Chapter 11 announced

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

I am wondering, too. Wild speculation here.

1) There were last minute property shifts away from LCs just before (or just after) bankruptcy that would be exposed. That was the allegation leveled against Middle Tennessee Council and other Councils.

2) Obstinate LCs: I know there were some councils in early filings that insisted that they were not going to cooperate until it could be shown there was claims in their council. I wonder (again speculation here) if these councils think they can just go it alone and are betting on no future claims against them?

3) Longstanding and questionable financials. In other words, nothing to do with the bankruptcy, just some councils have had longstanding...questionable?....financial processes. They don't want any scrutiny for possible tax/legality purposes.

1) Allegations were leveled, shown to be factual, the judge ruled that this was a no-no, and the TCC and LC's, at least MTC as an example, reached an agreement. I don't believe the substance was disclosed. The unresolved issue, unless it was covered in the settlement agreement, is whether there is a reversionary interest held by the Debtors in the even of charter revocation or relinquishment.

2) I'm almost certain this is going on, but whether it is the sticking point, I don't know. My bet is, it's not. Just my gut feeling from all I know and have read on the docket and in press coverage. Some closed state LC's have produced and just said, "You can look, but you ain't gonna touch." That is a problem, however, because the BSA and insurance companies want all LC's protected to close the deal.

3) You guys are better positioned to opine than I, but offer my anecdotal pennies. I recall back when I was involved with our LC and OA Lodge, 'fast and loose' might well describe the most utilized accounting method. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

I have to add parenthetically that declining to act because you might have to defend your actions is a coward's response in the case of stopping the rape of children.  If that was someone's level of being Brave than they shouldn't, in my opinion, have been involved in running the scouting program in the first place. 

You are applying today's rightful indignation to things that happened a long time ago.  An era where the kids were doubted and blamed for accusing nice upstanding people.  An era where people commonly drove drunk.  Where men were understood to have certain rights over their wives.  Where banks commonly denied based on race or religion.  Where many things are viewed today as ghastly that back then were just things you deal with.  

Today is a different time.  Period.  

Looking back, it's hard to know when police were called and not.  In the pseudo case provided, the parent could have called the police.  Other troop leaders.   The charter org.  For all we know, someone did.  Other discussions occurred.  This is why SOLs exist.  Times change.  Details are lost.  Expectations change.

Today's righteous indignation is often about feeling better about ourselves at the cost of those who came before.  The past is far from perfect, but it's a fool who judges harshly thinking they are better than the past.

Edited February 26, 2021 by fred8033

[yknot]

45 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

You are applying today's rightful indignation to things that happened a long time ago.  An era where the kids were doubted and blamed for accusing nice upstanding people.  An era where people commonly drove drunk.  Where men were understood to have certain rights over their wives.  Where banks commonly denied based on race or religion.  Where many things are viewed today as ghastly that back then were just things you deal with.  

Today is a different time.  Period.  

Looking back, it's hard to know when police were called and not.  In the pseudo case provided, the parent could have called the police.  Other troop leaders.   The charter org.  For all we know, someone did.  Other discussions occurred.  This is why SOLs exist.  Times change.  Details are lost.  Expectations change.

Today's righteous indignation is often about feeling better about ourselves at the cost of those who came before.  The past is far from perfect, but it's a fool who judges harshly thinking they are better than the past.

Even decades ago if I told my father someone had tried to mess with me they would have been picking up body parts in three counties. Yes times were different and there was a higher threshold for some things then than there is now but the basic human instinct to snap a child abuser's spine has not changed. Except today things being the way they are we send lawyers to snap them in half. I was not an adult in that time period when most of these cases were alleged to have occurred but I have a very hard time comprehending how it could have been so widespread yet so ignored at worst or so incompetently handled at best. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by yknot

[elitts]

3 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Much more importantly, none of these lawsuits are about whether BSA called police after the fact.  They are about whether BSA was negligent in the selection or control of their leaders such that but for that negligence the molestation would not have occurred.  If Johnny's father told BSA that Johnny was molested, and BSA did nothing, and Scoutmaster continued to molest Johnny or other scouts, that would be negligence. 

Do you have any examples you can cite from your research where the BSA/Council declined to act specifically because they were afraid of being sued?  More importantly are there many/any actual lawsuits that were filed that would make that fear of being sued even a reasonable fear?  Then, probably even more so than now, it would have been rare for an accused molester to have wanted to publicly fight that charge.  

I have to add parenthetically that declining to act because you might have to defend your actions is a coward's response in the case of stopping the rape of children.  If that was someone's level of being Brave than they shouldn't, in my opinion, have been involved in running the scouting program in the first place. 

 I think the issue of "this could be libel" is much more of an explanation that supporters have tossed out there after the fact.  The one recurring explanation I've seen from people involved all those years ago, and the one I find somewhat compelling is: "Who are we to instigate a police investigation into something when the victim (or their family) don't want the police involved?"

Now, the view of this issue has changed over time with there being a view today that the victims right to anonymity is outweighed by the importance of getting a predator off the streets, but I still don't think you can hold the idea of respecting the victims wishes to be entirely wrong.  Particularly not when evaluating the appropriateness of actions taken before the beliefs changed.

[ThenNow]

20 minutes ago, yknot said:

I have a very hard time comprehending how it could have been so widespread yet so ignored at worst or so incompetently handled at best. 

For my part, I offer two points:

1) I literally was looking at my dad and thought about telling him. I knew my dad would 'kill' my Scout Master so I said nothing. I did not want my dad to go to prison nor ruin the Troop I loved. There were 10 people in my family and we would't have survived without him, not to mention the pain it would have caused. I was 10 and never again thought of telling an adult, though it continued for 6 years; and

2) I became aware just a few years ago that other parents/adults, besides those complicit or tangentially involved none of whom had kids in Scouting, were aware. The parents/dads only challenged him as to their own boys: "Touch my kid and you're dead."

 

[fred8033]

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

 I think the issue of "this could be libel" is much more of an explanation that supporters have tossed out there after the fact.  The one recurring explanation I've seen from people involved all those years ago, and the one I find somewhat compelling is: "Who are we to instigate a police investigation into something when the victim (or their family) don't want the police involved?"

 

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

For my part, I offer two points:

1) I literally was looking at my dad and thought about telling him. I knew my dad would 'kill' my Scout Master so I said nothing. I did not want my dad to go to prison nor ruin the Troop I loved. ...

2) ... other parents/adults, besides those complicit or tangentially involved none of whom had kids in Scouting, were aware. ...

 

To ThenNow, I'd bet there are many similar reasons ...  not wanting people to judge their kid when accusing such an upright adult ... so sick that it can't be true ... don't want to be "that" family ...  or the family that caused problems for their church, school, community ... or just don't want to be associated with it.  ... family dynamics are large and ugly at times.  ... 

And those parents were kids when pregnant women were not really to be seen in public and out-of-wedlock daughters would be shipped away to have their kid.  ... Only in 1978 did it become illegal to fire a woman for getting pregnant.  Though uncouth before, sexual harassment was outlawed around 1977.   

Things have drastically changed in the last fifty years.  Wrong is wrong, but judging the past is hard. 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

For my part, I offer two points:

1) I literally was looking at my dad and thought about telling him. I knew my dad would 'kill' my Scout Master so I said nothing. I did not want my dad to go to prison nor ruin the Troop I loved. There were 10 people in my family and we would't have survived without him, not to mention the pain it would have caused. I was 10 and never again thought of telling an adult, though it continued for 6 years; and

2) I became aware just a few years ago that other parents/adults, besides those complicit or tangentially involved none of whom had kids in Scouting, were aware. The parents/dads only challenged him as to their own boys: "Touch my kid and you're dead."

 

That's heartbreaking. I also did not tell my father certain things for similar reasons but thankfully those things that negatively affected me were not of that nature. I recently found out about a couple friends who were younger than me who were abused by an adult we knew and the guilt that I did not see it and help them is overwhelming. I wish such things had not happened to you or to them.

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Except today things being the way they are we send lawyers to snap them in half.

No, when they go to prison, the inmates usually take justice into their hands.  Child molesters are the lowest in the prison pecking order...and a target for everyone else. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[yknot]

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No, when they go to prison, the inmates usually take justice into their hands.  Child molesters are the lowest in the prison pecking order...and a target for everyone else. 

That was true 20 or 30 years ago but not now. People are generally just pretty depraved in the prison system. I have family who work in corrections and it is a different world today. 

[David CO]

8 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I was 10 and never again thought of telling an adult, though it continued for 6 years;

This is the part I cannot understand.  

[MattR]

6 hours ago, David CO said:

This is the part I cannot understand.  

And it seems to me that until we all understand this part we'll never make progress. I remember thinking at times while SM that I had 60 sons in my troop, my son's, and it was an overwhelming responsibility. If I didn't look out for everyone of these kids then some would fall through the cracks because nobody else was looking out for all of them.  @ThenNow mentioned that many parents were just looking out for their kids. That hasn't changed. I took all of my scouts on as my responsibility because I chose to. But there's nothing that says anywhere that there needs to be an adult that is looking out for all of these children.

I'm not saying they should replace the scout leadership or be with every scout all the time. But the not-my-kid-syndrome is an issue that needs to be addressed.

We want to develop independence and let them fail but we also want to know how, what and where they're doing. What problems they're having. And this is hard with teenagers because they don't trust most adults. This paradox just isn't mentioned very much.

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, MattR said:

And this is hard with teenagers because they don't trust most adults.

Not just teens in general, abuse victims blame themselves, or do not want to get the abuser in trouble, or think if they report they'll get in trouble, or that it will result in some other bad thing happening.

This is something that BSA YPT gets through fairly well and the Catholic youth protection (Virtus is the main one for most dioceses) pound this into people's heads. Young people need to know there are people they can go to in order to report. It may not always be mom/dad/parent/guardian. They need to know they can come to an adult who will help them and that won't turn them away.

[ThenNow]

15 hours ago, yknot said:

I wish such things had not happened to you or to them.

Thanks. I do appreciate that, especially from this group.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, David CO said:

This is the part I cannot understand.  

Exactly what can’t you understand? Do you mean literally or the complex psychological conundrum inherent in making dark disclosures related to the child/adult and powerless/powerful dynamic? 

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do you mean literally

As in, why I did not say anything?