ThenNow

It seems apparent that hide the peanut is not working, which everyone clearly sees.

Yup. I'm exclusively talking about getting real and serious about disclosure and honesty IN the mediation and negotiations. I stated many times before I know from experience, and as an attorney, this is not a time for public disclosure. PS - That would be stupid and counterproductive.

Is this thought to be widespread?

From the early days post filing, all the people I spoke with said there is 100% chance the LCs will be required to contribute. It was just a matter of how much from which. Sorry. I mistakenly tossed the LCs into the BSA basket because they are the two BSA entities in the negotiations and mediation and represent the BSA contribution money side. Principal and "affiliates." Maybe BSA is, in fact, pounding on the LCs to wake up and step up. Dunno. The "we will request the LCs make a voluntary contribution," didn't sound like that's the case. If the two of them would slug it out, which they might be, it seems like something could/would happen. Last point on this. As I've said before, I would think part of this LC resistance could spring from the Ad Hoc Committee being less than representative of the LCs. If that is the case, how in God's green earth can they be expected to either communicate effectively or negotiate with transparency and a unified voice? Who are the LCs on the AHC, btw? Just trying to confirm how representative they are or are not.

It seems like many here have repeatedly experienced a lack of trust and transparency from BSA National, as a matter of course. In fact, it came across to this outsider as pretty much an MO. "Go back to your campfire and teach some knots..." Are you saying "not BSA" as in "not Scouting" or not National? Meesa confused. Also, we're not talking about voluntary disclosure and inspiring trust at this point. It's under duress and seems needful in this critical moment. Sometimes, that's the only way it happens. Might be an opportune moment to open up.

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.