Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[skeptic]

I am not qualified to put any figure into such a column, as it is all subjective and will vary dependent on the severity as seen by hopefully a majority.  Certainly, one would think that yours, for example, should be far greater than the person that has no real validation and was simply "touched" in some manner.  Related, but nowhere near the level of yours.  

Personally, I would be more comfortable with a "negligence" amount for BSA, and an effort to locate the actual perpetrator, if still alive, and prosecute them fully.  But that is not likely to happen, as if they even are alive, they do not likely have that proverbial "deep pocket".  My perspective is skewed in that I am not a victim/claimant, and I simply cannot see anyway to clearly identify the apple and the orange.  

Later.  Back again to trying to fill out an impossible BSA form for an OA election.

[johnsch322]

20 minutes ago, skeptic said:

My perspective is skewed in that I am not a victim/claimant, and I simply cannot see anyway to clearly identify the apple and the orange. 

Exactly.  You hit the nail on the head.

Edited August 26, 2021 by johnsch322

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

We got everyone money, even if they never went through with treatment because they couldn’t self fund. So, 4+/- years. That totally sucked, but it was required for them to come to the table and cough it up.

Exactly.  This is the awful part of bankruptcy being the process for dealing with abuse/injury.  Victims see headlines like "Judge allows BSA settlement to move forward...." and they start checking their mailbox for checks.  The reality os that the bankruptcy process is DEBTOR (BSA) initiated for DEBTOR benefit.  They settle with their claimants and move on down the road.  Claimants are left with a settlement of some portion of what's owed them or their litigation (in this case with insurers) continues.  Even if there were a global settlement with all insurers, and that is HIGHLY unlikely at this point unless victims were REALLY screwed over, it takes time to review every claim.  My wife asked me if she thought I'd see any amount in 2022.  My best response was "Maybe, but only a portion"  This isn't unusual.  The asbestos mass tort trusts have been going on for decades.  Madoff, while not mass tort has been clawing back money since 2009 https://www.madofftrustee.com/

Pissed about that?  The House Judiciary Committee might be interested in hearing your opinion: https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4661

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

To argue now that "you cannot quantify pain, therefore sexual abuse victims get NOTHING" isn't realistic.

I’ve heard and seen it argued that, since sexual abuse cases are brought as torts/injury-based, if there was no “physical injury” resulting from the abuse, then it doesn’t really qualify as an injury. Yes, some sexual abuse directly involves physical injury, but not all. What percentage, I won’t even hazard a guess. Someone probably has numbers. The notion that no “injury” no damages is patently absurd. Clearly there is injury and that is widely accepted. “Nothing physical that’s broken or bleeding or lingering, so what’s the fuss? Show me your wound and I’ll agree it’s compensable.” In most cases, it’s largely about the ramifications of the abuse, so we must wade deeply into emotional and physiologic pain and all that stems from it. One example. 

In order to arrive at quantifiable medical expenses and lost wages, to name just a couple, don’t you have to follow the trail from the “abuse without physical injury” into the immediate and resultant emotional trauma that gives rise to the need for all manner of treatment, medication, therapy and lost wages, as well as other damages I won’t list? If you ascribe to the no injury theory, you stop at “no blood” and say, “Sorry. Nothing broken here.” Courts, medical experts, juries and society have coalesced around the contrary consensus that emotional trauma and life impacts are often the critical indicia of the abuse, as well as the source of real world (economic) damages. Is it less tidy than, “Dude! You broke my fishing rod so pay me the cash equivalent for a new one,” but no less real and convertible into dollars. Punitive damages? Another matter and more complex. 

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

My wife asked me if she thought I'd see any amount in 2022.  My best response was "Maybe, but only a portion" 

So, process question. Would such a partial payment be via and subsequent to the Settlement Trustee's review and value determination? I assume every survivor payment has to pass through his review, whether total or partial. Yes? Thanks berry much.

[ThenNow]

Another of my random questions. Hoping someone knows the answer. Have any of the organizations who filed for Chapter 11 on the basis of child sexual abuse claims either: (a) voluntarily converted to 7 and when kaphlewie; or (b) went belly up not to long after emerging with a fresh balance sheet and new lease on life? A heard quite a statement the other day, attributed to the attorney who represented one of the RCC Diocese. He is reported to have told a LC, which he represents in this case pro bono, to paraphrase: “Don’t worry. The Diocese went through this, they’ve put it behind them and business is booming!” Seriously. I’ve not followed much of the afterglow for these groups once they pop out the other end of the gauntlet. Thank you. Thank you very much. [Nod to the King]

[Gilwell_1919]

Here is my take on this... in 2019/2020, BSA and LCs asked people to come forward if they had any knowledge of ANY abuse that may have occurred. BSA then directed those complaints/claims over to the Abused in Scouting Coalition. So, they opened Pandora's Box themselves when they kicked it over to a group of lawyers (AIS). For that, I have no pity whatsoever. 

However, here is the conundrum... should current scouts be punished for the sins of former scout leaders (pedophile volunteers or negligent professionals)? Between fee increases, loss of properties, and a myriad of other asset shifting that is going to happen, at what point does scouting become too expensive for the kids that really need it, but can't afford it? I've gotten the run-around answer from my local LC about "scholarships and camperships", but that is an entirely different mess that only really works when there is a luncheon for deep-pocketed donors - it doesn't really work when put into practice - plus it only covers a fraction of the cost. Now we have COs pulling back? 

I am a current leader at my troop, a council chair, and I am a state rep for my national-level CO to be a liaison for all scouting units within my state. Suffice it say... I am 1000% pro-scouting, but I am getting nothing substantive from BSA national, my LC, or my national-level CO. Literally crickets. 

So, my other question is... at what point do I step back to let the dust settle? That isn't fair to the current scouts in the program, but I am feeling pretty dang uncomfortable volunteering for an organization that is keeping everyone in the dark while simultaneously leaving their COs out in the fray. Obviously there is too much speculation and panic in the air, and I certainly don't want to pile on, but I am not wanting to be the only person left standing when the music stops. 

[CynicalScouter]

27 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

in 2019/2020, BSA and LCs asked people to come forward if they had any knowledge of ANY abuse that may have occurred. BSA then directed those complaints/claims over to the Abused in Scouting Coalition. So, they opened Pandora's Box themselves when they kicked it over to a group of lawyers (AIS).

That is not at all what happened. What a load of misinformation.

BSA never directed people to Abused in Scouting. BSA, per an order of the bankruptcy court, asked in 2020 (not 2019) for all claimants to file a claim with the bankruptcy court, something ALL bankruptcies require. They were also required, per the court's order, to launch an ad campaign to that effect.

Absolutely NONE of which had to do with AIS.

Simultaneously, and COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of this, AIS launched its OWN ad campaign to get people to file claims THROUGH THEM.

Again, BSA had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Bronco1821]

There may be hope.  New York Senator Gillibrand introduced a bill Wednesday that would encourage states through incentives to end the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil suits involving childhood sexual abuse.  The bill would provide states with a 5% boost in federal grant awards for training and law enforcement and prosecutors in handling child sexual abuse cases.  Let’s hope this bill passes. Don’t have a lot of faith in Congress, or the White House right now.  But hope springs eternal.

[David CO]

42 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

at what point does scouting become too expensive for the kids that really need it, but can't afford it?

I agree with you 100% on this point.  Scouting should be an affordable activity.  Unfortunately, its not.  BSA is more interested in providing expensive destination activities for well-heeled families.  That's where the $$$ is.

  

[David CO]

58 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I am a current leader at my troop, a council chair, and I am a state rep for my national-level CO to be a liaison for all scouting units within my state.

That surprises me.  Most people at that level have little to no concern for the lower-income families.

[ThenNow]

50 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

There may be hope.  New York Senator Gillibrand introduced a bill Wednesday that would encourage states through incentives to end the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil suits involving childhood sexual abuse.  The bill would provide states with a 5% boost in federal grant awards for training and law enforcement and prosecutors in handling child sexual abuse cases.  Let’s hope this bill passes. Don’t have a lot of faith in Congress, or the White House right now.  But hope springs eternal.

Yes. 

https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/senator-kirsten-gillibrand-and-representative-gwen-moore-announce-legislation-to-encourage-states-to-end-statute-of-limitations-for-child-sexual-abuse

[Eagle94-A1]

2 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

So, my other question is... at what point do I step back to let the dust settle? That isn't fair to the current scouts in the program, but I am feeling pretty dang uncomfortable volunteering for an organization that is keeping everyone in the dark while simultaneously leaving their COs out in the fray. Obviously there is too much speculation and panic in the air, and I certainly don't want to pile on, but I am not wanting to be the only person left standing when the music stops. 

I'm there with you. My only advice is:

FOCUS ON YOUR SCOUTS! (emphasis, not shouting at ya.)

I am once again involved at the district, for the moment,  because my sons wanted me to run the district camporee so it would be fun. But once camporee is done, so am I at the district level.

The council can merge with neighboring councils next year, sell/return to trusts the camps after my camporee for all I care (although I will miss the local one tremendously),  but my focus is on my Scouts.

As to why I am active here and a few other places, one reason is that I get more info here than from my council. Sad when you find out on Scouter.com what is going on and tell your DE, and he is absolutely clueless.

Good luck.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I agree with you 100% on this point.  Scouting should be an affordable activity.  Unfortunately, its not.  BSA is more interested in providing expensive destination activities for well-heeled families.  That's where the $$$ is.

  

Though the BSA wants to continue with the high adventure bases (HAB), there is independently obtained data that shows that the HABs improve retention at the unit level.  Philmont lost money for many years when the BSA would take the profits and redistribute.  About 20 years ago (very approximate), the BSA told Philmont that it could retain any profits.  Nearly immediately Philmont made a profit (simple capitalism and human nature works) and has every since.  That does not directly help the bottom line for the BSA.  Similar phenomenon has occurred with other facilities.  The Summit Bechtel Reserve (SBR) has not got to break even yet but may do so in the next year or so.  Anyway, the HABs are not a source of large amounts of income but they are more of a sink right now.  

The chapter 11 and gradual decline in membership has been the primary reasons for the registration fee increases.  The NEC and NEB have been very resistant to increasing the registration because they want every child who wants to be a Scout to have no BSA generated barriers.  Youth in Scout Reach areas (generally socioeconomically challenged families) have not seen much increase in registration fees (still $30 a year and paid by the council).

When Scouting is dramatically less expensive than many other youth activities, parents have difficulty believing that it is important or impactful.  So, in my opinion, the registration fees are a difficult issue.  The NEC and NEB treat it in such a manner.

[MYCVAStory]

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

So, process question. Would such a partial payment be via and subsequent to the Settlement Trustee's review and value determination? I assume every survivor payment has to pass through his review, whether total or partial. Yes?

Yes.  In part to make sure that claims are validated to make sure that there is no fraud or duplication involved.  A settlement trust if created would do that as well as take on the fight with insurers via retained insurance litigation experts.