ThenNow

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.

Yeah. Getting access to a redacted report on each of those claims, assuming they are actually specific enough to see what went wrong, is the start. Agreed on risk managers and theoretical experts. If it looks great on paper but but the weight ratios mean it can't get off the ground, that's a problem. It just seems so doable to present an improvement plan that I'm baffled by what looks from my chair to be denial or disinterested complacency. Maybe these numbers were needed to get off the dime.

You guys deal with the application of YPT and have now seen the number of claims filed since it was put in place, such as they are. Do you see/have specific ideas on how it can be improved without choking the life out of programming and the routine interactions with Scouts? Has anyone, National or otherwise, done an assessment and review?

I just sent that to my family and told them they have to make their selection now. My baby sister wants to see the daily special or hazard the chef’s choice.

Sure, but not ignorance without malice or negligence. Hm. I believe there’s a “choose one” menu. It includes a loop of the most sleep-inducing homily you EVER heard complete with a poke in the ribs every time you start to nod, a never ending stint in the closet with the incense censer going full blast, serving 6:15 mass in continual successive rotation or replaying the time you spoke way to loud in the confessional only to discover your classmates overheard every sin you confessed that week. Okay. I’ll stop, but you started it...

Oh, gosh. I hope the book doesn't contain all prospects for unintended omissions and/or commissions. If I get there, the unfortunate soul behind me better have fetched along a book, some whittling, lunch and coffee. At least. Maybe a sleeping bag.

I am sorry that this is the case and I agree. It's terrible, but my wife and sons also paid dearly for destructive things they did not do, deserve or play any part in unleashing. Perhaps even worse than if I caused it, the debt was created by injustices done to me. Nonetheless, they inherited it. Awful on all counts.

I understand and appreciate that, and don't care to meddle in the projections of how what happens when and by what vote. I'm no good at it. I am merely pointing out, which I know some don't or won't believe, that this is not a "battle" these men entered into with bloodthirsty glee. I realize you are talking about the practical application, as you absolutely should. How someone feels or doesn't is irrelevant to that equation, but the TCC is people, not the Death Star. It's okay to portray them as such, but I've chimed in with my two denarii.

I'll let you guys have at it with the details and the numbers, but this is patently untrue. You simply can't say that. You can say that it, "appears from this or that statement they have no regard for the future health or vitality of Scouting," but you do not know if they/we care. As I've said before, when I went to Delaware one year ago to stand for the TCC, I made it clear to the US Trustee's Office I do not want to see Scouting eviscerated. He surprised me by saying the sentiment is shared by most applicants. The TCC was formed well before 95,000 claims flooded in. Please remember that. Everyone has needed to pivot. Hard. The BSA hasn't pivoted, imho. Also, you're talking about 9 men, not an entity. 9 sexual abuse survivors with valid, vetted claims of sexual abuse against the BSA. I don't know any human who knows another man's heart, much less that of 9 at one time...

I have a standard WSJ script, but don't pay for Pro. Is there a posting of the piece elsewhere?

I’ve not listened twice, but my recollection is that the TCC vice chair said something close to, “From the outset, our concern has not been the continuation of Scouting, but maximizing the recovery to survivors.” That’s their entire purpose for existing and I’m pretty sure Stang, et al., understand the business model and structure. The BSA’s task, along with their best in the business legal crew, is to come up with a plan to meet its two stated objectives: “maintaining the program and equitably compensating victims.” Not discussing the Plan filed with the biggest player in the room was nonsense and arrogance or an act of resignation. The TCC isn’t responsible for either reason they whiffed.

How did you arrive at that certainty? Personally, my mind reading has proven iffy of late. That little speech wasn't meant to diminish the value (which I recognized), but to encourage you guys to fight for whatever it is you think is important specifically by speaking up. I was also jumping off from the comments of many that "their camps" are most precious and critical. That's all.

I meant ranks...

Not sure how to rank or compare, but very. I’d say inextricably linked with the monetary component, given the Chapter 11 aim to see Scouting continue. It’s worth noting, I think, that the TCC/survivors wouldn’t be “demanding” YPT improvements on a BSA they intend to “force” into liquidation. Just sayin. There are lines between which one must read.

Online petitions are super easy to create, distribute, gather signatures and forward. I think the diversity of voices here, if focused and expressed, could be impactful.

I went to sleep thinking about this last night and don't sleep much as it is. Several things have been reinforced in me since starting to follow this forum and then becoming active. Here are a few: 1) Boy Scouts National has a bunch of things that create the outline and infrastructure that is Scouting as we know it. Rankings, books, trademarks, Congressional Charter, Eagle "brand," all the IP, and, etc.; 2) National has four cherry properties with top flight facilities and programs each amazing, compelling and intrinsically and financially valuable. They are not priceless, however; 3) National is not "Scouting." You guys and the kids are Scouting. Your kids don't know the people at National. They are not the face and heartbeat of Scouting to them. You are. National has stuff and is the conceptual leader. You have experience, wisdom, knowledge, passion and, more than anything, the gift of yourselves in the form of quality time spent. I don't know what percentage of kids have the opportunity to experience HA, but for most of us, our Summer Camp was the prize destination. I spent 7 summers at "camp," which eventually extended into running Camp Crafts at Cup Days several years. That camp was priceless to many of us. It has since been sold. 4) IMHO, the ideas you have on this case, especially related to BSA stepping up to save Scouting on the ground and being earnest and contrite about these negotiations with thousands of abuse survivors, are worth articulating beyond this forum. You've said the camps matter more than HA. Tell them. You said you believe YPT can and must be better, and have great ideas how it can be done. Tell them. You have ideas about not playing footsie with properties and assets, and getting everyone's butt to the table to make this happen. Tell them. You have stories of kids, even your own children, who will be crushed if Scouting either disappears or is hobbled beyond recognition. Tell them. Now is the moment, if ever.

Do you guys consider writing National, leaders, their attorneys, the Ad Hoc Committee...to share your strongly held views and sense of urgency? Your story, SP, is powerful. Many of your are very articulate and effective in presenting this case. All are passionate, which surpasses most finery, in my book. I encourage you to act. Write letters. Take out an ad in the paper. Do an online petition. They’re easy. If you don’t speak now and limit it to this forum and your Units and LC’s, you don’t want to be on the field when the lights go out and realize you didn’t play through the whistle. I’m totally serious. You might not be inside the belly of the beast, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make noise and lend some folks a piece of your individual or collective minds. If it’s for naught and so much chasing after wind, join the club. I’ve been doing that for most of my life.

The Colorado constitution currently prohibits new laws to impose retroactive liability. I don’t think they are proposing a window or a constitutional amendment. I’ve not read the legislation, though. Could be wrong.

As I have said, teeing up lawsuits against LC’s, CO’s and individuals is to force the players to the table at risk of losing all. It was clear by their conspicuous absence in the proposed Plan funding that those two groups had not yet taken this seriously. Again, “We are ready to launch. Are you coming in here to work on this or no? You pick. If not, you leave us no choice. It’s not our preferred path, but we will do it if need be.” Hand slap invites throw down, I suppose. For those who haven’t followed my posts, I’m simply stating the situation at hand, not spewing vitriol toward you, Scouting, Scouts or even the BSA. The messy game is afoot and it’s no use or benefit to decry, deny or look away.

And to this I say, “Yea, verily, and pass the chipped beef!” One of the greatest and most damaging “achievements” of the consortium attorneys - Coalition and AIS - is their success at creating the impression they are the voice of all claimants. The media has perpetuated and magnified the charade. (I directly called out reporters on it over the last month. Major publications.) Only the TCC has that role, even if the others forced their way into mediation. Yes, they control a bunch of votes, but they do not speak for me, the 9 men representing me or the overall sexual abuse survivor claimants. In part, what you saw and heard at the recent TCC Town Hall was a full-throated reassertion of their role and unequivocal intention to exercise their authority to represent the survivors. I believe they made it crystal.

If there is anything that can be shared outside the mediation confidentiality shield, I’ll see if I can tease it out.