Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[Eagledad]

36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right. I would simply point out that, even according to BSA's own data as many as 33% of registered adult leaders did NOT have current YPT training as recently as 2018.

I mean, come on. You can say "We take YPT seriously" and "We have the greatest YPT program ever." but you wait until 2019 to get to 99% compliance? I'm not looking for 100% because there will always be some lag time in reporting/someone missing their YPT renewal date, etc. But, like, high 90s?

It wasn't until states started reopening the abuse lookback windows that snapped BSA into shape on this.

Yes, but it's easy to argue if they wanted. How many adults haven't rode a bicycle in five years, yet do they still have the skill? Does the current course change every year? And, if the adults are practicing youth protection all the time, does the "current" training have significant meaning in the field?

I have deal with this same issue here at work. We take a lot of annual training that hasn't changed in 15 years, but the managers are held accountable to our participation, so we have to repeat it, over and over. And because of the anti-BSA folks we see even here on the forum, a pre-testout is probably out of the question.

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I can't argue with this and they should have mandated training.  That said, GSUSA doesn't require training.  None of the youth sports I volunteered for required training.  So its tough to say BSA is an outlier, in fact, the 80% is better than most other organizations I have seen.  Hopefully others also take heed.

Right, but my point is that GSUSA is not out their banging the drum about how super fantastic awesome its YPT is. BSA was.

And GSUSA wasn't staring down dozens (early 1990s-2010s) to hunderds (2010-) of sexual abuse lawsuits. BSA was.

So, if GSUSA is only 50% trained on their version of youth protection, meh.

If BSA is only 66% of of 2018, oof.

[CynicalScouter]

22 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I was looking at state level revival laws. 

So was I. Of the states where revival laws reached enactment, they were lopsidedly bipartisan.

And you make a mistake when you a) look at how a state votes in its Presidential election and b) attribute something about its political makeup when it comes to the state legislative races.

Not quite apples/oranges, but close.

As I said: Arizona may have voted for Biden, but it has one of the most conservative, Republican legislatures in the U.S. when it passed its version. Ditto North Carolina. Etc.

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagledad]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, but my point is that GSUSA is not out their banging the drum about how super fantastic awesome its YPT is. BSA was.

And GSUSA wasn't staring down dozens (early 1990s-2010s) to hunderds (2010-) of sexual abuse lawsuits. BSA was.

So, if GSUSA is only 50% trained on their version of youth protection, meh.

If BSA is only 66% of of 2018, oof.

One would only have to list the percentage of male adults to discount sexual abuse risks in the GSUSA. In general, fathers are not very welcome. That is their real YP, something that the BSA, or most other youth scouting organizations can't do.

Barry

[ThenNow]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Going forward, I think there should be a limit that at around 40, you lose the ability to sue institutions in civil court, but can sue criminally indefinitely.  I also have no issue suing individuals civil indefinitely (those directly involved in the abuse or coverup).  

From my own experience and the reams of research and data, any age cutoff must be tied to the real world knowledge of when people come to grips with CSA and have the “ability” to come forward. If it’s a random number, like 40, it’s just pulling numbers out of a hat. For me, if it was 40, I would’ve been just about 2 months too late to the game.

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

So was I. Of the states where revival laws reached enactment, they were lopsidedly bipartisan.

And you make a mistake when you a) look at how a state votes in its Presidential election and b) attribute something about its political makeup when it comes to the state legislative races.

Not quite apples/oranges, but close.

As I said: Arizona may have voted for Biden, but it has one of the most conservative, Republic legislatures in the U.S. when it passed its version. Ditto North Carolina. Etc.

 

I agree with you on this.  Such a change in the law is very likely to occur if it comes to a vote because it is hard to vote against such an emotional issue.

My view is that statutes of limitation for civil liability have a purpose that serves the good of the society.  In my case, I was in Scouting in the mid to late 1960's.  To my knowledge, all of my adult volunteer leaders are dead.  The council professionals have long since left Scouting and several are dead.  Were I to sue for anything, the local council and BSA have little manner to defend themselves.  Memories of all who might be still alive will all be suspect.

As several who were affected in Scouting have noted, it is often a very long time before they come forward, if ever.  Clearly the two are conflicting issues.  My personal bias is that there should definitely be a statue of limitations.  Where to draw the line could be determined by statistical survival information so that when it is not likely to have many survivors after the passing of some number of years, that defines the limitation.  Conversely, the time could be determined by the length of time that memories can be maintained with some accuracy.  It would provide defendants some expectation of being able to defend itself and a long period of time in which someone has to decide to pursue a lawsuit.

Such thoughts do not materially affect the current case but could provide a more scientific approach in the future.

[CynicalScouter]

So, I have seen some version of this posted in several places that these look-back windows for sexual abuse claims are all about Democrats and trial lawyers.

It is simply not true: I already ran through 4 states (Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina) where such bills were passed unanimously/almost unanimously.

Let's go though the rest to put this canard to bed. I am JUST looking at states in the last decade; some states passed these laws in the 1990s (Arkansas = 1993) that likely had nothing to do with either BSA or the Catholic Church Sexual Abuse scandal.

I'll be adding as I recollect/find more, but to start.

California: AB 218 of 2019 passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Assembly (69-0) and the Senate (33-0)

Georgia: HB 17 of 2015 passed UNANIMOUSLY in the House (162-0) and the Senate (54-0)

Minnesota: HF 681 of 2013 passed 123-3 in the House and 57-0 in the Senate.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Were I to sue for anything, the local council and BSA have little manner to defend themselves.  Memories of all who might be still alive will all be suspect.

Conversely, the plaintiff/claimant have little manner in which to prove their case. Memories of all who might be still alive will all be suspect.

It cuts both ways.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[jr56]

I was always wondering that.  If the victims of 40-50 years ago have nobody left around with the appropriate memory to support their statements, what then?  What are all these statements about people being offered 1500 to just go away?  Does this include these people who have no outside proof of the abuse?

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, jr56 said:

I was always wondering that.  If the victims of 40-50 years ago have nobody left around with the appropriate memory to support their statements, what then?  What are all these statements about people being offered 1500 to just go away?  Does this include these people who have no outside proof of the abuse?

That's the point. There is this, I want to say absurd, notion I've seen and had people tell me that all you have to do is say you were abused and BSA is going to hand you a big bag of money, no questions asked. No details required.

The way it is going to work is there will be two or three levels of vetting as I discuss here.
 

Quote

 

NOW: The BSA and insurance companies vetted. This was originally 95,000. Now down to 84,000. Likely to go lower. Some of this is duplicate claims (accidental, on purpose, whatever). Some are for claims that were already paid out (where someone already sued the BSA and won) etc.

SOON (maybe): The insurance companies want to get supporting documents from 1000 claims and verbal depositions from 100. This "sampling" would give insurers more info. They filed a motion of this, it is still pending.

LATER: The BSA plan calls for ALL BSA Settlement Funds and assets (buildings, cash, paintings, oil/gas rights, etc.) to go into a Settlement Trust. The Trust would be overseen by a Trustee who would be appointed by the bankruptcy judge with the debtors OK. ALL 84,000 claims would go to the Trustee who would go line by line, case by case and determine a) how valid the claims are and b) how egregious the claims. The claimants are going to have to come up with something more than "just give me money," WITHOUT GETTING INTO DETAILS there will be an "abuse score" for each claimant.

 

Simply saying "I was abused, give me money." Won't work.

[Eagle1993]

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'll be adding as I recollect/find more, but to start.

California: AB 218 of 2019 passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Assembly (69-0) and the Senate (33-0)

Georgia: HB 17 of 2015 passed UNANIMOUSLY in the House (162-0) and the Senate (54-0)

Minnesota: HF 681 of 2013 passed 123-3 in the House and 57-0 in the Senate.

All voted democratic in the last election.  When it comes up to vote, its tough to vote against.  The difference is that more Republican leaning states are preventing this from coming to vote and more Democratic leaning states are getting these bills to vote.  It really doesn't matter ... other than I think the momentum for new states to adapt lookback windows (and thus putting more LCs at risk) will slow as the number remaining states without these lookback windows are in more heavy Republican states.  

Also note that Georgia's law only allowed civil cases lookback against the perpetrators ... not institutions.  The clear issue in bankruptcy for BSA (and LCs in future) is the civil lookback windows against institutions.    I think there is bipartisan support for removal of criminal and civil SOLs against individuals ... there is a lack of bipartisan support for lookback windows against institutions.  That is the big $ one that I think many are questioning.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Eagle1993
Added note about georgia

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

All voted democratic in the last election. 

Again, there is a GIANT difference in state legislative elections and presidential.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Conversely, the time could be determined by the length of time that memories can be maintained with some accuracy. 

Are you referring to or do you have specific data on the memory "maintenance/retention"issue? I'm 60. My SM/abuser, who's very much alive and enjoying his retirement, is now 71. I can tell you details about him and some of the abuse that defies most people's understanding of vivid memory recollection. I'm not alone. My Scouting cohorts, most of whom are still alive, could be called to corroborate many of the ancillary and contextual allegations I have made. Some can corroborate instances of non-touching abuse (grooming, drinking, pornography...) and others their own physical sexual abuse or public sexual activity. There are multiple Proofs of Claim against the LC/Troop/CO, all I assume implicate him. No dearth of memory/accurate recall here.  

Edited May 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Conversely, the time could be determined by the length of time that memories can be maintained with some accuracy.

Here's what I want you to do. Right now.

Go to to Omni Court Docket for the BSA bankruptcy. https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&tagid=1153

Search the documents for the phrase "Letter Regarding Abuse" and read them.

Most are heavily redacted, you want to know why? Because within those black bars are the details of the abuse and the abuser. Some go on for pages.

Even beyond the black bars there are details enough: dates, locations, locations within locations (e.g. trailer in Camp ABC)

This morning I just read through another 20 such letters filed in the last 24 hours.

Then I want you to come back here, keep defending BSA.

These people are NOT asking for their memories to be 100% accepted. They are being asked to be able to at LEAST have their claims reviewed (they say court, but it would be a claims administrator) and the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Keep defending BSA. Keep talking about liars and "vultures".

Edited May 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

23 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

This morning I checked the Omni Court Docket and saw that the clerk had put online 8 letters from sexual abuse victims that were mailed to Judge Silverstein.

I won't link to them but I encourage all of your who are unquestionably defending BSA to read those 8 letters.

They are from young(er) and older.

They are from Eagle Scouts, OA, Cub Scouts.

They are from VICTIMS. Not "vultures". Not frauds. VICTIMS.

I just read the 20 letters filed this morning.

One was about a man, then a little boy, abused. He had found a picture of himself when he was in his uniform (I'm guessing Cub) and sent it to the judge. He doesn't want it back now. He doesn't want the memory of being in that uniform and what happened to him when he was in it.

The same things I saw in yesterday's letters were in today's. Depression. Shame. Guilt.

This is NOT about money; one letter even says that while of course he wants some compensation this is about that "BSA needs to know the pain they allowed." Some version of the word "accountable" appears in almost all of them.

One thing I am also seeing in most of these 20 letters? Anger at BSA "playing games".

Again, these are VICTIMS. Not liars (maybe some are, but likely rare). Certainly not "vultures".

I dare any of the BSA-can-do-no-wrong defenders to read even 5 of these letters. You won't, of course.