Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

It our area, at least, it is my understanding that the many of the chartered organizations which sponsored a unit named in a bankruptcy claim have not yet been notified that there is a potential claim looming for their organization. Add to that shock, the fact the BSA has stated in court filings that there may not be any insurance coverage available or that the CO will be responsible for very high deductibles.  There is a tsunami approaching for the chartered organizations that will affect even those that have no current claim or are located in a state without extended statue of limitations.

For the most part, even the large denominational sponsors have had very limited communications with local congregations because of the uncertainty.  Most CO's are simply unaware and not at all prepared to face a major lawsuit. There is no apparent process visible to even communicate with and to advise them, especially for the CO's not linked to a major denomination.  Given the strict confidentiality limitations imposed upon the claims, how can a CO even assess the potential risk to them and whether they should participate in a "contribution" toward the settlement trust before being served with a lawsuit?

The ramifications are likely to shake the current BSA model to the very core.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

 

The ramifications are likely to shake the current BSA model to the very core.

That would be a best case scenario if it is limited to the BSA relationship with COs. In a worst case, zombie world scenario, we could see hundreds of local small COs wiped out or affected by this. For example, the Methodist Church. I work with is a state based council. A host of smaller churches by me are barely functional, but they do have some property and assets. If the UMC had to respond to the cases in our state as a council, it would likely result in the closure and sale of dozens of small churches, their parsonages, some local camp properties, community buildings, etc. If Chapter 11 is meant to leave BSA functional, does it also ensure that any COs are left functional? Most are teetering on a knife's edge. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Given the strict confidentiality limitations imposed upon the claims, how can a CO even assess the potential risk to them and whether they should participate in a "contribution" toward the settlement trust before being served with a lawsuit?

If I had a role in my former diocese, I would have been on the phone with SEs and searching the Omni Agent site for the number of claims against the LCs included within my turf. That would provide some sense of the magnitude, especially in a highly Catholic-based CO region. Problem is, are they really paying attention to available sources of information and do they have any inkling of the potential poop storm rising that could motivate inquiry? Who’s providing them with info? Even assuming every diocese is truly as involved as has been said, what do they really know? I’m still a tad dubious. For example, I highly doubt the parishes who did and do sponsor troops have the details of what’s brewing. Am I totally missing something? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure when the video first aired but Kosnoff just put this on Twitter
 
tX9gVo7B_normal.jpg
 
Can the Boy Scouts survive a flood of sexual abuse claims? https://youtu.be/wA5FeET9ByE via
 
 
8exQyH5-?format=jpg&name=240x240
 
Can the Boy Scouts survive a flood of sexual abuse claims?
The Boy Scouts of America’s process of dealing with decades of sexual abuse allegations has entered a new phase. Now that the deadline for abuse survivors to...
youtube.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:
Not sure when the video first aired but Kosnoff just put this on Twitter
 
tX9gVo7B_normal.jpg
 
Can the Boy Scouts survive a flood of sexual abuse claims? https://youtu.be/wA5FeET9ByE via
 
 
8exQyH5-?format=jpg&name=240x240
 
Can the Boy Scouts survive a flood of sexual abuse claims?
The Boy Scouts of America’s process of dealing with decades of sexual abuse allegations has entered a new phase. Now that the deadline for abuse survivors to...
youtube.com

Aired November 17, 2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

Aired November 17, 2020

I would say then that not much has changed in the positive (as far as anyone knows for sure) since November 17, 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

If I had a role in my former diocese, I would have been on the phone with SEs and searching the Omni Agent site for the number of claims against the LCs included within my turf. That would provide some sense of the magnitude, especially in a highly Catholic-based CO region. Problem is, are they really paying attention to available sources of information and do they have any inkling of the potential poop storm rising that could motivate inquiry? Who’s providing them with info? Even assuming every diocese is truly as involved as has been said, what do they really know? I’m still a tad dubious. For example, I highly doubt the parishes who did and do sponsor troops have the details of what’s brewing. Am I totally missing something? 

I think they have no idea. There has been no communication from BSA to the COs other than what has been funneled through Councils. That is mostly a feel good message and in many cases there is no communication channel from the Council/District/Unit to the CO. I don't know about other CO groups, but from what I've seen from the UMC, it's still largely very vague and muted. They are concerned but still want to support scouts, at least according to the latest information I've seen. I think it's unethical that BSA is not being more forthcoming, especially with the smaller and individual CO groups. At one point they may have thought they could have managed the situation, but that is obviously not the case. I imagine if the worst happens, BSA public relations will attempt to blame it on victims' lawyers and victim lawsuits, but as all of us who are on this forum know, this train has been pulling into the station for at least 18 months. There is no excuse. I think the vast majority of COs have no idea about the omni site or anything else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

For example, I highly doubt the parishes who did and do sponsor troops have the details of what’s brewing. Am I totally missing something? 

I have been very surprised at the number of active, long-term Scouters in our community who have little idea of what is playing out.  I think that the executive board has an understanding of the potential risk but have been warned not to share information.  At the district and unit level, most are (blissfully?) ignorant.  This has entered the radar of some of the larger CO's but for the most part they also appear oblivious or at the very least uncertain if and how this could affect them for something that they sponsored perhaps 20, 30 or 40 years ago. 

 

Edited by gpurlee
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yknot said:

I have wondered that as well. However, while many COs are poor, many are rich so I guess it would be worth it to drill down to that level in the long run. But that would take so much time. 

 

My guess is that Kosnoff is bluffing a bit… I have a hard time imagining lawsuits against a PTA for bake sale proceeds.   That said, I could see this turning into the asbestos lawsuits going forward that seem to be unending over the last decade.  As laws change or COs are found to have insurance coverage or decent assets they will be sued. 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I know my LC personally has $13mil+ in cash and assets plus council insurance.  I think they’re probably a council with huge exposure too.

Mine has more than 3x that amount in net assets and just a handful or so of claims that aren't time-barred. Overall, they have upwards of 200. I'm very curious to see how they participate in a global resolution or not, both from an academic and legal/risk management strategy standpoint and personally (of course). As has been discussed and debated, if litigated, those several claims could be disastrous for them depending on their insurance coverage. 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

As laws change or COs are found to have insurance coverage or decent assets they will be sued. 

I had a lingering ambivalence about pursuing my CO, though that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it if my future attorney deems it both appropriate and necessary. (At this point, that scenario is hypothetical.) I have two reasons. One, the thought of hurting the parish my mom still attends is unpleasant. And, two, the explanation you guys have given about the almost universal low expectation of CO involvement at the Unit-level. I get that doesn't include the LDS church. That ambivalence is now balanced by the idea shared that Scouting was used an integrated/integral part of a "packaged offering" by the parish. Benign neglect and ignorance are one thing. Utilizing the status as a Chartered Organization to expand the brand is another. Without active involvement, per the Agreement, they received a benefit and gave no consideration. That benefit was at my expense, since their consideration was supposed to be oversight and "management." In effect, they were promising to watch over ME, specifically, and abdicated their duty. They hung the BSA shingle and got the good PR, but didn't live up to their bargain. I think I get it. A sticky wicket.  

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first learned about the Ineligible Volunteer Files in the 1990s, I was given to understand that the cases of perversion were ones that Scouting couldn't prove (i.e., didn't go to trial) but that the local councils wanted to track to keep the alleged predator away from the boys.  Cases that could be proven were supposedly referred to law enforcement.

I understand that some people, wanting to avoid negative publicity, may have used the files as an alternative to pursuing prosecution.  That was clearly wrong but it still hurts my head that something that was created as a tool for preventing sexual abuse is being used as evidence that it was being allowed.  The only people coming out of this in a better condition are the lawyers like Kosnoff.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

When I first learned about the Ineligible Volunteer Files in the 1990s, I was given to understand that the cases of perversion were ones that Scouting couldn't prove (i.e., didn't go to trial) but that the local councils wanted to track to keep the alleged predator away from the boys.  Cases that could be proven were supposedly referred to law enforcement.

I understand that some people, wanting to avoid negative publicity, may have used the files as an alternative to pursuing prosecution.  That was clearly wrong but it still hurts my head that something that was created as a tool for preventing sexual abuse is being used as evidence that it was being allowed.  The only people coming out of this in a better condition are the lawyers like Kosnoff.

I hear you, but maybe something else to consider. The files are evidence of a deeper, and I think insidious, motivation. 

The IVF existed for a long time before BSA was forced to produce them. And, as they admitted, represented nowhere near the number of IVs that would have been in the files had they not "purged" records. The existence of the IVF, the failure to proactively disclose them (and the incidents in real time) with the full knowledge of the historic pattern of abuse built the case for their own liability.  In the moment, it may have seemed like a reasonable thing to do, but if you know your cig's are causing cancer and you don't disclose it, you're gonna be held to account. If you have an airbag that explodes and you don't recall it and warn people, you're gonna be held to account. Scouting was and is, in a very real sense, a product. It was being "sold" to an unsuspecting public with an inherent design defect.

The context of sending boys into virtual seclusion with adult men in innumerable settings without stringent protective measures was a recipe for CSA disaster. There are no two ways about it and not a single way around it. They discovered it, they tracked it, they wrote it down, they stored records, they purged records, they settled lawsuits, they defended themselves at trial, they opposed Child Victims Acts with paid lobbyists and all the while chose not to warn the current and prospective Scouting public. That don't smell so good. It was self-serving and that's what precipitated and perpetuated this crisis.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...