Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[ThenNow 1373]

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If it listed city and state, at least we could look for a name that is similar.

I couldn't figure out the logic on two fronts. One, the lack of such identifiers in the POC, if that was the case. And two, the failure to note it in the summary of claims wherever it was listed by the claimant. The information is requested within the same question.

The POC at Part 4H, page 7 of 12, it asks: What was the name and location (city, state, territory and/or country) of the organization that chartered or sponsored your Scouting unit, including the organization that hosted meetings of your Scouting unit, during the time of your sexual abuse (e.g., church, school, religious institution, or civic group)? I figured naming the CO would've been harder than the city, but I lived across the street from our church for 18 years. Kinda easy for me.

[yknot 1338]

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

Thanks, I took a look at that.  It has three data sets: year, council, CO, but it doesn't correlate them.  So it works if your CO is uniquely named.  Mine is a Catholic CO, and there's no way of knowing which "St. John Parish" has been named. 

I'm not exactly clear on the process but I would assume that no one should use this list to rule their CO, Council, or unit in or out for a claim just yet. I think it was noted earlier that in many cases information regarding unit numbers or Council or CO names or locations was sometimes included but listed in the wrong section of the form and so was not captured for this list. I have not heard that any kind of vetting of the claims has been done although maybe someone here knows more than me. Regardless, a certain degree of forensics on these claims could very possibly identify additional COs or Councils as the process unfolds. 

[ThenNow 1373]

14 minutes ago, yknot said:

I have not heard that any kind of vetting of the claims has been done although maybe someone here knows more than me.

I think we would have to define vetting, including what method(s), by which entity and when. 

[yknot 1338]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I think we would have to define vetting, including what method(s), by which entity and when. 

For starters for me, I'd just like to know what happened to data that was entered in the wrong place. Was it corrected before the list was published? Were any claims sent back to the claimant for clarification in such cases? I'm assuming nothing was rejected but I would like to know how many claims would appear more complete if at least a minimal effort was made to correctly capture stray information. 

[ThenNow 1373]

Deleted.

20 minutes ago, yknot said:

For starters for me, I'd just like to know what happened to data that was entered in the wrong place. Was it corrected before the list was published? Were any claims sent back to the claimant for clarification in such cases? I'm assuming nothing was rejected but I would like to know how many claims would appear more complete if at least a minimal effort was made to correctly capture stray information. 

Per the document when issued by the TCC. I don't recall hearing about or seeing an update with corrections and/or fields completed that were misplaced or blank.

The information summarized in the attached charts was exported by the Boy Scouts’ professionals from the filed sexual abuse claims. It has come to the attention of the Tort Claimants’ Committee’s professionals that not all the information was exported error free. The Tort Claimants’ Committee intends to address with the Boy Scouts’ professionals any information discrepancies in the claims data to help in ensure the information is collected uniformly and accurately.

As we know from the TCC town halls, The Stang repeatedly implored survivor claimants to file amendments to more fully complete their POC. I have no idea how many did. I wonder if Omni would give the number. I may ask. I would think a lot of attorneys would have either scrambled to review and attempt to complete the claims or they were among those satisfied with having a batch of timely claims in the que, waiting for a payday. As I've mentioned before, the firms such as Zuckerman, Mones, Zalkin, Pfau, Anderson and others did their vetting on the front end. I bet their clients didn't need to do much if anything to have a robust POC.

Side note as to vetting, and this goes back to the roster requests. LCs had the chance to review the claims implicating them and I am aware of SEs who read all of them for to see if the information lined up to their records and anything they could use to verify. I have wondered how much those reviews played a part in the Ad Hoc Committee's formula for contributions. I have too many blind spots in my understanding of all of this.

Edited February 16, 2022 by ThenNow

[yknot 1338]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I have too many blind spots in my understanding of all of this.

That's how I'm feeling. So it sounds in essence that we relied on LCs and SEs to vet claim forms? I guess I'm wondering was it in their interest to be diligent in that process, or not? I started thinking about this when people on this thread or another started saying that their council has no or few claims as if they are now completely in the clear. Is the list that definitive a document? If claims can be ruled out as being invalid or low level due to missing information, can other claimslater  be ruled in if it's later found the proper information was on the form but overlooked? All I know is I don't think any CO or LC should feel "safe" just because so far they haven't been linked to a claim. Seems like there are still some i's and t's to dot and cross to me...

[ThenNow 1373]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

All I know is I don't think any CO or LC should feel "safe" just because so far they haven't been linked to a claim. Seems like there are still some i's and t's to dot and cross to me...

In case I was vague, the LCs/SEs I mentioned reviewed all the redacted claims that implicate the LC. 

[MYCVAStory 687]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I have not heard that any kind of vetting of the claims has been done

Vetting has only been done by attorneys filing claims.  (Insert opinions about that here).   That's why the selection of a Trustee, claims processing professionals, and a Trust Advisory Committee are so important.  Ultimately the Trust will vet claims as best as possible so that available funds go to valid Survivors.  While the scope of this is historically large its been done in other mass tort and abuse settings.  So, there are "best practices" and if a Trust is established let's hope it communicates well its work.

[PaleRider 53]

21 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

In what way are scouts not safe in the current BSA?  My LC has 2-3 claims filed that are within the SOL, which means sometime i the last two decades.  These are of course untested claims so it's not even clear they reveal anything.

Improvements will hopefully make things better, but there is very little evidence that scouts today are meaningfully unsafe in scouting.  Not perfect doesn't mean not safe.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by PaleRider

[vol_scouter 365]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

In case I was vague, the LCs/SEs I mentioned reviewed all the redacted claims that implicate the LC. 

That review was minimal vetting.  They looked at whether the claim was registered with the correct council.  If not, it was sent to the correct council.  They tried to find any record that would indicate that the claimant had been a Scout, what unit, and were the adults named ever registered in Scouting.  That is the most fundamental pieces of information.  Most claims could be matched reasonably well.  Occasionally, a claimant could not be found in any registration information, the unit number was never known to have existed, the volunteers were not named or could not be found, the named CO had not been a CO.   Those claims were not removed, just classed as unverifiable.  I do not know the percentage.  It was not tiny nor large.

[skeptic 990]

Just for info; there is a Zoom meeting this afternoon/evening with the National Methodist leader for Scouting and Mr. Mosby.  It is only open to listen or give written questions, but hopefully will clarify some things.  Charters are now extended through June, but that still leaves a hole with registrations, which is our major concern at this time.  The good thing is that there is actually effort being made.  Or that is my perspective, anyway.  

[MYCVAStory 687]

An FYI....

The TCC urges you to attend the TCC’s “Town Hall” meetings. The next “Town Hall” meeting will be February 17 at 5 p.m. (Pacific)/7 p.m. (Central)/8 p.m. (Eastern).  The TCC will discuss its recommendations about these material changes to BSA’s Plan.

Here is the Zoom link to the Town Hall meetings: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295

OR telephone: 1-669-900-9128; Code: 82272826295#

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by MYCVAStory

[PACAN 220]

Can anyone from the UMC side of this explain why the Church and the BSA are essentially jerking around their scouts with this unnecessary extension of rechartering?

[skeptic 990]

17 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Can anyone from the UMC side of this explain why the Church and the BSA are essentially jerking around their scouts with this unnecessary extension of rechartering?

My response is that the jerking around is being done by the whole process and the continuing threats against CO's by some involved in the process, or on its periphery.  CO's, especially Methodist, who is the largest now, and always was the one with the most membes outside LDs, just like other CO's cannot afford to just sit back and let the legal hounds continue to prey on them.  So, they are working to try for a viable process going forward for their best protection on the legal side.  The misconception that all the churches are deep pockets is just that, a misconception.  It is much like the ideal that because there are large camps and so on in the BSA network, they can just sell it all.  Not true, and many local churches are in serious financial stress due to aging congregations and the changes in spiritual direction of much of the population.  Meanwhile, those old church properties continue to serve their communities, often as meeting sites for other non profits and community outreach.  If the are sold, due to location or whatever, they end up with no place of their own and often put out other service oriented groups.  Few of them could ever again afford to have the sites they now have due to the factors noted about the congregations, as well as simply the out of sight real estate costs in what now are often prime locations in many areas.  

If we are part of the community, we are connected to it.  And every piece that plays a small positive part is important.  Money does not make the community.  The people and their groups make it with their participation and sharing.  Until the majority can see the error of basing almost everything on themselves and monetary "worth" we will continue to sturggle more than we should.  Egotism and selfishness never serve us well in the long run.

Edited February 17, 2022 by skeptic

[vol_scouter 365]

I believe that the UMC is waiting to get an indication that this plan is going forward.  If it does not, then what happens might be considerably different.  Though a member of the UMC, I have no inside information.