ThenNow

Personally, I hope she allows some of the inquiry now, specifically into the process issues. I see the info and data flowing to the TCC for their review of assets and to help remedy defective/deficient claims as a separate track. Insurers directly confronting claimants? Not sure I see that happening at all. Dunno.

The ruling on the insurers' discovery requests are on the top of my interest list, though it's full day (per RS's link).

Yup. Thanks. I guess I was referring to the specifics mentioned by USA Today that I hadn't seen others include. Too many publications!

It's an excellent piece, in terms of covering the breadth of issues and delving into the asset valuations. I'm surprised other pub's didn't do that analysis.

So I don't duplicate, has the 3.7.21 USA Today piece been posted here? I had not read it through to the end and found their research on assets and values to be helpful. I hadn't seen it anywhere else, though I certainly could've missed it.

This is what I was talking about, but unfortunately it was not done extremely well. This impassioned appeal to Judge Silverstein was entered into the court record. I think it has value and I guess he felt it was worth his time and effort. If it shows up in the docket, the press sees it. Ok. I promised to shut up. Take a look if you'd like. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/880427_2372.pdf

I would love to see the narrative include something from Scouters and Scouts. The press would love to run with that.

The hope I had for this working out where no one is "happy," but the outright weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth is avoided is fading. To me, that amounts to a successful negotiation. Intransigence on so much as one side is often the death knell. I think the image is coming into view. I still have some hope, however. It "springs eternal."

I appreciate the personal example. For me, this better clarifies the situation that lead to and continues to tank the BSA. In that light, no one should be surprised Scouting is where it is. It changes my mind a bit. Systemic rot, like leadership ignoring and punishing the rank and file for speaking up, is nearly impossible to reform. The Plan now makes perfect sense.

I will stop with this. You guys know what's what.

Anonymity in the press is allowed and not an impotent option. If you perceive it a dead horse, no use for you to whip it regardless your concern for your boys. I get that. I realize you're convinced of the collapse.

I appreciate that. I know my suggestion/question seemed directed at YPT bc it was the topic within which I posted it. Sorry. I also mean the desire to see National loosen its grip on HABs in favor of preserving local camps. I know that's not a universally held view here, but for me it's a point heard only on this forum. I know I am not "steeped in this," though. It sounds like you're weary of trying, perhaps. The way I am, I would be screaming at this point, even if into the wind. Sometimes it actually has good results. Others, I just get hoarse and my wife puts me in the basement with a heavy bag and a sedative.

No windmill tilters, smooth stone slingers or boat brass polishers?

Has anyone (any of you) put together a list of recommendations that could be forwarded those responsible for monitoring, overseeing and enforcing YPT? Again, I'm a survivor and, assuming Scouting continues, if there are solid actionable recommendations I would appreciate it if someone would trumpet and champion them. I realize many of you said National doesn't listen to you, but are there other approaches? Joint letters, petitions and/or communication with the press? There is always the risk of personal backlash, I guess, but is it worth it to lead and possibly see change enacted? If the BSA has nothing to say on this issue in the Plan, it's a strike against getting the TCC endorsement. One strike out of three possible - money, YPT reform and the release of names. I'll stop asking about this, but as an action-oriented troublemaker, it makes me itchy and twitchy to witness what looks like inaction in the face of good ideas and possible fixes. I don't know what has been tried, so I am admittedly in an info vacuum.

Whew. Gained a foot. The ones we always built were sky-scraping dinosaurs, I suppose.

Time out. No dodgeball and no pioneering structure taller than 5 feet? Oh, my. ThenNow is more apt than I ever imagined. Reengage on the whistle.

Acknowledged, but it has less of an edge on it when one puts it in context of being the universal concern. It's the only issue for most bk creditors, because they don't often have an interest in non-monetaries like this.

To be fair, I believe he said that is the two-verse tune sung by any/all creditors. "They only want to know one/two things..." He was not speaking only or specifically about/for survivors or the TCC. I could be wrong.

"More beneficial"? Yikes. Maybe both/and, I'm thinkin. How much is spent on background checks per year and how much more is needed? $1.4B cover it?

Ok. I appreciate that and I'm not being snarky. However, whenever I hear the "father knows best" approach, it makes me nervous. I'm not a fan of decision and justification by technocrats or experts left to their own narrow devices. As a survivor, I think this will require a serious 360 degree review and an engaged "management by walking around" process, as it was once known. My view, of course.

Ok. I understand. What I don't get is that "guys in the field" see not only the need for improvement but ways to do it, yet the official Plan filed by the BSA didn't include anything to speak to the issue. On top of the fight over possible restricted asset shell games, the non-commitment commitment to "asking the LCs for a voluntary contribution" and the crickets on YPT, one must be able to see why the Plan went over "like a fart in church," as someone said way back when. I'd say more like a simultaneous blowout diaper by triplets, but that's just me.

I assume you're not saying you've spoken with them lately, but do you have any idea why they completely passed on addressing "anything to make it better" in the Plan?

Could either of you give detail or substantiation to the view of National? CS didn't say experts weren't involved in creating it, rather that it's being view as A-Ok now. Is it hunky dory or does it need hard analysis and updating? As a claimant, the fact that they did not address it at all in their Plan is an act of conscious omission or denial of a need for improvement, since they know full well the TCC wants something done to improve safety and reduce incidents.

Did this happen during the creation of the program? I'm not poking at the process, I just have no idea.

Well said. As to the last sentence, there are many of us who would be more than happy to accommodate. I'm one of them.