Coalition, BSA Jointly Announce Formation of Survivor Advisory Working Group

[RememberSchiff]

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

I think the concept of the group is great. Where I'm skeptical is the number of survivors from the Coalition. Who are they and how will they be picked? How long will their terms be? How long is a seat on this group? Says open to all survivors.. so how does our guy @ThenNow get on it? 

Was there any mention of the selection process during the last online meeting? I suppose we could petition via change.org . 

[MattR]

2 hours ago, elitts said:

Why disappointed? 

You're right, we still don't know the details. And as is typical, I don't think the BSA knows them either. It could be nefarious or it could be the usual, not very well thought out idea.

It would have a lot more appeal if they had used the TCC's version. Instead, it's very coalition centric. Given how the voting is going, the optics are certainly not good.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, MattR said:

You're right, we still don't know the details. And as is typical, I don't think the BSA knows them either. It could be nefarious or it could be the usual, not very well thought out idea.

It would have a lot more appeal if they had used the TCC's version. Instead, it's very coalition centric. Given how the voting is going, the optics are certainly not good.

As I’ve said before, with obtuse references to Kurt Cobain and Tobi Vail, there whole campaign smells like “teen spirit” (or desperation) to me. 

[gpurlee]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

When there was a whiff of any appointment of any survivor to any such role, board or working group, I submitted my name. No response. Anyone think they’ll be inviting me or Dr. Kennedy or John Humphrey to sit in any of those chairs? Yeah. That’s a big chubby no.

Perhaps you will be surprised. That might be a very politically astute move on the part of the BSA. On-going credibility for the BSA is likely to be an issue and appointing persons who are good vocal advocates for youth protection and will hold their feet to the campfire could be a wise option.

[ThenNow]

57 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Perhaps you will be surprised. That might be a very politically astute move on the part of the BSA. On-going credibility for the BSA is likely to be an issue and appointing persons who are good vocal advocates for youth protection and will hold their feet to the campfire could be a wise option.

Perhaps. However, if none of the TCC members are invited, that is neither wise nor easily explained away. Those 9 men were selected by the US Trustee to represent ALL BSA child sexual abuse survivors for a reason. That selection and appointment came after a fairly rigorous application and interview process. They have been intimately involved in this case since they were seated. Who, among survivors, knows more about the workings and machinations of this case? No one. Period. I also challenge anyone to say other survivors know or understand more than they do, collectively, about BSA youth protection and YPT. Also, they are the survivors who were instrumental in forwarding and insisting upon the non-monetary YP and YPT demands. My honest opinion, and the media has assisted with this, is the Coalition has co-opted and hijacked TCC work and initiative for their own benefit. They are assuming roles and achievements they should not be granted and have not accomplished (at least not on their own, as they claim).

Edited November 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[T2Eagle]

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Those 9 men were selected by the US Trustee to represent ALL BSA child sexual abuse survivors for a reason.

They have been intimately involved in this case since they were seated. Who, among survivors, knows more about the workings and machinations of this case? No one. Period.

I also challenge anyone to say other survivors no more than they do, collectively, about BSA youth protection and YPT. 

It's true they were picked for a reason, but we don't know what that reason was, so we have no way of knowing whether the reasons to select them for one role would be the reasons to select them for a different role. Presumably the US Trustee, who is an expert in bankruptcy, but not necessarily in Youth Protection, believed they would be best equipped to represent survivors in a bankruptcy. The skills necessary to excel at that may or may not be the same ones necessary to excel in another role.  It's not clear to me that at least the most public facing members of the TCC were subject matter experts prior to now.  It's very possible that some survivors that have chosen to be represented by some of the lawyers in the coalition are already subject matter experts: social workers, psychologists, educators, etc.  Experiencing trauma is often a motivator to enter into a professional field specifically to help others who have experienced the same trauma.

Since we are talking about actions and boards post this case, expertise in the case seems less relevant.

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that the members of the TCC have been participants, but not exclusive participants, in all the proceedings so far.  Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe the same could be said for members of the coalition.  So at least some of the clients of the coalition could have been privy to all the same information as the TCC.

There are some 82,000+ claimants, it would be an extraordinary feat of selection and organizational design if an already selected nine of those folks are without doubt better than all 81,991+ people at two different roles.

[ThenNow]

45 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Presumably the US Trustee, who is an expert in bankruptcy, but not necessarily in Youth Protection, believed they would be best equipped to represent survivors in a bankruptcy. The skills necessary to excel at that may or may not be the same ones necessary to excel in another role.  It's not clear to me that at least the most public facing members of the TCC were subject matter experts prior to now. 

So, not a single itty bitty one of them should be on the Survivor Working Group? Not considered for the board seat? I can hardly take that seriously, and I’m not saying I don’t take your input with sobriety. (I am sober 15.5 years, though, just so you know.) One man has extensive experience at high levels with the BSA. I have emailed and asked the Coalition for very specific details about the selection processes for both appointments. The two men I know of who were selected for the Working Group are definitely not subject matter experts. As to why they were selected, part of it is diversity of background, experience, professions and abuse; varied geographic locations; both open/closed state claims; and a wide availability and willingness to serve all survivors. 

45 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that the members of the TCC have been participants, but not exclusive participants, in all the proceedings so far.  Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe the same could be said for members of the coalition.  So at least some of the clients of the coalition could have been privy to all the same information as the TCC.

The Coalition wasn’t even formed or added as a Mediation Party until the case was well underway. They only assumed their role when they knew/thought they could be the 800 pound gorilla on the block. Reread Tim K’s intercepted emails.

45 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

There are some 82,000+ claimants, it would be an extraordinary feat of selection and organizational design if an already selected nine of those folks are without doubt better than all 81,991+ people at two different roles.

I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s the case unless and until someone proves me wrong. Further, if only survivors supporting this Plan are selected, the entire thing is a shameful sham (and a shame) and a ruse, IMNSHO.

Edited November 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

Lets get back on topic.

Thanks

RS

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Lets get back on topic.

Thanks

Where do we go with this? I think it’s very important as topics go, tertiary tangents too. Btw, isn’t what we’re talking about the focus of this thread? Meesa cornfusled. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

Looking back, the Coalition grew their client base such that Judge Silverstein felt they deserved a place in the mediation.

Aug 20, 2020

MOTION OF THE COALITION OF ABUSED SCOUTS FOR JUSTICE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842768_1161.pdf

By October, 2020

"Late last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein allowed the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice to join mediation discussions, giving a group representing 28,000 clients a say in any future settlement. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/23/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-may-grow-tens-thousands/3718751001/

 

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Looking back,

Aug 20, 2020

MOTION OF THE COALITION OF ABUSED SCOUTS FOR JUSTICE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842768_1161.pdf

 

Still confused. This made my point about the Coalition being a come lately. Just thought I’d get that in before I get ponged...

[johnsch322]

18 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Looking back, the Coalition grew their client base such that Judge Silverstein felt they deserved a place in the mediation.

Aug 20, 2020

MOTION OF THE COALITION OF ABUSED SCOUTS FOR JUSTICE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842768_1161.pdf

By October, 2020

"Late last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein allowed the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice to join mediation discussions, giving a group representing 28,000 clients a say in any future settlement. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/23/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-may-grow-tens-thousands/3718751001/

 

 

And your point is?

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Looking back, the Coalition grew their client base such that Judge Silverstein felt they deserved a place in the mediation.

I tracked that entire process through the docket, online hearings and through offline communications. I don’t necessarily see it that way. I imagine you followed it closely, as well, and grant us the grace to have differing opinions. I don’t think she felt she had a choice, given what they were representing (to her) and the cohort they said they represented. In the light and context of Tim Kosnoff’s intercepted emails, I find it hard to afford them clean hands and a pure heart. She allowed it and thereby gave them leverage to effectively replace or confuse, at least in the minds of many and the media, a “coalition of abused scouts...representing a majority of the survivors” and the TCC. As we know, the Coalition is lawyers, not survivors. There are very legitimate reasons this motion was strongly opposed. Also, the point I was making before you posted this was not regrading their legitimacy as a MP, but whether the clients of the Coalition, as opposed to the actual Coalition attorneys, were as engaged and involved from the outset as the members of the TCC. Through your post, my point was even more effectively solidified. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

And your point is?

The Coalition of Abused Scouts has represented clients and been involved in this case for more than a year. Hardly lately.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

The Coalition of Abused Scouts has represented clients and been involved in this case for more than a year. Hardly lately.

See above. You’ve missed the point (mine) to which you’re errantly objecting. Errant in my perception. Also, if I recall correctly, they are now saying they have 18,000 client “members.” It’s shrinking.

Edited November 3, 2021 by ThenNow