Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[qwazse]

The letter is largely an incoherent regurgitation of facts in evidence. And they are up to interpretation. Saying that funds pay salaries is effectively saying that there is not nearly as much capital readily available as one thinks. Saying that camps are run down implies that they won't get as much value upon resale as one thinks. Saying that it costs money for youths to go to camp is a justification for funding councils more and leaving their resources untouched. (Am I mistaken? Are the survivor's groups promising to build up scholarship funds for kids to go to camps -- not necessarily BSA's -- at a steep discount?)

So, pointing out BSA's wastefulness without comparing it to other things (e.g. -- the TCC's fees, etc ...) does not get us anywhere.

What's important about the letter ... in 1994, staff should have been trained about reporting sexual harassment. Either this person was not, or this person did not follow his training. I've seen young staff do this repeatedly -- with small infractions. This not to blame the victim. It is to point out that if the victim is not part of the solution, history will repeat itself.

But, for organizations, the bigger threat at the time was being sued for libel/slander. And @johnsch322, that's where enabling the victim went straight out the window. I have seen the 21st century BSA provide counseling, but I don't think anyone expected an organization to provide anything of the sort before then. To do so would have meant instant litigation. And, perpetrators can and did argue that a person in counseling wasn't fit to testify ... making achieving convictions even harder on victims and families.

[ThenNow]

22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Does anyone know of a situation where after a Boy Scout was victimized that the BSA went to the victim and made sure that the proper counseling and therapy was provided?

Personally, I don't. But, and I hope you are aware of this, the BSA will pay for your therapy. I will give you the contact information via DM.

If anyone knows, I would be interested to know more about the abuse counseling reimbursement program they implemented some years ago. What spurred it? Who's decision was it? When did it start? I was not aware of it until the bankruptcy and I began surfing the various survivor sites they set up. I wish I had known about it years ago. 

22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Yesterday after 54 years I had my first therapy session and that is 54 years to late.

Yes, very late. But you have started. I'm proud of you for going through that door, late or not!

Edited May 28, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

One more note and what the TCC and others want. In addition to amount of times BSA has lost/been ordered to pay damages for its negligence (that's all in court records), they ALSO want to know how many times and how much BSA has had to pay out in out-of-court settlements. BSA only wanted to give up settlement data for the last few years Why? Two reasons.

1. Prior knowledge: if it can be shown that BSA had been paying out numerous settlements for DECADES, then it demonstrates negligence. It shows BSA KNEW it had a problem, KNEW it was systemic and widespread, KNEW it was not going to just go away, and did nothing or not enough. That will be powerful for any claims prior to the institution of YP (and even after if it can be shown that YP wasn't working and resulted in abuse that was simply settled out of court).
2. How much were prior victims compensated. I am NOT going to graphic here but let me give a non-sex-abuse example. If, in those settlements listed in #1, BSA were to say have paid out to each scout who had a finger cut off $1 million, and $2 million for a hand, and $4 million for an eye, then if BSA is NOW offering $50,000 for a finger, and $100,000 for a hand, what gives? Why the low ball? Similarly, if BSA is looking to only pay out certain amounts for sexual abuse when in the past it has paid out 10-100 times as much, what gives? It shows that even BSA knows that the compensation numbers it is coming up with are bogus.

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

But, for organizations, the bigger threat at the time was being sued for libel/slander.

1. Absolutely not true.
2. This has nothing to do with the claim of negligence (that BSA was negligent in supervision of the program and the abusive leaders)

I feel like I've told you specifically this at least three times before: NONE of the suits are about BSA's failure to report. NONE.

So claims of "we were worried about libel/slander" suits is hogwash and, interestingly, NOT a defense that BSA has ever raised in its lawsuits. Why? Because it is hogwash.

The claim, as I laid out, is that they allowed the abusers free rein on the scouts, knew they had a systemic problem with child sexual abuse, did NOTHING or NOT ENOUGH (IV files), etc.

Failure to report? Literally not an issue.

But let's go one step further: EVEN IF the BSA had reported the pedophile and the abuser was convicted, that would have precisely NO impact on the negligence claims that BSA allowed the abuse to happen in the first place.

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Personally, I don't. But, and I hope you are aware of this, the BSA will pay for your therapy. I will give you the contact information via DM.

I am very fortunate in that my health insurance will pay 100% and if my therapy continues beyond my retirement the VA will pay for it.

 

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes, very late. But you have started. I'm proud of you for going through that door, late or not!

Thank you.

[RobertCalifornia]

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The reason BSA is being sued (and has lost numerous times in state courts prior to 2020) is that yes, the pedophile did it, but BSA was negligent in allowing it to happen. In short, and I mean very, very short:

1) Boy Scouts of America (BSA National, the Congressionally Chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils to carry that program out.

2) Boy Scouts of America directly chartered each year the units in question.

3) Boy Scouts of America knew from early, early on it had a pedophile problem and created the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout.

Therefore

1. Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed.
2. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc.
3. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough
4. Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor."

Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

 

I understand all of the negligence. You do a great job educating us. 

I was dragged into this mess. At this point, I want to know how much and when. I want to see some very large insurance settlements....billions.

I’m happy to keep buying popcorn, camp cards, sending fos, and purchasing bricks and canoes in build a new camp capital campaign. There is no better youth program to expose kids to all types of careers, hobbies, and adventure than BSA. I also believe the BSA YP program can be improved but is still better than any other program I’ve seen. Follow the rules and kids will be safe. Don’t, and there will be more abuse. And, there will be more abuse because the world is imperfect.

I’m tired of the legal wrangling and how long the process takes. Let’s see the TCC plan. Send all the plans out. I’ll decide which one gets my vote. 

[qwazse]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

... But let's go one step further: EVEN IF the BSA had reported the pedophile and the abuser was convicted, that would have precisely NO impact on the negligence claims that BSA allowed the abuse to happen in the first place.

As did the very first non-reporting victim of every abuser. So, why not sue them? Or their families for not training them to report? Is it because they are somehow innocent by not being part of a corporation?

We have warped the word "allowed" until it makes no sense. Find any documentation anywhere where any BSA official grants permission to abuse kids. In fact it forbade it to such a degree that children in their were 10-100 fold less likely to be abused than elsewhere.

Let's not whitewash this. BSA is on the line because it has money. Having money is not the same as "allowing this to happen." One could make a better argument that certain publicists have allowed this to happen -- practically giving perpetrators a manual of operations. But, victims can't get at them for it.

Show me TCC's plans to provide kids someplace safer, to make them more resilient, better reporters, with more accountable caretakers.

Edited May 28, 2021 by qwazse

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, qwazse said:

As did the very first non-reporting victim of every abuser.

Because the non-reporting victim had no legal duty to care for other scouts. BSA did, and was negligent in that duty to care.

9 minutes ago, qwazse said:

We have warped the word "allowed" until it makes no sense. Find any documentation anywhere where any BSA official grants permission to abuse kids.

As was shown in the Oregon and other cases: BSA officials KNEW they had a problem and did nothing and/or engaged in coverups. That's "allowed" enough to prove BSA was negligent.

Moreover, and this is key, BSA is going to be forced soon (if it hasn't happened already) to release a list of ALL the sexual abuse claims over the decades and the amounts paid out. That will show that BSA officials knew they had a problem but found it cheaper/easier to just pay out than to actually make changes to the program.

10 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Show me TCC's plans to provide kids someplace safer, to make them more resilient, better reporters, with more accountable caretakers.

First, that's not TCC's responsibility. Their legal fiduciary duty is to operate for the victims.

Second, despite not having any legal need to do so, TCC has said it will in fact be coming out with a plan in improve YP and will be asking the court to order BSA to put it into place.

13 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Let's not whitewash this. BSA is on the line because it has money.

No, it is on the line because it acted negligent over the course of DECADES when it knew it had a child sexual abuse problem and did nothing. And the dozens of lawsuits they've already lost and settlements they reached, not to mention the information and statements from BSA officials released when Oregon courts ordered the IV files partially opened show BSA knew, did nothing (or nothing much), and just kept on going doing what it was doing.

[100thEagleScout]

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The reason BSA is being sued (and has lost numerous times in state courts prior to 2020) is that yes, the pedophile did it, but BSA was negligent in allowing it to happen. In short, and I mean very, very short:

1) Boy Scouts of America (BSA National, the Congressionally Chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils to carry that program out.

2) Boy Scouts of America directly chartered each year the units in question.

3) Boy Scouts of America knew from early, early on it had a pedophile problem and created the Ineligible Volunteer Files.

4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout.

Therefore

1. Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed.
2. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc.
3. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough
4. Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor."

Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

 

What’s even worse is when BSA local councils hired/retained paid counselors they knew or should have known were likely to abuse children/their peers.  This isn’t just a problem from the 1970s like BSA likes to make us all think.  This problem stretches to as recently as 2 years ago right before COVID-19.  My council was particularly bad about it and is the reason I’m suing them.  Ridiculous that I had to go to my high school teacher at the time to report something I reported to the LC who didn’t take any action whatsoever besides being too late at firing from camp.  I think it took another 4-6 months for him to get banned from Scouting forever.

[100thEagleScout]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Here is where I have an issue.  It isn't to me so much what the BSA did but what they did not do.  They did not help those that were in need and that was the victims of the "evil pedophiles". In my situation the local council knew that one of my rapists victimized 12 to 13 boys such as myself and never lifted a finger to try and identify any of us and get us the help that was needed.   Yes they prevented him from being a volunteer again in another city several years later but essentially covered up what he had previously done.  Does anyone know of a situation where after a Boy Scout was victimized that the BSA went to the victim and made sure that the proper counseling and therapy was provided?  Yesterday after 54 years I had my first therapy session and that is 54 years to late.

I tried getting into BSA’s therapy.  No therapist is taking new clients so oh well. I turned instead to pushing those memories behind me.  Psychologically I’d say it’s several lifetimes behind me because I binge television shows and read manga to push it out of my memory.  It hurts my wallet, but it’s my own way of getting past it.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I tried getting into BSA’s therapy.  No therapist is taking new clients so oh well.

If you are interested in discussing, feel free to DM me. My therapist has a great network of colleagues. I would never push, but I think being in therapy is critical for most of us. That's my take after 20 years of it. I'd be in worse shape without it. Much...

[CynicalScouter]

20 minutes ago, qwazse said:

In fact it forbade it to such a degree that children in their were 10-100 fold less likely to be abused than elsewhere.

That "data" is based on your misreading and misinterpretation. We don't know how much of a difference. For one thing, you assume (wrongly) that there were ONLY 84,000 instances of child sexual abuse in BSA over that time period. That's a bad assumption for 3 reasons.

1. Those who were abused and opted to not to file a claim.
2. Those who were abused and were dead prior to the claim date.
3. Those who were abused and were unaware of the claim date.

Etc.

Taking 84,000 as "the" number of child sexual abuse victims and then attempting to do some back of the envelope math to "prove" BSA was 10-100 fold less likely to be abused is bad social science, poor math, and would get you laughed out of the Research Methods 101.

If you really, really, wanted to conduct social science research you'd draw a statistically significant sample of BSA members across the years/decades and compute an abuse rate based on that sampling. Not "who filed a claim in a bankruptcy case".

BSA is going to pay. You may not like tort claims based on negligence/duty to care for children. You may not like the extension of statutes of limitations to allow for such claims to be filed now.

But if that's your problem call your state legislature. In the meantime, BSA is going to pay for what they did (coverup) and what they failed to do (negligence).

[CynicalScouter]

Just a gentle reminder: the sexual abuse victims are the victims here. Not BSA.

Thanks.

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, qwazse said:

We have warped the word "allowed" until it makes no sense. Find any documentation anywhere where any BSA official grants permission to abuse kids.

I think you're incorrectly defining the words as giving "active permission." Although allow does sometimes mean, "to permit," it does not necessarily or often mean to grant permission. More accurately, it means to fail to prevent. "He allowed the dog to roam the streets." "She allowed the water to run off the table and onto the floor." They failed to affirmatively act to prevent is to allow.

Definition of allow

transitive verb

1a: PERMIT doesn't allow people to smoke in his home

b: to fail to restrain or prevent allow the dog to roam

2a: to assign as a share or suitable amount (as of time or money) allow an hour for lunch

b: to reckon as a deduction or an addition allow a gallon for leakage

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

To do so would have meant instant litigation. And, perpetrators can and did argue that a person in counseling wasn't fit to testify ... making achieving convictions even harder on victims and families.

1. No, it would not have.
2. Again, the point is not that BSA failed to report, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. It was that BSA negligently allowed the abuse to occur in the first place.