ParkMan

On 12/2/2024 at 7:33 PM, Tron said:

I get what you're saying here; that ties into constantly recruiting. DE's are constantly pushing recruitment of scouts for units but they never seem to push constantly recruiting district committee/commissioner corp. 

Thanks all for the thoughts and comments - they are greatly appreciated.

I'm wondering if I'm seeing something of a trend here.  People don't feel that councils are investing in Commissioners and other district volunteers.  As a result, People are not motivated to volunteer and so you end up with a small group of "the faithful" who will volunteer.

We think there could be more success if:

- It was clear councils appreciated and recognized these district level vounteers.

- councils invested in training and development of these district level volunteers.

- council professionals placed a priority on recruiting district level volunteers.

It sounds like some districts may be doing an OK job at this and as such some districts are fielding more complete and happy teams.

Does this feel like something of the right direction?  

On 11/20/2024 at 11:49 AM, HashTagScouts said:

If you have units rolling with adult leaders who don't truly get the program, it's a big ask to who may have been the only willing volunteer to be a Commissioner and expect that person is going to impart anything onto that adult. Most of the Commissioners, whether they be Council, District, or Unit that I have interacted with in the last decade+ have been retirement age, long since been active to a unit, and often have been pressed into it. The results often were mixed, especially in light of the later part. 

I'd welcome thoughts on what a district/council could meaningfully do to break this cycle.  

Like many, I've been in Scouting long enough to see the same pattern.  I can't help but feel I'm watching the same cycle over and over again.  Yes, the answer is "we just need to recruit some experienced commissioners..."  Anyone have success doing that?

In our district, we tend to see two kinds of units - larger units of 30+ scouts and smaller units of 15 or less scouts.

The larger packs and troops have a deeper adult team that is supporting a wider array of activities.  They routinely bring in 6 or more new scouts every year.  They're active in the OA, participate in camporee, their leaders often jump over and help with district wide trainings and events.

The smaller packs and troops have a small core team of leaders and don't recruit much.  They tend to hang on year to year, but they don't tend to see a lot of new members.  We rarely see them.

Packs need a lot of adults period - 2 adults per den of 6-8 cubs.  Another 4-8 adults providing pack level support - CC, CM, 2x Asst. CM, membership, treasurer, fundraising,  advancement chair, and so on.

Troops are a bit different.

From a working directly with the Scouts perspective, yes troops do need fewer ASMs that help week to week.  But they need a supporting group of ASMs to attend weekend trips.  A monthly trip is a big ask for anyone and a supporting group of ASMs can really lighten that load.

Another area where adults help is troop operations - troops need even more adult operations support than packs.  Eagle projects, boards of review, merit badge, more fundraising, specialty skills, and so on.

I think the reason we see two general size groups is that units with good programs that recruit adults to help with operations tend to grow.  Units with good programs that don't recruit adults to help, end up with overburdened program leaders.

There are of course exceptions - some small units simply want to be small.  These units are not that common around here.

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is what the Commissioner Corps is supposed to be for.  And, in all the councils I have been in, it has been sorely lacking.  I have some thoughts on the reasons for this.  What are yours, and how could we fix?

In our council, recruiting and developing Commissioners is an afterthought.  Yes, Commissioners constantly say they'd like to recruit more Commissioners - but a district is lucky to see one new Commissioner a year.  Ongoing training and mentoring for Commissioners is sparse.

If you want to fix this, Councils need to make recruiting and developing Commissioners a focus area.  All hands need to be on deck in identifying quality Commissioners.  The professionals need to participate in this process as well.

Commissioners should be activly developed and should be part of the process whenever a professional contacts a unit.  Further, when a Commissioner identifies a unit need, the rest of the team - be it volunteer or professional - needs to help in solving the unit's issue.

I may be in the minority, but I think this is a fine idea. They want to get involved and be hands on.  Most COs don't even have an active COR.

You will need to have a conversation with the CO President so that they make sure they don't undermine anyone.  

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Yes. 110%. I also think the distance of relative anonymity is a protection many of us need so we do not feel too exposed and threatened, though the threat may be hard to define or understand for others. Although I’ve been to “groups” for many of my issues, I’ve never had a therapist direct me to a support or therapy group for BSA sexual abuse survivors where we get to speak out mind and rant at current Scouters. I’m thinking about forming such a group, though.

One of the key differences here is the fact that we’re not dead. Most memorials are built on that premise, though they very much honor the horror that inflicted that death and the collateral pain and damage, as well. For many, it would be too much to bear. I think I would find it powerful for me. I can anticipate a real issue though. CSA is very unpleasant. Are people ready to honor those who’ve suffered such that they would go to such a place? If they didn’t, that would be another trauma layer (for me anyway). If something like this were created, maybe there needs to be one iteration fully public, maybe inclusive of all CSA victims but spurred by the BSA case, and another at Summit. 

A memorial/reflection location sounds like a good idea.   I do appreciate that memorial is not quite the right term here.  Perhaps even a foundation that promotes advancement of awareness and prevention of child sexual abuse as well.

I second the notion that it should be for all victims of child sexual abuse - not simply those received it through Scouting.  

Some sort of visual reminder at Philmont and the Summit would be a good idea.  Something visible to remind us all how important it is for us all to work everyday to keep children safe.

Once a settlement is reached, it strikes me that from a Scouting perspective there needs to be some energy spent on listening, understanding, and healing divisions and wounds.  During this time everyone of course wants to see what is best for kids and abuse victims - but there have also been a lot of hurt feelings.  It's important for the BSA to recognize that and work diligently to embrace those who were harmed through their involvement in Scouting.  

7 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

One last point about this. Most of the audience at NAM are BSA professionals and council level volunteers (Council Board members). I would not expect a message of "We are dead, go back to your councils and prepare to be destroyed in court" but I was honestly a tad taken aback by the sheer "We are done! Hurrah!" messaging.

We come back to the problem when NAM told Local Councils that no matter what, none of the bankruptcy will blow back onto LCs. Either

1. BSA National knew that was a fiction and proceeded to lie
2. BSA National knew there was going to be SOME, LITTLE blowback and decided to put on a happy face
3. BSA National truly did think it would have no impact on LCs and just got caught like deer in the headlights

We have a similar situation here

1. BSA National knows this is far from over for BSA National (and forget about LCs and COs, they are so, so up a creek at this point) and is simply lying so as to not scare the local councils leaders
2. BSA National thinks it is going to be done by August and while it is going to be bad, it won't be THAT bad (read: cramdown toggle)
3. BSA National truly thinks this is all over for everyone (read: global plan) and is blissfully naive

EDIT: Or, perhaps option 4: a deal really has been reached and BSA is prepared to come to the June 4 hearing with something that looks like a deal.

You have to remember that the NAM is not actually a meeting - it's a event designed to generate enthusiasm and encouragements amongst the members.  It's something akin to the big annual stockholders meetings that corporations have.

All the real information sharing happens outside of these sorts of meetings.

Yes, activist members could find a way to highjack the meeting - but rarely does that happen.

On 4/22/2021 at 6:13 PM, Owls_are_cool said:

Fixing one wrong with another wrong might be legal, but there is a point where scouts will not see the value in the program and cut their losses. 

I fear that people all around miss that fact.  My child joined a pack and later a troop to experience scouting (lower case).  Yes, the BSA program is good and nicely developed.  But most people are not in the BSA because of the organization.  At some point the continual increase in funds to defend lawsuits will only lead to declining membership.

On 4/22/2021 at 7:42 PM, CynicalScouter said:

So as I said, if you truly, truly believe paying a penny for the sexual abuse victims means "we'll move to another organization or quit scouting", then there's the (metaphorical) door. Those payments have already been made and it is 100% certain more payments will be occurring.

Leave.

Just as in the bankruptcy thread, it will be impossible to discuss this topic because none of us can leave emotions and beliefs out of this.

@MattR - I saw your post and read several of the surrounding comments.

I suspect that it is impossible to sperate people's feelings of the lawsuit, the BSA, and child abuse.  Even if this topic was simply numbers and motions, those discussions would still be centered around whether the BSA was paying enough or not.  This is simply too charged a topic for dispassionate analysis.

No matter what we do, people will come back to those core issues around the lawsuit.  I think we have to recognize that fact and do our best to be tolerant of each other here.  Generally this forum does a good job of that.   Yes, I do wish the topic wasn't as negative as it often is - but I think it's simply unavoidable. 

I, like others, would encourage you not to lock it.  Overall it has been a useful service to have this topic.  People want to discuss it, and this forum provides a useful service in having a place to channel those discussions. 

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Maybe? The point is that BSA is asking you to give up any claim you have today OR MAY HAVE IN THE FUTURE regarding your sexual abuse. So, even if NOW, TODAY you have no actionable claim (no SoL lookback) someday, you may. If this plan closes the door on ANY claim against BSA, now (Sol lookback states) or in the future (state legislature approves a SoL lookback), you get a vote.

At least, that is how I read it.

But does a potentially future actionable claim matter if the BSA is the sole organization involved after the US Trustee's objection?  Doesn't chapter 11 or chapter 7 really push for a determination of who has claims, what assets are available to settle those claims, and if the organization is financially viable afterwards?   Does a "we might have a claim someday" go pretty low on the list?  If at all?

Isn't the settlement more applicable only if the LCs are joining so that their future liability goes away?

Hi @Alaina,

Can I ask you three questions first so that I can get a sense of your troop?

1. If you had to describe where your troop is today, what does you troop look like?  How many kids, how active, how many volunteers?

2. If you could describe what you want you troop to look like in 2-3 years, what does it look like?

3. Why did you decide to volunteer as a Committee Member?

Thanks!

5 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

The irony I observe is that all those who brush of this issue claiming that Scouting is supposed to be "fun" don't seem to be having very much fun commenting on the subject. 😄

 

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here.  But, in general I would encourage that none of us read too much into how any of us writes.  We all have different professional backgrounds and different styles.  I enjoy the discussion on stuff like this.

5 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Again, I will tread lightly on the matter this time around. Those who make a big fuss over compliance with what should be a crystal clear, easy-to-follow protocol that takes only a few minutes of tailoring to obey, reveal more about themselves than a simple desire to "have fun and enjoy themselves." 🤨

😅

I theme I'm inferring for your posts is one of obeying the rules.  As an adult, I don't put a whole lot of energy into worrying about obeying a BSA rule on how many knots to wear.  Yes, I do follow the BSA guidelines on uniforming because I have chosen to.  

For me, obeying the rule isn't the point.  There are somethings in Scouting that I follow without exception - YPT & the G2SS for example.  I do so because it's the right thing to do.  But it is not out of some sense of blind obedience.  

If I see a Scouter with 4 rows, I smile knowing the rule - but then get to know that Scouter.  Once you get somewhere above two rows, that tends to start signaling someone with a lot of history in the program.  To me that's interesting and I am curious about that person and their story.

Yet, I don't look at 4 rows and think less of a person because they haven't obeyed an arbitrary rule in the uniform guide.   We're all adults and I'm very comfortable that an experienced adult Scouter can bend a rule like that one.  To me it's those little aberrations that add character.  If someone was breaking a YPT rule, that would of course be a different discussion.

This is why I refer to it as a youth program.  In my mind I think we can allow a little flexibility in a rule like this one.  I would lobby that the BSA remove the three row rule all together.  What really is the harm if this rule went away?  In an era where we are strapped for volunteers and members is there really a harm to that occasional volunteer with 6 rows?

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

We really need to crank up the contention over this. It might bury the story that USC just agreed to pay over $1B for sex abuse.

Well, in that case...

I cannot believe how big a deal we make over what is essentially a non issue.  Why do we need to look down at Scouters because they want to put a few pieces of cloth on their shirt?  Aren't the leaders in the no-knot crowd simply trying to look superior by claiming "real Scouters don't wear knots?"  Are they not themselves breaking several parts of the Scout law - friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful.  Why should obedient trump all these others?

Is that better?

15 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Boy, I feel as if I have covered this topic SO MANY TIMES over the past few years ... but suffice it to say, I think that to ask "what's the harm?" is to ask the wrong question. The better question is to ask "what message am I sending to the youth and to other leaders by the way I wear my uniform and its insignia?" 

When I see somebody with enough knots to make a third-world general blush, I don't feel any sense of awe, nor admiration; nor am I ever curious to know the "stories and experiences" that they feel I should be eager to hear with reverent ears. All I can think to myself is "a Scouter with this much supposed experience should know better. A Scouter with this much supposed experience should, one would think, be aware of current uniforming standards, and be modest enough or humble enough to abide by them."

A Scout, and Scouter, I hope, is obedient, even when it pertains to such "trivial" details as complying with present-day uniform expectations. So, yes, I agree that wearing an excess of insignia does share something of our journey - but sometimes, it may share parts of that journey that may not necessarily reflect the best or wisest paths that we have trod. 

The reason this comes up a lot is honestly captured in your response.

1. Why would you use the phase "with enough knots to make a third-world general blush"
2. Why do you not see awe from a lot of experience?
3. Why should "a Scouter with this much supposed experience should know better."?
4. Why does this "one would think, be aware of current uniforming standards, and be modest enough or humble enough to abide by them." matter?

Knots are .75" x 1.75" pieces of cloth you sew on a shirt. 

So you have 1, 2, 9, 20, or 30 - really so what?  Why do we infer that this means anything more than - hey, this person's done a lot of stuff?

It's a youth activity.   People have fun and dress up their uniforms.  Perhaps part of the issue with uniforms and Scouting isn't that people put a bunch of color on it - but that not enough people put a bunch of stuff on it.  Why do we make light of people and refer to them as third world generals?  It's all for fun.  Why try to make it all serious and haughty?

This isn't the Jr. Jr. ROTC.  It's Scouting - a game with a purpose.

It's a volunteer activity - uniforms can be a fun way for a volunteer to share something of their story.

If someone wears 0 knots, 3 knots, or 20 knots - I don't see the harm.

I say - if you've got the knot, wear it if you want.  We should not be making people feel guilty about wearing their knots and sharing a little about their journey.

1 hour ago, BlueandSilverBear said:

West Point still has gymnastics as a core PE requirement for all cadets (although they call it "military movement") and they have the infamous Indoor Obstacle Course Test that is essentially a series of gymnastics events.  I have to assume the inclusion in the Master-at-Arms badge came from that same school of thought.

I just think you have to show the Scouts the move the Matrix and they'll be ready for all the martial arts the BSA could throw at them.  

Around where I am, the council has very little impact on recruiting.  Recruiting in our area is driven almost entirely by units.  If there was a path to recruiting older Scouts, I think our troops would try it.  I just don't think they see a path.  Maybe if we could figure out how to recruit those older kids into the program this wouldn't be such a big deal.

The obvious path for recruiting is still to recruit tigers & wolves and then keep them in the program.

5 hours ago, David CO said:

OK.  My concern has always been that councils do not have enough independence from national.  Councils are supposed to be separate entities.  But they're not.  They are totally controlled by national.  The new territory plan is just more of the same. Read the target goals.  Why is the territory setting council targets?  If councils are independent entities, shouldn't they be setting their own targets based on local needs?

If the bankruptcy court needs proof that BSA actually runs the councils, it has to go no further than the new territories plan.

I think you have to define "totally controlled by national."

I've been involved long enough now at the district/council level that I know well that our council is most certainly not controlled on a day to day basis by national.  I seriously doubt that national even cares about our camporees or other council level activities.

Sure, there are some places where national has established firm rules that must be follow - such as YPT.  But those are not all that prevalent.

I can tell you that in my volunteer work, I see almost no control by national.  

53 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA's Reorganization Plan involves BSA AND the LCs AND the insurance companies paying into the Settlement Fund.

That Reorg plan literally spells out, in black and white, that LCs and Insurance Companies will be paying along with BSA.

Only, that's the problem.

1) LC's are being asked for "voluntary" contributions equaling $300 million by BSA and they ain't volunteering much if at all. The TCC is insisting that LCs be MANDATED to give SPECIFIC amounts that far exceed $300 million. And by the way, this BSA reorg plan concludes with both BSA National AND THE LOCAL COUNCILS having all abuse claims prior to 2020 ended. Meanwhile, the LCs are still palying games/being coy about how much they'll pay, if at all. And the Ad Hoc Committee does NOT legally speaking speak for all 200+ LCs. From a technical standpoint, they only speak or 8 of them.

2) Insurance Companies are not keen to just hand over cash by the bushel. First, they don't think they have to pay a DIME to cover the sexual abuse claims against BSA because (they say) BSA lied to get the insurance policies. But even if the insurance companies DO have to pay, they insist many/most of the 80,000 claims are B.S.

So no, cutting a deal with BSA alone is not going to mean anything if MOST of BSA's deal consists of "Go get money out of the LCs and Insurance Cos". That's not going to fly at all.

 

I follow - thanks.

But, as this is a bankruptcy case for the BSA, isn't the real question on the table what to do with BSA national?  

The BSA will run out of money - so either it goes into Chapter 11 or Chapter 7.  In order to negotiate a settlement, the BSA  has made a proposal that is larger than just BSA national - it includes the LCs as well.  This settlement, if agreed, is the "neatest" way to close all the issue on the table.

However, if the parties cannot agree to a settlement - we are still left with BSA national going bankrupt.  We've all been thinking that if not settlement is reached, then a Chapter 7 occurs.  However, given the judge's comments isn't it just as likely that she'll impose a settlement that will allow a Chapter 11 to occur.  

In short - isn't she telling all the lawyers that they need to come to an agreeable settlement.  It's not just a case where the claimants can say they want more and force Chapter 7.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

When this mediation session happens:

1) Literally WHO is sitting at the table/Zoom session?

2) Of the people listed in #1, WHAT parties do they, or do they not, represent? Or, put another way, what is the authority of the people in that room to negotiate of behalf of BSA, LCs, COs, Insurance Companies, and/or Abuse Claimants?

I can very easily see another round of "Well, I'm here, but only on behalf of X, but not Y." and "No, you don't represent X's interests, I do!" and a half a dozen hours of fighting over that.

 

But isn't the only party here that really matters the BSA?  Maybe also the LCs - maybe.

The judge is telegraphing she wants the BSA to continue and so that means Chapter 11.  Let's say that she has mentally ruled out Chapter 7.  That means that she'll determine the assets the BSA has to divide and to then continue.   Everyone else is secondary.  No?

36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, the judge has been clear she wants a BSA to emerge. My concern this whole time has been that won't happen because of a) inability to get 66% of abuse claimants to agree to a plan and b) Kosnoff driving for liquidation and c) Local Councils not willing to cough up the money needed to get to a settlement.

In other words, it may be that MOST parties involved (other than the Kosnoff team) want to see the Boy Scouts mission continue, but no one can agree on a way forward, so it dies anyway.

Is that when she might entertain a cramdown approach?  Would she not be able to let BSA national complete a chapter 11 bankruptcy and declare the amount they have to pay to creditors? 

To her point, if she did focus on the 100 million in legal fees the BSA has already paid, she may be getting frustrated with the insurance companies and lawyers for the claimants.  From my amateur viewpoint, that would seem a scenario where a judge might impose a settlement.

This seemed a promising quote from the judge:

Quote

“I don’t want to hear that someone decided it was inconvenient or they couldn’t show,” Silverstein added, noting that professional and attorney fees in the bankruptcy case have already cost the Boy Scouts more than $100 million.

 

“I think that is a staggering number, and progress needs to be made,” the judge said. “Victims need to be compensated appropriately, and the Boy Scouts’ mission needs to continue.... Every dollar to professional fees is a dollar that comes out of some creditor’s pocket.”

I know I'm looking for a silver lining, but this was promising.  "the Boy Scouts' mission needs to continue".  Sounds like liquidation isn't an end she favors.

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Yes, but suggesting that both groups are equal is just as stereotypical and neglects possible advantages of single gender approaches. You're is attempting to shut down a thought process again, which is condescending to the other members on the forum.

Until folks are willing to have an intellectual discussion on the subject, it will continue to be a two -sided debate.

I wonder how a discussion on this discussion among intelligent minds would go.

A discussion presupposes that there is a way to draw a conclusion on the topic and decide if co-ed is better or not.    There are so many different factors in deciding whether to go co-ed or not.  Each segment of the population is going to have different factors they favor over others.  

Trying to make a decision at the BSA level because "girls mature faster and tend to take over" generalizes two genders overall.  Not every girl is going to take over.  Not ever boy is going to mature more slowly.  It also takes away the opportunity for boys to learn from girls and vice-versa.  

I think it is simply impossible to arrive at general answer to a topic like this.  Different people will want to focus on different things.

Myself - I think we allow individual COs to decide what works best for their members and to pursue the model that is best for them.

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Seems pretty close minded, even hostile. Do you really believe yours's should be the only one opinion counts in the group? Forget the question, you gave your opinion.

Folks are tired of being discounted and demonized for having a different opinion.

Barry

I didn't intend my post to be close minded or hostile at all.  I've always favored local choice on this question.  I am not forcing co-ed nor and I saying that single gender is wrong.  I am saying that the BSA should allow for co-ed if a CO wants it.

I do have an issue with that the statement in the video where they said "no one on our committee has even asked about co-ed."  We talk co-ed here on this forum on a regular basis.  I am very surprised that committee that is dealing with this topic doesn't have members that have even asked about it.  It makes me wonder if the committee is inclusive enough in it's representation of Scouting's communities.  If they said "we discuss it periodically and have decided against co-ed Scouting, I could believe."  That they said no one asks about it surprises me. 

My offer was somewhat tongue in cheek - but only slightly.  I have no idea how one gets on a national committee.  But if it's anything like my council's committees - it is all about who you know.  People on committees that decide things are often very entrenched, long time Scouters.  That is often good as experience matters.  Yet, it can also create something of a bubble.  I suspect the number of long time Scouters who want to see co-ed Scouting is lower than the number of general Scouters and even the populace at large.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Just to put the fear of whomever into people that are not taking this seriously and reading/lurking this forum:

1) Three Fires Council in its last annual report indicated $3.3 million in support and revenue and $3.5 million in expenditures.

2) There were 126 abuse claims within Three Fires Council + 2 more that were in multiple councils including Three Fires.

3) Wisconsin's statute of limitations on abuse claims wasn't lifted or changed since 2007! Victims have until they day they reach 35 to file a claim.

What this means is LCs are starting to see the writing on the wall. Camp sell offs are going to be happening at a rapid clip.

And not only that, read this

As of 2018 that was around $2.8 million dollars (Part X, Line 27 "Unrestricted net assets").

So what they are saying is that $2.8 million PLUS the sale of their camp is what is going to be required for the settlement fund. Assume they get $1 for the camp, that means payment for the 126 claims ($2,800,000/126) = $22,222.

If you are with a local council, if you are a local scouter, if you are ANYONE who cares about scouting and reads this: be prepared to lose a LOT of your LC.

 

If I were a betting man...

- 50% or more of local camps that exist now will be sold.

- In the next 18 months we'll merge down to one council per 10,000-15,000 scouts.  Each will retain a camp

- all other council owned buildings will be sold to preserve whatever camps we can.

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

During the February 2021 Scouts, BSA Office Hours, Scott Berger (a Scouts, BSA National Leader) was asked why no coed Troops.

This was his response video from 28:30-31:00

That [coed troops] is not in the plan. Nobody supports that [coed troops]. And there's good reason for it. The reason that the program is laid out the way it is currently is because we realized that in many respects girls mature quicker than boys. And having a coed program would disadvantage the boys. And we don't want that. I'm making a joke now. Lot of married people out there. You understand. You know why. Females take over sometimes. That was a joke.

But what I really want to say is that we looked at the experience not only in Venturing, where young women will often assume leadership roles, but we also looked at other countries where they went towards coed troops and a coed way of doing things and it really hurt the young men to the point that the young men quit scouting by about 50%. We don't want that to happen here in the BSA.

So there is no plan. Whenever anybody asks about it, we say very firmly, that's not happening. So, take it to the bank as best you can. But that [coed troops] is not happening.

That was an awful answer.

1. That "girls mature faster than boys" and "we don't want to disadvantage the boys" is the reason, that's an offensive and insulting reason.  That stereotypes each group and neglects the notion that boys and girls can influence each other.  Both genders will benefit from begin around the other.

2. If no one on their committee is talking about co-ed troops, they have the wrong people on that committee.  How do we get someone a bit more current on that committee?  I've got no time, but I'll volunteer.  Just PM me.