Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[fred8033]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I am not here to discuss the relative societal guilt and/or responsibility to police child sexual abuse elsewhere. As in, this is BSA Chapter 11 conversation. Fare thee well. 

We have no cause for direct attacks.  I agree with you that we need to tread carefully as we are all very passionate.

ON THE OTHER HAND ... Fair topics for this channel does include  societal guilt and shared responsibility when others introduce their anger / assertions about BSA's past / current.   When making those statements, you can't then switch back to say this channel is only about the bankruptcy.   

THERE IS A BALANCE.  BSA has legal responsibilities by how the law works.   BSA has moral responsibility too.  It happened under their watch.  

The problem is when the debate cross from the legal case to social media blame / character assassination / group-think that BSA is bad.  Many believe ... and it can easily be argued ... BSA is not unique.  Many can argue BSA is far from unique.  ... I won't re-introduce those arguments here, but they are extremely easy to make.  ... Many can argue that BSA did more than others and was ahead of others addressing CSA.

We should still not attack each other directly.  There is no cause for that.  

The simple fact is this case raises passions.  Emotionally, people find this whole situation inconceivable from many different directions and many perceptions.  

If you want to stick to the case, stick to the case.  This legal situation is intriguing on it's own and I'm learning much on how things work by watching it

 

Side note ... Statistics seem to be stuck in the dark ages.  ...  CSA is incredibly hard to find comparable / applicable statistics.  ... For example, the one I question significantly now is about abusers have hundreds of victims.  BSA case files show some with multiple.  (not sure number or percent ... @ThenNow has a pretty clear example of multiple multiple).  But, I've not seen files that reflect hundreds.  I've seen few BSA IVF files with more than a few.  Even recent cases.  Yet, I've read of cases of roller skating teachers that have hundreds of victims (one guy bragged of 200+ ???) ...  .Though our understanding of CSA has clearly evolved over the last 20/30 years, CSA statistics seems to continue to be stuck in the dark ages with little statistical understanding. 

Even this case yields little useful CSA statistics.  If anything, it will yield many interesting statistics about searching for claims or the number of valid claims as a percent.  Little useful related to CSA will come from this case.  Perhaps that's the nature of statistical analysis of something people don't want to discuss.  

 

[CynicalScouter]

12 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Do you know when it was first written on an application like that? 

Not until the recently. This was the form from about 2009-2019 (note it still mentions Varsity Scouting which died out in 2017/2018) that had none of that information.

http://btdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/New_Youth_Application.pdf

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/6e95f281-b831-46ec-955e-e05a9ca37cbf/downloads/1cdfoqoj9_758415.pdf

[johnsch322]

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For example, the one I question significantly now is about abusers have hundreds of victims.  BSA case files show some with multiple.  (not sure number or percent ... @ThenNow has a pretty clear example of multiple multiple).  But, I've not seen files that reflect hundreds.  I've seen few BSA IVF files with more than a few.  Even recent cases.  Yet, I've read of cases of roller skating teachers that have hundreds of victims (one guy bragged of 200+ ???) ... 

If a roller skating teacher bragged of having having 100's of victims what would make an abuser in the BSA any different?  Larry Nasser in gymnastics had 100's.  I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1.  One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused.  I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly. 

[fred8033]

28 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 ChildUSA's report kinda leaned in on this, is that there is something inherent about Scouting that makes it more susceptible than those other programs and that Scouting by its very nature can never shed child sexual abuse in the way those others programs can (bold in original)

https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-Victims-of-Abuse-in-Scouting-Part-1-1.pdf

"It is our main finding that Scouts provided an unsafe environment for children. .... In Scouts, children are taken away from safe communities of adults, put in communal spaces like showers and church basements, and brought across state lines far away from their homes. Situational disempowerment seems routine in Scouting, and it creates repeated instances in which children are susceptible to abuse."

 

Not sure ChildUSA is fair about this ...

Example:  Calling out old communal spaces like showers, but ignoring that schools required nude showers for all youth as part of gym class and that all YMCAs then ... and still do ... have communal shower spaces.  In my twenty years of scouts, no adult has been in a communal shower with youth.  In the last five years, showers have changed from communal to individual. 

Example:  Inferring church basements are some dark potentially dangerous place, but ignoring such spaces exist everywhere.  Ever been to a shopping mall.  My youth was littered with stories of what happened with kids at the shopping malls or in the parking lots.  

Yes, scouting does have unique aspects that need to special consideration.  But such special situations exist in many places.

 

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

However, if there were large numbers of men sexually assaulting kids in those programs, we would be seeing large numbers of lawsuits filed now.  The laws are the same for all organizations ... if there were a massive number of sex abuse claims we would be seeing a flood of lawsuits against these other youth serving organizations. We are not.  Why ... because a combination that BSA was attractive to pedophiles and BSA didn't address the problem sufficiently.  From Scout's Honor, 1991:

I can think of several reasons easily.

• BSA is long lived.  Many of the worst cases were in organizations that grew and shrunk or failed.  The worst offender I've heard about was a roller skating teacher.  That business grew and shrunk.
• BSA is national and everywhere.  This creates a huge pool of customers even if one percent of one percent of customers have claims, that's a huge pool.   
• BSA tracked the incidents they knew.  That's unique.  It allowed momentum to start to trigger this case.  Few organizations have something like that to create the momentum.  It's an easy starting point for many future cases.  

• 24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

  The laws are the same for all organizations... 

• KEY ONE ... Eagle1993 wrote:  "The laws are the same for all organizations."  really?  Many organizations are still shielded.  The biggest culprits that I saw as a kid were schools.  "I believe" ... again not a lawyer ... that it would be much harder to sue a school district for hundreds of millions based on the actions of individual teachers.  ... I'm pretty sure that we could easily find a school district with an average of a case per year.  I'm sure we could find a state with dozens of cases per year.  

 

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The other, USA Gymnastics, has just over 500. 

Yeah, who saw that coming.  But then again, people had to have known for awhile for all the cases to exploded as they did.  I suspect many organizations have such stories that individual hope time will bury.  

 

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Also from Scout's Honor, 1991, the chair of BSA's safety committee never received information about sex abuse.

In 1991, I doubt safety committees historically listed CSA as a safety concern.  They were looking at drowning, burning, poisoning, sharp edges, tripping hazards.  CSA was a crime, not a safety issue.  

 

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Neither should be blaming victims or society.  They should admit their own failings, compensate victims and do their best to prevent it from reoccurring. 

BSA has admitted their own fault.  This whole legal cases is about compensating victims fairly.  The trouble is BSA is not a deep bank of money that some claim.  

BSA has also been expanding YP rules and training for as long as I've been a member.  There has been constant focus on it for 20+ years.  That's far beyond what other youth organizations have done.

 

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Too often, this thread seems to venture into blaming laws, society, lawyers and the claimants.  

There is cause to blame laws, society and lawyers.  I'm not seeing victim blame.  That's wrong.  But, it is 100% clear science / society / laws did not handle this well until recently.

 

The question is ... is this channel about the legal case?  Or do you want to re-hash and debate the past.  Many of us believe though BSA had bad incidents, BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little.

 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

In Scouts, children are taken away from safe communities of adults, put in communal spaces like showers and church basements, and brought across state lines far away from their homes. Situational disempowerment seems routine in Scouting, and it creates repeated instances in which children are susceptible to abuse."

Scouts were never "taken away" from safe communities of adults.  The safe communities of adults formed these scout units, funded these scout units, and signed their kids up in these scout units.  The scout units were an extension of the safe communities of adults.

The people who wrote this nonsense are using loaded language like "taken away" and "across state lines" to make it sound like scout leaders were kidnapping kids and spiriting them away from their homes.  These boys were not kidnapped.   They wanted to join scouting.  They wanted to go on outings.  Their parents signed them up and paid for these outings.

Boys were not "put" in communal spaces like showers and church basements.  They walked there under their own power.  They knew they would be meeting in the church basement when they signed up in their scout unit.  They knew they would be taking showers. 

When social advocates use such loaded language, they usually end up diminishing their own argument and hurting their own cause.  I think they did so here.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by David CO

[fred8033]

23 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

If a roller skating teacher bragged of having having 100's of victims what would make an abuser in the BSA any different?  Larry Nasser in gymnastics had 100's.  I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1.  One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused.  I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly. 

The case I refer to was one I had in training.  (?? 10/15 years ago??)  Search for Karl in this document.  He refers to his 500 incidents.  That video was extremely eye opening.  I was BSA used that training to open people's eyes.  

          https://www.archmil.org/ArchMil/Resources/SAFE/3FacilitatorManual.pdf

I was questioning the statistics.  It seems different statistics apply to different categories.  I'm not sure which statistics can be used when as applicable to this case.  Perhaps, the average for BSA is 5 or 10 per abuser.  I'm just not sure.  ... It's why I say CSA statistics seem to still be in the dark ages.

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The question is ... is this channel about the legal case?  Or do you want to re-hash and debate the past.  Many of us believe though BSA had bad incidents, BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little.

The answer to this question is within what you wrote "BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little." What BSA was doing was ineffective (unless maybe you count the last 10 or 15 years).  If it was effective there would be less claimants/victims.  Also there would be no bankruptcy if there was minimal amounts of abuse.  The small numbers that BSA believed they had drove them into thinking bankruptcy and then the volume came forward. 

[Eagle1993]

11 hours ago, Eagledad said:

That being said, what do you propose to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

This is a great question and my hunch is you will likely never have a 100% safe program when youth & adults are involved.  I've seen some proposals that I think could help (more open reporting) and others that I doubt would have any real impact (warning labels).

I would be curious to see proposals from child abuse experts after reviewing the more recent incidents (5-10 years).  

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I'll file 501(c)3 paperwork, start "Scouts USA" the next day, and then turn it over to the folks in Texas.

Sure, continue the movement, but do not shuffle it into the hands of that organization.  Get a new team together, and do it much better than they...

Heck, I'll sign on...full time...at $100K per year.  That's $900K less than Surbaugh got in 2018...

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Form-990-2018.pdf

Edited August 30, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

If BSA doesn't make it out of this... I'll file 501(c)3 paperwork, start "Scouts USA" the next day, and then turn it over to the folks in Texas... that is how committed I am to scouting.

I draw distinction between Scouting (the Movement of Baden-Powell and Hillcourt), and the "commissioned," senior administration of National (running a business franchise operation out of Irving).

Many of us are deeply committed to Scouting. And hope it does survive.

I have nothing but contempt and disgust for those at National who have brought Scouting to its current plight.

I have little doubt that were National's business conducted more like a typical business, instead of the secretive, low transparency organization that it is and has been historically, things would be different.

But it is clear now, that senior National staff have failed to carry their responsibilities to the near destruction of not only National, the business, but Scouting itself (as there is only a remote possibility that Scouting, as we know it, will survive post National's bankruptcy).

As to the specifics of your post, all of the registered trademarks, service marks, copyrights, etc, National's intellectual property rights are assets of National, and if a Ch 7 is the final outcome, those intellectual property rights will be sold to raise funds for distribution to creditors.

One would have to purchase the rights to "Scouts USA" to be able to use that phrase.

So, what can the buyer of National's intellectual property do with it?

Well, considering the practice of "catch and kill" in the news recently, the buyer might just put all of it in a file cabinet, never to be used again. Or, some of it might be used by a group espousing the joy of RV'ing by creating local RV clubs under the banner of: "Travel the roads with Scouts USA."

And so, handing it back to senior National staff?

The same folks who, by inadvertence, negligence, or willful and wanton conduct lost it all ONCE?

Why?  What duty do those of us who love Scouting have to entrust its life to those who have nearly killed it? (And, not by a single idiot act, but by generations of senior staff over decades implementing a policy that has brought us all to this.)

Why?  Because they have learned their lesson and will get it right next time?

J'Accuse.

National's senior staff need to be ushered into the night with their pensions and just go away.

 

The Second World War, Vol. 6

Triumph and Tragedy

Theme of the Volume

How the Great Democracies

Triumphed,

and so

Were able to Resume

The Follies

Which Had so Nearly

Cost Them Their

Life

--Winston S.  Churchill

 

How much more Folly can Scouting withstand?

[fred8033]

28 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Sure, continue the movement, but do not shuffle it into the hands of that organization.  Get a new team together, and do it much better than they...

Heck, I'll sign on...full time...at $100K per year.  That's $900K less than Surbaugh got in 2018...

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Form-990-2018.pdf

Wages are yet another whole thread.  I'm amazed, but then again it's a big organization.

[SiouxRanger]

28 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Heck, I'll sign on...full time...at $100K per year.

Knowledgeable folks in my council, for over 20 years, have discussed how we could run the council with only a Registrar, and save about $3 million in payroll.  Our SE earns is paid out about 10% of the entire annual budget.  The rest of the council staff is paid about another 10%.

Think of that ratio. Our SE is paid to supervise a minimum wage person that the minimum wage person is paid to do their entire job.

And to whom is the SE beholden?

National.

National determines whether the SE is "offered" to a particular council for employment (big council means better salary-not play ball with National and you'll be sent to a smaller council-and financially punished).

National determines the amount of salary (I understand that National sets that, or perhaps "suggests" to the volunteer senior officers).

National sends its "commissioned" SE's to councils where they have no family ties, history, or inherent loyalty.  SE's go where they are sent. This ensures the SE is beholden to National for the SE's professional life.  Behave, and you are sent to a beautiful location, sound finances...fall out of favor and you are sent to Illinois or Iowa (sorry, Illinois and Iowa-but it is just corn).

And thereby, National maintains control of the "independent" LC's.

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

ON THE OTHER HAND ... Fair topics for this channel does include  societal guilt and shared responsibility when others introduce their anger / assertions about BSA's past / current.   When making those statements, you can't then switch back to say this channel is only about the bankruptcy.   

Locate the first tiny word in the section you quoted. Not you, not Barry, not anyone else. I responded to requests for replies/conversation on a topic with an honest reply: “I am not here to discuss...” I’ve done that topic and responded to that argument, as have a number of others, til I’m blue in the face. (Smurfs-based jokes and mockery welcome.) All y’all rock on with your bad selves. (That’s not a poke, just a Southernism meant to say, “As...you...wish...” Meesa done with that Maypole dance. 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

  3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I am not here to discuss the relative societal guilt and/or responsibility to police child sexual abuse elsewhere. As in, this is BSA Chapter 11 conversation. Fare thee well. 

 

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1.  One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused.  I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly. 

Also, John, you didn’t use the high-end of the statistics - 100 per abuser or 1 in 6 men abused - for the calculations did you? That’s right. You did not. 

As to multiple multiple, as abuse is defined in the POC and the Tiers of Abuse, my abuser hit 8 the first night of my very first BSA campout. He went down the row of 4, 2-Scout tents tossing in a pair of cold Old Style and a porn mag to share. That was campout one. I was in the Troop from ‘72-‘79. (I was an unhappy Cub Scout prior to that, so about 7ish years total. I don’t have the Cub start date listed anywhere.) 

Edited August 30, 2021 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Also, John, you didn’t use the high-end of the statistics - 100 per abuser or 1 in 6 men abused - for the calculations did you? That’s right. You did not. 

As to multiple multiple, as abuse if defined in the POC and in the Tiers of Abuse, my abuser hit 8 the first night of my very first BSA campout. He went down the row of 4, 2-Scout tents tossing in a pair of cold Old Style and a porn mag to share. That was campout one. I was in the Troop from ‘72-‘79. (I was an unhappy Cub Scout prior to that, so about 7ish years total. I don’t have the Cub start date listed anywhere.) 

You are right. If I had used 1 in 6 or 100 per abuser the doubting Thomas’s would have had a field day. I wanted to show that even using watered down stats that the 82,500 number was a number way to low.