Chapter 11 announced

[Armymutt]

1 minute ago, John-in-KC said:

You got it, but you didn’t get it. 
 

Money talks. Individually suing the local councils and the chartered partners was a task in economic futility.  Suing the national council reaps a lawyers payday. Remember, the payoff will be 60 plaintiffs 40 plaintiffs attorneys if the usual formula gets used

That's where the judge should come in and focus the action where it would be most beneficial to society.  We had a guy sue our county in Indiana about 25 years ago over the condition of the jail.  The judge ordered the county to spend the money to build a new jail.  Far more beneficial to the greater number of people than giving one person a bunch of money.  It would be more beneficial to require BSA to spend the money to conduct better background checks.

[ThenNow]

14 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So first thing is to understand that those of us in the field may believe that we have the absolute best method to do something.  However, people on a national level have a broader and more in depth knowledge and can get more in depth Health and Safety and Legal information.  Also, the BSA had help and contributions from the nation's experts on YP.  They are the same people who the CDC and others call upon for advice on YP.  So the BSA has what the experts believe to be the very best YP program available.  

Ok. I appreciate that and I'm not being snarky. However, whenever I hear the "father knows best" approach, it makes me nervous. I'm not a fan of decision and justification by technocrats or experts left to their own narrow devices. As a survivor, I think this will require a serious 360 degree review and an engaged "management by walking around" process, as it was once known. My view, of course.

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Since people are removing from Scouting for YP violation accusations, it is not reported outside a very small group at the council.  It is not right to create a bad reputation for someone if it did not rise to the level of a crime.  So volunteers likely are not aware of people removed from Scouting.

I don't need to know John Smith was ejected for refusing to maintain two-deep. But this super secret, frankly crap, of no reporting, hide it away and pretend it isn't happening is exactly what caused the Ineligible Files to be a PR mess.

I don't want names. I want to know my Council is DEMONSTRABLY taking YPT seriously. Ditto, and especially, National.

That means heads on pikes.

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

It would be more beneficial to require BSA to spend the money to conduct better background checks.

"More beneficial"? Yikes. Maybe both/and, I'm thinkin. How much is spent on background checks per year and how much more is needed? $1.4B cover it? 

[vol_scouter]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. I appreciate that and I'm not being snarky. However, whenever I hear the "father knows best" approach, it makes me nervous. I'm not a fan of decision and justification by technocrats or experts left to their own narrow devices. As a survivor, I think this will require a serious 360 degree review and an engaged "management by walking around" process, as it was once known. My view, of course.

It has to be a balance between national experts and wisdom from the field.  The people whom I know working in this area are trying to take the best lessons from all without making a mistake.  All want no children to ever be abused.

[CynicalScouter]

16 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

It would be more beneficial to require BSA to spend the money to conduct better background checks.

And if this was a civil suit, maybe that would work. A judge can look at equitable relief/what is "best for society".

But it isn't. This is a bankruptcy. That means the judge's main focus is in on a) claimants and b) money. Or, as the TCC attorney put it a) how much do claimants get and b) when do they get it.

And the claimants (or 66% of them) have to approve the plan.

Could a bankruptcy judge overrule the 66%, tell 80,000 abuse victims "No money for you, instead the money will go to better YPT?" over the objection of the abuse victims? Sure. Theoretically.

Will it happen? Not a chance.

Can they fashion some kind of injunction/order at the end of the bankruptcy that BSA has to improve its YPT? Maybe. But that is AFTER the money is parsed our (or the judge rules on HOW the money is parsed out, the actual checks may take months/years).

Edited March 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Armymutt]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

"More beneficial"? Yikes. Maybe both/and, I'm thinkin. How much is spent on background checks per year and how much more is needed? $1.4B cover it? 

I don't know if national even does background checks.  I know that my references were not called.  Is there a person at national tasked with reviewing and approving every single adult application?  I doubt it.  My bet is that this is conducted at the council level.  

[vol_scouter]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't need to know John Smith was ejected for refusing to maintain two-deep. But this super secret, frankly crap, of no reporting, hide it away and pretend it isn't happening is exactly what caused the Ineligible Files to be a PR mess.

I don't want names. I want to know my Council is DEMONSTRABLY taking YPT seriously. Ditto, and especially, National.

That means heads on pikes.

Strange, the CDC is now recommending exactly what the BSA did in creating the Ineligible Volunteers File created about 100 years ago.

So volunteer XYZ suddenly is no longer coming to the unit meeting and it is published that someone was removed.  People link the two together.  XYZ actually had health issues and then sues.  That is not the way.

A Clery style report, maybe end of the year that is available makes sense.

[vol_scouter]

2 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I don't know if national even does background checks.  I know that my references were not called.  Is there a person at national tasked with reviewing and approving every single adult application?  I doubt it.  My bet is that this is conducted at the council level.  

Neither is the correct answer.  CBCs are contracted through a company who specializes in this process.

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I don't know if national even does background checks.  I know that my references were not called.  Is there a person at national tasked with reviewing and approving every single adult application?  I doubt it.  My bet is that this is conducted at the council level.  

Background checks against a database are run council via a paid company (or companies, I forget which I had in my head there were two). The council (or district, depending) is suppose to call references.

In my district, that's simply not done at all for years. Now, they want a volunteer district committee person to do it. Again, let me repeat that. An untrained, unpaid volunteer is now expected by BSA to start doing reference checks. My district hasn't had a DE in years, so this is their solution.

Tell me again how much BSA takes YP seriously?

Edited March 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

So volunteer XYZ suddenly is no longer coming to the unit meeting and it is published that someone was removed.  People link the two together.  XYZ actually had health issues and then sues.  That is not the way.

That's why I said Clery reports. Annual. Aggregated to the Council level and National. Any lower (district) and you get into issues.

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Or, as the TCC attorney put it a) how much do claimants get and b) when do they get it.

To be fair, I believe he said that is the two-verse tune sung by any/all creditors. "They only want to know one/two things..." He was not speaking only or specifically about/for survivors or the TCC. I could be wrong.

Edited March 15, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

To be clear, I believe he said that is the two-verse tune sung by any/all creditors.

Right. The "how much and when" is applicable to ALL creditors in ALL bankruptcies.

But it was also brought up in the TCC that just as soon as "how much and when" is answered, TCC would as for an order directing changes/improvements to prevent sexual abuse in BSA. Details TBD.

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But it was also brought up in the TCC that just as soon as "how much and when" is answered, TCC would as for an order directing changes/improvements to prevent sexual abuse in BSA. Details TBD.

Acknowledged, but it has less of an edge on it when one puts it in context of being the universal concern. It's the only issue for most bk creditors, because they don't often have an interest in non-monetaries like this.

[elitts]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

G2SS is, I believe, in its entirety (or almost), a collection of lawsuits compiled into book form.

I will guarantee that 80-90% of all G2SS rules derived from "we got sued for this, therefore let's ban it."

So let's look at power drill or 4-wheeled cart. Again, I'll put money on the table that SOME scout SOMEWHERE got hurt with a power drill or a 4-wheeled cart, sued, won, and then either BSA Risk Management on its own accord (or the insurance companies at their insistence) put in the rule.

Look at G2SS's requirement that pioneering structures be no taller than 5 feet and the specific reference to OSHA (workplace) regulations. Again, John Scoutmaster or Jane Committee Chair did NOT come up with OSHA standards out of the blue sky; this is the work of lawyers and/or actuaries.

 

Oh, I know that's where most of that stuff comes from.  And when such "warnings" were just a list of stupid crap we could throw out along with the tag on the mattress and the instructions to not "use your lawn mower to trim your hedges", it was fine.  But at this point I really do think the incorporation of all those rules/guidelines is actively hurting compliance with the more important rules by creating a generalized level of disregard.  (Particularly with rules issued without clear and convincing explanations for their existence)

Plus, the existence of rules like that doesn't ACTUALLY protect the organization from a lawsuit over the issue.  Because when you have a rule like that, if someone breaks it, all the rule being there does is change the lawsuit from:

I'm suing because kid got hurt doing X.

to

I'm suing because you even knew how risky doing X was, and it was still allowed to happen and my child was injured.