ThenNow

8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Once a settlement is reached, it strikes me that from a Scouting perspective there needs to be some energy spent on listening, understanding, and healing divisions and wounds.  During this time everyone of course wants to see what is best for kids and abuse victims - but there have also been a lot of hurt feelings.  It's important for the BSA to recognize that and work diligently to embrace those who were harmed through their involvement in Scouting.  

Do you truly think that’s at all likely, this side of the eventual dirt nap? From 95% of what I’ve heard here, other than from the good doctor, the national leadership might be, to quote Captain Barbosa, “disinclined to acquiesce to your request.” No? On the survivor side, I’m sure there is a sizable contingent similarly situated. From my rocking chair, if anything like that is to happen, BSA will have to contemplate, initiate, ingratiate and placate. Even for me, I don’t want to stick my hand (heart) out to someone and have them do a, “Thanks but no thanks. I’d rather not. It’s too complicated and I want to be done with this.” 

Does anyone know what million dollar marker the professional fee meter has now hit?

8 hours ago, MattR said:

I'm just curious, but from the victims in this, what helps? Does talking to other victims here help? Many pages ago someone mentioned a memorial. I've seen enough memorials and people crying at them to know they have power. A memorial sounds like a good idea to me. Has anyone raised that idea with the TCC?

Yes. 110%. I also think the distance of relative anonymity is a protection many of us need so we do not feel too exposed and threatened, though the threat may be hard to define or understand for others. Although I’ve been to “groups” for many of my issues, I’ve never had a therapist direct me to a support or therapy group for BSA sexual abuse survivors where we get to speak out mind and rant at current Scouters. I’m thinking about forming such a group, though.

One of the key differences here is the fact that we’re not dead. Most memorials are built on that premise, though they very much honor the horror that inflicted that death and the collateral pain and damage, as well. For many, it would be too much to bear. I think I would find it powerful for me. I can anticipate a real issue though. CSA is very unpleasant. Are people ready to honor those who’ve suffered such that they would go to such a place? If they didn’t, that would be another trauma layer (for me anyway). If something like this were created, maybe there needs to be one iteration fully public, maybe inclusive of all CSA victims but spurred by the BSA case, and another at Summit. 

8 hours ago, MattR said:

I had a scout make a walking meditation path as a memorial for his younger brother who died in an accident. He built it at a hospice. Anyway, it was one of the most impressive projects I'd ever seen.

That’s wonderful. We’ve helped build a butterfly garden at a treatment center for my wife’s cousin who took her life after years of waging war with addiction. These are very powerful things. I like the idea of a contemplative walk, perhaps with plaques along the way with quotes or things to pray and consider. Kind of like the identification plaques we had for plants and critters and tracks in our Nature Center and paths.

Yesterday afternoon I met with a young landscaping entrepreneur. He is impressive in so many ways. As I can’t help doing, I began asking all manner of questions, getting to know him, his background, his family, what drives him and the like. We got on to a shared story of loss. He and his wife lost their first baby to miscarriage. My wife and I lost our middle son, a twin, by full-term “umbilical anomaly.” (Nice way to say it.) He and a friend from his church want to put together a memorial for babies gone to soon, which is the phrase I like to use. I asked if I could help and we are going to connect to make it happen.

5 hours ago, Bronco1821 said:

 It was the only way I could bring myself to give details on my experience.  I couldn’t speak the words but having them written down was supposed to be easier. It was a little horrifying, part of the fun I have been having dealing with all the reemergence of memories.  Pure hell.

I’m sorry it was so difficult, but now she knows. There is good relational vulnerability in that. Well done. I should add that my wife has pretty much had enough of all my “stuff.” It’s been draining, expensive, exasperating and crushing for her. I don’t think she really wants or feels like she “needs” to know more than she does, though it’s precious little.

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

How would BSA continue to re-imburse for counseling? 

Trust account as part of the settlement. Makes perfect and total sense.

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

Think of it as an annuity. Every year another check. 

Like the birthday one I’ve been getting from my great aunt Millie every year since first grade? Sweet, crisp fin. Two weeks prior. Clockwork. 

21 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

She recently reminded me that I have been telling her about the abuse since we were first together.  

We’ve been married for coming up on 37 years and she’s heard very little about. She knew it happened and that it severely impacted me (and our lives), but that’s about it. No way I’m letting her read my POC. She doesn’t need a long shuffle through that not so little shop of horrors.

Add: I didn’t intend to imply I don’t admire and respect your ability to share it with her. Quite the opposite. 

18 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Going to start eating better so I live to see it.

One of the first things I asked when I started this process was regarding rights of succession.

1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Who are the additional parties?  Your (ex-) local council, or (ex-) chartered organization? A new official committee? An insurer? Or someone else?

The CO. 

2 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Chubb has a market cap of  only 75B; Hartford 25B. They are truly playing with fire now. 
 

Stupid is as stupid does. Just look at BSA. We may eventually see both Chubb and the Hartford in their own Ch 11’s. 
 

I sure hope they have adequate insurance for corporate blunders of that magnitude. 

Would that be D&O plus E&O? Could that external layer be tapped as a secondary source of their settlement funds? 

11 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Would you accept zero dollar payout in lieu of reimbursement for counseling?

I have no idea how that would play out. I can’t imagine it being healthy for a claimant to continue to need BSA to do anything for them. A trust would be a better way to go.
There’s also the broader question … What’s best for future CSA victims? My gut says a more robust federal mental health infrastructure.

No.

I still would like to know more about the timing and genesis of the counseling reimbursement program. I have a contact at the BSA who works with the counseling claims. Well, contacts. One is the attorney overseeing the program. I've yet to hear back from either of them, so they may be reluctant to say and/or don't know yet. There's nothing on this table that could qualify as nourishment for the soul. Healthy ain't on the menu. 

What's best to be done in this context that will serve future abuse victims in Scouting? In society overall? I think the best thing that can be done is the type of criminal investigation MI has launched, provided it gets amble air time. Let's get under the surface of this thing and see what we learn. Also, if BSA can elevate is YPT, that may be a tool for others to use, even beyond what is apparently done now. 

Separate question. I’ve asked it before, but the ensuing melee on other topics swallowed it up. Will the BSA continue to reimburse for counseling? I’m thinkin a bunch of us are going to need a bunch more for a bunch of years after this wraps.

28 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

There are cases that are "slam dunks."  Horrible acts of abuse, States with viable SOLs, complaints about the abuser that weren't pursued, you get the idea. 

On the more problematic and disheartening flip side, there are substantive claims destined for 3-pointers and blocked off the wrist flick. Aka, time-barred. I see the Trust valuation provisions allow the Trustee discretion to allow some such claims, regardless. Yes? I assume with a heavy discount factor. 

I’ve asked others this question and am still unclear. The burden of proof for claims is “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Obviously, I know what that means, but how will it apply? Since the Trustee can’t engage full blown discovery given the number and age of most claims, how does this trip out? Will abusers be dragged in to be examined? Can they be, as they should? What aspects of discovery will be used and to what degree? I guess without a direct comparison between this case and another, there is no complete answer at this point. Anyone of you folks with pelagic knowledge in this area willing to weigh in? Pretty please? Inquiring minds…

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I guess I’m downright certified, sanctified and verified?!

That reads way sarcastic. That wasn’t my intent. I was trying to say, “It ain’t one and done never more to be revisited or scrutinized for major and minor adjustments. Now is a good time. 

I don’t know anything about what Muttsy referenced re Jim Stang & Co. At this point, perhaps due to ignorance, I don’t have that cynicism. I would like to hear more about that, if you would, sir. 

38 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

If you have not seen it, take a look.  Note it may be triggering, it makes me feel very emotional and it is memorable and important information. 

I’ve been through it, per BSA volunteer requirements. I guess I’m downright certified, sanctified and verified?! (I thought it was good and recommended it to others I know who work in child advocacy.) Since being on this forum, I’ve learned of its limitations and things that can be done much better. Training, recertification, monitoring and reporting specifically. 

38 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The post confirmation trustee is charged with bringing actions to increase the size of the settlement pot. 

The bankruptcy court cannot and will not keep the case open for years to monitor whether BSA complies with whatever non-monetary provisions may be contained in the plan  

I’ve seen this before from Stang and other official committees. It’s all window dressing to get survivors to vote for a plan. Don’t buy it.

Precisely why I couched it in terms of “it” and “they.” If they don’t do all I suggested, shame is on them! Also, those non-monetary components were never on my radar. I’m in it for the money and public chastisement. I’m now onboard with the state criminal investigations. 

PS - Tongue slightly lodged in cheek on that middle part.

24 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I keep seeing individuals comment that BSA has to somehow guarantee this can never happen again. 

It can guarantee it will wholeheartedly accept and implement all YPT measures presented by the TCC to ensure they are doing everything possible to strive for zero tolerance. It can commit to never again engaging in baldfaced denial. It can commit to genuine transparency, aggressive enforcement and rigorous disclosure. In so doing, it will be showing it is serious about combatting CSA in Scouting.

Happy Father’s Day to all who carry that title, joy and burden. May you be blessed and appreciated (assuming you’re doing your job as best you can)!

4 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Service of Notice of Designation of Additional Permitted Parties Under Bar Date Order

This came from the court, I assume? Is it a perfunctory form notice or anything of substance and/or referencing some other filing? I’ve seen nothing to date.

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

All LCs have now been given by the Ad Hoc Committee a "bill" for how much each LC will have to chip in as part of the $500 million LC contribution.

LCs have until July 9 to vote to approve/disapprove the amount.

These are going out generally or to claimants based on whether their LC is agreeing to the the contribution? I’m keen to see what goes down with the closed state LCs.

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

 

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

I hope eyes have been opened and that things are learned from this. 

I hope so to. As has been said, we have a step forward and even that is just a “placeholder,” per MYCVAStory. BSA appears poised to exit along with LCs in some form or fashion, but they leave with something brand new. Yes, they can be secure in the channeling injunction’s protection of their back, and if they can implement that “full stop,” a reduced threat to the ramparts going forward. The 800 pound gorilla they inadvertently attracted is state criminal investigations. I think that trend is just getting started. When they gear up and start issuing reports, many more eyes will be opened and, perhaps, many jaws held agape. 

20 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I don't want this to come down only to money, like a nominal class-action settlement.  If they are allowed to continue on, I would like to see the BSA memorialize the victims as part of this process.  I'm not sure if that is a place I could visit or a portion of the Charter that acknowledges us and assures it could never happen again.   I'm not a veteran, but I have seen how cathartic the Vietnam Memorial has been to those who were touched by the war.  Maybe something somewhere.  I was looking for closure and see none.  Years after I had done my best to bury the damage, this process ripped open the wounds again.  And I feel empty.

Me either, but it was what was dangled before us and we were drawn out by it, hope against hope.

That’s a profound idea, but I regret it is highly unlikely. Who wants to “remember us” from here to whenever. Like the BSA, most really want this issue and wreckage to hide in a closet somewhere. It’s shocking to me that CSA is not a greater focus for our government and society. It’s uncomfortable and distasteful to contemplate too long. We, of all people, know what it feels like to stare it down. Maybe it’s something we could self-generate. I’m game. I think there’s zero percent chance BSA would touch it with a 1000’ pole.

So very well said, as to no closure and wounds reopened. Thanks for voicing it and being here to make it known. This is a big part of the story that has been resoundingly overlooked since 2.18.2020. I hope to tell it more fully one day. 
 

11 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

When this is all over, we can get back to discussing red shoulder loops vs green. 

Deal. Would someone please be prepared to explain to me who came up with the idea of a diver’s belt for boys who adventure around the water? Aka, Skill Awards. They were vexing then and it puzzles me still. Inquiring minds…

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

They used such poor words about promising those harmed being "equitably compensated". They should have said "equitable distribution of agreed to liquated funds". Doesn't quite have the same honor behind it. 

Agreed. Better to under promise and over deliver than the opposite. I believe they were totally naive in expecting a max of 12,000 claims. Honestly, they could’ve asked experts to explain to them that the potential was far greater. As an attorney, I would never have approved the release of that statement. Never ever. 

21 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I do feel for you and everyone who is a "stake holder" in the outcome. You guys especially, but it doesn't seem to really stop the turmoil for anyone, just a portion of it, no?

Thank you. I'll receive that on behalf of the others here. The issue is, in part, many of us had settled in with our life of therapy (or not) and managing our lives as best we could. This came out of nowhere and sent some of us back to square one or two...others had not reached that point and had to ramp up and face it out of the blue. Very tricky and I don't think many understand that, maybe especially the judge, given her passivity. Being "equitably compensated," as promised is as much about money as it is honoring the pain and fallout, as it is a number. Low numbers feels less so.

21 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is not clear where insurance stands.

My wife has spent her carrier in the high levels of insurance. When I told her I hoped this could be basically a wrap and handed over to the Trustee in a year, she looked at me and shook her head. "Not a chance." (Add) I suppose it will be handed over, but the insurance "battle" has yet to be waged.

21 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is not clear which LCs are in or out. If they are in, what if they can't come up with the funds? They declare bankruptcy? What about any key CO's. It seems like step 1 in a 5 step process or so. Gotta finish step 1 before step 2, but we are not yet at the final step. I guess the other part is that it is clear it is a multistep process. The BSA seemed to promote "this will be a 1 and done type of thing". It is now "this is step 1 of a many step, many year thing".

Dunno. I think key COs (and not so key) may be whistling in the dark and playing pin the liability on the CO, as applicable. So far, it doesn't appear they were invited to the party. Yes. At least we have a step, at long last.

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Wishing you the best. 

You may not be rid of me for a while. I may linger and cause trouble.