ThenNow

That is a knife twister of a thought. Ack! And, double Ack!

Legitimate "grousing" confirmed. Author's Note: The use of a term that also refers to a bird that flies loudly into your face when you flush it and subsequently make a feeble effort to get a bead on it is intended to be taken in the best possible way. It does not imply whining, rather intelligent objections based on analysis and personal experience.

Has anyone done a thorough review of the LCs (or BSA overall) on the various NGO/NPO watchdog sites to see how they rate? I just did a very quick look on Charity Navigator, picking LCs by random. There is a common denominator: lower ratings on "Accountability and Transparency." Each one was marked down for a lack of available Donor Privacy Policy, Audited Financials and Form 990s. I don't know about any of this, since I didn't bother to dig further. The same could be done on Charity Watch, Guide Star and BBB Wise Giving Alliance. All that aside, I've heard many here grouse about the very issue of juicy cuts and wine on the table and crumbs and scraps for foot soldiers and their critical field kits.

Thank you so much for posting this. Truly. Excellent interview. She has my vote to be the overseer of the new YPT!!!!!!!!

This is why I posted the excerpt from Scout’s Honor when we were discussing fraudulent concealment and AG investigations. I think the case against BSA is much stronger than diocese by diocese. Much. It appears so to me, anyway. Who were the National decision-makers during that Menninger Committee period and before? They clearly decided to withhold the data even from their own safety studies, much less the Scouting community and public. That is some gag-worthy smelly cheese in my book. If it happened then, into the 80’s, what went down prior?

C’mon now guys. Don’t make fun of me. Mama needs a new pair of shoes (and a yacht and an island and a fleet of cars, servants, penthouses in all cosmopolitan centers and…a new printer and technology consultant for her hubby).

Yup. That is what I've been told, as well. But, that is not to be taken as an agreement that the numbers given by the Ad Hoc Committee or BSA accurately reflect what the TCC discovered through the work of BRG. That's the basis for my "Where's the beef?" beef.

I hear otherwise. Maybe time will tell. Or not. "For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed," just maybe not on this side of the dirt nap.

Grazie Signore!

This, in a very hard, impossible to crack nutshell, is what (I think) most of us unwashed and lowly thought we had signed on to witness. I sure didn’t expect the Bass-O-Matic I find myself stuck in, waiting for the sketch to end with uproarious applause and a break to a word from our sponsors. I hope it’s not the Ginsu knife people. Out of the Bass-O and onto the chopping block with Julia Child...

Available on the proletariat side of the paywall?

I am sorry for what your council will be facing, having interfaced with you here. You’ve been supportive of me and victims, generally, at many turns. An NDA with National serves to reinforce one side of this discussion. Self imposed failure/unwillingness to disclose. I believe the point is, LCs are not compelled under the court’s watchful eye to maintain confidentiality. They are non-parties. So, I ask again, why are they being withheld from you folks, victims and the public if all is well with the numbers? The fact that BSA is imposing this gag order is worse than if Lcs were under court edict. It simply compounds the perception that there is something (more) to hide that may be damaging to the cause. That does not sit well with me as I’m sure it does not with others. I’m going to ask my reporter friends about it. EDIT/ADD: I’ve been on a number of non-profit boards and was and Exec Director of one. Granted, none of them faced anything like BSA has on its hands. Still, if there were financial statements floating about challenging our public representation of our financial condition (and our integrity) and we refused to cough them up, it would be bad on multiple levels, including with major donors. BSA donors may be different, all part of a tightly circled wagon train. I don’t know. As an Exec Director, I would have been pleading with the Board to allow them to be released, unless there was something hinky in Moneytown. More of my pocket change for the street poet.

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

If it’s appropriate, what is your claim exposure? If you already said, my apologies.

So, if all is buttoned and zipped, let’s see the BRG Dashboards. Small ask if they are mirror images or mere inches apart.

I assume you’ve referenced the BSA balance sheets. So love to see a side-by-side with BRG’s findings.

Right. I, for one, didn’t say anything about prosecutions. My point is, an exhaustive (or thorough) investigation and a nice five pound report revealing criminal activity is potent in its own right. I have no delusions of mass arrests and public trials in the town square. I will be as content as I am able to learn what happened and let the chips ahoy fall where they may. That’s how the cookie crumbles...

The Michigan AG might be able to fill us in at some point, as may any other state AGs who board the train. Gonna be inerestin’.

For the record, I believe he apologized and gave context for his “fear,” based on personal experience that created deep regret and it sounded like sorrow: “Fair points brother. It’s premature. I speak from personal sad experience where I wasn’t up to it and I let people down that I cared for. It’simportant that a man know his limitations.”

Are they going to lock and key the transcripts in the vault?

This is a question that sits like a bomb in my little brain so I try not to think about it and light the fuse. Has there been any research or analysis of the IVF, since it's the most accessible record, to determine how many or the ratio of arrests to reports of CSA? In the case I've researched the most which impacts my claim and implicates the SE, the parents were effectively asked to stand down and not press charges. Their one condition was being assured the perpetrator, an ASM and Institutional Rep for the CO, be barred from Scouting. Okay. I'm going to try not to think about it now and stave off the explosion. If you don't hear from me for a while, you'll know what happened.

Well, thank you. I’m honored. I try. I make myself laugh so at least I know one person is doing so with me and not just joining the gallery laughing at me. I don’t know about such things. I have no training, history or experience in the arena. From the grass level like a mouse on a battlefield, it looks highly complex and a game for giants. From 35,000 feet, it definitely looks a bit hanky. The behavior of attorneys at hearings is so disingenuous that it creates a sense of grand, absurd theater. I can only comment from the perspective I have and that’s what I did. Being “in the pocket of” implies more than just duped. It’s sounds like active complicity and being paid off. I think that’s inaccurate and inappropriate without proof of same. Dunno. That’s my opinion. I do love a good story of intrigue, skulduggery and back room dealing, so I very much welcome what more you can reveal of the facts. One of the things that most intrigues me about you, and it’s really only hinted at in your posts, is the background knowledge you seem to have in this area connecting the players. Would you do one of those “A Beautiful Mind” push pin and string walls connecting the dots? Who knows whom and works with these guys and is in cahoots with her and has a vested interest in their business and is an ally of this firm and goes to the Bohemian Club with his son and knew his father and they get kickbacks when this expert is hired and so on. Please?! There’s a map of players and history and connections in your bean that I REALLY REALLY want to see. I’ll pay cash on the barrelhead AND split the gate from my next 10 standup gigs. Don’t go looking at BMWs any time soon. Just sayin’.

I know I may sound like either an apologist or an evangelist for the TCC - nine guys chosen from among their peers via a thorough application and interview process - but I know a couple of the key guys. They are legit survivors, businessmen, family men and people committed to this process and their fellows. They have skin in the game and pounds of flesh, sweat and buckets of tears have been expended. They are not paid and I’m not sure how often they are thanked or receive praise. They have fought their tails off while working their own jobs and maintaining their relationships. I applied to be on the TCC and it was a blessing all around that I wasn’t selected. It has been grueling. So, I echo this post and second the motion. I now call the question and see all “yeas.” Let the record reflect that the motion passes without opposition. Next matter... NOTE: I received no compensation or special treatment for this review and it was not part of any promotion or rewards program.

If, and I restate IF, there is any truth in this, it will be painfully ironic. They push for deal to pay off loans and simultaneously facilitate millions of dollars in payments for their costs and expenses from the kitty because they were so critical to crafting the deal. I still don’t understand that part and I don’t think it will ever get through the granite that is my skull and into the gray matter. We’ve gone over this in a somewhat cursory and technical fashion, but is it just me? How does this make any sense to pay fees and costs to attorneys who have 60,000 contingent fee clients (40-50% worth) and from a victims fund at that?? Say it ain’t so and “What you talkin’ bout, Willis?!?

It’s only about the insurers wanting to delve into the claims aggregators, high speed POC generation and all. It grew out of Tim Kosnoff’s tweeting and the licking of his chops post. I was expressing my feelings on the claims generation issue and mentioned the smell. It’s a great post. I recommend it highly.