ThenNow

27 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am in California and the LC which I was part of has about 19 million in assets of which under the plan they are giving up about 3 million

Yeah. My home LC is broke, too. $30M worth of broke. 

Just watched it again. A few things that stood out to me when I was not so off balance and reeling:

* Stephen Crew, Esq. (CrewJanci) - These men are "haunted by who they would have been if this hadn't happened to them." I've wondered about that ghost who's been shadowing for 50 years. Good to have him identified.

* Jim Turley (Former Chair and CEO of Ernst & Young and Past BSA President) - When asked if BSA would be different culturally and operationally following the bankruptcy, he said, "I think the cultural changes around youth protection have already been made. We're not going to be more focused on this because of going through the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a process to compensate victims not a process of changing the characteristic of Scouting." Well, just ouch and holy guacamole. Thank GOD the first vote failed and the Survivor Working Group and TCC got a crack at rewriting what BSA had in that initial plan to "enhance YP." Their successful efforts to ensure enforceable changes both culturally and organizationally. Again, THANK GOD! 

* Paul Ernst (Former Keeper of the IV Files) - When it was put to him that he/BSA kept all the records confidential,  he responded, "Sure." When it was put to him that he/BSA didn't share the information with the public or even parents, he said, "Yes" that's "true." He continued, "Here's the thing. You don't give it out to the public. You don't tell people that this person has done something that will affect his job or his relationships with others and so forth. We're not the type of person that wanted to do that to an individual." What? Not even in corroborated and clearly convincing cases? As I've said, I and MANY OTHER BOYS would have been saved from early 1973 forward had the LC, including the SE, warned other local leaders, parents and Scouts AND specifically called out the behavior he knew was going on in our Troop that mirrored the IV case across town. He knew about the porn and the drinking and, based on his efforts to have sex with me when I was 18 (and possibly 17...it's fuzzy), he may well have been complicit. So, per Ernst, this was not just about the reputation of BSA but also the predators. If they had just identified the incident and described the grooming, etc., that would've helped. I now recall the abuser in the case I mention, the ASM and COR, was noted as "resigning for personal reasons" in the fine. Personal indeed. Ack.

* John Stewart (Uber Successful Brand Guru, Survivor and Past (?) Managing Director of Corporate Engagement & Sustainability and sounds like some other stuff in Global Scouting) - He put together in one sentence the abuse with the line that "Scouting prepares you for life." Hm. In his final segment, his only moment of emotion is when he said, "I'm confident Scouting will survive. I'm hopeful Scouting will survive." Odd juxtaposition in the course of his several segments where I found him sorta smug and self-promoting. Custom BSA saddles and silver medallions. Bad form to trumpet, IMHO. 

NOTE: Again, I am simply reporting some of what struck me the second time through the film.

/s/ Glutton for Punishment

10 minutes ago, Tron said:

I am literally telling you how the law works. No one needs to go back and read anything. It is really as simple as explained.

Q: Are you a federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy attorney that has worked on multiple large non-profit cases? Judge? Law professor? Paralegal? Clerk? WSJ Bankruptcy Pro reporter? Not poking, just asking. 

3 hours ago, ALongWalk said:

I think it was Glazer who said (paraphrasing) “I used to be a commodity trader. When you purchased a ship load of grain you knew that some of it would be bad. It was collateral damage of doing business. The BSA treats boys as commodities and they just accept that some boys will be collateral damage”.

That was Nigel Jaquiss, the investigative reporter who drove the project and is the featured on-screen narrator. 

5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

1. Can a bankruptcy judge research the debtor and creditor outside of court, view the documentary in this instance, or would that be considered prejudicial since there would not be an opportunity for rebuttal?

2. Could say the TCC request a court hearing to view documentary and allow the opportunity for rebuttals?

On 6/11/2022 at 8:13 PM, yknot said:

I just watched it. I think it's very effective from the standpoint of presenting the case to the public that BSA has covered up the child abuse scandal and that its corporate culture really hasn't changed. At one point towards the end of the documentary the National Director says the bankruptcy is about compensation for victims, and not about the BSA doing anything much different going forward. In his mind, they've already addressed most of the issues although he later says they will always look to improve. But for those of us hoping there would be some kind of meaningful reorganization, that apparently is not the corporate BSA view or goal.  The documentary takes a very quiet, measured, reflective approach to the topic, and it looks at systemic dysfunction within BSA as a whole, not just the abuse scandal. It doesn't come across at all sensationalized to me. The whole film has a very weary, sad feel to it that's very evocative. I have no idea how much attention it will get on Hulu but I think it's going to raise a lot of questions for the average person who views it. 

I just finished it 30 minutes ago and agree with every word in this post. Jim Turley did the BSA no favors and probably caused more damage. He put his foot up BSA's mouth all the way to his hip. Smug, defensive and revealing. I was very surprised at what he said and the way he said it. He did "better" on his last appearance. Though a survivor, John Stewart was smirking half the time and was filmed at what was apparently his horse ranch. He showed off his custom saddles with custom made silver medallions in tribute to BSA. His commentary about not having to take a pay cut to work for National was a jaw dropping bit of...I will refrain from what I want to say.

As to its impact on me, I was and am still disoriented to the point of feeling off balance and a bit nauseated. "The body keeps the score."

17 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Sorry you cannot see beyond the lines apparently, or simply choose not to...

Whatever; frankly this has carried on far too long

Again, apologies, but are you really saying that to me? You've read my posts and, frankly, it shocks me you would say that. Oh, well.

Commerce is dead. Film makers should be non-profits and make no money for their work product. Oh, wait. Hm. Isn't BSA a non-profit? No more charges for uniforms, camps, patches...

Yes. It has gone on far too long. My first summer camp started 50 years and one month ago today. You may recall, that will usher in the 50th anniversary of my first abuse. I'm not baking a cake or having a surprise party. Cards, letters, cash and well wishes NOT requested.

7 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Will review the Hulu option, but I will NOT pay for what appears from the intro to be a biased hit piece simply preying on people to make money.  IF they were to guarantee all their profits from this endeavor were to go to the Trust, I might have a different view. 

Oh, my. This is a VERY troubling, angry, reactive and clearly prejudicial statement sans confirmed facts. “Book. Cover. Etc.”  Who are you speaking of regarding disgorging profits? I find that very close to the line of utterly absurd. Are you indicting those watch the film? Want some money from Ron Howard and Brian Glazer? They have gobs of money. You have NOT even watched it. Are you interested in the truth? Truth requires humbly receiving and assessing all data. I came to this forum because I’m interested in that precious outcome and in contributing to it. This is troubling. Is an effort to understand others’ views worthless? $15 is a piece of pie and cup-o joe. Yikes…

10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected.  While her ruling will be the ultimate arbiter on that her decisions over two years in my mind have not been slanted one way in an egregious way.

100% agree. I didn't mean to suggest it had not balanced out, especially once the bar date passed and claims were tallied, and later as survivor letters started flooding the docket. 

3 hours ago, Tron said:

No I was shooting for this. Specifically point 3. Finally. If I, or someone of my same opinion on the matter were to have said this there would have been no upvotes and hoards of bellyaching comments. This is great, thank you.

You’re welcome, but no. No “finally” about anything. It’s been said before and the judge’s statements have been reported here via several previous posts, way back in the olden days.

You rebuffed someone and asserted, by implication, the judge is not interested in seeing Scouting continue. Or, at the least, she is ambivalent. Maybe you were trying to bait someone into saying #3? Not sure. I stated the facts. You seems to want to impute your opinion on others without stating it. Say what you mean and suffer the bellyache. I’m not sure what game this is, but I don’t think you’re winning. Personally, I’ve stated my feelings about Scouting, as in current and future, both here and by past actions. Some survivors don’t agree with me, which is fine. I honor them and their view.

What has been objectionable is people asserting there are two equally “victimized” camps here. One, CSA survivors, the other current and future Scouts. I am not asking or inviting further dialogue on that topic, just creating the historical context. 

50 minutes ago, Tron said:

Why would she care if the BSA stops to exist? The overwhelming majority of the program is volunteer and local based and something new without legacy issues will rise out of the ashes. 

Forgive me, but you're sorta shooting at a target in the dark and speculating where it is and what the bullseye looks like.

1. Because a good case has been made, including by many survivors. Ask the US Trustee what we said when we applied for the Tort Claimants' Committee.

2. Because she said so. Repeatedly. At one point it was so obvious I was objecting and wrote the Trustee about it. Survivors seemed a distant second, at best.

3. She strongly expressed her concern about the nearly 1M Scouts who are innocent in this and who find great value in Scouting. She did that out loud in open court. It's in the record.

50 minutes ago, Tron said:

I would say the reality Silverstein not wanting BSA to die is not about BSA but about the reality that the vindictive get the BSA at all costs BS that surrounds this case is vastly ignorant of the fact that if there is no pound of flesh to get, everyone gets nothing.

Again, ignores the facts and states facts (not at all) in evidence. I believe you're projecting a personal assessment and opinion onto the judge and into the fabric of the case, which I have been part of for almost 2.5 years.

ABC is the media collaborator on this project. In a recent release, the writer made the following statement. Not a quote, but still. The latter part is huge “Um, say what?!?!” If they think that and say it publicly, that’s a problem. The Coalition has sorta perpetuated this notion. Wonder where they got this idea or if they’re simply hyping the film.

The organization filed for bankruptcy in February 2020. Since then, more than 82,000 men have come forward with claims of abuse. The proposed reorganization plan for the BSA would include the largest sexual abuse settlement in history, even dwarfing payouts from the U.S. Catholic Church.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/ABC-News-Announces-LEAVE-NO-TRACE-Documentary-20220606

30 minutes ago, Tron said:

If we think she is massaging the ruling I would go with she is massaging it to make it bullet proof for an approval. Normally when judges reject stuff they stay as vague as possible because they want to see what is brought back to the table.

Is that in bankruptcy court? From what I've learned and observed being present and accounted for at nearly all of the hearings, it's quite a different animal.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I'm leaning to a plan rejection (as I don't think she can change the plan) but with a very carefully worded ruling that leaves the door open to a relatively quick fix.  She may be very specific on the sections she agrees with and the area(s) she cannot approve and why.  This could lay the groundwork for all sides to quickly address those issues in the plan and get to a plan approval.  That could be why it is taking months (as she wants to be very careful on how she words the likely rejection).

This is what I hear. Carve outs, do overs, "this issue is a no-go" and the like. If she is not essentially structuring and teeing up the do overs, this will be a mess me thinks. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't see this as her taking a summer break.  She kept court going for late nights and long days during the hearing to keep the plan on track.  I checked her calendar and is was pretty clear ... so I expect she is putting is some long hours on this ruling.

Yeah. Zero percent chance she's at the shore. This is too big, too time sensitive, too high profile, too costly to all concerned, and too complex to do anything other than slog through it. I wonder, does a judge get access to consultants, other than clerks? 

23 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now I look to BSA.  Our national leadership is completely absent from national media.  I have see no ability to get scouts highlighted at major events (how about the super bowl, NBA, MLB, NHL, PGA, New Years Eve, Oscars, etc.)   They, for the most part are absent outside dedicated scout stories (which are limited).  

Where are our Bear Grylls, Kate Middleton, etc. ambassadors?  Bear Grylls was named Chief Scout at 34.  Young, energetic, media savvy. 

While Twitter is definitely not the only method to measure social media footprint of our leaders, I think it isn't a bad metric.  From what I can see, Roger Mosby is the only one with an an account (in his name) and he has 14 followers.  Every leader in UK scouting has an account.  Jennie Price (their board chair) only has 113 followers.  The rest have over 1,000 each and many tweet about scouting frequently.

So... what impact does this have?  It gets kids and parents aware of scouting.  They realize it is a current activity .. not something from the 1950s.

20 hours ago, sierracharliescouter said:

Are you sure? Even if there isn't, why not create one? Do you really think none of the BSA alumni from the past 10 years have that ability?

18 hours ago, MattR said:

While a young, energetic, passionate person or people would make a great face to the BSA, I'd also like a young, energetic, passionate person as a president, CSE, or whatever the title should be. The bsa needs young parents attracted to the program.

Relative outsider here, but someone who did what there was to do in Scouting (as a youth) and went on after I turned 18. Many here know that story and I won't reiterate it. A few thoughts and questions:

1. Has there every been a national leader who has not come up through the ranks or who has a significant background in Scouting? I know the new GC was not a Scout or Scouter. 

2. Who is BSA's PR firm? Did they have one prior to the CSA litigation and, again, who was it? If you don't have some sort of "outside" media consultant not constrained by the leadership bubble of the "Scouting way," that's a huge red flag. I was ED of a medium size non-profit in the late 90's and we had a marketing firm and a PR firm. Also, they were current and not old school.

3. My atypical Eagle project was a marketing slide presentation promoting summer camp, generally. I conceived it, took the photos, produced, executed and deployed it within the LC. It was complete with script, followup instructions and other guides for presenters who took the show on the road. From what a recall it was a big success. I still have some of the slides that didn't make it on the carousels. No one had thought of it before that, as far as I know. I felt like we did a poor job of promoting all we had going for us, even then.

4. I was awarded my Eagle in 1975 (earned in 1974), left Scouting in 1979 and never heard from anyone - nary a peep or a post card - since. The first contact was when I sent a letter to the Local SE and Mr. Mazzuca in 2008 telling them about my abuse, including naming my SM abuser. I received no response. 

5. I reached out again in 2019 and was put on the LC Executive Board as a donor. When the Chapter 11 case started and my name was appearing in print media, I was no longer on the letterhead.

6. I have continued to be baffled by the lack of engagement, "getting out front," and reading things that are low hanging fruit as far as marketing, promoting and interfacing with the NON-Scouting world. Failure to engage and invite survivors into the YP conversation is one of the absolutely glaring gaffs. 

That's all I have, for what it's worth. BSA needs to unstick itself from the past on many fronts or risk dying in that very mud.

21 hours ago, PaleRider said:

he said he caught wind that the judge will not be making a decision untill the end of June.

Ack x ack. Was there any hint going to from whence cometh this foul smelling breeze? 

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

But aren't the LCs and COs covered by BSA's insurance, at least sine 1976? I know I was told that BSA insurance covered both when I was a DE.

You're talking about under the plan, regardless the before or after 1976, yes? IF they're not released, the stay of litigation including live and yet to be filed cases revert back to state courts for litigation and/or settlement. Defend, assert defenses, engage discovery of all types, wrangle through insurance coverage, and the like. In that scenario NOT that it's what's going to happen, it's an "all LCs and COs fend for yourself state of play. I could be wrong. I'm having an out of body day. (Nod to Dr. Strange.)

Apologies to the moderators if this is out of place, but I was attempting to answer the question. Ty.

22 minutes ago, Tron said:

So as far as I know, the local council here has been legally found absolved

That's what I figured. Nope. No absolution via release from liability unless and until the plan is both approved by the bankruptcy court and then blessed by the District Court. It could all crumble, especially the release of Local Councils and Chartered Organizations. Could being operative. I think Judge Silverstein knows full well what would happen if the third parties are not release. Regardless, I don't understand why National does such a poor job of keeping local Scouting apprised. Maybe they do and I just don't see/hear it.

22 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

“The Heart of Virginia Council’s share of the collective survivor trust fund is just over $2 million, due this month,” wrote Heart of Virginia Council Executive George McGovern in a May 12 letter. “The HOVC Board of Directors has identified the Albright Scout Reservation, one of HOVC’s assets, as a means to that end.”

Riddle me this: What happens if the Chapter 11 global settlement whittles down to the BSA only, Toggle Plan? Did the real estate attorneys for any of these LCs factor in the prospect of retraction or delays in closing, pending the completion of the case? My assumption is, no, since no one expected it to go on this long ON TOP OF most LCs being repeatedly told, "All is well. You're fine. Scouting continues. You're not in bankruptcy, your money won't be needed, no camps will be sold..."

Also, what is the mechanism for delivery the cash and is it all going into a sequestered escrow with the court?

I was just about to paste it...D-2.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf

"Missed it by THAT much." (Nod to Get Smart)

11 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

there is a link to a court document that lists 2 to 3 appraisal prices

May not be what you referenced, but the TCC's LC digits are here, which include properties. https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis

Just now, johnsch322 said:

So does anyone know what the real value of the camps and property owned by the LC's?

Appraised value, market value, tax roll value, value after variance and rezoning...?

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Who knows ... but 53+ days is a long time.

What’s the Chapter 11 record? We might as well set another while we’re at it, eh? 

How many days out from the conclusion of the trial are we at this point? All I know is I have a Rip Van Winkle beard and a nasty crick in my neck.

Why didn’t someone do this proactively? Several Scouters were talking around this idea a year (or so) ago.

While I honor and understand this man’s concern, if we took this direction most churches, schools, man youth programs/venues and millions of homes would be shuttered.

Joe, a victim who did not want his last name used because his family is unaware of his experience, was abused by his scout master starting at the age of 8 in the 1970s at a Connecticut camp that was sold years ago to make way for housing on Candlewood Lake. He’s not sure he wants people camping on land where scouts were once abused.

“I don’t have those warm feelings about those places,” he said. “It’s almost like ‘Poltergeist.’ Do you want your house on land where those things happened? So, I don’t know what to do with those places.”