Chapter 11 announced

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I'm curious to explore that reaction:

1. Why is $6,000 bad?

2. Why is $14,000 or $20,00 better?

3. What is the right amount?

See above and I yield the floor and balance of my time to whomever you might listen, from whatever state or jurisdiction.

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[mrjohns2]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

The one thing I will say, by way of a sideways answer, is: $6000? Seriously? 

I'm don't think $6000 is the right number. Let's say the right number is $1,00,000. What if the BSA doesn't have that? What if they only have $50,000 per legitimate claim?

[ThenNow]

Just now, mrjohns2 said:

I'm don't think $6000 is the right number. Let's say the right number is $1,00,000. What if the BSA doesn't have that? What if they only have $50,000 per legitimate claim?

I say, that doesn't feel like a pat on the head and the gifting of the aforementioned, "I'm sorry" and "Can I go back to my big salary and pension plan now?" (That last part might not be fair, but added it for a wee bit of flair. And, that rhymed so I'm sticking with it.)

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, mrjohns2 said:

I don't believe everyone. I also don't believe the BSA was negligent in all of the legitimate cases. I also believe that the BSA might not have the funds or assets to provide adequate compensation. 

Isn't that why we are in court? To determine who is due what and what BSA can provide?

It depends on how much time you have AND if you think spending that time will result in a better outcome for the BSA.

What do I believe?  I expect there are likely thousands of claims where BSA failed to protect children and should be financially responsible.  Let's assume 5,000 total.  Just a guess, who knows.

So, 5,000 total ... what should we pay for each instance of child abuse we let happen that we could have stopped.  $2M each?  That is $10B.  How long will it take to get to 5,000?  2 - 3 years?  Just to end up back at something we cannot afford?

To me, we should to a real top down look and determine what we need to survive as an organization and offer up everything else.  I don't think we did that and now I think by not doing that we risk everything.

[mrjohns2]

I don't know enough about about these things work. Was this supposed to be the last, best, and final offer? Or an opening bid? 

I wouldn't mind if they sold off Northern Tier, Sea Base, cancelled explorers, cancelled sea scouts, cancelled venturing, lost all of the endowments, sold everything they mentioned in the proposal, moved the headquarters to the Summit or Philmont, sold the headquarters. Made every council pay a proportional amount to their claim number and or assets. Even then, though, it might not be enough. 

[ParkMan]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

An organization's lack of oversight led to the sexual abuse of 85,000 youth and they are offering ~10% of their net worth to never have to think about that again.  It would be one of the lowest settlements I have ever seen in a sex abuse case.  Why not $0 and a I'm sorry card?  That should be enough, correct?  I would measure it in relation to their net worth (including all assets).  To me, 75%+ would be close (around $4B) to the correct payment if you really believe the organization ended up with 85,000+ victims.

If you don't like that, then don't say you believe everyone.  Fight every claim one by one.  Identify the real claims and then make appropriate payouts for those where BSA failed to provide proper oversight.  Short of that, you need to make a substantial cut from your total net worth.  Its tough to say .. "yes, we believe all 85,000 were victims, we are sorry, and here is $6K while we walk away with most of our valuation".  

Nice try to spin my statement.

Granted - 85,000 cases of abuse occurred by volunteers in Scouting.  If the organization was more vigilant, it could very likely prevented most of those.  The BSA was not more vigilant and as a result many kids were abused.  That's without question. 

Today, that same organization is trying to put a number on a settlement.  The assets of the organization are almost entirely all program assets. The more of those assets you sell, the less the organization can serve youth.  The higher the settlement, the less Scouting can do it's job.

My point is - let's just be honest about the tradeoff here.  Increased settlement for claimants results in fewer program assets (camps) for kids.

That's the tradeoff - no?

 

[mrjohns2]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To me, we should to a real top down look and determine what we need to survive as an organization and offer up everything else.  I don't think we did that and now I think by not doing that we risk everything.

Good discussion. I agree with that 100%. The only issue is, is that how these work? What if they see that as the opening bid and then cut from there? 

[mrjohns2]

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

If the organization was more vigilant, it could very likely prevented most of those.  The BSA was not more vigilant and as a result many kids were abused.  That's without question. 

I don't know if that is true. There was an incident just a few years ago at my old boyhood camp. Based on the court case and articles I read, nothing in YPT would have prevented it (the perpetrator broke YPT). Were the authorities brought in promptly? Yes. Based on what I read, should the BSA pay any money? No. Was it super horrible? Yes.

Prevent is hard, promptly and proper response is easy and must be done. 

[skeptic]

8 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

WSJ Opinion Piece.  They are basically saying that mass-tort is out of control and now big business.  It requires reforms, otherwise, businesses and organizations will always be at risk of elimination.   They are pushing that the victim list is vetted prior to proceeding.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/looting-the-boy-scouts-11614728612

While I agree with much of the piece, BSA would be in serious trouble with 5,000 cases let alone 85,000 cases.  The vetting should be done prior to payouts, but it shouldn't delay the bankruptcy progress.  Delaying the process to vet could actually lead to a worse outcome for BSA.

 

[skeptic]

While the responders seem to see the WSJ article as minor, I see it as the first step in bringing the hypocrisy of this whole thing to the public eye.  If it also suggests that our "tort" system and so on are out of control and needs to change, they are spot on.  At least it is in a periodical that has real visibility and will reach some of the right people.  Meanwhile, we will continue to man the local trenches and keep our heads down.

[mrjohns2]

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

WSJ Opinion Piece.  They are basically saying that mass-tort is out of control and now big business.  It requires reforms, otherwise, businesses and organizations will always be at risk of elimination.   They are pushing that the victim list is vetted prior to proceeding.

I don't have access, but being business is right. I have heard of hedge funds looking at different cases, such as this one,  and then providing the funds to a law firm (making an investment) with the goal being a true ROR. Seems wrong to me.

[skeptic]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I apologize for being so active today. I didn't sleep well and am a bit manic. As you suggest the proposed Plan leads me to fear the entire thing is on the verge of becoming frightfully attenuated.

For me, and I am probably not alone among the abuse survivor claimants, I don't think I can bear several years of this. I rather feel like I was unwittingly attached to a team of horses and am being drug across the prairie. Granted, I could drop my claim and try to walk away, but it is not so simple as that. I am now invested in the process and the outcome, regardless my financial interest. The wound has been ripped open and I am trying to staunch the blood with little success. Probably TMI, but there it is. I appreciate you allowing me to be engaged and find it helpful to manage my emotions and the near constant rumination over the past, present and future. (I do have a therapist, but she's expensive. I owe somebody here a charred Elk steak or something.)

The wound has been ripped open and I am trying to staunch the blood with little success.

 

And here lies one of the major issues with the dredging of stuff from the past.  Many people have come to terms with various trauma, and then to have it dragged back to the light is painful.  And, since the actual perpetrators are not being held accountable, is it really worth it, based on the true history of these types of tragedies?  

[ThenNow]

 

21 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My point is - let's just be honest about the tradeoff here.  Increased settlement for claimants results in fewer program assets (camps) for kids.

Individuals stewarding a business, NGO, family and, etc., are caretakers and responsible. With corporations, that liability runs into the future, just as losses can be booked against future gains. Here, someone wasn't minding the house in the past and some may/will "suffer" in the future. It is 100% not fair to those kids. Agreed. Neither is it fair when a parent squanders their paycheck and the kids have to work and miss school, aren't given decent clothes to wear or fed properly. Actions/inactions and decision/indecision by those in with authority and responsibility have real world consequences and future implications. (This not attempt to respond to the monetary issue, just a practical comparison.)

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

And here lies one of the major issues with the dredging of stuff from the past.  Many people have come to terms with various trauma, and then to have it dragged back to the light is painful.  And, since the actual perpetrators are not being held accountable, is it really worth it, based on the true history of these types of tragedies?  

Naive though it may have been, I was very publicly offered the hope of "acknowledgement," finally being "seen" and receiving equatable compensation. As I've said in writings elsewhere, and will before the court, I did not ask for this and was not seeking it. I was invited, even urged to come forward and file. I discussed with my wife and therapist. Now, if $6000 is offered, it will be yet another trauma at the hands of the BSA. Some may not like that or put it in the psycho-babble bucket, but I'm telling you what I know, feel and am experiencing. I hope everyone sees that I'm not some "babbling" idiot trying to make a quick and easy buck. Ain't nuttin' easy 'bout this.

[mrjohns2]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Now, if $6000 is offered, it will be yet another trauma at the hands of the BSA. Some may not like that or put it in the psycho-babble bucket, but I'm telling you what I know, feel and am experiencing. I hope everyone sees that I'm not some "babbling" idiot trying to make a quick and easy buck. Ain't nuttin' easy 'bout this.

Like the only Jewish kid or the only Black kid in a school, I feel bad that you have to "speak for all who were hurt so badly". I bring this up because I do apricate your engagement and perspective. You could remain silent and save yourself any further pain, but it does help me to think. 

For me to understand this better, my question on the "rightness" of the $6000 is that it is far from their last $6000. If $6000 was all they could really "afford", then it would be what it would be? But it is clearly not all that they could afford and far from their "last" $6000? Not that any number is right (or wrong) as an amount, but this is wrong because it is like a billionaire making amends and saying "we are even, here is $6000, I'm sorry for what happened, but it is all I can spare"?  Again, it clearly isn't all they can afford, nor the right number (no matter what the right number is).