Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

And this is the problem with our country today - let's punt on the real choice because someone else will make it OK.  The BSA will still have to pay which will mean higher fees for kids, camps sold which means fewer camps for kids, a diminished reputation which means fewer kids participate in the program.

It is not a punt. We are discussing a) who bears the legal liability and b) legal responsibility to pay.

That's the real choice here. It is a question of law that is currently pending before the court.

We have no idea to what extent the BSA's liability and responsibility to pay (vs. the insurance companies) will be and if that will require what you are describing.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The perpetrators, the ones actually responsible are long gone for the most part.

Yes, but the point is that there are two levels of liability here.

1) The perpetrators who did it.

2) The BSA entities (National and Councils) that oversaw these volunteers and failed to exercise sufficient care of the children under their care/duty to care.

[ParkMan]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It is not a punt. We are discussing a) who bears the legal liability and b) legal responsibility to pay.

That's the real choice here. It is a question of law that is currently pending before the court.

We have no idea to what extent the BSA's liability and responsibility to pay (vs. the insurance companies) will be and if that will require what you are describing.

This whole topic is about the bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America.  What high adventure bases will be sold, which councils will go bankrupt, which local camps will close, and now which chartered organizations will pay.  We've already seen the impact of insurance companies paying in the form of higher insurance premiums to kids.  There is no scenario under which the BSA does not pay money.  With that in mind, just what is the third option that does not result in the choice:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

Please articulate a third option that does not mean we choose between these two.

Edited October 16, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, ParkMan said:

What high adventure bases will be sold, which councils will go bankrupt, which local camps will close, and now which chartered organizations will pay. 

Yep. And one last thing you keep skipping over and over. What will insurance be forced to cover. You simply skip over it so you can offer a false choice between two false premises.

If the total liability/claims is = insurance coverage, BSA will NOT have to sell local camps, sell HA bases, etc. Insurance premiums will rise, but that is all.

We don't know what claims valued at how much we are even talking about here yet.

[ParkMan]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep. And one last thing you keep skipping over and over. What will insurance be forced to cover. You simply skip over it so you can offer a false choice between two false premises.

If the total liability/claims is = insurance coverage, BSA will NOT have to sell local camps, sell HA bases, etc. Insurance premiums will rise, but that is all.

We don't know what claims valued at how much we are even talking about here yet.

That is precisely how people duck the real question.  The lawsuits are OK because victims get lots of money, the insurance companies will pay it all, and the kids in the program won't be hurt.  People have been saying that for 20 years now and as a result today we are looking at a bankruptcy hearing. 

Do you really see it happening that the BSA will pay nothing, the insurance companies will pay it all, and victims will get lots of money?

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Do you really see it happening that the BSA will pay nothing, the insurance companies will pay it all, and victims will get lots of money?

I expect BSA and local Councils will pay. But your doom scenario (HA camps sold, council camps closed, etc.) is not automatically a given.

As for the "penalize the children", this same argument can be made to shield/shelter/protect any not-for-profit that commits a tort.

Can't sue Feeding America for any tort, after all that would "punish" those who do not get enough food.

Quote

A nationwide network of more than 200 food banks and food rescue organizations, Feeding America is the nation's leading hunger-relief charity.

What you are proposing is that any not-for-profit or charity becomes lawsuit proof because any claim against the not-for-profit or charity "penalizes the hungry people today" or "penalizes the homeless people today".

 

[Sentinel947]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What you are proposing is that any not-for-profit or charity becomes lawsuit proof because any claim against the not-for-profit or charity "penalizes the hungry people today" or "penalizes the homeless people today".

 

Exactly, the same logic would have gotten the Catholic Church off scot free on abuse cases. After all, we run hospitals, schools, universities, clinics, food pantries. That doesn't matter. An agent of the Church or the BSA committed a tort, the organization is liable for the behavior of its agents. The only question is, how much does the organization owe for the torts in question?

There are most certainly compelling reasons to not entirely liquidate the BSA, the Catholic Church, or the LA Public School district after sex abuse torts, but if those organizations aren't responsible for the harm they caused, then who would be? 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Sentinel947

[ParkMan]

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I expect BSA and local Councils will pay. But your doom scenario (HA camps sold, council camps closed, etc.) is not automatically a given.

So you do expect the BSA will pay.  The choice below doesn't say anything about how much.  So we're back to the same choice:

• deny abuse victims compensation for those reprehensible things that BSA leadership overlooked or failed to follow-up on?
• penalize the kids of the United States today because some volunteers many years ago did reprehensible things and some professionals many years ago did equally reprehensible things by not preventing that from happening?

So you're in favor of providing abuse victims compensation and penalizing the kids of today because you believe that the penalty won't be too bad.  Is that correct?

Edited October 16, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[CynicalScouter]

22 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

An agent of the Church or the BSA committed a tort, the organization is liable for the behavior of its agents.

And I think that's the point people keep glossing over here. BSA (and the Catholic Church) were responsible under numerous theories:

1. Duty to care/duty to care for a minor/duty of reasonable care. National and the Councils took upon itself a duty to not act in a negligent manner with respect to the youth in their care.
2. Negligent retention: National and the Councils failed to remove abusive scout leaders fast enough
3. Negligent supervision: National and the Councils failed to oversee/supervise the abusive scout leaders
4. Negligent training: National and the Councils failed to provide sufficient training to professional staff to oversee the volunteers OR did not provide sufficient training to the volunteers
5. Negligent hiring: National and the Councils failed to perform sufficient background checks (such as having convicted felons as ASMs). Hiring does not mean "for pay" it applies to volunteers, too.

So to simply point at the pedophile and say "Blame him!" skips over the obligations/duties that National and Councils had to properly supervise the program/the volunteers.

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

So you're in favor of providing abuse victims compensation and penalizing the kids of today because you believe that the penalty won't be too bad.  Is that correct?

The lawsuits against BSA are not "penalizing" the kids of today any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued.

Nice use of loaded language. I reject your premise and charaterization.

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[ParkMan]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The lawsuits against BSA are not "penalizing" the kids of today.

And you make that claim how?

The kids of today are already paying higher fees.  You've already stated that the BSA will pay more going forward.  Who precisely do you expect to pay the BSA's portion?

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I reject your premise and charaterization.

Upon what basis?

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by ParkMan
expanded the thought

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

And you make that claim how?

The work "penalize" implies punishment. Kids are not being "punished" any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued.

But let me ask you a question: are people without food "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued and is forced to pay for tort claims/damages?

EDIT: And even if using your cramped definition of "penalized", people without food ARE "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued and is forced to pay for tort claims/damages, does that in your mind mean Feeding America should be immune from civil suits?

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[ParkMan]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

The work "penalize" implies punishment. Kids are not being "punished" any more than people without food are "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued.

• Does raising costs penalize kids?
• Does closing camps penalize kids?

I struggle with the logic of your argument.  You  have this notion that extract damages without their being an impact on the youth of today.  How does one extract large settlements for each abuse victim without there being a negative impact on the kids today?

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But let me ask you a question: are people without food "penalized" when Feeding America gets sued and is forced to pay for tort claims/damages?

I don't know the specifics of the lawsuits that you reference here.  I looked, but have not found them yet. Give me some data and I'm sure I can provide an answer.

 

Let's recall that my proposal was not blanket immunity, but instead a cap on the length of the statute of limitations:

18 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I would like to see legislation that limits extensions of statue of limitations for federally chartered organizations. 

Here we have a nationally chartered corporation whose ability to fulfill it's legislated charter is now in doubt because states have extended the statute of limitations to levels beyond what is practical for what is largely a volunteer organization.  Congress should recognize that this action by the states is causing harm to the ability of these kind of organizations to meet their charters.

Having a reasonable duration on the statute of limitations for a congressionally chartered corporation (say 10 years) would still allow the states to ensure that the corporation is following current law and that volunteers and employees of the current organization are held correctly responsible for their actions.  Limiting the duration of the statute of limitations to something reasonable would enable the federal corporation to predict it's ability to meet it's congressional charter and not be continually responding to actions by people involved with the corporation years ago.  Congressionally chartered organizations like this have a unique ability to have a long corporate lifetime which makes it unusually susceptible to problems like this.  It's in the best interest of the people of the United States to enable these corporations to fulfill their congressional obligation while still being reasonably held accountable for the actions of it's contemporary volunteers and employees.

I am not, and have not, suggested blanket immunity for federally chartered organizations.  But at some point I do believe there is a point upon which the federal government says enough.  Maybe it's not 10 years, but 20 or 25.  But at some point, the original leadership is gone.  The abusers are gone.  The volunteers have all changed.  The professionals have all changed.  There are no stock holders and so you can't assess them.  All you can do is charge a completely different group of people a bunch of money because someone else 20, 30, or 40 years ago did something reprehensible.

It's a lovely notion to say that "the BSA should be held responsible", but doing that has a cost.  It's entirely a matter of public policy for us to ask "do we want, as a nation and a people, want to incur the cost of endless litigation for our nationally charter non-profits?".

You want to hold there organizations responsible forever it seems.  That it's OK because insurance companies will pay or that kids really won't feel the impact of it.  Is that correct?

 

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I don't know the specifics of the lawsuits that you reference here.  I looked, but have not found them yet. Give me some data.

The point is that you are arguing that not for profits should have NO liability whatsoever from tort claims because to do otherwise is to "penalize" or "punish" the people they serve.

Again, that is dangerous and unjustified. Yes, if Feeding America is sued and forced to pay damages that means less money to pay for the food banks they support. But that fact does NOT justify allowing them to violate any civil tort they want and wrap themselves up in immunity.

Being a not for profit does NOT and should NOT give you carte blanche to simply do whatever it is you want and thereby obtain civil immunity. Period.

I can see trying to persuade you that such blanket immunity is dangerous and that being a not for profit, no matter how noble (BSA, Feeding America, Red Cross, etc.) should not grant you immunity. So, I'm done here.

Edited October 16, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[skeptic]

58 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, but the point is that there are two levels of liability here.

1) The perpetrators who did it.

2) The BSA entities (National and Councils) that oversaw these volunteers and failed to exercise sufficient care of the children under their care/duty to care.

Another question that has come to mind is are these "lawyers" investigating cases where the actual perpetrator is known?  If so, did they go beyond their participation in BSA?  Were they possibly employed by some kind of youth related group or agency?  Did they also work with youth sports or the Y, or Boys and Girls club?  If so, were there possible similar complaints there?

Finally, it is odd, at least to me, that there are claims that are saying they do not remember who, or what unit, or where they met, and so on.  IF it traumatized them from that long ago period, you would think they might remember some of the details, and not just that some "ambulance chasing legal group" suggests that they may make a vague claim with little or no need for documentation.  Not suggesting there is no validity to some of the claimants, only that the openly vague option is just that, open and vague.  

But what would I know.  I keep thinking that we should maybe look beyond the accusation and require at least a modicum of validation.  And I also feel that the comparative stats related to other groups should be in play as far as the claims that nothing was done.  We have already noted that nobody else kept records, or at least none of which we are aware.  That in itself is more effort to root the worst out, than most.