MYCVAStory

8 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

When they feel the same comfort of having the kids in scouts as they do in the classroom, then I would say we are on the right track. 

I'd suggest that has already been the prevailing opinion with parents.  And here we are.

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Scouting is a program that makes big positive differences to families with scouts. We need that.

I'd like to frame this discussion in a different way.  A lot of it is focused on the past of course.  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.  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.  Given that, and given that we know victims will NOT report right away, if you are so convinced that Scouting need survive 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?  I don't ask these questions as someone who is supporting the destruction r continuance of the BSA.   It's an exercise to focus on the FUTURE.  What say you?  What's your "good enough?" 

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

IF the actual abuser had not done it, the others would not even be in the picture.

So just so I understand your view, the BSA HAD decades of knowledge that abuse WAS occuring, but because they didn't know Abuser X was going to cause abuse then the BSA has no fault in all of this?  So much for logic.

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

BSA is about to face the next excrement wave just as they see the light at the end of the tunnel on bankruptcy proceedings.

If I wasn't going to be thrown off this forum I'd say this in a MUCH different manner.  But instead, please remember that for any Survivor telling his/her story your terminology is an insult beyond words.

Just sharing.  I have no connection: https://tribecafilm.com/films/leave-no-trace-2022

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

But if they are putting people in the database for suspicion of abuse or suspect behavior (like a leader inviting scouts over to their house alone, but with no abuse taking place), I would be against making personal information and identities public.

I believe the intent is confirmed abuse cases only.  This is consistent with privacy laws and why employers only report dates of employment and not cause of termination.   

43 minutes ago, qwazse said:

As I've mentioned, I've met CSA survivors mostly out of scouting. I'm fairly convinced that absent BSA, predators would have had a much easier time of it.

This interests me.  Given that Scouting has built-in overnight experiences central to its operation, and was until recently essentially solely male, how would predators have had a "much easier time?"  I'm reminded of Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks; "Because that's where they keep the money."  So where would the predators have gone where their horrors would have been "easier" to commit?

51 minutes ago, elitts said:

I don't generally see a problem with information being made public, though I get a little leery about a public broadcast of someone's ouster from the program. 

A critical change is for troop parents to be informed when there was a YP breach in their troop and prospective ones knowing report frequency for past two years.  Details to be worked out.  No one has suggested impinging on privacy or due process to the best of my knowledge.

51 minutes ago, elitts said:

Kids LIKE being able to do things on their own and they need it to develop independence and leadership skills.

Michael Johnson reported that HIS reviews of YP reports showed that 50% were youth-on-youth.  THAT was a surprise and must change how we think.

31 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

1. What raw data is he using when he state, “The truth is clear: no child is safe in Scouts BSA programs.” I want to see stats, trends,  reports, etc to prove this is the case. And I want the raw data because as Mark Twain once said, " There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and then there is statistics."

We all do.  In the meantime, we are getting it from the person who was at the center of the reporting.

31 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

2. If his statement is true, then what the heck was he doing for 10 years?

By his account, trying to enact change.  When that didn't happen he grew frustrated and left AND, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, said that he did NOT take a payout to sign an NDA.

9 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Some here are supporting killing the program. I believe scouting is a noble program that adds good moral decision makers to the world.

That's your opinion and I understand it.  As well, I understand the opposing opinion.  Both have their sound reasoning.  But, when you are calling for "truth and context" and asking that the abuse reported by 82,500 claimants (truth until it is not) include reminders of the total number that have been in scouting or some other context you feel is important then it is reasonable to ask for that context you believe is fair so our own opinions are informed.  I'll only add this, a single case of abuse might not seem like a big deal "in context" until it happens to you, or your child.  Finding out that was a pattern over decades, hidden by those who could have prevented it and change occuring only as a result of bankruptcy, well, for those on the fence it is logical that they are reserving judgement on the continuance of the BSA until it proves that it deserves it.

Just now, Eagledad said:

When folks want to kill a program as a result of personal harm, context and truth is very important.

Okay, so please provide the context that will help some people come around to supporting the BSA's continuance.  I'm not calling for its termination, or encouraging its continuance.  Being a Survivor for decades whle your abuser walks free means getting pretty good at accepting to some extent things you have no control over.  But, I'm interested in understanding better the context that will help those who don't agree with you come around to the thinking that "in context" the abuse was what, not so bad?  Acceptable?  Better than other organizations?

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I could literally feel the negative energy impact and and the air left me.

Survivors know this well and I hope others appreciate it.  ALL those "triggers" that hit out of nowhere.  Sitting in a movie theater holding your wife's hand when the trailer for "Spotlight" comes on and she asks why you're squeezing so hard and sweating.  The room spinning when Facebook suggests you should send a friend request to your abuser.  The jokes others make when they have no idea of your past.  Every day is a new opportunity to be triggered and why so many Survivors gt to middle-age and said to themselves "I just can't do this anymore" and why we all want to scream at the top of our lungs at people who ask why we finally decided to come forward, as if it was our choice.

6 hours ago, Eagledad said:

if you want to keep using the 82,000 scouts sexually abused number (which I don’t believe), can you include the total number of BSA members during the same time?

Ahhhh....great idea....let's keep "giving context" to the abuse so it will make it seem much less devastating than it was to those of us abused.  Just so we're all clear, please remind us what percentage is the over/under line for when the abuse rate doesn't seem so bad.   Sarcasm mode off now.  The abuse, whether you believe the number of claimants or not, is more than a total number.  It was a number over time and the BSA knew it had a problem.  For those of us abused while files were kept, and refused payoffs to drop our suits and go away, "context" is irrelevant.  At some point a Trust may be validating claims.  Then there will be a better understanding of the abuse but there is no reason to believe it will not be significant and historic in its scope.  Then, the BSA will be able to better make its case every year that compared to the past it has improved.  Not yet though.

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Digesting this... more to follow

It's critical to remember with the non-monetery agreements related to YP that they do not consititute a laundry list of changes intended to cure all ills.  Instead, they are intended to change the culture via structural changes.  Hiring a YP Exec, engaging an outside third-party for compliance and assessment, and developing a critically-important Youth Protection Committee that is 50% Survivors will ensure on-going assessment and change.  As well, opportunity for reporting to LCs AND most importantly current and interested scouter parents aids in transparency.  Changes were needed and assuredly more will be needed.  What the BSA needs is structural and cultural changes over time and with knowledge of the public.  This is the first step.

22 hours ago, FireStone said:

Scouting is local, always has been, always will be. And locally, most units operate without any cases of abuse. Nationally the numbers of cases are horrific. But keep in mind they are national numbers, spread over the better part of a century and heavily weighted towards decades in the middle of the 20th century.

Today's BSA stands well above most other youth organizations in terms of training and resources to protect youth members. We have a lower incidence of abuse than most other things kids can join, including sports.

I deal in facts.  It's probably worth noting that over 2,200 claims from abuse over the past 20 years were filed in the bankruptcy.  While "small" in comparison to the total number of claims it is important to understand that for the majority of Survivors their abuse is never confronted and reported (if at all) until well into middle-age.  This makes it entirely possible that the numbers for the past 20 years may be much higher.   Had the bankruptcy occurred in 1980 you would NOT have seen the spike in the late 70's because very few Survivors would have been willing to come forward at that time if they were in their teens or 20's.  As well, I encourage you to look deeply into the claim that the BSA has a lower incidence of abuse, including sports, and provide the facts to support that claim.  Claim data related to this bankruptcy are found on the TCC's website.

37 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yes, as had been beat to death, BSA and a minority of its adult and likely youth members, that we do not actually hear much about, have made poor decisions and even a few majorly blatant abuses.  But, it is NOT the larger picture, and even the nay sayers surely understand that.  What is it about our society that finds it necessary to try to destroy things, even as they look the other way a often worse actions?  

Tighten the barriers and the oversight, by all means.  But stop with the burning down the forest.

Santayana said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  I suspect a large portion of the  82,500 Survivors disagree with you and want every piece of what happened to them known and remembered.  In so doing we have the best chance of seeing that it isn't repeated.  If the BSA can't withstand now the mistakes of the past decades then it has brought that upon itself and Society TODAY is going to be the the judge of that.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

If this is picked up by Netflix it will get a major audience. 

It has not.  Netflix has contracted another production company not mentioned here to produce a documentary.  Delivery date as I understand is January 1.  Netflix has been VERY active in covering abuse-related stories.  Besides their coverage of the USA Gymnastics horrors they recently released a documentary on Jimmy Saville.  If you haven't seen it I recommend it.  It is a textbook example of how our institutions turn a blind eye and fail those in the shadows.  As well, Netflix has created a website: https://www.wannatalkaboutit.com/sexual-violence/

The reality is that no one was going to dive too deeply into the BSA story until there was some degree of resolution.  With the bankruptcy coming to some sort of end it allows stories to have finality of some sort even if not for Survivors.  We live in a time when streaming services are HUNGRY for content.  I have heard of three pieces now in production and I have no doubt there will be many more.  Bankruptcy was the loud explosion that drew a lot of attention and made many question their children's participation.  Streaming media coverage will be the echo that will repeat several times over.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Any status?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?  

Don't expect an update anytime soon.  There's a "status Conference" Friday because sometimes there are agreements that need finalizing or language changed.  But don't expect anything significant.  Instead, it should take 2-3 weeks for the Judge to have a decision ready.  She'll then give a day or two notice.  Enjoy the quiet.....for now!

28 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If this is going to require months more, does that not doom the BSA to Chapter 7?

It's factoredin to their financial projections if all goes according to plan including the review.  They said they wanted to be out by June but no debtor ever says the latest month in reality.  If it all falls apart, if the Judge says "Sorry, I can't confirm any of this..." well, that's another story.  But I think most observing the fun over the past three weeks think that's very likely.  We should wait until the court schedules the decision in a few weeks and right before make our predictions.   Oh, I think someone pointed out in the last forum, status conference next week is to update the court on some crossing of T's and dotting of I's.  It isn't unusual for some "tweaking" of plans to go on up until a decision.  Just don't get excited to think she'll have a decision in seven days.  Happy Passover, Easter/Ramadan all.  At least it's good timing with the hearing concluding so we can all catch our breath a bit and maybe find a little bit of peace.

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Hopefully this is the last topic on bankruptcy.

Doubtful!   So the District has an automatic review of Bankruptcy decisions.  That normally takes 2-3 months but in that  time some parts of a confirmed plan can/do take hold.  It's a tactic to say "Hey look court, it's underway and working."  Don't expect checks to be issued though!  In addition to all of that parties can appeal through other means/courts.  Expect the non-settling insurers to do that if it means they can hold onto their money any longer.  Insurers=Time Value of Money.  So, put it all together and if the Trust portion of this plan is confirmed it probably won't be up and running until late summer or probably the fall.  Also consider the issue of Third-Party releases.  The Local Councils have made it clear that they're contributing of their COs are getting releases.  If they don't then the game of chicken is on but if they don't contribute they lose their injunctions and for some that means their own bankruptcy.  Oh, and the BSA can appeal if they don't get a good enough decisions...The TCC can apppeal if Survivors get screwed over any more....  This game is in the 7th inning stretch.  Let's see if the Judge's decision closes it out or something comes up to put it in extra innings.  I suspect we've got a ways to go.  Sorry.

Buchbinder taking the BSA to task.  Among other things,  "The plan is the opposite of an apology."

Opening pitch about to be thrown out.  Vegas oddsmakers split on whether this will be completed today. 

Monday hearing observations: 

Guam:  Throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks.

Settling Insurers:  This is how you clean the wall.

Girl Scouts:  We may have just lost our trademark case against the BSA via a summary judgement but we don't agree so just ignore all of that.

Judge"  Quietly thinking to herself "This is a day I'll never get back."  Saying out loud: "Okay, I want to wrap this up tomorrow."

US Trustee:  Time to break out my even fancier tie because tomorrow's about third-party releases and it's GO TIME!

Boy Scouts Attorneys:  Yes, your honor, if everyone will just be nice and not object too much we can wrap it up tomorrow.

Everyone else:  Nice try.

1 hour ago, MattR said:

We created another thread for this sub topic. This thread is limited to what we think the judge is interested in and I doubt where other CSA occurs is on her radar.

Can you provide some clarification?  How would that be different than a thread related to the confirmation hearing?  Thanks.

Judge is looking for legal cover:

"Do I feel like I'm weighing in on a dispute I should be weighing in on"

Attorneys would be smart to focus not on the benefits or harm of any parts of this plan, but on the legality of it.