Eagle1993

The encounter could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's worst-case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.

The only answer is to stop scouting or stop being a friend of the 17 year old. Also, since they are in the same school and same robotics team, end that as well. That is the only way for it to work. I expect BSA would agree. Its not worth the trouble. How many cases of sex abuse were new 18 year old ASMs assualting their 17 year old ... my guess is almost 0, but that doesn't matter. One other question, as I have one other 18 year old ASM. Is it ok for an Adult to be one on one with their youth sibling? I have a 18 year old ASM who has a 13 year old brother .. both in the Troop. They are one on one many times outside scouting. Are they violating YPT and should I report the 18 year old to my DE? Just curious how far we are expected to take this. I 100% agree that as an adult leader (44 years old), I should not be hanging out with any youth scouting member (other than my kids) one on one, regardless of activity. I'm fine with that. What I am seeing, the rules as written, make it nearly impossible to have an 18 year old continue in scouting ... unless they have no friends in the program.

I think he is talking about outside scouting activities. To tell an 18 year old he has to give up a friendship to join as ASM is insane. It is not the intent of YPT. Basically, once you turn 18 you really can’t be in scouting as it is likely you will be around a 17 year old scout. Also, there is this. Private online communications (texting, phone calls, chat, IM, etc.) must include another registered leader or parent. So he can’t call his friend without his friends mom on the call.

My issue is this: So ... my 18 year old Adult ASM, per YPT, CANNOT hang out with scouting youth (like his 17 year old best friend) outside of scouting activities.

A senior in high school should be treated as a youth as long as he/she is under 19. We have youth that turn 18 before their senior year starts.

I don't think that was the goal. Perhaps it was, but if it was, that is crazy. I thought the point was that if they did a proper sample test, they could determine what % of claims were invalid. If a large enough were invalid, then perhaps, it would mean more if not all should be reviewed. So ... it is more like, I have a truck of apples and I randomly pick and audit a sample of those apples. If I pick a large enough sample and it is truly random, I can predict the % of bad apples in that truck.

If you randomly select those 1,400 claims (by law firm, location, age, etc.) you could predict what % you would expect to see as invalid overall. I didn't realize the way the broke up the categories and would need to defend that statistical sample. That seemed pretty questionable and I'm glad the judge rejected it.

The good news from today is we are seeing some motions denied or approved instead of the kick the can down the road we have seen previously.

He has been predicting this would turn into a mess from the beginning and it really looks bad today for the Coalition/TCC. Kosnoff predicted it and I have to give him credit for that. Now, to be clear, I DO NOT want to see the BSA dissolved. I am hopeful we see a deal that includes LCs and COs sometime within the next 6 months. I'm probably more optimistic now that a deal is done, but only because I expect the Coalition to sell out their claimants and BSA to throw the COs under the bus ... allowing a target for the state lawyers in the future. We will see what happens over the next few weeks.

Kosnoff is looking pretty good right now. I wonder how many times he laughed during the hearing. Now, the Coalition/TCC is probably luck the Hartford deal wasn't struck down. It gives them a bit more leverage. Let's see what happens now. (I wonder if that $800M deal is at risk given today).

We have a scout ready to start his Senior year of high school that just turned 18. He wants to keep participating, so I said sure, fill out this adult leader application & take YPT. Now, the questions... - Can he be with a scouting friend (currently 17), 1-1 at a scouting function? - As an adult leader, would there be an issue if he was with his friend, 1-1, at a non scouting function? I have 0 concerns in terms of actual safety. They are best friends and have been for 14 years. But now, at 18, one is treated as an adult by BSA. Any thoughts?

I believe the TCC said in a Townhall that Harford represented 40% of total insurance liability. Does this mean the rest, combined, would be $1.2B? My guess is that they would want more, but since Hartford got BSA to sign onto a deal, they have them over the barrel. $800M seems light for 40% of total insurance liability.

The NY window has now closed (August 13). It will be interesting to compare the various organizations and number of lawsuits/claimants.

Any update on the hearing today? I didn't see one but may have missed it.

For the first time since we had kids, both my wife and I were working all summer. So, we had to do what many other families do ... figure out child care while school is out of session. While I have been deep in scouting and had an inkling there were some issues with Cub Scout summer camps, it became apparent this year. My daughter is in both Cub Scouts and GSUSA. I would have loved to have her attend the summer camps these scouting organizations offered ... but we didn't sign her up for a variety of reasons. Our Cub Scout summer camp offered programs, but they excluded Fridays ... which means we would have to figure out child care for that 1 day. They pushed hard for parents to volunteer. Most of their offerings required us to drive about 45 mins each way. So ... what does their "competition" offer. No volunteer requests. 5 days a week of camp. Local (15 min drive or less + any bus ride ❤️0 mins) ... and they handle all bussing. We signed her up for 7 weeks of camps from a variety of institutions (JCC, local nature centers, zoo. local museum and the humane society). The BSA Cub Scout day camp was simply not competitive. I hear the same from other families in my area. To me, summer camps create the major bond between an organization and youth/families. Even though it is only 1 week long, many times, I see families putting out yard signs, talking to neighbors, etc. about the camp & organization. I'm not sure how widespread this is, but if BSA is failing to get Cub Scouts going to their summer camps, I'm concerned that we will continue to see less engagement from parents/youth and a decline in the program. I know locally, there have been some attempts to fix some of the issues, but I really think BSA Cub Scout Day camps should: Last all 5 week days (no partial weeks). I expect a slightly shorter day Fridays would be ok. Be located a reasonable distance from kids and require parents to limit commute. (Offer bussing options for a fee, but kids shouldn't have to be on a bus for hours a day.) Hire staff ... don't request parents to volunteer to run the camp. If you do, offer a discount, but don't use that as your primary staffing plan. Have a great, energetic camp director who understands 1st - 5th graders and the scouting program. Pay them. If our council fixed these issues, I think I could absolutely sell this camp to families. Then, kids going to the camp (perhaps for multiple weeks) would really get into scouting (along with their families). I know Cub Scouts is more than just summer camp ... but I think we are missing a big opportunity with our current offering. How do Cub Scout day camps operate in your area? Do you see similar issues compared to competitive offerings?

This is a great question and my hunch is you will likely never have a 100% safe program when youth & adults are involved. I've seen some proposals that I think could help (more open reporting) and others that I doubt would have any real impact (warning labels). I would be curious to see proposals from child abuse experts after reviewing the more recent incidents (5-10 years).

However, if there were large numbers of men sexually assaulting kids in those programs, we would be seeing large numbers of lawsuits filed now. The laws are the same for all organizations ... if there were a massive number of sex abuse claims we would be seeing a flood of lawsuits against these other youth serving organizations. We are not. Why ... because a combination that BSA was attractive to pedophiles and BSA didn't address the problem sufficiently. From Scout's Honor, 1991: Also from Scout's Honor, 1991, the chair of BSA's safety committee never received information about sex abuse. I think we are seeing the results of that today. The laws are the same for all organizations, but BSA is one of two that declared bankruptcy due to sex abuse lawsuits. They have 84,000 claims now. The other, USA Gymnastics, has just over 500. Neither should be blaming victims or society. They should admit their own failings, compensate victims and do their best to prevent it from reoccurring. Too often, this thread seems to venture into blaming laws, society, lawyers and the claimants. I think there is enough evidence through prior lawsuits and investigative journalists that BSA failed to sufficiently protect youth. BSA decided to abandon future fights in court and declare bankruptcy. Given that, we need to pay and do our best to protect kids in the future.

I understand the point and I agree there was a broader issue in society. But right now, BSA is the only organization ever to have anything close to 84,000 claims of sex abuse. So, if this is a problem everywhere, why doesn’t 4H, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, YMCA, the Boys Club, etc, have tens of thousands of claims? The reason is that for decades, the BSA was the best organization to join if you were a pedophile. It is horrible to think of, but pedophiles figured out if you are a scoutmaster you can go out into the woods with prepubescent boys and get away with your sick fantasies. BSA knew they had an issue and senior leadership hid it. It makes me sick as I love the program and believe the vast majority of men donated countless hours and upheld the honor of scouting. However, the information in the Washington Times articles made it clear. Senior leaders at BSA knew they had an issue, didn’t want the bad publicity and likely thought not much could be done. We are here not because of victims nor lawyers nor even a few rough employees. We are here because BSA national leaders took too long to act to protect kids. If BSA survives, which I think it will and should, we need to make sure that never happens again.

I tend to agree. BSA should be helping to pay to include CO coverage OR they should exclude LC and COs from the settlement. To only exclude COs and tell them “good luck” is not appropriate. I can find no case where a CO had to pay out for sex abuse; however, they will clearly be sitting ducks if National BSA and Local Councils get immunity. For BSA to do this to COs shows they can never be trusted. If I were a CO, I would never sign a piece of paper from the BSA. In fact, I would request the BSA sign my liability waivers.

Not sure if this is 100% true. Think of it this way. A scout in a Troop in an Illinois council travels to Wisconsin for summer camp. He is sexually assaulted at camp. Does the SOL is Wisconsin apply or Illinois? What about the reverse? This isn’t a black/white situation and individual claimants are giving up their right to sue in state courts. The judge cannot simply wipe out their claims and if she does expect a decade of appeals.

Don’t forget that it is BSA National declaring bankruptcy. They were headquartered in NJ and NY prior to 1978. When the statements of time barred claims come out, is that per the state the crime occurred or Texas, NJ and/or NY laws? I legal theory was that National BSA could be sued based on the laws of the state is incorporated in. I would be shocked if the judge threw out 50,000 claims. Now, if the claim doesn’t meet NJ, NY, Texas or the state where it occurred… perhaps those could be tossed. However, the issue is that BSA LCs are attempting to get protection from future lawsuits. Due to that and the fact thar SOL laws are constantly changing its hard to see those claims being completely tossed. Perhaps there is a weight vote where certain claim votes are higher dollar value than others. I just don’t see this as a quick simple issue given the various state laws involved and what BSA is asking in return.

Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 2016 IL App (1st) 152406.

The time bared claim is a complex discussion. If you remember back to pre bankruptcy, the reason BSA faced a major risk was that they were headquartered in New York prior to 1954. 1954 to 1978 they were in New Jersey and post 1978 in Texas. One argument is that the claims against BSA should follow the SOL rules of those states from those times. Then you have an issue where SOL is a bit squishy as argued in the Illinois case mentioned earlier in one of these threads. The Illinois courts basically said the SOL for child sex abuse are not applicable if there was a coverup. So… unless the court plans to go case by case, state by state and determine how state law applies then I think they should be considered valid claimants and get a vote. Now I agree that SOL could be factored in on payouts; however those laws are changing all the time. What happens in a year when more states change laws?

To me, I would not include those in the false claim category and clearly no audit is needed for those.

I think many times, in the past, many of us felt that while vetting of claims would be ideal, the delay in the proceedings would have a negative impact AND BSA would not pay out more regardless (as once they hit 5 - 10K claims they would have to max out their payment. That said, I think vetting does take on importance if there are a high number of fraudulent claims. Why? Because I expect many of these will simply take the $3.5K for a yes vote and walk away. That doesn't seem appropriate if the remaining valid claims are not in support of the deal. I think it could be appropriate for the judge to allow a vetting of a sufficient number of claims to determine a failure rate with a reasonable confidence interval. Perhaps that is 1,400 ... not sure and its Friday and I don't care to break out my statistics book. It could be a random sample by a 3rd party. There should be a time limit (perhaps 1 - 2 months). My concern though, If there is a substantial rate of issues, then what? Are we going to wait 6 months to clean up the list? There are two short term impacts from false claims. 1) They will likely take the $3500 ... so there is a financial impact, taking money from valid claimants. 2) They will lower the required YES vote needed from valid claimants. Hopefully my math is correct, but at $3500 each and 84,000 claims it looks like the numbers below. 1-5% of the claims being fraud doesn't make a huge swing. However, if you start increasing that number you see a fairly large financial impact and a drop in the needed yes vote. I would argue ... do the audit. If 10% or less are questionable, move on. 10 - 20% ... tough conversation. 20% or more ... we need to stop and audit all.