ThenNow

I know this helps nothing and no one, but when I understood what they had/hadn’t offered and what they didn’t bring to the table (LC’s offer), I wondered if any member of their legal team warned them of lowball whiplash. It’s the most classic case of poor optics and stumbling out of the gate negotiation strategy I’ve ever seen. Also notable, TCC counsel said the Plan was in no way no how reviewed by or negotiated with them. That’s just plain stupid. My opinion.

I can be naive, as you well know, but is there no one who foresaw the high likelihood of this very backlash from the non-plan Plan they filed? It’s too late to run back with whiteout and a red pen, but they really and truly hung everyone out on this. Too be further gullible, any chance they got the message?

I am genuinely sorry.

Honestly, I think the message was misheard, but I understand the reaction. What was said, to closely paraphrase was, "go file now because the lawsuits are the only way to put pressure on them to come to the table."

Right. So why does that spell the looming demise of all LC's, given the number that are closed and politically locked tight?

Point of clarification. Do you take that to mean file in and across the broad universe of LC's and CO's or just open-states? I don't know many PI attorneys that will gin up in the closed states, unless I'm missing something. Well, I don't know many of them period, but that's another matter.

Thanks (assuming you're talking to me). I understand that sentiment. In the name of full disclosure, I'm an abuse survivor in this case. For years I've grappled with the pride I have in my Scouting accomplishments (Eagle, Vigil Honor, Medals, OA Officer...) and my utter despair and disgust at what happened to me and others. It was all compounded by too many disclosures and discovers after the fact. If you want to read more about my experience, feel free and invited. Perhaps you've been following along. I don't say that to put a light on me, just so you understand the depth and duration of my struggle. A friend and attorney asked me how in the name of anything anyone swears on or by could I be proud of having been in Scouting, high achieving or not. I had to take a moment, not many. I finally told him, with tears in my eyes, because I was proud of myself for persevering, for the good and fun things I experienced with guys I loved and a few I admired, and for the things I learned, the boys I taught, helped and lead. Many if not most of the men here lived in a Scouting world as far away from my as OZ from Kansas. Although I knew guys from healthy Troops, there were few I knew well. I still struggle and have a great deal of anger, some of which won't be resolved until the BSA steps up on several scores. Until then, I still have my medals, important patches, sashes, my draft Eagle application and other sundries. I live in two worlds. Sometimes the pull is very difficult. Perhaps most times. Other times, I think of something funny or find myself in a situation where I am telling my sons or anyone, "I learned that in Scouting." Maybe that will help you. Hope so.

In case anyone else was looking for this. Sorry I didn't look more closely earlier. ____________ The Official Tort Claimants Committee (the “TCC”), appointed by the Office of the United States Trustee and the official representative of all sexual abuse survivors in the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, opposes the Boy Scouts of America’s (“BSA”) chapter 11 plan filed today in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Under the plan, BSA seeks a release for itself and its 253 local councils for the sexual abuse of more than 85,000 individuals from 1930s through 2019. As a fiduciary to all sexual abuse survivors, the TCC has thoroughly investigated the assets and liabilities of the BSA and its local councils and concluded that the BSA’s reorganization plan woefully fails to adequately compensate sexual abuse survivors or provide any enhanced systematic protections for future generations of Scouts. John Humphrey, the TCC chairman stated, “This plan reflects BSA’s ‘business as usual’ attitude to abuse survivors and does nothing to make Scouting safer.” “The plan contemplates BSA will fund a trust of approximately $220 million including illiquid property for 85,000 known abuse survivors, in addition to an assignment of insurance policies. Mr. Humphrey observed that BSA’s contribution and the Local Councils’ contemplated property and cash contribution averages a mere $6100 per survivor. “The BSA and its local councils are not making the effort necessary to provide a modicum of compensation to men and women whose lives were changed forever by BSA’s and the Local Councils’ failure to protect them as children. Instead, BSA and the Local Councils are putting the onus on survivors to fight with the insurance companies and walking away from their legal and moral duty to these men. The plan violates every word and the spirit of the Boy Scout oath that each of us took as kids.” The plan seeks to force abuse survivors to release the Boy Scouts Local Councils even though not a single local council has filed its own bankruptcy. Throughout the BSA bankruptcy case, the TCC, as a fiduciary for all abuse survivors, has sought complete disclosure of the local councils’ assets and liabilities to ensure they provide, as they must, adequate compensation in exchange for release of the sexual abuse they are trying to avoid. “Getting information from the local councils has been an uphill fight” observed Douglas Kennedy, co-chair of the TCC, adding “they want to force us to release the local councils but have not provided the financial transparency that is necessary for survivors to make an informed decision on whether to release the local councils where the majority of the abuse occurred.” The plan makes no systematic changes to the Scouting program to better protect children. Humphrey said, “BSA claims to have the best child protection program in the country. That arrogance is belied by the thousands of claims filed in the bankruptcy since the inception of this so-called platinum standard program. The protection of children seems to be an after-thought in a plan that tries to get BSA and its councils off the hook for minimal compensation to abuse survivors.”

D-oh. I recall the TCC's reply to the plan was posted somewhere in here. That's what I meant. I will look for it. Thank you.

Are there any materials/specific court filings that would help inform us prior to getting on the meeting? Thanks for this.

Thanks for following up and digging further into the program. I wasn't able to do it today.

Last point on this unless someone else interjects something constructive to advance the topic. As a teacher, that is simply not consistent with reason. Here are two examples why. In a driver's ed course, one of two modules making up the training focuses on learning to drive (offense). It trains student to focus on one of two critical aspects of being a good, safe and effective driver. In the same course, there is at least one other critical component, namely, "looking out for the other drivers" (defense). The elements include road awareness, alertness (as with offense), evasive maneuvers, checking mirrors and the like. Do you agree both are critical and viable? One more example and I'll apply it. In football, there are three structural "teams" that make up the overall the game: offense, defense and special teams. Within those, there are many specialties. Let's say you are the defensive line coach. Following your "logic," you believe and express to the team that: 1) the other aspects of the game, whether the other two general "sides of the ball" or the positions within the defense are, invalid, superfluous and theoretical nonsense; and 2) you are perfectly and unequivocally able to win games with your linemen alone. Everyone else can quit and go home because they are a theoretical fiction in the development of the game. With your reactive training to prevent child abuse, you believe you can do it better and more thoroughly than with other complimentary measures. Simply stated, I really, really want to come to one of your football games and watch your defensive line take on the full lineup of the opposing team. -The End (most likely)

I'm not sure what this is about. Apologies.

Here is a link to this course. http://www.erinslaw.org/for-teachers/ I've quickly reviewed the site, pull down tab content, assessments of the program, the Texas law regarding its implementation and a few of the founder's videos. Excellent information, including how to identify signs of abuse, engage children who report or show signs of abuse and report instances of suspected or reported abuse. I see nothing about preventative measures to identify inclinations toward sexual abuse by adults toward children or older children to other children. I will go further to see what I can find, but this is an "in the moment" identification and reactive training. So far, I have seen not any bit of material addressing structural or institutional measures to defend children against potential abuse/abusers in settings that are "soul killing fields" for children. Totally different subject matter. It looks to be very good, but I hope you are not taking its lack of content aimed at prevention as inference that such training and adoption is somehow invalid or unnecessary. That kind of assumption flies in the face of scientific analysis, basic common sense, and serious intellectual curiosity. Also, nothing could be further from the truth, imho. I know you disagree with my opinion. I'm looking for substance to help remedy the situation and shortfalls in YPT, not pot shots at me or my views. I'm really wanting to be constructive and helpful. If there is nothing substantive, I will drop this effort.

That's rich. I'm sorry. Wait while I: (1) call my psychologist to see if she can cut through my apparent delusion and disabuse me of what I thought was an unvarnished emotion and motivation; and (2) see if my psychiatrist has a corresponding psychotropic to treat the condition. NOW I will be as serious as serious can be. Seriously and genuinely. Are YOU serious? There must be another thread to start or something, because I thought we're talking about training Scouters to help prevent abuse in the ranks. If your course is better, please share it. Can anyone assist me or shall I further bloody my head against the proverbial periderm. Seriously...

Not my question or invitation. Let's see the goods. Open wide the doors and allow in the unfortunate, ignorant, unskilled and misinformed hoi polloi. I'm dead serious. Please video the course, scan the materials and make both available via weblink. I would appreciate the opportunity to view, review, learn, compare, contrast and understand what I am missing. Regardless your low opinion of BSA or YPT, if you care about kids, as you say, you will share the better tool with those who do, as well.

I remained puzzled. Are you referring to YPT or any/all BSA training? If YPT, is the program/course you teach preferable in content and presentation, such that you want to package it and make it available to all? I'm not being (totally) facetious. Since I am not familiar with the course title you noted back when, I may have misperceived its content and goal. The puzzlement goes not only to the subject of training, but why you persist in Scouting rather than start your own venture.

Please come out of the penalty box. [Ping] Penalty Time served. I have waved you out. Skate on, brawler...

Thanks for the info. My family and closest friends call me Rhino. (Not RINO, btw.) I am an accomplished public speaker, though that's somewhat irrelevant to the overall question of whether this would add value.

This relates back to something I raised a while back, regarding the involvement of psychologists and law enforcement in creating YPT. Do you think there would be value for volunteers - not so much parents - to hear from survivors on these issues? I am always looking for ways to "redeem the evil" that has come into my life, one of which is the proverbial, "Now, turn and strengthen your brothers." I'm not a big fan of the old yarn about, "something good will always come out of something terrible," but I try to find morsels where I can.

To confirm, I have.

This may amount to no more than "just for gee whiz" type information, but in one of my incarnations I represented real estate developers. We targeted conservation easement properties, based on our history and track record of being able to weave through the legislative, statutory and political maze and emerge with a "clean" title. Buy cheap, build big, sell bigger. Land Conservancy, Century Farm, Williamson Act (CA) and Conservation Easement are all terms used to describe this type of thing, with some variations.

By way of reassurance, would someone please confirm that this avoid, deflect and deny position on grooming is extremely limited among volunteer and professional Scouters? Thank you.

Besides the confirmed case of asset transfers in Tennessee, has this been happening elsewhere? From an attorney's perspective, I would've been advising it for years, not unlike a basic tax and estate planning review directs some clients to transfer identified assets to trust, whether revocable or irrevocable. With the assault on the ramparts since the $19M OR case, I would think asset protection measures would've exploded. If I may, I also want to bring back one of my posts now moved to the spinoff thread on YPT and Other Stuff. This is regarding the continuation of Scouting and goes to financial and programatic viability of LC's if the full force of Scouting National is greatly diminished or gone: I also wonder if it depends on the resources and current strength of those LC's (few?) that can fairly easily give some millions [to the Settlement Trust, be released] and still pivot on the strength of community support, leadership and donor base depth and breadth.

Maybe this also belongs in the discussion of the YPT? It is relevant if some Scouters don't believe grooming exists, which is a big component of protecting kids from abuse of many kinds. I'll leave it alone, in any case and stay here. Thanks for the bodycheck.