ThenNow

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Note I still expect a large number of yes votes.  I think a lot of people will just listen to their attorneys and the coalition is telling them to vote yes.  Plus, all who signed over power of attorney to coalition lawyers will be yes votes (unless they take back that power of attorney). 

My recollection is, the all encompassing numbers tossed about by both AIS and the Consortium that shall not be named have far fewer clients who signed up and gave them powers to act. Anyone know the numbas? I realize the are still seeking POAs, but there were some stats used to refute their previous assertions that they could deliver the votes on a platinum platter.

51 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Ken Rothweiler’s

The Ken Rottweiler of champagne wishes and caviar tears fame? 

TK, if you’re lurking, please feel free to appropriate that line. In all due disregard for modesty, it’s a beaut! It deserves some legs beyond this forum. 

55 minutes ago, Rabid said:

Just got an email from AIS recommending I vote yes. Repeatedly.

I understand completely if not, but if you would be willing to share any elements of the argument, beneath and between the begging, I would be grateful. I’m grasping to understand how they are building, supporting and sustaining their mantra that this is “the best we can do” and “there’s more to come, pinky swear.” I understand the Consortium that shall not be named is gearing up for an internal dog and pony show. If only I had a ticket. Where is my invisibility cloak when I need it? Meh.

46 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

CynicalScouter needed a timeout. His behavior was abusive, even if I agree with his points more often than n

You all know CS and I are pretty much in agreement. When not, I reply. Even I felt buried by the speed, high volume and intensity that was being generated, fostered and perpetuated. And, I noted it and asked for a step back and a deep breath. That said, some of the mostly interpersonal, unresolvable conflicts of opinion between select individuals become a recycling of things already said many times, just with increasing volume. Granted, new people enter the conversation all the time, but I’ve found myself wanting to ask people to go shuffle off to DM or request the moderators designate some discussions UCBP (Unresolvable Conflict Between Posters). I have no clue how they do their task and don’t want to try or learn. I would be known as the Red King, if you get my point, er, blade’s edge.

28 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The simple answer is no as that information is not mine to release.  As a board member who knows that we have to raise the money to operate the council every year, the TCC is not reasonable.  The restricted accounts are truly restricted as we have never spent them except for the purposes for which they were given.  The current agreement will be damaging but the TCC proposal will end in bankruptcy soon.

Please explain. I get the “not [yours] to give,” but your Council is free to release, compare and rebut, no? It’s hard to feel good about refusing disclosure while saying, “They are clearly wrong” without allowing anyone else the ability to see, assess and come to their own conclusion. Simply, it looks like hiding and hiding usually means something is damaging in the report. Just me? 

16 hours ago, gpurlee said:

I hope that more fully addresses and clarifies my comments. Thanks for asking.

 

Ok. I slowed down and calmed down in the wake of my insomnia. I was mistaken and have now read back through and got it. Apologies for two misfires. Thanks! Much obliged. 

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Can you share your Council's dashboard as prepared by the TCC and demonstrate the fault with it

Yeah! Hey! What he said! I’ve been beating this drum for many months. Glad someone found that log I tossed in the woods after my arm gave out. 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Please understand that there are those of us who wish to see Scouting to move forward with the knowledge that we must make it more protective and must compensate the victims.   For me, I see the TCC as unreasonable and unrealistic.  

I know everyone didn’t watch last night. I did. Though gravely disappointed that Dr. Kennedy didn’t give an encore recitation of his feelings on the Hoover Plan, many things were said. John Humphreys, the TCC Chair, made a simple but important point, which goes to my baseball card analogy posted on one of these threads. To paraphrase, “Which one of us goes to by a car and says, ‘Hey! I’ll take it!’ after being shown the sticker price? None of us. We want to reject that ‘offer’ and get to the good old back and forth with the finance manager. That’s what this is, folks.” (John is the guy who says, “folks” and Dr. K the one who says, “gang” just for future reference. This will help you not confuse one with t’other. You’re welcome.)

On my class action case, we sat in one court room and the defendants and their battalion of attorneys sat in another. We had a runner going back and forth pretty much for 8 hours as we batted the ball back and forth. We’re looking to counter here, folks. You feel me, gang? Our turn to serve. 

51 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

This is the summary of the process as explained to us:

Sorry to hear about the family emergency. I hope all is and are ok.

Here’s where this took hard left turn. We’re in a Chapter 11. Creditors, like us, are called “claimants.” We filed “Proofs of Claim.” You used the word “claim” when talking about allegations of YP standards, not allegations or reports. As written, I interpreted that to mean, I think correctly, that you were speaking with someone who had reviewed “the claims,” as in the POCs in this Chapter 11. I think it’s safe to say I wasn’t the only one who chased the ball into the pond, but perhaps I was. All of questions were driven by that word “claim.” Now I think I follow. If you were talking with someone at National or a LC who is reviewing our claims and giving you some measure of information, that’s another matter and what got my attention. Quick like.

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Sorry if someone has mentioned it but TCC Town Hall tonight.

I’ll join in if someone will guarantee me that Dr. Kennedy will reiterate that succinct, three-word summary of his thoughts and feelings on the Plan. I found it concurrently refreshing, illuminating, motivating, captivating and sleek. Efficiency of language. Perfect phrasing. Emphatic vocalization and enunciation. No words minced. No breath wasted. I mused on my first exposure to Hemingway. I’ll tune it just to see if we hear it again. 

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Please define, identify, explain and/or comment on:

1) “for the most part;”

2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?;

2)“told” and “by individuals reviewing the claims,” as in who, what, how, why, and under what degree of authority, confidentiality and right to disclose?”

3) on what basis are they (those individuals who did the telling) determining “without any review or vetting?”and

4) how are they defining and or determining failure to state an “apparent act of abuse of violation of a youth protection guidelines.”

Please and thank you.

 

As to reporting to law enforcement, what follow up there and are the names abusers aware of whether they have been reported?

Ditto the issue re law enforcement, which create and entirely different issue. 

Gah! Sorry for that sloppy post. Was doing three things at once, per usual. 

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Presumably to help clarify: 2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?;

Roger that, but the original post to which I posed questions was only about those accused of abuse. Someone 1 spoke to Someone 2 who told Someone of the first part that Someone of the second part they had reviewed POCs submitted by parties of the third part who had filed claims accusing parties of the fourth part of child sexual abuse. I was wondering if said Someone 2, aka, the party of the second part, indicated if said parties of the fourth part’s immediate addition to the list was accompanied by a simultaneous report to law enforcement. That’s what they’ve been telling us. I do recognize and acknowledge the slimy incline about which you spake. The insider information is what is intriguing and there is shadow cast upon my ponderer by the discussion surrounding this clandestine exchange of potentially confidential information. I found my Cub Scout flashlight so I will be okay in the relative darkness until the 52 year old battery is sapped of its life force. 

4 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@ThenNow  Remember, people can be removed for many actions.  Perhaps

I didn’t forget. From what comment of mine are you jumping off and into this post?

8 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

And that is a concern with the present bankruptcy claims. For the most part, the persons named as an abuser in a claim were automatically removed immediately from Scouting without any review or vetting of the claim. This is done to attempt to ensure youth protection. I have been told by individuals reviewing the claims that this occurred even in cases where the claim states no apparent act of abuse or violation of a youth protection guideline that was in place at the time of the alleged incident.  And this is an additional concern when there are allegations that some of the claims may have been altered in the solicitation and submission process.

Please define, identify, explain and/or comment on:

1) “for the most part;”

2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?;

2)“told” and “by individuals reviewing the claims,” as in who, what, how, why, and under what degree of authority, confidentiality and right to disclose?”

3) on what basis are they (those individuals who did the telling) determining “without any review or vetting?”and

4) how are they defining and or determining failure to state an “apparent act of abuse of violation of a youth protection guidelines.”

Please and thank you.

9 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Persons who request a review are simply sent a response stating that while this may seem unfair, there is no approved review process at the present time.  

9 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

once the bankruptcy process concludes, there may well be a lengthy backlog of cases in which a review has been requested.

As to reporting to law enforcement, what follow up there and are the names abusers aware of whether they have been reported?

10 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Courts have held in some previous decisions that while the BSA can develop and apply their own membership standards, individuals do have a right of review and due process.  But the BSA can use its own review process and committee to review the process. 

Ditto the issue re law enforcement, which create and entirely different issue. 

Couple of youz here already know my home LC. Just received a donation solicitation with a very large “up to” match cap. It begins. “Our contribution commitments have been made and locked in (or so we think), now let the donations resume!” None too subtle, says I.

35 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

@ThenNow perhaps I'm dense, I'd read it like a potential comp if I was on the plaintiff side. Maybe it's because my job involves writing policies and making sure there isn't a way to misinterpret them, that I instinctively look for "How can this be misunderstood?" 

I don’t think you’re dense and I get it. My example was the best I could do for oversimplification. The message he’s trying to communicate is: “This isn’t good enough and we can do better. See what they’ve gotten?” Also, when we’re told upfront that we all will be “equitably compensated” - though that was made in complete darkness, ignorance, as well as ill-advised from a PR and legal standpoint - they said it. Loud and clear. It was the clarion call for us to file claims. If we point to larger settlements to get the “RETURN TO SENDER” message out, I don’t think anyone is thinking that’s what I’ll get. Honestly, will most people (reasonable or not) think BSA is gonna come up with $1M per after offering $57,000? If so, they’ve been listening to Coalition Radio, PL5.0 on their AM dial too much. “Spinning lollipop dreams and speculation 24/7. And, remember kids in Radioland: When you say, ‘Yes!’ we say ‘Cha-Ching!’.”

14 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

One of the saddest things I have ever read, particularly considering it is written in the context of a "principled" youth organization's failure to protect children.  Particularly with respect to an organization that has a mandatory religious declaration component.

I think I’m know to be a person faithful to acknowledge and recognize statements, like yours, that are (to use a terribly diluted word that needs to be reclaimed) precious. This is one of the huge missing components of BSA’s approach to this matter and us. I know. I know. I’ve yammered as much as anyone about imaging and wordsmithing before making statements, but a tear or three wouldn’t have done anyone additional “damage” to reputation or exacerbated already obvious culpability and liability. That is one reason we wept during Mr. Johnson’s statement. A tough, battle-tested former police officer was not only willing but did publicly exhibit sorrow, remorse, regret, empathy and vulnerability. That is the very first time I’ve seen, heard or read anything remotely resembling that posture, delivery and affect from anyone affiliated with Scouts, save some present company. So, thanks, even though you were affirming an unpleasant and, to some, deniable reality. 

20 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

but telling folks it'll be like the MSU settlement when it mathematically cannot makes the victims more likely to reject a deal when "the best deal possible" is on the table. 

I don’t read a settlement number from another sexual abuse case as telling anyone “it’ll be like” that amount. I understand you’re (likely) saying it will be misinterpreted. Perhaps. Perhaps people are not as dense as assumed. (Not saying that you are.) If my son was selling his baseball cards and I know one is worth $20, and we could trade it for $18, if another boy offered him $4, I’d say “You know, Jimmy got $24 for his in worse shape, with the right buyer on a good day. I recommend you reject and counter offer.” I think that is all brother John is saying. “Look at that value (as perceived and as established by the comp’s) and ponder what’s being offered. It ain’t enough. Let’s make them come back to the table and we’re going to set the menu this time.”

51 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I just want the complete story if we are to hand the dirty laundry, and that should include the dirty laundry of the scammers and victims of the era

Clarify, “the dirty laundry” of “scammers and victims...,” please? Especially interested in the latter. Thank you.

31 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Just understand that the typical claimant is not as informed as you. They'll see that 1 million per and think that's what they can get. It's setting them up to be disappointed. 

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $65,000 or $80,000 or whatever, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

56 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If a new RSA were to be proposed that requested a larger contribution from the councils, the Ad Hoc committee would have a meeting with representatives of all the councils where they would present analysis of the new RSA.  At that point, it could be rejected or taken to the individual local council executive committees.  If the executive committees pass it, then it goes to the full board for approval.  

There are minimal time requirements to call a executive committee meeting that are usually a few days.  Then minimal notification time requirements to call a full board meeting.  So the process will take a few weeks minimally.  
 

In the ZoomZoomZoom (sorry, Mazda) era, why so long? Internal noticing requirements with LCs, etc.?

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

TCC Letter is well done.  Succinct.

I was disappointed it didn’t say, “This Plan sucks,” in the banner nor was Dr. Kennedy’s footnote included, “And, by the way, this Plan sucks.” It was good, though. Just coulda used that little punch up, ya know?  

26 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Any time a scout was exposed to or imposed upon something of a sexual nature that was unwanted by the scouter. That would include being given pornography where it was given for the pleasure of the giver (wanting to see the reaction). I cannot get graphic here.

Per this case (POC and current Plan), “making and showing pornography” is defined as “”child abuse.” That also holds true for definitions used elsewhere.

In my case, pornos were tossed in the tent on my first camp out. He was broadcast grooming every boy there. Showing 10 year old me what was in that first magazine is child abuse. There are images I saw 55+ years ago, shown to me by his brother who shamed me into looking at them, that I’ve never been able to exorcise from my brain.

19 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Then I thought, wait, tying them together has to break some kind of YP or GSS policy. 

Don’t tell me that game is verboten like dodgeball?!