CynicalScouter

The BSA Camp system was designed and developed for a time when BSA had 3-4 million scouts. We are now 900,000 (at best) and BSA in its most cheerfully optimistic projections is saying 1 million by 2025 at the earliest. The NCAP has utilization standards as does BSA itself. And the TCC has its own standards that will be used. All agree: BSA does not need every camp it has. Time to cull and turn the proceeds over the victims of child sexual abuse.

Yes, and I honestly don't know based on my read of the document. It's not clear one way or the other.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/806851_207.pdf

I would imagine a little of both. For example, Claro does not need to re-create a database with claims numbers, basic information, etc. It can take the existing data set and review for accuracy. The real key is Bates White discounting vs. what Claro will come up with. How, for example, did it ever come up with $2.4 billion to $7.1 billion as the realistic payout range? https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf Bates Whites did a two step analysis: Valuation of claims and degree of BSA liability Valuation was broken down into four categories those that affect the amount of damages those that affect the degree of accountability of the BSA based on any alleged connection with Scouting those that affect legal considerations regarding the viability of the claim those that affect the allowance and credibility of the Abuse Claim. And BSA liability, the big issue is "whether the claim would be presumptively time-barred based on applicable law in the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which each Survivor alleges abuse." This is ALL a matter of professional opinion and interpretation. There's no way (other than maybe getting some kind of sample of 1000 cases and litigating them all out) to get anything close to a scientific sample here. This is all 100% opinion about how much each claim is valued at, given the above. I would expect, however, Claro to come in on the highest of high ends here.

Most unfortunate. Just the latest example of BSA hiding information. If I had to guess (this is a guess): membership is still in free fall and BSA got very, very embarrassed that its data was being released to the public, therefore, it shut this report down.

I am about 15% convinced that is coming.

This makes sense. The subpoena is I think returnable in a court of competent jurisdiction within 100 miles of the location. So Kosnoff = Central District CA AVA/Arsdale = Southern District CA But then why is Salvation Army (Virginia) Delaware? Because you can drive 115 miles from the location to Silverstein's courtroom. I'd guess if Salvation Army wants to throw a fit the proper court to make this returnable against is in Virginia.

As I noted: any progress in terms of BSA and issues like this only occurred after a lot of years and a lot of kicking and screaming. BSA has not exactly been quick to embrace modernity and when it has it has been condemned by scouters as "politically correct".

Well now things got interesting. Or more so. The Coalition is now issuing discovery demands on the TCC. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0901a0f7-57a2-471f-8309-f7ba40cf1069_6567.pdf What, we don't know other than it is for documents. And Century has now officially subpoenaed Kosnoff https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fd0dc01f-34c3-42d7-9092-345ada49eb63_6565.pdf

There was no law requiring segregated scouting units. BSA simply let that happen.

So, the more I think about it the more I am changing my mind on something. I had said that I thought a BSA-only toggle plan was the end result of this mess. I am, however, somewhat intrigued by the idea that came up in the Minneapolis-St. Paul archdiocese case. After the Archdiocese's plan went down in flames (90% AGAINST) and the abuse victims plan was supported (90%) the judge rejected BOTH plans at confirmation and ordered them back into mediation. I still believe that BSA-only comes out of this, but I am now not as certain. Perhaps, after this plan crashes down in flames or at the very least fails to get 67% that there will be a reckoning among the COs and LCs that this is not going away and that the numbers need to go way, way up.

Yep. They were Whereas BSA hired White & Chase to come up with an estimated valuation of claims ($4-7 billion) Claro will come in likely much, much, much higher.

One thing that will start to happen is we will see 1) tons and tons of parties coming out of the woodwork. There are already 5 new filings. Remember: lots of claimants have attorneys but those attorneys have sat back and let the coalition and in particular a brown-rudnick to do the heavy lift of attending all meetings, etc. 2) expect lots of “joinders”. That is legal parlance for “what that group is asking for? Yeah we want a copy, too.” Or “who that group wants to depose? We want to be there.” eventually Mosby and other BSA big wigs will get deposed. I would expect a line of attorneys around the block wanting to be there and ask them questions. 3) expect tons and tons a of discovery demands. A case this big I would expect the docket will just going to be a mess.

NOT under the BSA plan. The BSA plan called for victims to be on the committee and appointed by the TCC and Coalition but does NOT say how many. I would expect them if BSA has its way to be a very small minority. It also says the outside evaluator is appointed by the BSA after “consulting” with the committee I am referring to what I expect will be in the TCC plan: a victim-driven committee appointing an independent auditor with real power to ORDER BSA to comply (right now the “Evaluating Entity” only recommends and suggests)

The last time the BSA brought in an "independent" academic to review themselves was Warren 2011. Her report was a complete white wash. And, as was pointed out, when members of the press tried asking her questions about her work, she refused to answer.

I totally agree because BSA can NOT be trusted to self-report. Outside auditing is in order. Catholic bishops brought in John Jay for the original 2002/2004 report looking backward. And now, annually, they use an outside auditor (StoneBridge) to compile the data and review 15% of all dioceses at random for an in-depth dive each year. See, it can be done. No more BSA excuses. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

And yet such surveys are done all the time and they reported all the time and it is not impossible to do. moreover I would point out that the focus on the statistical data the TCC shows interest in is the number of occurrences the number of abusers the number of YP violations etc. none of that requires any IRB. Somehow the United States conference of Catholic bishops was able to figure out how to do this. So is USA gymnastics. But poor old BSA cannot? Really? This reminds me of yet again BSA throwing up excuses. I can remember at one point hearing directly from BSA national asking for criminal background checks was simply unworkable for all volunteers. and yet it now is happening where there’s a will there’s a way. especially when that will be supplemented by a direct order of the court. Just wait for the media reporting when BSA is held in contempt of court for refusing to abide by the bankruptcy court order to release statistical data on the number of occurrences of child sexual abuse in BSA every year. The excuses won’t work anymore. BSA has no credibility in this area.

Oh, but you know the "wheels were moving in that direction" don't ya know. Sure they were. Race: only after the NAACP started filing suit in 1974 to finally get BSA to stop its last segregated units and even COUNCILS (it blows my mind: a segregated COUNCIL) Gender: only took until 2019. Orientation: Dale anyone? BSA had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. Religion: I will note that B-P original Scout Oath NEVER included outright references to God and there are writing indicating he was horrified about how scouting in the U.S. was so tied to churches, a result of the intertwining from the start with the LDS and the YMCA movements.

Talk about revisionist history. The BSA literally went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dale to defend its right to deny membership/leadership to openly gay scouters. The wheels most certainly were NOT "moving in that direction". BSA had to be dragged their kicking and screaming. This very message board in its earlier forum posts is a testament to the fact that the wheels were not even CLOSE to moving in that direction. Revisionist history.

Just FYI: based on last night's TCC townhall Stang semi-admitted that the section on non-monetary relief had been "Watered down" but that the TCC plan coming out will be much stronger. I suspect a LOT of the "Suggestion" and "Recommendations" from the victims and the outside auditor/monitor will turn into "shall" and "musts" for BSA.

I see. So, it is OK when BSA bends to the culture to allow for segregation and discrimination based on race. But otherwise it is or would you prefer "political correctness"?

Whenever I hear people chime in with the BSA has never been political and always supported the Oath and Law, I remind them BSA allowed for segregated units, districts, and even Councils until 1974 when the NAACP sued them into shame and the last Council was finally ordered desegregated. https://aaregistry.org/story/the-african-american-boy-scout-movement-a-story/ https://finding-aids.lib.unc.edu/04688/ https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/28/archives/naacp-plans-suit-against-boy-scouts.html

BSA had no problem with "casting aside the Oath and Law" and allowing for racial discrimination to run rampant in scouting until it was sued into shame by the NAACP in 1974, DECADES after Brown vs. Board of Education.

Depends on what you define "social activism" is. Was it "social activism" when BSA allowed for race segregated troops, districts, even COUNCIL until 1971? Or was it "social activism" when BSA STOPPED allowing that to happen? Except that whole part about seperate-but-equal units, districts, and councils. That wasn't held in common, not for a LONG time.

I think that's about right. This is tracking with the Catholic Church scandal with one difference: I would trace the starting point for the Catholic abuse scandal as the 2002 Boston Glove report about the Archdiocese and its coverups. That story was the replicated diocese by diocese since there is not overarching U.S. governing body of Dioceses (the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a meeting-of-equals) For Boy Scouts the starting point in my views was the Oregon case and the forced release of some of the IV Files in 2012. After that the ball started rolling downhill into the 2020 bankruptcy filing. The other tracking is the release of names. The Catholic Church has been forced to release data on the number of victims and the names of perpetrators. The BSA is still hiding them. Those names will come out now. The other thing was that the Catholic Church also called for independent audits, starting with what is called the John Jay report in 2002 when things started to snowball. It did not come out until 2004 but everyone knew where it was heading: abuse was rampant, under-reported or not reported, and an outside review was required. The same with BSA: they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever at this point to claim "Our YP is the best" or "We have no abuse problems anymore!" Give me a break. As was pointed out, 18,000-19,000 claims filed are post-YP introduction. That's why I really, really hope for the sake of scouts, victims, and scouting in general there is an outside monitor with teeth to start cleaning house. After the John Jay report it became much, much harder to claim "Well I never heard about abuse in MY parish, therefore it did not happen." That's the same line a LOT of BSA-defenders have said: I, personally never heard of a sexual abuse case in my unit or district or council, therefore it never happened. It happened. BSA just took great pains to bury it.