Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[johnsch322]

12 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent.  By labeling them as they were, it leaves exactly that impression in the minds of many.  Of course the media loved it, and loves it still, and uses it as often as possible to mislead.  There is evidence the files actually did in some incidences help stop abusers, though unless there was good reason to contact National, nothing was computerized, so it likely easily fell through cracks.  That still seems to ask, for me, what was being done to attempt to respond to these issues by anyone else at the time?  Little, if anything appears to be the answer.  So, the files are forced into the public view and allowed to be mined.  Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns; though apparently some have.  Again, the additional question is what other persons or agencies may have been aware of these things at the time?  How much did the societal taboos affect things at the time.  How many families may have felt the need to not bring things public, nor to fight the practices of the time?  So many other factors involved.  

And we still come back to simple statistical things that indicate, based on incomplete data to be sure, that BSA did better than most at the time.  There is no question that errors in judgment occurred, and unfortunately a few really heinous cases.  And that should not have happened.  But that does not make BSA, as an organization, a purposeful predator.  We always come back to the fact that in the minds of many, somehow NO abuse should ever be perpetrated, and that is a great goal.  But, it is not a real possibility in reality, and even the loudest should recognize that.  

At the same time, the overwhelmingly positive effect of the BSA over the past 110 years has been positive and its tenets are in sore need of larger acceptance within society.  But logic and balance, there's my favorite workd again, does not seem applicable to a few, and that is not something any of us can combat.  

Our goals ahould be to come to the fairest conclusion as possible, and to continue to work on stronger barriers to those who will act in predatory ways.  We certainly see that progress being made; but it will only be as good as those that will pay attention and follow the rules.  Again, human nature may come into play, and when it does, the response needs to be open and immediate.  

For my part, I will do my best to no longer label certain, what I feel are bad actors in this drama.  That does not mean I will not still see them that way, just not pass it along again.  

Do understand that I in no way feel the survivors are not due a settlement.  I just would like it to be in step with the lady and her scale.

    

I have a very hard time getting past some of what you say. I feel it is like an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand. 
“The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent “

Have you read the files published in the LA Times?

“Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns”

once again have you read them?

“And unfortunately a few really heinous cases”

There is more than a small number of which is the definition of “few”

“Overwhelming positive effect of the BSA”

I am sure when Mao Tse Tung starved to death parts of China he did that for the positive effects on the rest of China.  

“I Just would like it to be in step with the lady and her scale”
Have you by any chance researched what type of settlements are given out by the lady to sex abuse victims?

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I have a very hard time getting past some of what you say. I feel it is like an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand. 
“The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent “

Have you read the files published in the LA Times?

“Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns”

once again have you read them?

“And unfortunately a few really heinous cases”

There is more than a small number of which is the definition of “few”

A sample excerpt from one of many LA Times articles. (8.4.2012)

A Los Angeles Times review of more than 1,200 files dating from 1970 to 1991 found more than 125 cases across the country in which men allegedly continued to molest Scouts after the organization was first presented with detailed allegations of abusive behavior.

In at least 50 cases, the Boy Scouts expelled suspected abusers, only to discover later that they had reentered the program and were accused of molesting again.

One scoutmaster was expelled in 1970 for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Indiana. Even after being convicted of the crime, he went on to join two troops in Illinois between 1971 and 1988. He later admitted to molesting more than 100 boys, was convicted of the sexual assault of a Scout in 1989 and was sentenced to 100 years in prison, according to his file and court records.

In 1991, a Scout leader convicted of abusing a boy in Minnesota returned to his old troop — right after getting out of jail.

“Basically, there were no controls,” said Bill Dworin, a retired Los Angeles police expert on child sexual abuse who reviewed hundreds of the files as a witness for an Oregon man abused by his troop leader in the 1980s. In 2010, the plaintiff, Kerry Lewis, won a nearly $20-million jury verdict against the Scouts.

https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-boyscouts-20120805-m-story.html

Edited January 25, 2022 by ThenNow
Oops.

[yknot]

29 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent.  By labeling them as they were, it leaves exactly that impression in the minds of many.  Of course the media loved it, and loves it still, and uses it as often as possible to mislead.  There is evidence the files actually did in some incidences help stop abusers, though unless there was good reason to contact National, nothing was computerized, so it likely easily fell through cracks.  That still seems to ask, for me, what was being done to attempt to respond to these issues by anyone else at the time?  Little, if anything appears to be the answer.  So, the files are forced into the public view and allowed to be mined.  Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns; though apparently some have.  Again, the additional question is what other persons or agencies may have been aware of these things at the time?  How much did the societal taboos affect things at the time.  How many families may have felt the need to not bring things public, nor to fight the practices of the time?  So many other factors involved.  

And we still come back to simple statistical things that indicate, based on incomplete data to be sure, that BSA did better than most at the time.  There is no question that errors in judgment occurred, and unfortunately a few really heinous cases.  And that should not have happened.  But that does not make BSA, as an organization, a purposeful predator.  We always come back to the fact that in the minds of many, somehow NO abuse should ever be perpetrated, and that is a great goal.  But, it is not a real possibility in reality, and even the loudest should recognize that.  

At the same time, the overwhelmingly positive effect of the BSA over the past 110 years has been positive and its tenets are in sore need of larger acceptance within society.  But logic and balance, there's my favorite workd again, does not seem applicable to a few, and that is not something any of us can combat.  

Our goals ahould be to come to the fairest conclusion as possible, and to continue to work on stronger barriers to those who will act in predatory ways.  We certainly see that progress being made; but it will only be as good as those that will pay attention and follow the rules.  Again, human nature may come into play, and when it does, the response needs to be open and immediate.  

For my part, I will do my best to no longer label certain, what I feel are bad actors in this drama.  That does not mean I will not still see them that way, just not pass it along again.  

Do understand that I in no way feel the survivors are not due a settlement.  I just would like it to be in step with the lady and her scale.

    

I have a few reactions to this.

First, I can't recall where this was posted but one of the things that reportedly came out of the 82,000 abuse claims is that many of the perpetrators were not identified in the IVFs. While it's true some of the cases in the IVFs may be unrelated to abuse, it also means they didn't capture a lot of the most egregious predators that have turned up in some of the lawsuits and claims. So I'm not sure that point serves well as a defense for BSA. 

Second, I don't think BSA was a purposeful predator. I think it's clear though that it was an incompetent and mismanaged organization that blindly and maybe arrogantly dismissed risks and so unwittingly aided and abetted perpetrators.  I'm not sure scouting has done better than other organizations. As I've pointed out multiple times, 4-H doesn't have this problem.

Third, BSA somehow for a long time did not comprehend or face the fact that it was providing the perfect petri dish for predators. It was and is an organization frequently recommended for at risk youths or those lacking a paternal presence. It allowed unrelated men to take young boys overnight to remote locations in the woods out of the public view. This is something that Michael Johnson, the departed Youth Protection director, repeatedly pointed out.

Scouting does do a lot of positive things but unless the organization really restructures so that it can ensure proper supervision down to the unit level where most of the adult/youth interaction occurs it really shouldn't be trusted with children. BSA to me is wasting far too much energy trying to hang on to the status quo or tinkering with window dressing details instead of really deeply examining how it needs to be in order to continue providing scouting in the years ahead. 

 

[johnsch322]

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

I have a few reactions to this.

First, I can't recall where this was posted but one of the things that reportedly came out of the 82,000 abuse claims is that many of the perpetrators were not identified in the IVFs. While it's true some of the cases in the IVFs may be unrelated to abuse, it also means they didn't capture a lot of the most egregious predators that have turned up in some of the lawsuits and claims. So I'm not sure that point serves well as a defense for BSA. 

Second, I don't think BSA was a purposeful predator. I think it's clear though that it was an incompetent and mismanaged organization that blindly and maybe arrogantly dismissed risks and so unwittingly aided and abetted perpetrators.  I'm not sure scouting has done better than other organizations. As I've pointed out multiple times, 4-H doesn't have this problem.

Third, BSA somehow for a long time did not comprehend or face the fact that it was providing the perfect petri dish for predators. It was and is an organization frequently recommended for at risk youths or those lacking a paternal presence. It allowed unrelated men to take young boys overnight to remote locations in the woods out of the public view. This is something that Michael Johnson, the departed Youth Protection director, repeatedly pointed out.

Scouting does do a lot of positive things but unless the organization really restructures so that it can ensure proper supervision down to the unit level where most of the adult/youth interaction occurs it really shouldn't be trusted with children. BSA to me is wasting far too much energy trying to hang on to the status quo or tinkering with window dressing details instead of really deeply examining how it needs to be in order to continue providing scouting in the years ahead. 

 

One of my abusers was identified in the perversion files and BSA said he was suspected of molesting 11 plus boys. 
 Of course lots of abusers were never identified because survivors never named them. I personally told no one of my abuse for over 50 years and I know I was not alone in my silence. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

One of my abusers was identified in the perversion files and BSA said he was suspected of molesting 11 plus boys. 
 Of course lots of abusers were never identified because survivors never named them. I personally told no one of my abuse for over 50 years and I know I was not alone in my silence. 

In 2008, I wrote a letter to the Local Counsel SE (in my current location) and BSA's head dude at the time, Bob Mazzuca. I revealed the occurrence of the abuse I suffered and named my SM as my abuser. Crickets. Never heard a peep. Even before I completed and filed my Proof of Claim, I called BSA and managed to work my way to the person in charge of logging alleged abusers. I asked if they had received my letter. "No. We have no record." I asked if my SM/abuser was on their list. "No. We have no record." I worked my way to another person in legal and asked the same with the identical answer. I asked if they would MAKE SURE HE IS ON THE LIST immediately. "Yes. We will put him on the list." I am aware of younger Scouts who were abused by him and some are claimants in this case. I don't know if any were post 2008, but some are live claims within the SoL. It's possible their abuse happened after my letter was sent.

Post Script - For all who want to better understand this issue of recycling of abusers -negligent, complicit or whatever - PLEASE read the full LA Times article I posted above. Thanks for your support. (Nod to Bartles & James.)

Edited January 25, 2022 by ThenNow
Oops and emphatic PS.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Scouting does do a lot of positive things but unless the organization really restructures so that it can ensure proper supervision down to the unit level where most of the adult/youth interaction occurs it really shouldn't be trusted with children. BSA to me is wasting far too much energy trying to hang on to the status quo or tinkering with window dressing details instead of really deeply examining how it needs to be in order to continue providing scouting in the years ahead. 

Agreed. Your last sentence is an ongoing puzzlement to me, even after many of you have told me about the insular nature of the organization and the "inbred" model for leadership development. How can an organization watch the mounting lawsuits implicate leadership, the manner in which Scouting has been delivered through the outing model and the structure of the organization and not hire an organizational and transformational consulting group? Further, why didn't they do that when the bankruptcy was being planned in 2019? I do not understand that passivity from an organization with so much to offer, gain and lose.

Edited January 25, 2022 by ThenNow

[yknot]

26 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Agreed. Your last sentence is an ongoing puzzlement to me, even after many of you have told me about the insular nature of the organization and the "inbred" model for leadership development. How can an organization watch the mounting lawsuits implicate leadership, the manner in which Scouting has been delivered through the outing model and the structure of the organization and not hire an organizational and transformational consulting group? Further, why didn't they do that when the bankruptcy was being planned in 2019? I do not understand that passivity from an organization with so much to offer, gain and lose.

I don't know and it's been my greatest disappointment with the bankruptcy process. I thought finally the organization would be forced to look at hard truths and go in search of real data and reconfigure itself -- maybe even willingly if enough people in the organization still embodied scouting's principles.  Instead we have... this. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by yknot

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't know and it's been my greatest disappointment with the bankruptcy process. I thought finally the organization would be forced to look at hard truths and go in search of real data and reconfigure itself -- maybe even willingly if enough people in the organization still embodied scouting's principles.  Instead we have... this. 

Forget all the practical, bankruptcy, child protection and economic benefits. This  was a ginormous missed opportunity for the PR campaign of a lifetime. Own it, get out in front of it, and manage the terms and playing field by demonstrating modern era business savvy and resource utilization, a definitive moral compass and good old fashioned common sense. Absolutely mind boggling to me. Am I right or am I right, yet again?  

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Forget all the practical, bankruptcy, child protection and economic benefits. This  was a ginormous missed opportunity for the PR campaign of a lifetime. Own it, get out in front of it, and manage the terms and playing field by demonstrating modern era business savvy and resource utilization, a definitive moral compass and good old fashioned common sense. Absolutely mind boggling to me. Am I right or am I right, yet again?  

You are correct this has evolved into FUBAR territory. 

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

You are correct this has evolved into FUBAR territory.

Does that mean I'm right? (Please say, "YES.")

[yknot]

43 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Forget all the practical, bankruptcy, child protection and economic benefits. This  was a ginormous missed opportunity for the PR campaign of a lifetime. Own it, get out in front of it, and manage the terms and playing field by demonstrating modern era business savvy and resource utilization, a definitive moral compass and good old fashioned common sense. Absolutely mind boggling to me. Am I right or am I right, yet again?  

I think you are absolutely right. I have been saying similar things for years in multiple threads. I've had a very weird career but among other things I've worked in PR and news and organizational dynamics.  This has mostly been self inflicted and is self perpetuated. 

[T2Eagle]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Forget all the practical, bankruptcy, child protection and economic benefits. This  was a ginormous missed opportunity for the PR campaign of a lifetime. Own it, get out in front of it, and manage the terms and playing field by demonstrating modern era business savvy and resource utilization, a definitive moral compass and good old fashioned common sense. Absolutely mind boggling to me. Am I right or am I right, yet again?  

It's worth remembering that starting out that's what they thought they were doing, and it looked like they might be.  At 1/10th the number of claimants the opt out payment is $35,000 and everyone is looking at minimum 10x the amount of compensation.  That looks a lot more like the "equitable compensation" they were talking about, and it probably gets a quick approval and we're already post bankruptcy.

[fred8033]

11 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Post Script - For all who want to better understand this issue of recycling of abusers -negligent, complicit or whatever - PLEASE read the full LA Times article I posted above. Thanks for your support. (Nod to Bartles & James.)

Be patient with my statement.   I am one that viewed the IVF files as doing something where organizations didn't.   And in many ways, I still believe that.  ... I won't go into the thought process now.  

With that said, the re-entrant issue I can understand.  Experienced scouters have always seen the challenges getting rosters and training records right.  We would have people missing from the roster for years or people still on the roster that had been gone.   I remember realizing registrars often had a district file with post-it-notes with apps that were missing signatures or did not have money or recently training certificate....   They were waiting for the DE or a unit volunteer to come in and help address the issue..  Other times, an in-between person (volunteer or professional) would forget to drop off the app.  

It's only in the last decade where the roster is "mostly" current.  AND, only this decade where it's emphasized that all the paperwork needs to be processed before you volunteer.  This seems to follow a larger trend.  Our local schools are doing that too.  In 2004, I helped at my kid's elementary school.  No app.  No ID.  Nothing.  Just showed up.  Now, you can't help at school or chaperone or ... without first comleting the background check.

So, ... I can fully see how the paper systems were really hard to track volunteers when they slightly changed their name or moved between states.  

[ThenNow]

12 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

It's worth remembering that starting out that's what they thought they were doing, and it looked like they might be.  At 1/10th the number of claimants the opt out payment is $35,000 and everyone is looking at minimum 10x the amount of compensation.  That looks a lot more like the "equitable compensation" they were talking about, and it probably gets a quick approval and we're already post bankruptcy.

I don’t disagree on the numbers and have said as much. However, I think the precise meaning and application of what Ynot and I are saying are missed in this reply. It is a bankruptcy-centric, we could’ve easily  “equitably compensated all survivors of abuse in Scouting” argument. (Note BSA, LCs, COs and insurers would not have been willing to put in the funds now being discussed for 1/10th the number of claims. It’s worth noting.) Your response says nothing of organizational transformation, which is what the two of us are talking about here. I could edit the announcement made on Feb. 18, 2020 and show you what I mean, but that may be too much. Perhaps Ynot will jump in and save me the trouble. Lower numbers would make the Chapter 11 easier. Maybe so, but please see my parenthetical. A simpler path would have had no impact on the internal go-forward functioning of the organization, efforts to ‘perfect’ the approach to protecting youth, or optimizing delivery of what the program has to offer. Many of these things I learned from you guys or was spurred to study after hearing your experiences. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I can fully see how the paper systems were really hard to track volunteers when they slightly changed their name or moved between states.  

I do see your point. It’s a fair one to make in this discussion. That’s not a statement of exoneration, just a recognition this is more complex than first meets the eye.