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

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Today's batch of redacted a sexual abuse letters made it on the docket.

Two things I hope everyone takes away

1. There's a reason why YP and Guide to Safe Scouting exist as they do today. Every one of these letters you can just tick the boxes and see every section of YP and GSS directly created to address these types of claims and crimes.
2. These are VERY detailed, even with the redactions. Times, dates, names, locations. Anyone hoping that BSA will skate because of faulty memories is in for a rude awakening.

For what this is worth, I've been digging around in the IVF and just  discovered and thoroughly read an abuse case in my District. It happened during the same period of my abuse, just one year from the first incident. To the best of my recollection and research, all the key BSA professionals involved in the case were the same for the majority of my abuse duration, 1972-1978/9. The DE became the SE the year after my first incident, smack in the middle of the one I found. I knew him well. As to the CSA incident reporting, the correspondence between the parents, law enforcement and BSA is pretty stunning. Regional leaders of various sorts and Council President are in there. The SM and COR are all copied on the eventual resignation letter, witnessed by two others. The resignation stated for "personal reasons." He also turned over his "Institutional Representative" card, whatever that is. Here's the kicker that has me flushed and pacing around. 

The resignation letter? Dated BEFORE every other piece of correspondence in the chain, INCLUDING the police incident report. What the hell does that say? I might break my hand on something here in a quick minute...

Edited May 10, 2021 by ThenNow
Oops. Too amped up...

[MYCVAStory]

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Things to look forward to for this week

1) TCC's objection to the BSA's disclosure statement. I expect it to be frankly anti-climactic. We all know at this point most of the points. BSA is still not disclosing precisely how much the LCs will contribute, how much the insurance companies will contribute, etc.

2) Agenda! What, precisely, is on the agenda in terms of motion practice for the May 17 hearing.

3) Three days of mediation in New York.

4) TCC will have a townhall call May 13.

I have a hunch the TCC's objection will focus upon the issues of greatest import to the court.  Perhaps the TCC will address the BSA's contention that the pension plan needs funding or the PBGC will step in?  What about on the other hand if the pension fund is actually in good shape or even over-funded?  Also, the formal mediation in New York was last week and not this week.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

He also turned over his "Institutional Representative" card, whatever that is.

Institutional Representative (IR) evolved into Scouting Coordinator (SC) which evolved into today's Charter Organization Representative (COR).

Today, the old IR is somewhat split in two: Institutional Head (IH) and Chartered Organization Rep (COR). The example I give is the pastor of the church sponsoring the unit is the IH, the junior pastor or congregation member who is suppose to be overseeing the unit is the COR. On rare occasion the IH and the COR is the same, but that's rare (I've never seen it personally, but I've heard it has happened).

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Institutional Representative (IR) evolved into Scouting Coordinator (SC) which evolved into today's Charter Organization Representative (COR).

Oh. Thanks.

I'm a bit wild-eyed at this discovery. I don't know what anyone else thinks, but the date on that letter says to me, "we vanished it...didn't happen." The parents didn't press charges, but insisted he be removed. I wonder if that's typical and if they were "asked" to say that to law enforcement. Maybe I don't need to wonder.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but the date on that letter says to me, "we vanished it...didn't happen."

All of which goes to show BSA (and LCs and COs) was negligent (if not reckless) in how they handled these maters.

There's a reason BSA and LCs do not want these to become lawsuits.

[CynicalScouter]

28 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Also, the formal mediation in New York was last week and not this week.

All the more reason why this week's TCC town hall will be very interesting. Even if they cannot say what happened in mediation, I'd be curious to see their tone/tenor.

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

All of which goes to show BSA (and LCs and COs) was negligent (if not reckless) in how they handled these maters.

I doubt anyone but the victims here can relate to what I'm feeling after reading and digesting that file, but I'm shellshocked. The whole ugly picture just hit home in pile driver fashion. This may well force a tectonic shift in my thinking, approach and emotional posture to this whole matter. Vaporizing the incident with date manipulation is pernicious. You simply cannot say an organization, "did the best it could under the circumstances and according to the mores and standards of the day" after reading what I did. I don't care if it was 1973. I cross-referenced and checked the dates 5 times because I couldn't believe it. Can anyone defend that as scout-like or Christian, given the involvement of a priest? 

[CynicalScouter]

As we await the TCC objection, keep in mind that that FCR and Coalition have already filed their objections to BSA trying to extend their time period in which BSA gets the exclusive right to proposed a reorg plan. And they were angry.

They were also alluding to the creation of a TCC/FCR/Coalition reorg plan.

Quote

36. Enough. The time has come for a different approach. The Coalition, the FCR, and the TCC are discussing a plan that they would propose to save the Boy Scouts, provide meaningful compensation to survivors, and provide an opportunity for Local Councils and Chartered Organizations to make contributions and become Protected Parties. Help is on the way, but for a competing plan—which would be proposed and supported by the survivor community—to be filed, exclusivity must be terminated. This needs to happen immediately.

 

[mrjohns2]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I don't care if it was 1973. I cross-referenced and checked the dates 5 times because I couldn't believe it.

I’m not following. They had him resign, and then investigated? Sorry, help me understand the events. 
 

I can’t relate to what you are going through. What I can say is that when the big batch of internal files came out 10 (?) years ago via the law firm in California, I read a few. Just thinking about reading them, gives me about 5 vivid recollections to the incidents. Just READING them has burned them into my memory. When people question certain YPT rules, I literally get put back into the incidents in my mind. It causes a pause each time. I can’t relate if it was me in the incident. Just being a reader has had an effect on me. 

[ThenNow]

Sorry. Yeah. I'm going back into it the file. Yes, I may have been premature. Part of what set me off is the DE who became SE, and who I knew well and was around our Unit A LOT, was at the center of this. So, the SE I knew, who lived in my town knew this was going on in my LC, in my District and in my town. The pattern of this incident is very familiar to what happened to me and others in the Unit and he was on notice to be aware of this pattern. He had to have been complicit. It's a bit much for me to process at the moment. Again, apologies...

[Sentinel947]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Sorry. Yeah. I'm going back into it the file. Yes, I may have been premature. Part of what set me off is the DE who became SE, and who I knew well and was around our Unit A LOT, was at the center of this. So, the SE I knew, who lived in my town knew this was going on in my LC, in my District and in my town. The pattern of this incident is very familiar to what happened to me and others in the Unit and he was on notice to be aware of this pattern. He had to have been complicit. It's a bit much for me to process at the moment. Again, apologies...

You have a right to be upset and frustrated. These people took the easy path out. They choose sweeping it under the rug vs dealing with it properly. It's painful to see that, even more so when its personal and relevant to you. 

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Sorry. Yeah. I'm going back into it the file.

No incident report/awareness of the abuse is acknowledged by the BSA or by the police report until the second week of the month. His resignation was dated the first week of the month. Appears, to me, as a backdate.

Further, from one of the Regional Executives: 

"...and the attached letter we received from you dated _____ 11th, concerning ___________.  We have placed this information in our file and have taken steps to see that his name is deleted from our records as Institutional Representative of Troop __."

"Deleted" not noted as resigned.

[CynicalScouter]

TCC just filed its objections.

It exceeded the max page length, so they are asking the judge permission to exceed the page length.

Reading through now. Quick, quick glance.

1) All the expected objections: the BSA 2.0 plan provides NO details on ANYTHING about how much the LCs will pay, insurance will pay, how much COs will pay, etc.

2) TCC wants details about that sweetheart Hartford deal and it wants them now.

3) The plan is unconfirmable. Key graph: don't even bother sending this to a vote, because no one is going to vote for this.

Quote

118. The Disclosure Statement describes a Plan that cannot be confirmed. As the Debtor constantly reminds everyone, every dollar spent on administrative expenses is a dollar less for Survivors. The Court should not subject the Survivors to the expense of the Boy Scouts soliciting votes on a patently unconfirmable Plan, nor should it require Survivors to wade through nearly 600 pages and relive their traumas, for a plan that cannot be confirmed.

 

[CynicalScouter]

More take aways from the TCC objections, alluding to what TCC wants.

Bottom line up front: "As things stand now, the Tort Claimants’ Committee will recommend rejection of the Plan."

1) Remember how BSA and/or LCs lied, saying that local funds would stay local? Nothing would go to be part of the bankruptcy? TCC's taking them to the woodshed for that.

Quote

[N]othing is done to change the fundraising mindset that ignores any responsibility for childhood sexual abuse claims (failing to simply note in these efforts that a portion of donated funds may be used to compensate Survivors).

2) Members of the TCC have now put their sexual abuse experiences into the record and WITHOUT the judge redacting.

3) They want all four HA bases on the table. ALL FOUR.

4) The pension plan is overfunded.

4) The LCs are STILL not on the hook for anything. That $425 M is still voluntary contributions from LCs.

5) The "Restricted Assets" either a) are not really restricted or b) are, but TCC has no way of knowing unless BSA comes up with something more than "these are restricted.")

6) Hartford's $650 million deal is a joke; it should be closer to $8.5 BILLION.

7) We still have no specific, concrete and specific data on a litany of topics (Assets Available and Unavailable to Pay Survivors, Insurance Coverage, and on and on).

This is just about what I figured. In the next post, I'll explain why TCC is going to completely tear apart every LC.

EVERY

SINGLE

ONE

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

... As to the CSA incident reporting, the correspondence between the parents, law enforcement and BSA is pretty stunning. ...

CSA ??

What did the police report say?

 

It's common for people to quickly resign after an ugly incident ... especially where they have done wrong.  It's the only thing they can control.  The rest is out of their hands.  Plus, they often have magical thinking that they can avoid repercussions if they leave.  ... I'm sure many times they did ... 

So, I would not be surprised if the resignation happened days or even weeks before the other dates.  Deciding to come forward takes time.  Investigations take time.  There was no email or texting back then.  It was all hard-wired phone and typed paper.  The biggest delay often is people have to decide whether to submit a police report.  Police reports themselves have to be put together.  There were no mandatory reports in any field back then.  

I would not be surprised if the sequence was:   --> abuse --> discovery --> confrontation --> resignation --> complains to leaders (unit, council, charter org) --> police reports.   Things could take days or weeks.  

The IVF entry you describe sounds SADLY very common.  I'd also ask ... why did the police not continue.  Once it's in police hands, it's beyond unit / council / charter org control.  It's always been that way.  Why did the police not pursue it?  It sounds like they had the name of the victim and his family.