Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    2594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 58 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    Serving on a non-for-profit organization's board carries a responsibility that is often underappreciated by board members. I think it is absurd that the professional staff would deny requests from the council executive board to seee detailed internal management reports. It is simply not supposed to work that way.

    Having been Executive Director of an organization with a couple $100M annual net revenue, there was a working board and an executive/advisory board. The latter was a list of people willing to be named on the stationary and included on marketing materials. Nothing more. In my involvement with other working and advisory/executive boards, the level of involvement was up to the member. Very very few advisory/executive boards did anything, except for my limited BSA LC experience. Maybe a press statement or appearance at a gala. Reticence or refusal to allow access to decisions and numbers, however, would not have been tolerated, especially by major donors on the executive board. That’s just stupid and self-defeating, in addition to bad business practice.

  2. 10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

    those representing the TCC and Zalkin group who have a long history of serving victims in STATE courts as well where they have filed cases. 

    I don’t know the details, but am aware of this, generally. If you know some specifics, many have no clue that the TCC works hand and glove with a passel of the best, most experienced and most committed child sexual abuse attorneys on the planet. Well, that’s what been briefly stated in Town Halls. Any info to help understand this would be appreciated. Inquiring minds want to know.

  3. 4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    PS - Dated, but it has a flowchart.

    Edited 1 hour ago by RememberSchiff
    Let's be more scoutlike in our language. Edited - RS

    If it was the Southernism, my wife is from the South. Coincidentally, kids went to school in NC, MS and Alabama x2 and one lived in Texas for four years. That’s the one who went to undergrad in MS. He says what I wrote about pretty much anything he really likes, especially food and things that go *bang*. Maybe that was it? Not sure if you’re from, have had many occasions to be in or are well acquainted with folks from the South, but it’s a common phrase. Dunno. 

  4. 30 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    I was an altar server for nine years and quite serious about the faith as a child. I began questioning as a senior in high school

    Same. I decided fairly early on, as in third grade at the latest, I wanted be a priest or an attorney. There’s logic behind that, but I’ll spare you. Other factors influenced my thinking. I bailed on the priesthood when I went to pre-Seminary in 7th grade. I made a hasty retreat after one overly ‘playful’ group shower with a young priest, and all that appeared to indicate. I was already in Scouting with all the mess that involved.  

     

    34 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    I found it disgusting that this priest appears to have been transferred to another parish in the diocese each time he committed a crime.

    I have distant cousins, one of each side of my family, who were convicted child sexual abusers. I knew about the priest years ago. I just found the Scouter two days ago. A very unpleasant discovery as I scoured the IVF from my home state. 

    36 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    Since the barriers to abuse in Scouting were low, the movement attracted those with a propensity to carry this out. In contrast, the Catholic Church simply relocated offenders and provided them fresh opportunities to abuse other children. The church treated these children as collateral damage associated with employing a priest.

    Two things:

    1) With all I know about sexual abusers and predation, from experience, treatment, therapy, I honestly believe there may have been a degree of coordination between Scouting perpetrators. There are just too many indicia throughout the files and stories I know. Methods, grooming techniques and even language associated with camping and Scouting are eerily similar; and

    2) I realize the Church transferred, which is unconscionable and BSA had less than robust ability to track. However, many cases illustrate how easy it was for Scouters to go abuse boys in another city or county. There are testimonies of guys talking about how easy it was for them. Lack of adequate means to search can’t be a basis for exoneration or rationalization. I’m not saying you are, just making the point.

    • Upvote 1
  5. 18 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    I don't know whether rates of abuse in the Catholic Church is a good predictor of abuse in the BSA. First, Catholic priests who perpetrated abuse were routinely reassigned to other parishes. Scouters who perpetrated abuse were made ineliible to continue volunteering. That single factor should have made abuse less common in Scouting than in the Catholic Church. 

    Yeah. Not what I was saying. I was asking if anyone could find/run numbers on the RCC cases. Even if priests moved, so did Scouter abusers, for a good number of years. I was just trying to isolate to find a  comparative number for the extrapolation. Imprecise, but I would find it interesting and possibly enlightening, regardless the outcome. I don’t presume to know how it would shake out.

    18 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    Of course, Scouting may have provided more opportunities for abuse given that troops typically camp overnight monthly. But how do you measure it?

    We had this tennis match eons ago on this forum and I did my best to make the case that Scouting is a far more broad, deep and sheltered field for  child sexual abuse. Raised Catholic to the extent that the only non-Catholic education I had was undergrad and a masters in my old age. I was also extremely involved in all manner of youth activities. Add up all the element of opportunity for abuse across and those activities and the fall well short of those available in historic Scouting. Others disagree, but I’m right. Take my word. I was first abused at my first Summer Camp a couple months after I signed up. 

    18 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    The CDC estimates 16% of boys are sexually abused. That perccentage is widely quoted. If we assume it's reasonably accurate and apply it to the BSA's number of youth members estimated to still be living, I think we get a number much larger than 82,000.

    Yup. My point exactly. Still, as you say, how do we know? We also know sexual abuse within families has always been highest. 

    18 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    I don't think a number approaching 82,000 was even in their worst-case sceanrio projections.

    Agreed. If they had asked CHILDUSA and other child advocacy organizations, they could have disabused them of that notion. Big time. Tim Kosnoff, even. 

    • Upvote 1
  6. 33 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    I think those who initially thought this could be made to go away by the end of 2020, failed to recognize the emotional element attached to the claims of the survivors. They didn't realize that this is not just about the money.

    Staying with the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal comparison, not to mention USA Gymnastics and others, do they not follow the news? #metoo? Didn’t realize “this is not just about the money”? Say what?! That would be supremely boneheaded beyond compare.

  7. 37 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    So BSA knew about 275-285 lawsuits against it and another 1500 claims (maybe) for a total of 1700.

    MAYBE they figured a multiplier of 10x (17000 claims), not 48-50x (82,500).

    Here are a few questions for the research team:

    1) How many Catholic boys might one cipher were in a particular Diocese that went Chapter 11 over child sexual abuse claims;

    2) Next, how many boys filed abuse claims in that case, maybe New Mexico;

    3) Next, how many boys have been in Scouting since inception;

    4) How many abused Scouts and abuser Scouters were identified in the released IVF; and 

    5) How many of each might one speculate were purged before that; and

    6) How many victims does the average child sexual abuse predator have in their period of active predation?

    Now, someone mathy extrapolate the comparative numbers and do the calculations. I am very curious to see even some ballpark data.

  8. 44 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Those efforts involved several meetings with attorneys representing many abuse victims, including a two-day mediation in early November 2019. The mediation was attended by a prepetition future claims representative and some of the BSA’s
    insurers. Unfortunately, the mediation was unsuccessful. It became apparent that attorneys for abuse victims believed that certain Local Councils with significant abuse liabilities have significant assets that could be used to compensate victims.

    Precisely:

    1) Several meetings, including a two-day mediation; and

    2) “it became apparent that attorneys for abuse victims believed certain Local Councils with significant abuse liabilities have significant assets that could be used to compensate victims.”

    They knew it was a specter, even if limited. Did they tell the open states they would need to cough up?

  9. 20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Even now, councils need to be careful.  I would think their messaging should flow along the lines of ...

    If I were any anywhere near the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, I would have sent that script almost verbatim, save for fleshing out few bullet points. Honestly, I was musing about that very thing last night. Forgive me, but from a messaging and PR standpoint, not to do so is a very boneheaded thing to do (not do). It also does not help this process. By putting their feet in their mouths, as some are, it adds to our concerns about their lack of engagement, sincerity and contributions. They need to know some of us measure every word they say. I’m happy to use stuff against them when I go to the Settlement Trustee, but good grief. 

    • Upvote 2
  10. 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Because when this all started National was thinking a few hundred or many a few thousand cases or claims. Not 82,500 claims.

    Regardless, I know of no one on the victim claimant side who intended to give LCs a free pass to financial exoneration. None. That was clearly the intent. You’re saying National didn’t know that after who knows how many pre-filing talks with state attorneys? (I don’t think you are. It’s rhetorical.) I doubt it very much. Neither here nor there, at this point, but I respect and feel badly for the honest, earnest and committed Scouters who’ve had to take that dagger in the back. 

  11. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    So I saw someone recently try and list all the known payout places.

    Greater New York Council = $9 million
    Dan Beard Council = $4 million
    Theodore Roosevelt Council = $3,989,485
    San Diego Imperial Council = "around $2.5 million"
    Grand Canyon Council = "just over $7 million"
    Greater Hudson Valley Council = $6,367,834.84
    Bay-Lakes Council = "just under $3 million"

    If you go back and read all the post filing announcements from LCs about being untouched, unscathed and uninvolved in the Chapter 11, they are pretty revealing about how National runs this operation. I just did that and the delusion ran deep. I was told from the jump there was no chance they wouldn’t be pressed to contribute or many would be in court soon after discharge. How does that happen, I mean seriously? If some/any were successfully sued prior to filing, that’s a pretty clear indication of liability or exposure at the least.

  12. 9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    If your council tells you "We cannot due to an NDA" point out that those councils did and that therefore clearly the NDA is no longer an issue.

    Add Bay-Lakes to your reference list, as well, since that big reveal ended up here a couple days ago.

    I was also told that there is a Sept. date set at which time the entire list will be released. Any who can, please confirm, deny or slap me down.

    • Upvote 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
    38 minutes ago, David CO said:

    It is even better than painless for the guys at the top.  This bankruptcy is their dream come true.  When BSA comes out of this bankruptcy, the big shots will have more power than ever.  

    Do you have particular names that are part of this conspiracy theory or is this just a general “they” and “them”?

    If you guys are going to go at it, please give me five minutes to make some popcorn. Be right back...

  14. 5 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

    This is what was generating current operating income for them, though, so they will need to make that up. With falling membership, I assume that means to cut staff? Could that be $150,000 of annual income? 

    From what I understand, not a lot. They weren’t tapping it for anything like that amount. 

    No cutting staff. They’re good.

    • Confused 1
  15. 4 minutes ago, swilliams said:

    Could someone please clarify where LCs stand with regard to the NDA?  I received an email from ours finally admitting they will have to pay, but claiming they aren’t allowed to tell us what the contribution is.  

    See my post of Cynical’s post above. Sorry for the butchery. Cut and paste is too gracious a description for what I do.

    • Thanks 1
  16. 17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
    18 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    Also, what's this continuing claim of a confidentiality muzzle when we all know it's been lifted?

    I think there's two different confidentiality items here:

    1) "We can't tell you the number" is one. THAT has been lifted but some councils are still pretending it is binding. The fact that so many councils have released their numbers proves that's a fib.

    2) "We can't tell you because we are in negotiations to sell local properties" is another that may be in play. Look at the language here.

    Quote

    Because of confidentiality requirements, we cannot at this time provide exact details of how we will fund our settlement contribution, but we promise to do so as soon as plans finalize and confidentiality restrictions are lifted.

    In other words, the NUMBER is no longer confidential, but HOW the LC will pay may be if there's a deal being struck in the background

     

  17. 7 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    We have already seen councils come out and say ... we don't have to sell camps, touch program funds, your donations, etc.  That is great news for current scouters and scouts.    My point is that this messaging is terrible for the claimants from those specific councils and I wonder how it could influence voting or lawyers representing those clients on the deal.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have learned what my LC is contributing and I am not happy about it. I understand this is a process and it is bankruptcy, not state court. As has been said, no one is going to be “happy” at the end, unless there is a Chapter 7. Then, Tim Kosnoff has a phat yacht party with a massive fireworks display, complete with flaming effigies. Back to the point, it hurts to see and feel such a relative incongruity between the injury and the “penalty.” I know for a fact that some LCs were surprised and pleased by the number they were given and easily found the money. They were prepared to go much more deeply into their cash and assets. From a messaging perspective, that was stupid to say, but now it’s out. 

    • Upvote 2
  18. 7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless.

    Um. I think you sliced well wide of the pin. Bay-Lakes Council takes its $2.9M from it’s interest and dividend portfolio and that is that. “Spit, spot,” as Mary Poppins would say. As to their contribution, not so painful. Others are having their entire contribution paid by donors. True. Others have donors standing in the wing to replenish the fund once the case is over. True. From a victim claimant’s standpoint, and that is what we were talking about here, that doesn’t seem to match the “crime.” (No one freak out. I’m using a phrase that is relevant and applicable to some of us.) Finally, we’re talking largely about perception, remember, though there is plenty to evidence this being pretty darn easy for some. For others, very painful. I get it. For most us? We stand in the “others” line. 

    /s/ <Half A. Clue

    • Upvote 2
  19. 20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Only if the victims hear about it en masse.

    Back to the weird movie. That doesn't feel so good on this end of the stick. How many guys would even know to watch for an announcement from their LC? Not many. The first they'll see is the disclosure. 

    I'm not trying to tank the process, it just goes to how wonky it is trying to resolve mass torts in Chapter 11. "One of these things, is not like the other. One of these things, just doesn't belong..."

  20. 12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I wonder if council after council, coming out, stating how painless this will be could impact the voting on the plan.  

    Reference my reaction to the announcement you shared about taking a $3M slice off the stock portfolio. For me, that was irritating, regardless the number of claims or Shade of Gray. For those 155 guys and especially the 5 with live claims, that has to be painful. My thinking, anyway.

    • Upvote 1
  21. 4 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    Their intention was to give reassurance that none of the camps would need to be sold and to praise those who had made good financial decisions on behalf of the council in the past, which put the council in a position to meet its obligations.

    At the time of the call, they were not permitted to disclose their share of the amount in the RSA

    Got it. (It's still a very weird movie...)

  22. 6 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    They said they could not tell us the number, but we should be prepared to hear a very large amount reported in the media in the near term.

    "Honey, we're going to have a huge tax bill this year. Watch my Facebook posts over the next few days for the amount. I promise, we shouldn't have to sell your car or wedding ring."

    As a relative outsider, this is a very weird movie. I shoulda checked the Rotten Tomatoes before I bought it. 

    • Haha 1
  23. 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    In other words, the NUMBER is no longer confidential, but HOW the LC will pay may be if there's a deal being struck in the background

    Yeah, yeah. ;) I know. But they be talking to the peeps who are footing the bill, in the moment and going forward. The honest thing is to say, "We are required to contribute $1.3B, but are still in the process of determining how to convert the Pollock, Klimt, deKoonig and Picasso into cash. Stay tuned." Something like that.

×
×
  • Create New...