ThenNow

15 hours ago, qwazse said:

One of the abuse survivors who took the time to tell us on his story on this forum told us about how his SM was super meticulous… to the point of bringing a ruler to measure patch placement on uniforms. That struck a nerve with me because I had a stickler of an SM when it came to language or bad behavior, but when it came to uniforms, he gave the inspection sheets to the SPL, whose responsibility was to read it and rate us. If my old-school-as-it-got SM was not inserting himself into the nitty-gritty of uniform inspection, nobody’s SM should have been.  It’s now on my list of red flags.

That be me. I'm calling making this connection a "good get" on your part. He was all about him and how things looked and projected on "his Troop." How we presented and performed was a huge part of his identity. As to Mr. Pink Shirt Hater, I say the same. All about how he thinks this "looks" to others who see one of "his" kids wearing a PINK shirt. Pah-lease. "No Scout of mine is going to be caught dead wearing a PINK shirt...!"

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

@ThenNow @MYCVAStory ... do you know if the youth protection changes from bankruptcy require BSA to include an anti-retaliation policy?  

I don't see anything in the terms. Someone should be made aware of this gap, though. Are there other documented instances among members here that would put together a pattern beyond isolated examples? Regardless, it shouldn't happen at all if anyone wants YP to really work as a core element of culture and practice. 

Possibly only relevant to my musings on the state of play, but as fate would have it, NESA was born 50 years ago today and 50 since I joined Scouts. “What a long, strange trip it’s been.” And how.

Just landed on the docket, whatever this means.  

Minute Entry: The Court will not be ruling on confirmation at the omnibus hearing on May 25. The only matters going forward at the omnibus hearing are those listed on the agenda. - RE: [9714] Order on Omnibus Hearings scheduled for 5/25/2022 at 02:00 PM US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware (LJJ) (LJJ)

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=3552&tagid=1153&dateFrom=05/15/2022&dateTo=05/21/2022

10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Some judges like this and in Purdue Pharma Judge Drain read his decision for OVER two hours! 

His reading (and expounding on his ruling) was over six hours long. Pop some corn and grab a beverage...

34 minutes ago, yknot said:

If the YPC is going to do any good, it has to be looking forward as well as taking instructive lessons from the past. 

Of course. From my understanding, BSA doesn't control the selection of survivors and, I think, it would be reasonable to trust the TCC and SWG. That is what I'm trying to say, for the most part. Consider the applicant pool, as well. My sense in this particular conversation is you both are assuming BSA is in control of this Committee. At least half of the members will be survivors, per the plan provisions. If the members are anywhere as close to as accessible as the TCC has been, which I believe they will be, survivors from all quarters will be heard, in the most active sense of the word. You are 100% entitled to rely on your experience with BSA and its reticence to do any manner of things you think advisable and sensible. My take from hearing the representatives of the TCC and SWG during the trial is they are VERY SERIOUS about these terms, making sure YP is fashioned to protect ALL current and future Scouts, etc. Why would they be engaged if they were merely backward looking? That doesn't compute. The case is about the past. YP is about the future. No? Are they to be equated in any way with the past behavior of BSA? I say not. Trust is called for, but I understand you have a long history of broken promises, deafness, non-responsiveness and wagon circling. If anyone thinks survivors behave in the same way and with the same motivations and interests as BSA they have not been paying attention lo these many days. Just my two cents this time. I spared you the other three. 

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I am quite sure that the total expenditure out of the over $100 million only a couple percentage went towards crafting new policies. 

My bet is on completely and totally fractional. Also, I am NOT advocating for other than a diverse group, but my understanding is the vast majority of claimants are men. Then, there is some commonality of age, as well. Simple facts, no? There MUST be diversity of experience - which includes multiple factors - but shouldn't it be in keeping with the proportions, whatever they are?

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

in a passive, non-transparent advisory YPC ...

Is this a fact-based assertion or assumption, or crafted out of whole cloth? I really don't know. Not poking. Oh, I was being somewhat jocular. YP is critical, but I think she trusted the TCC and SWG on that score. "Whew. One thing off my overflowing plate!"

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 Hopefully Judge Laura Silverstein will require more clarity and empowerment.

Looking down the menu of the many potential issues she's wrangling, I don't see this one listed as so much as a footnote. I went back and scoured the fine print between the warnings about "undercooked fish," nut allergies, GF and VE items, and wine during pregnancy. Nary a word. Not on her radar. 

What is your proposal (or hope) for "clarity and empowerment,"  as to survivor members of the YPC? I don't want to presume. 

17 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Has the plan furthered specified the responsibilities, composition, and transparency of  the Youth Protection Committee? How many female abuse victims (Venture Crews, Explorer Posts...) will be on the YPC?

The only description and directives are as noted below. BSA CSA survivor members are apparently TBD. Per the SWG member's testimony, one of their members is a woman. 

2)    On or as soon as practicable following the Effective Date, form a Youth Protection Committee (“YPC”): The BSA shall form a committee including members from the BSA, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and nominees of the Tort Claimants’ Committee, and nominees of the Survivors Working Group. Assuming there are a sufficient numbers willing to serve on the YPC, members nominated by the Tort Claimants’ Committee and the Survivors Working Group shall be in equal numbers, respectively, and shall, in combination, be at least half the total membership of the YPC. The YPE will present to the YPC no less than twice per year. 

a)     The BSA will present to the YPC on the BSA’s current Youth Protection Program (the “Youth Protection Program”), including regarding the implementation of the actions set forth below, as soon as practical, but no later than six months from the Effective Date. 

b)    The BSA will report annually to the YPC on changes to BSA’s Youth Protection Program, compliance in the field, and trends of abuse identified and addressed during the period between meetings. This report shall also be shared with the Organization (defined below) and each Local Council’s Executive Commitee. 

c)     To the extent reasonably practicable, it is intended that the YPC be involved in all aspects of youth protection at the BSA, through discussion, consulatation and review with the YPE.

4 hours ago, OaklandAndy said:

Now if any organization fails to put in those safeguards, then yes sue the heck out of them. Otherwise, individuals need to be  held for individual actions. If someone wants to do something illegal, then  they are going to do it no matter how many safeguards, screenings, trainings, seminars, etc., that you have. 

I'm not sure if I am picking too much of a nit with your choice of language, but "putting in place safeguards..." is somewhat desultory or mechanical. Structure without comprehensive, consistent, enthusiastic application, oversight and upgrades is a skeleton without a brain, muscle, organs, blood, etc. (Apologies if those things were inherent in what you meant.) For example, I think the new YP measures in the plan "force," facilitate and enhance both the processes and protocols and cultural reinforcement in high-leverage areas that were lax. My nickels. 

17 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

When I check on the fires, there is a place to donate but there is these statements:

Quote

During this time of financial restructuring, we are not permitted to accept donations from the following states: California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Virgin Islands or Wisconsin.

Can any of our more knowledgeable forum members provide some enlightenment as to why this is the case?

 

From whence cometh this excerpt? 

On 5/10/2022 at 4:32 PM, Wyobkr said:

I started keeping track early and was fascinated by the proposed monthly amounts the various firms were stating they would charge.  Nearly every day I review the dockets including pay applications submitted. Based on 80% recovery (actual billing) as of yesterday the total is $159,052,158.67.  That will be plus or minus a few cents. 

As to the photo I posted above, are you able to explain what it takes to become a certified time logger and fee application preparer? Mama "needs" a new pair-o-shoes.  I'll cut down the hourly from $298.237519 to an even $250. 

10 minutes ago, Wyobkr said:

Based on 80% recovery (actual billing) as of yesterday the total is $159,052,158.67.

Back to introducing my noggin to the desk. By now you'd think they'd be very well acquainted. 

I noted on the docket that some professionals have submitted their 26th monthly application for payment of fees. Anyone have an idea of the aggregate total, even roughly? Strange person that I am, I took my lunch break and thought I needed to slam my head against the cherry wood for a few minutes. Easy way to induce such a reaction? Enter "fee" into the keyword search on the docket, hit "Load" and get your forehead in position. Randomly:

Morris Nichols for January - $467,000 and change 

Morris Nichols for February - $517,000 and change

Berkeley Research Group (an oldie) August-October $715,000 and pocket change

Okay. It's all pocket change, right?

Also, would some accounting wizard please cipher out the small print entry on the attached photo? Please? When you do, I beg for the explanation to be in plain English, as required by a guy I know who thus far has avoided such calculatin' through one stint of undergrad and two graduate degrees? I am cornfusled.

On 5/8/2022 at 11:26 AM, yknot said:

I can't recall exactly what his opinion on this was but I know he continually pointed out that the IVFs were precisely why the BSA was in trouble -- court cases found the BSA negligent for supressing their existence. It was negligence more than the actual abuse that tripped BSA up. Or something to that effect.

The issue both he and I highlighted was the fact that BSA at all levels "knew or should of known" the imminent threat of CSA throughout the organization. The documented knowledge of that irrefutable evidence created/creates a gimme case of negligence under the law. The "knew or should of known" element was NOT ONLY regarding disconnected, diffuse incidents in many locations over 10 decades, but it illustrated in great detail, among other things:

1. Repeat patterns of grooming;

2. Behaviors and indicia of both abusers and high risk Scouts;

3. High vulnerability and easy access within certain contexts/locations; 

4. The typical abuse cycle of specific acts of grooming, special treatment, emotional manipulation, isolation, and threats express or implied; 

5. Inadequate oversight and breach of the duty or protect; and CRITICALLY, which was CS main point, 

6. A systemic failure to fully and carefully vet and supervise adult leaders.

Add these up and negligence is simple. It was one thing for CSA plaintiffs to make allegations and try to link together the publicly known cases, whether individual or multi-victim, and another all together for attorneys to present and PROVE the patterns by internal records that span 100+ years. Further, those records demonstrate volunteer and professional involvement with those cases at every single level of Scouting. The IVF that lays the foundation for my rebuttal of time-bar based on fraudulent concealment is one example. It shows in black and white that my SE was aware of the grooming in my Troop while concurrently managing, documenting and reporting a similar case to every professional Scouter up the chain. His letters recording every phase of the incident include communications with the police, COR, SM, LC president, an untitled professional we'll call J. E., the Regional Director of Support Services (Robert Kilmer) and ultimately to the desk and files of the Executive of Registration and Subscription Services (Paul I. Ernst). The other sister CO/Troop was less than 2 miles from the meeting place of our Troop AND the SE know both Troops and their leaders very well. My CO and meeting place happened to be directly across the street from my home. Wee for me. If only...

Sorry for typos. Shoving this into a spare moment and typing feverishly. Apologies.

Oh, yeah. I know some will interject the "societal standards" argument. I'm just reporting the argument and don't want to revive the well-flogged horse for another round of whipping. 

15 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

What we see then, over time, are the coming together of many factors that "allow" the abuse to be shared.  For many that's just plain losing the desire or ability to hold it inside for so long because of essentially being too tired to do so.  That may also be coupled with a place in life where it's perceived as "safer" to share.

There's a third option, not at all volitional.

I did not come to a place of factors allowing me to share. I had hinted, but never disclosed to anyone other than the girl I dated who was abused by her father, along with her twin sister. Even then, the words were few. In my case, the factors wrenched from me the box I had been desperately clutching to my chest. A box of "dark and dangerous treasures" which had been poisoning me from the inside out for 30 years. In a very real sense and more accurately, the infectious box finally ate its way out of me in true Alien fashion. My body couldn't hold onto it any longer, though it tried. In the trying, that 40 year old body, along with it's pre-packaged mind and spirit, utterly broke. I wanted to haul it back inside with one hand and sew up the wound with the other, but the wound was gaping and irreparable. I was too tired anyway. 

Over the next 15 years, I ended up in the hospital for peri-anal fistulae, heart attack, and multiple surgeries. I ended up in treatment for addiction, childhood trauma, eating disorders...a "professional in crisis." Multiple times and gobs-o-money. I ended up in the psyche hospital, also multiple times. Road the slab for ECT and had the pleasure of being shot with Haloperidol and strapped down post suicide attempts and violent resistance of police intervention. The beat goes on. I lost my company. I lost my friends. My church crew even split, save one. I nearly lost my family. I berate myself that I didn't have the ability to stuff it longer and later chose the moment, more or less. Perhaps the toxic brew of BSA CSA co-mingled with other CSA, and physical and emotional abuses of my childhood, teen and young adult years to up the potency of the infection. I wonder. I know mine is not a unique story.  MANY have had it worse. Just thought I'd add human implosion to the abuse disclosure options.

20 hours ago, skeptic said:

Somewhere on here, one survivor noted that his father never knew. 

It is I. Do you have a specific question? I believe we discussed this topic back then, though in a fairly combative exchange. You pointed to this "failure to disclose" being a major hitch in the process giddy up, stating I bore some responsibility for remaining mum. Happy to try over if there's something I can add.

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Which committee is this?  The one that was a part of the non-monetary demands of the settlement has not been created.

My recollection is Dr. Kennedy from the TCC watches the forum, per one post eons ago. He testified about working on the YP terms now in the plan. 

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

The future can be seen as binary; it will get better or it won't.  For those who believe it will get better, and I know you hope in your heart it does, I'd like you to address the degree that "better" is good enough. 

We agree on virtually every point raised, so understand these are some of my areas of musing. In places, I'll try to say what BSA National and the highly effective local expressions of big 's' Scouting might be thinking. I know. Dangerous.

We have to have a baseline, which we don't really have. That is on BSA National. Until the real data - sans what has not been reported and MUST be assumed to what degree I also don't know - there is no metric. For me, this is one of the critical issues to remedy ASAP to the best of the ability of those who research, unpack, analyze and report the existing data.

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

If the current plan goes through the reported YP violations will be known publicly.  There will be reporting for anyone interested on a troop-lvelel for the preceding two years.  The details are to be worked out but clearly we will have a MUCH better understanding of any REPORTED abuse at the most serious levels. 

As I see it, this will create a focus that has not existed, at least in public. Units, Packs, etc. will know what's happening in their midst. It makes me crazy I can't yet know how many others my SM abused. It is one of the most compelling and central issues to my claim, history and understanding of what happened before, around, and after my time in Scouting. Focused detail on how "successful" local Scouting is at protecting kids must be a factor. What happens when a "franchise" is documented as breaking the rules and thereby generates lawsuits, health violations and brand degeneration? They are penalized, potentially get prosecuted, lose their rights and are either shut down or taken over by "new management." (Forgive the analogy which commoditizes and commercializes the issue. Best I can do in a pinch.)

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

I'd like you to address the point where you believe it, or some part of it, should cease to exist because it CANNOT keep children safe.  What is that number or frequency?  What level of abuse?  Under what circumstances in the future can the BSA say "We have proven that we can keep children safe?"  What is satisfactory?

The trip lever for action has to be a low number of verified incidence. Perhaps folks like CHILDUSA are consulted and set this standard, I don't know.

"it, or some part" is key to me. I have come to respect that Scouting is local. What happens when a law is airtight, but law enforcement fails to apply it and allows crimes to be committed within their jurisdiction. Does the criminal justice system get shut down? Again, the legal parameters are solid. I am rolling these issues over in my little brain. I want to be fair, in a practical and moral sense. Does my two cents make sense to the sentient.

47 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsaxXrjk3w&ab_channel=playinhard

please take 20 minutes to view

You can start at 8:20 and get the relevant crux. 

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Anti scouting makes no sense.

Barry

Barry, your former 10-year Director of Youth Protection said, unequivocally, that "children are not safe in Scouting," that "[he] failed" to protect children, and apologized to survivors. You disagree with him, of course, but are you feeling no dissonance in the Force? No understanding that there is a different position? Words matter. 

17 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Correct. The program does so much good for youth and community, being anti BSA doesn't make sense. Of course we all have aspects of the program we don't like, but to come to all discussions as anti BSA doesn't make sense to me. 

Have you ever gotten severe food poisoning, stung by a bunch of bees, had your father pull out your "loose" teeth with a pliers or hooked on opioids? I have. That specific food, though good and healthy? No thanks. Things with stingers, though they do a lot of good? Not so much. Dental visits (and I'll avoid father issues and pliers, which I've dealt with through therapy)? Dislike enormously. Taking any narcotics, even post-op? Nah. Making sense is about understanding. Being anti-BSA "doesn't make sense to me," means you don't (or can't or won't allow yourself to) understand the complete aversion of someone to BSA continuing as an institution, based on the abuse they suffered. It is completely understandable.  No? Perhaps it's not logical to you, based on the good vs ill equation, but you can't understand it? Just checking to see if that's really what you intended to say. Thanks.

59 minutes ago, ALongWalk said:

Pretty difficult to listen to what happened to a survivor and his friend. 

Wash, rinse, repeat. 

5 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Call them and ask for your Silver Buffalo medal, certificate, and knot!

At around $25 per, and time to produce the certificates...if 10K survivors asked, you're looking at $250K min and a good amount of man-hours.

Anyone willing to call and find out the phone number/contact info for the process?? 

Ha! That would be quite a deluge.