ThenNow

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

 I believe my Troop is safe.  I've seen multiple leaders within my Troop ensure YPT rules are being followed, even on zoom calls and emails.  I see this at many other Troops as well.  However, I believe there are likely units out there that may not follow YPT closely. 

This is a question borne both out of curiosity and my interest in the health and safety of kids.

Are there "model" structures or relationships between the various entities that can be put forward as exemplars? I'm sure some of you have it dialed in to a science. This is how it's done in other context with great success. To borrow from the franchise discussion, this is why and how the good ones succeed wildly: strict adherence to replication. Even as I say that it dawns that as volunteer driven it lacks financial incentive, effectively downgrading the engine of the model. The V12 becomes a Volt. It was a thought. "Here is what works and this is how to do it, if you manage to pull it off."

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

does anyone in their right mind think any judge will say yep, sounds good to me.  I expect the BSA will be hammered by the court.

Especially this judge. She doesn't play, is very sober-minded and I believe she sincerely grasps the gravity of what is before her. 

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Does anyone here really, really think that if they cannot get 66% that the judge will issue a "cramdown" and order the class to accept it anyway?

They cannot get 66% on this turd no matter how much they polish it.

Doubtful with a side of supremely unlikely. This tussle is just in Round One, anyway.

https://www.wsbankruptcylaw.com/chapter-11-business-bankruptcy/cram-down-provision/

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that YP has been good/better lately doesn't negate the claims of the victims from the past. If those claims are valid, they are getting paid out.

The case can only countenance claims before it. Absolutely no other part of the story is of any concern or relevance, other than to public perception. That's the entire function of the reorganization. What are the valid debts, what are the assets and how can we clear the deck to keep this thing afloat (or not). 

46 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And, even before the YP was developed, percentage wise, it seems Scouting was not the top of the list for known predators; and to day it is at or near the bottom.  And no amount of money is going to "fix" bad judgment or erase bad players from the past somehow. 

None of what I can say makes it less of a burden for those working to maintain all that is good about Scouting. I hope it is clear from all I have written that through it all I value and acknowledge what Scouting did for me. It was very muddled and tarnished, but I have my awards and badges and sashes and so on. Many people don't understand me being "of two minds." They don't understand because they didn't live either or both side of my life.

One family may have three abusers over a generation and the percentage of predators very high, per capita. With Scouts, it doesn't matter if there were millions of Scouts or 100,000 Scouts. 85,000 is the takeaway. Not many of us "do math" (or arithmetic) anymore. In the era of sound bites and over-simplifications, hashtags and catch phrases carry the day. Said, but true.

Whether Scouting was or is at the top or bottom of such a list is pretty much irrelevant now. You have to face it and go on, as you honorably and earnestly propose. It is become a convenient symbol for institutional sexual abuse and some will always see it as such. That looks horrible to read on "paper," sounds equally terrible and is unfortunate. BUT, abuse victims didn't create that reality and the BSA did, in fact, facilitate it. No two ways about it. What the public and attorneys have made of it would not be possible if it had not happened. Do I know that 85,000 claims are 100% legit? No, I don't. Do I believe they are? Not so much. I do know for certain one is very much true and accurate, and I know what wreckage was caused.

Agreed. Money can't erase the predation or history. In this context, it might just do some good.  

14 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I find it interesting that there has not been even one comment yet, until me I guess, abut the inaccuracy of the statements about YP has not done anything.  What am I missing.  Most of these claims that they speak of are well before the YP was developed, and since it has improved, from all that I have read.

I guess I glossed over those statements. Sorry.

I have been through the YP materials available online. Unequivocally and without reservation, I found each module of such excellent quality I tried to find a generic version to pass on to others in custodial positions, whether individual or institutional. I know it would have helped in the past and cannot be anything but a great benefit now. It is not only educational and structural, but it gives practical markers to detect abuse of all kinds. I was very impressed.

I hope that helps you feel reassured about what you are doing, coming from someone who suffered because of the historic lack of training and instruction about protecting kids from abuse and mistreatment. Before you react, I recognize much of that "lack" was both cultural and emblematic of the times.

1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

Who is making the decison to offer the above-described offer, BSA, the insurance companies, or both?

Has it been determined that BSA can make an offer on behalf of local councils?

I'm not inside the case, but have an opinion based on all the reading and review I've done.

I see no indication in the Plan that the insurance companies had any input. It's not their "side" of the deal and are aggressively embroiled in trying to obtain additional information and challenge claims. I can't image they're ready to give up anything just yet. There could be a baseline contribution being discussed, but this is what the BSA National is putting on the table.

Likewise, I don't think so at all. There is an Ad Hoc Committee of LC's that ostensibly represents all LC's. I know for a fact that some LC's reject that notion. They don't believe the Ad Hoc Committee is their representative, and it does not and cannot speak for them. Thus, National has committed to making a request for a voluntary contribution from the LC's. That's about as squishy and non-committal as it gets.  If National had the blessing to make the commitment, I would think they'd make it.

All that said, what do I know...

13 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes.

Because the two creative entities exist separately, like when an artist retains rights to duplicate and use in future publications, they can be retained. For example, a lithograph of an artist-owned original or a painting you may own that the artist retains the right to duplicate. Of course, the latter diminishes the value of the original work, but it is done. I have prints of photos on which I paid a premium to ensure the artist would not further duplicate, other than in promotional and portfolio materials. Does that help? It may be the case that this is what they are proposing and is implied by them not being listed among assets being contributed. I can't say for p-positive, of course.  

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

Doesn't the BSA have copyrights on some/all of that commissioned artwork?

By that do you mean whether or not they they will have future use via existing/retained copyrights?

33 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

My original point is that the BSA argument is that councils are franchises. What they call a charter is a franchise agreement. I could make some arguments the other way, but that is their argument.

I getchu. I was simply explaining the likely basis for McD's ability to swoop in and reclaim the 3 franchises from Mr. McDrug. 

23 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

McD's came in and immediately took over his 3 franchises with no court action (they just took them back per some contract language).  So I know this can happen.

Was it literally "immediately"? Many such agreements have a "moral turpitude" provision that triggers a reversion, right to terminate and/or assumption of rights. There would be an extrapolation of how it is to be interpreted, defined and applied. I'm betting this is what happened. I private contract wouldn't need to require a conviction, either. PR, brand diminishment, public perception, interference with business advantage and all that.

43 minutes ago, qwazse said:

if the settlement is quite large, we may find that a victim of a scoutmaster has access to an expansive therapy while a victim of a family member -- especially a from an underprivileged family -- gets limited treatment.

I understand the point. I know a good deal about therapy and treatment modalities to address dual diagnoses and Complex PTSD stemming from child sexual abuse, with all the derivative circles of impact (family, and etc.). I just think you're running a rabbit trail, based solely on the point made by one survivor to the effect that $6000 won't even cover his therapy. That was used to highlight the inadequacy of the BSA's portion of a contribution to the Victims Compensation Trust.

For most of us, though I don't presume to speak for 10's of thousands of men, we are not looking to specifically pay for therapy, whether basic, enhanced, evolved or otherwise. We are hoping to receive compensation that acknowledges what we have suffered. In part, that is financial damage so compensatory "damages" are implied. The financial impact to me has been enormous. In larger part, it is about the life and soul impacts, which I addressed at length months ago. Though rebuffed that any such is ephemeral and too amorphous to be worthy of full recompense, I assert it again, believing it is a primary motive for many of us. (Reference my posts on "soul murder" and "identity assassination.")

10 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I expect the cost of therapy to rise in proportion to the size of the settlement. Victims might actually get less support if they are awarded more.

I have no clue what this either means or implies. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, literally the billion dollar question. If the court (which to my knowledge has not) rules the Councils are in fact subsidiaries or franchises or what-have-you then ALL those assets get tossed onto the table. If they are treated as "interested parties" (as they currently are) then they get to put in their $300 million and walk away safe.

Having followed the case since the outset, as you have, and after reading many of the other cases and RCC Chapter 11 files, I think Judge Silverstein will seriously consider proactively "piercing the veil" to access the LC's. This is obviously being hotly debated in the mediation.

When the issues surrounding transferring assets to Protection Trusts arose with the Middle TN Council, she was not happy. From my reading, National holds a reversionary interest in LC assets upon revocation or relinquishment of Charter. If so, that is the thread upon which one tugs to show the two entities are, indeed, of the same cloth. 

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Unfortunately, I think we will have a different war on our hands.  

I'm going to predict something and it's not something I am inclined to do. This will likely energize the national effort to 'reform' statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. There could not be a better platform than this offer (Plan) and the way it will almost certainly be perceived. 

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The BSA wants this two ways.

Financially ... councils are completely independent.  Their funding sources and assets have no tie to National.

Legally ... councils are completely dependent.  They have 0 liability with respect to sexual abuse.  All liability is National BSA.

That is a tough sell.  

Most anyone who has followed the case to any degree or reads this cold will see the offer as smug, insolent defiance sprinkled on top of contempt for sexual abuse survivors. Just sayin'...

45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

How?  26 * 52 * 150 = $202,800

This a $100,000 less than my therapy bill alone. Session costs for a decent therapist have skyrocketed since 2005 or so. 

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

So the proposed settlement would cover the costs of therapy.

Yes, provided he only went to therapy a total of 48 times over the course of 26 years at a rate of $125 per session.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

 

Well, if that is true, then he has certainly come to the right forum.  

If it is, may I please order a heapin’ helpin’ of honest, hold the brutal? 

28 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

They can just provoke higher level thought. I can certainly say that unconcluded discussions have led to many changes of idealisms including parenting, job, and religion. No winners, losers or conclusions, just growth of ideals.

I instructed my kids to formulate their opinions in discussions with the intension to not to have to repeat it. Leave the opinion without their pride as something to build the discussion, not make or break it. Pride often drives folks keep repeating themselves to sway the discussion to their conclusion because they want their thoughts to be the final winning thoughts. That is rarely ever going to happen.

Good grief. This is absolute solid gold. I wish you had been my father, SM, coach, and so on and so forth. Pick one or several. Seriously and more so, I wish I had heard this when raising my boys. Then again, I would settle for having been in my right mind at that time. I was in and out of residential and IOP treatment, including three stints in the psyche hospital, for twelve years starting when they were 9 and 10.

31 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

"Some" was about money / reputation ... but I just don't accept that as a broad statement.   It's definitely not an automatic dishonest / not trustworthy.   Ask anyone in HR, the legal profession or taking responsibility.

I've read this multiple times and cannot figure out what you meant. I get sentence one, but struggle with two and three. Leg up, please?

As to two, what is it if not? And, three I simply can't decode. I even tried lemon juice and a flashlight. 

On 2/26/2021 at 5:28 PM, yknot said:

I recently found out about a couple friends who were younger than me who were abused by an adult we knew and the guilt that I did not see it and help them is overwhelming. I wish such things had not happened to you or to them.

Many times as I've considered a response or making a point, I realize it may not help the process for you men, given your ongoing roles. As always, I offer this to add personal history and context, however anecdotal you consider it to be. Maybe my stories allow you to put a 'face' on the anonymous survivors. 

Years after I left Scouting, having achieved my goals and weathered the storm, my youngest brother told me about a close friend who was going through the same drug and alcohol mess I did. He was also a high achiever and suddenly fell off the cliff at pretty much the same point in high school. By then, my brother knew about my abuse and asked his friend about it. He quietly acknowledged, but would not come forward or speak further about it. He drank himself to death. 

I am now aware, through friends on the inside of this case, of multiple men who have filed claims against our mutual abuser. All of them are younger than I. My assumption has always been I was the first in our Troop. Our SM likely molested and abused other boys prior. Well, he almost certainly did. I hinted at it with a girl I dated years later and she all but confirmed. She was his first cousin and they shared a last name.  

All this is a segue back to an earlier topic. Namely, I emphatically forbad my two younger brothers from joining Scouts and gave no reason. I did not help anyone but them. Self-forgiveness has never come for that failure to act. I did not protect myself by reporting it nor the boys who came after me. My brothers are grateful, which is some consolation. To be candid, I too often look at their lives and wonder what mine would have been if someone had stopped him, including me. 

Put that in your psycho-babble pipe and try to smoke it. Tell me when you decipher the signals that emanate therefrom. 

3 hours ago, David CO said:

Yep.  That's it.  I don't speak psycho-babble.

I don’t see any such babble, but your choice to downplay what’s underlying what you grasp as inexplicable inaction.  Absent the loathsome, pesky babble, we’re left with a one word reiteration: fear. Fear on several levels. If you’ve not experienced it, you will remain unable to understand unless you don your waders and enter the babbling brook. 

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do you mean literally

As in, why I did not say anything?

7 hours ago, David CO said:

This is the part I cannot understand.  

Exactly what can’t you understand? Do you mean literally or the complex psychological conundrum inherent in making dark disclosures related to the child/adult and powerless/powerful dynamic?