;

    7) Still no disclosure;

    8) Failure to adequately address defect/modify access, implement safety measures and report/warn of abuse risks...more abuse;

    9) CSA lawsuits based on negligence and failure of duty of care, etc.;

    9) Reluctant and meager disclosure, but only when forced;

    10) Legislation to open avenues for direct accountability to victims (civil lawsuits); and

    10) Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

    • Upvote 2
  10. 28 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

    Locking my door keeps people from wandering in off the street, it doesn't prevent the determined burglar from getting in.  Should realtors and homeowners post notices letting people know that their houses aren't secured like the White House or Pentagon?

    I'm sorry, but those analogies do not fly in this context. Did these guys really have to be "determined," at least prior to when YPT began to more effectively implemented, as in not too long ago? No argument that they did can be made with a straight face. The yarn about the bad guys can always find the secret door and slip in the back way is simply nonsense here. The front door was unlocked, open and had a sign out front. Yes, Scouting was attractive to boys and families for it's adventure, but that doesn't mean it was wise to put boys in the woods and homes and private places with men like they/we did. And, it's not like the hatches were battened once the breaking and entering was a cognizable and recorded pattern. Were they? How long did it take?

    28 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

    I am sorry for your experience but this crisis was precipitated by 1) lawyers smelling money, 2) activists seeking to tear down another pillar of traditional American society & culture, 3) bureaucrats protecting their rears.  That doesn't excuse the mistakes made by various individuals at all levels of Scouting over the years but it is far from "a rape culture" as alleged by someone I know.  I think the victims are being victimized all over again by #1 and #2 in pursuit of their own goals.

    Thank you. Sincerely. Me too.

    One question: Did lawyers smelling money and people with cancer precipitate the inquiry and lawsuits against Big Tobacco or any of the other contexts where a product was defective and the manufacturer blew the chance to disclose, while continuing to market their product? I don't think you see this clearly at all. I don't say things like "rape culture" or "the largest pedophile ring in history," but I do try to look at this objectively. The BSA produced this, plain and simple. But for the perpetuation of the context and opportunity for CSA and the negligence that allowed it to continue, the target wouldn't have been on BSA's back. They hung it there. As I've said before, lawyers aren't suing BSA and the related parties because they don't like the bowline knot or long shorts and funny socks or neckerchiefs or skill awards. (Ok. Somebody should've sued over skill awards. I had a recurrent fear of being pushed in the water while wearing that divers belt. [glug * glug] Glad they're gone!) Seriously. The abuse, the pattern, the lack of supervision...the failure to disclose and warn are the threads that wove this target.

    • Upvote 1
  11. 46 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

    When I first learned about the Ineligible Volunteer Files in the 1990s, I was given to understand that the cases of perversion were ones that Scouting couldn't prove (i.e., didn't go to trial) but that the local councils wanted to track to keep the alleged predator away from the boys.  Cases that could be proven were supposedly referred to law enforcement.

    I understand that some people, wanting to avoid negative publicity, may have used the files as an alternative to pursuing prosecution.  That was clearly wrong but it still hurts my head that something that was created as a tool for preventing sexual abuse is being used as evidence that it was being allowed.  The only people coming out of this in a better condition are the lawyers like Kosnoff.

    I hear you, but maybe something else to consider. The files are evidence of a deeper, and I think insidious, motivation. 

    The IVF existed for a long time before BSA was forced to produce them. And, as they admitted, represented nowhere near the number of IVs that would have been in the files had they not "purged" records. The existence of the IVF, the failure to proactively disclose them (and the incidents in real time) with the full knowledge of the historic pattern of abuse built the case for their own liability.  In the moment, it may have seemed like a reasonable thing to do, but if you know your cig's are causing cancer and you don't disclose it, you're gonna be held to account. If you have an airbag that explodes and you don't recall it and warn people, you're gonna be held to account. Scouting was and is, in a very real sense, a product. It was being "sold" to an unsuspecting public with an inherent design defect.

    The context of sending boys into virtual seclusion with adult men in innumerable settings without stringent protective measures was a recipe for CSA disaster. There are no two ways about it and not a single way around it. They discovered it, they tracked it, they wrote it down, they stored records, they purged records, they settled lawsuits, they defended themselves at trial, they opposed Child Victims Acts with paid lobbyists and all the while chose not to warn the current and prospective Scouting public. That don't smell so good. It was self-serving and that's what precipitated and perpetuated this crisis.

    • Upvote 1
  12. 12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    As laws change or COs are found to have insurance coverage or decent assets they will be sued. 

    I had a lingering ambivalence about pursuing my CO, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it if my future attorney deems it both appropriate and necessary. (At this point, that scenario is hypothetical.) I have two reasons. One, the thought of hurting the parish my mom still attends is unpleasant. And, two, the explanation you guys have given about the almost universal low expectation of CO involvement at the Unit-level. I get that doesn't include the LDS church. That ambivalence is now balanced by the idea shared that Scouting was used an integrated/integral part of a "packaged offering" by the parish. Benign neglect and ignorance are one thing. Utilizing the status as a Chartered Organization to expand the brand is another. Without active involvement, per the Agreement, they received a benefit and gave no consideration. That benefit was at my expense, since their consideration was supposed to be oversight and "management." In effect, they were promising to watch over ME, specifically, and abdicated their duty. They hung the BSA shingle and got the good PR, but didn't live up to their bargain. I think I get it. A sticky wicket.  

  13. 9 hours ago, 100thEagleScout said:

    I know my LC personally has $13mil+ in cash and assets plus council insurance.  I think they’re probably a council with huge exposure too.

    Mine has more than 3x that amount in net assets and just a handful or so of claims that aren't time-barred. Overall, they have upwards of 200. I'm very curious to see how they participate in a global resolution or not, both from an academic and legal/risk management strategy standpoint and personally (of course). As has been discussed and debated, if litigated, those several claims could be disastrous for them depending on their insurance coverage. 

  14. 13 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

    Given the strict confidentiality limitations imposed upon the claims, how can a CO even assess the potential risk to them and whether they should participate in a "contribution" toward the settlement trust before being served with a lawsuit?

    If I had a role in my former diocese, I would have been on the phone with SEs and searching the Omni Agent site for the number of claims against the LCs included within my turf. That would provide some sense of the magnitude, especially in a highly Catholic-based CO region. Problem is, are they really paying attention to available sources of information and do they have any inkling of the potential poop storm rising that could motivate inquiry? Who’s providing them with info? Even assuming every diocese is truly as involved as has been said, what do they really know? I’m still a tad dubious. For example, I highly doubt the parishes who did and do sponsor troops have the details of what’s brewing. Am I totally missing something? 

  15. 2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    It could depend if they show by individual CO.  While there are large groups of COs, typically each local CO is a single unit (for example, xyz Elks Club would mean 1 unit).  

    Trying to get my head around how anyone will wrangle that many COs at any macro level, when doing it with several hundred LCs has been the cat roping rodeo of the decade. 

  16. 1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

    I realize this is not in the universe of the data set, but I'm curious if "we" will ever know how the claims break out all the way down to the Unit level. 

    Note: I realize the BSA has proposed a multiplier be applied to claims where an abuser perpetrated against more than one Scout. That will at least signal some sense of a number to those of us who don't know how many he violated in our Unit. I know there have to be at least 6 in mine.

    Ha. Looks like a did a fair amount of "realizing" this morning. Must of been the new brand of coffee. I'll drink a few additional cups tomorrow and see if I can ascend to epiphanies. ;) 

    • Upvote 1
  17. 31 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    It's difficult to say what you could sue them for if no victim comes forward from that unit.

    I realize this is not in the universe of the data set, but I'm curious if "we" will ever know how the claims break out all the way down to the Unit level. 

    Note: I realize the BSA has proposed a multiplier be applied to claims where an abuser perpetrated against more than one Scout. That will at least signal some sense of a number to those of us who don't know how many he violated in our Unit. I know there have to be at least 6 in mine.

    • Upvote 1
  18. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    That's why I thought it notable last week/week before when the mediators report indicated "a chartered organization" was part of the mediation.

    Thanks.

    When I brought up the Catholic churches waaay back when, someone was quick to say the case is on the radar of most Dioceses. Still not sure of that. Perhaps that poster knows a good bit more than my small morsels. I don't understand why RCC and the Methodist churches wouldn't have pressed harder to be at the table. Again, I don't know fer nuttin. 

  19. 5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    The charter agreement was more a promotional tool to increase CO involvement and not really a contract describing responsibilities.  

    Would you explain what you mean by this, please? How was the agreement a promo tool, given that it was an agreement? I'm not poking, just asking to understand how it was perceived by all the parties.

    5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Now it's being used to argue a higher level of involvement and responsibility than was expected. 

    Yeah. To your point, if if the words on the page say something different than what you're being told or what someone "expects," better opt not to sign or modify the language. Famous last words: "It's not that important. Just sign it. We all know what we mean. No one cares about these anyway. They just go in drawer somewhere..."

    • Upvote 3
  20. On 6/11/2021 at 9:24 AM, CynicalScouter said:

    BSA has now said

    1.  Coverage only started in 1977 or 1978.
    2. Prior to that, the COs were on their own.
    3. 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.

    Where was this said? If you can, I’d love a link or reference. Thank you.

  21. 2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Yeah ... this is where most disagree.  Most everyone in scouting ... and the families of the scouts too ... know the churches were not running the show.

    As in, they “know” practically, but not technically? The way I read both excerpts from old Charter agreements and cases, the COs signed up to be the responsible party on the ground with each Unit. The breadth of their responsibilities seemed pretty inclusive. As I said, what was demonstrated in my Scouting experienced looked nothing like what I have seen described in the documents. Am I understanding you correctly?

×
×
  • Create New...