vol_scouter

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

I didn’t forget. From what comment of mine are you jumping off and into this post?

Presumably to help clarify: 2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?;

@ThenNow  Remember, people can be removed for many actions.  Perhaps a volunteer cursed at a Scout or showed very poor judgment or invited a few boys to his pool.  Those people could be kicked out but would not have done something to involve the police.  There are reporting guidelines for involving child protective services and the police where a child as made an accusation, where a volunteer has witnessed an action, and a long list of similar things.  Mandatory reporting requirements for professionals and volunteers began, if my memory is working, in the 1990's.  States began requiring non-professionals to report in the 1990's and 2000's whereas medical professionals, teachers, and others were required to report suspicions in the 1980's and 1990's.

Beginning in the 1990's, the BSA started emphasizing believing the child and reporting suspicions.  At times the BSA was slightly ahead of the curve and at other times slightly behind.  However, the volunteers have become aggressive about youth protection.  In the 2010's, we were all told by Michael Johnson that the BSA was the leader in out of school youth protection.   

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Is that not really the same thing that would have happened if a police report was made out?  Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting.  In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.

The answer is yes.  Also, the person may never be allowed back in Scouting even if the case had little evidence and was not pursued by authorities.  A close friend served on a committee reviewing appeals by people who felt that they were wrongly removed from Scouting.  He told me that the process required the Scout Executive in the council to make a recommendation to reinstate along with a volunteer committee from the council also making that recommendation.  The appeal is reviewed at the national council and if they think that it is reasonable, it goes to a regional committee.  The regional committee reviews all th e materials and votes - most of the time to deny the appeal.  Even if the appeal is voted in a positive manner by the regional committee, it still goes to the general counsel's office.  My friend does not know what the final dispensation was for any case.  Some of the cases he felt like the Scout Executive did not like the actions of someone but there was no real evidence of wrongdoing.  When I picture myself in my friend's role, I would definitely have to have very persuasive evidence to allow someone back into the organization in an effort to be as protective as possible.

The regions of been eliminated, the national council has laid of a major portion of its staff, so it might be that there is not a path at this time.

All this is to say that there are some names in the files that have done nothing wrong.  To ruin their lives by releasing names is not just.

It is important to remember that in the Ineligible volunteer files were actions taken by Scouting without the person having much input.  If someone was accused of a bad act, in whatever category, the person could be ejected.  There is no right to be a volunteer in Scouting and it is a private organization so it can decide who is a registered member.  So there are people who have been removed from Scouting for various reasons who did nothing wrong.  They had no hearing, no review of evidence, no fairness in the proceedings.  The people may have fought it or appealed without success.  Their name would appear in the files.  Would you not sue if your reputation was tarnished if those files were to be released with names?  It is wrong to release the files with names attached.

21 hours ago, PACAN said:

Lots of info to try and digest.

Question though:  Are the amounts required from the councils locked in concrete?  Seems like that could blow up and be reopened.  

Thanks to those who continue to track this.

 

If a new RSA were to be proposed that requested a larger contribution from the councils, the Ad Hoc committee would have a meeting with representatives of all the councils where they would present analysis of the new RSA.  At that point, it could be rejected or taken to the individual local council executive committees.  If the executive committees pass it, then it goes to the full board for approval.  

There are minimal time requirements to call a executive committee meeting that are usually a few days.  Then minimal notification time requirements to call a full board meeting.  So the process will take a few weeks minimally.  
 

the local council results then go back to the Ad Hoc committee who reports back.  
 

The TCC demands are damaging for local councils, perhaps even fatal.  As a board member in my council, I would be inclined to vote against it whereas I was in favor of the current plan.  
 

Hopefully, this helps.  

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The rape of a child by an adult in the 40's 50's 60's and 70's was a crime, considered as deviant behavior and was not blamed on the child.

If there was good evidence or an adult witness, true.  In the 1960's, psychologists would say that child had been abused and had repressed memories.  The children and psychologists were often said to be making it all up.  The debates raged for a number of years until it became accepted that children would usually repress the memories of child sexual abuse.  Often children were accused of seducing the almost always male perpetrator.  As a youth, I read the newspaper from front to back most days.  These cases were of interest to me since the children were often not terribly different in age than myself.  Our understanding changed and society changed - thank goodness.

50 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  But, why all those cases were not referred to law enforcement-well, I can only conclude BSA did not want the publicity.  I fault BSA for that, and that policy is the prime cause of this mess. And had every case been so referred, to some degree, at least, BSA would have had developed a reputation as hostile to perpetrators and perhaps a fair measure of these incidents would have been avoided.  And, I'll say, such accusations, if false and publicized by BSA raise a distinct possibility that the falsely accused will sue for defamation.  (Damages measured by salary, times number of years left in the accused's work life, plus benefits, and perhaps punitive damages, if permitted.)

Please understand that in the 1960's and, I presume before, reports of child abuse where oftentimes blamed on the child and not the abuser - seems impossible now.  Also, if one referred a case to the police and there was no conviction, there was the possibility of the council being sued for slander.  Protection for reporters was not common until the late 1980's and mandatory reporting was not common until the 1990's.  The world has changed in many ways since the 1950's when I was born.  In many ways, the USA is very different in very many ways.

This is just to say that the local councils could not have just reported a possible child abuse case to the police and stepped back afterwards with no possibility of adverse actions as is the case now.  The belief in the validity of a child's story was questioned unless an adult said that the event happened.  The local councils had reasons for doing what they did.  Maybe good and perhaps not.

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

I remember when that was the law.  Rape, child abuse, and murder could be punished by the death penalty in my state.  It resulted in less reporting from what we understand presumably because of the stiff penalties.  This is just to say that there can be ramifications to stiffer penalties.

Additionally, the removal of SOL has other ramifications.  I earned my Eagle in the late 1960's.  If I claimed abuse during that time, there are none of the adults to support or refute my claims as they are all dead.  It becomes more difficult to find justice.  This is not to say that extending the SOL is not a good thing but it likewise has ramifications.  

These are thorny issues where I do not see absolutes but rather trade-offs.

5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

IMHO, if only we had hired someone with a police background, who could not be intimidated, who knew how to investigate suspected criminal activity, collect evidence, and draw upon his contacts in local, state, and federal law enforcement organizations to make scouting safe.

My $0.02,

 

Michael Johnson was hired after serving as a detective investigating child abuse cases in Fort Worth.  I think he said a 20 year career so he is exactly who you wanted.

So questions to the legal folk.  The BSA solely has made policy for youth protection.  Local councils were expected to follow national promulgated policies.  In the past, the local and national council would be sued together and the insurance would be held by the national council.   So questions:

1.  If the BSA has been liquidated, could not the councils say that they followed national policies that they had no role in making so they should not be liable for a national policy failure?

2.  If the BSA has been liquidated, the local councils will not have access to the insurance companies because they did not have the contract (some councils have had additional policies that they would be able to access but the large dollars are the national ones)?

3.  If the insurors are out, could this not end up being fewer dollars than is on the table now?

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Like I said: there are people for whom "Keep the campfires AT ALL COSTS" is an acceptable stance.

Not for me. If child sexual abuse is running as rampant as it has been and is? You just keep doing what you are doing and keep dumping on people like Johnson who "don't get scouting"

If we cannot instill character in the program then it is no longer Scouting.  Unlike you appear to be, I am confident that outside experts and experienced volunteers can modify programs to make a safe environment.  

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Thank you for contributing and sharing this info!  I really think having external CSA experts with experienced scouters working on change is a great approach.  There are aspects of the program that are critical.  External experts may not realize that so hopefully they can help provide solutions within the framework of the program.  I could imagine that is a tough balance at times.

Yes, it can be tough to find that balance but it can be achieved.  Victor Vieth who was part of the press conference has been very helpful in being strict with policies to protect children while preserving the vital program elements.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

If those elements were leading to children being sexually assaulted? Nope. They had no business being retained.

So one day we had a conversation of why there should even be an outdoor program as it would be easier to protect children in just weekly meetings.  So we should have just ditched the outdoor program?  No, we needed to improve our methods to protect children in the activities.

An interesting tidbit is that at least for me, the concept that the BSA is a leader in youth protection came directly from Michael Johnson.  This comment is not to discredit him or cast aspersions but to rather source my information.  I suspect that all who have said such things have gotten their information directly or indirectly from Michael.  He is a nice fellow who really cares about children but never seemed to really understand Scouting.

It is interesting that MJ believed that he worked for Scouts BSA instead of the Boy Scouts of America.  He did not know that Scouts BSA is the name of a program.  Does not discredit him but does make one wonder how well he understood the programs.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve tried to perish the thought, but if this is indeed cataclysmic doesn’t it rather aid insurers in their coverage defense arguments, in or out of the bankruptcy? Not my mud puddle, so just wondering out loud in the dark. 

I would think that you are correct if what Michael Johnson has to say is as salacious as the advertisement alludes.  The insurance companies could say that the BSA acted in a manner that violated the terms of the policies thus removing their obligations to cover the cases.  

This is starting to look increasingly more likely that the BSA will have to convert to a Chapter 7 with the local councils following suit with their own Chapter 11 or 7.  The insurors will say that they are not longer liable and most of the churches have little.  It does not seem to me that this will gain much for the claimants.  Claimants who are in states where the statute of limitations do not allow suits would end up with nothing.  Perhaps those claimants in non-statute of limitations barred states might benefit but if the insurors are out, it is hard to see how.  

Tomorrow might change many things.  As a non-legal type, this is just my little informed conjecture but this seems ominous for most of us on this list whether hoping for more compensation for all, preservation of the BSA, or both.

3 hours ago, elitts said:

Not the age per se, rather the stage of physical development.  Pre-pubescent fixation (generally under age 10) = pedophile, Pubescent fixation (early adolescence, generally 11-14 or 15) = Hebophile.  Post-pubescent fixation (generally 15-19) = Ephebophile and that's not even automatically considered a "disordered preference".

I have posted the same information before but no one seems to heed the designations.  It is important because the recidivism rate for pedophiles is near 100% which means that in general they cannot be rehabilitated and are very likely to commit the crimes again if released.  Though such distinctions make little difference for the victims, it provides information as to which children are most vulnerable at the current time so that the appropriate modifications to youth protection can be made.  

@CynicalScouter  But as you said, the composition and activities of the committee will be court appointed so should be experts in the field who will be objective.   Once again, not to report children being groomed or abused to the police and human resources in the state is immoral and reprehensible.  The court appointed or defined and reviewed committee will get the best answers.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And yet such surveys are done all the time and they reported all the time and it is not impossible to do.

moreover I would point out that the focus on the statistical data the TCC shows interest in is the number of occurrences the number of abusers the number of YP violations etc. none of that requires any IRB.

somehow the United States conference of Catholic bishops was able to figure out how to do this. so is USA gymnastics.

This reminds me of yet again BSA throwing up excuses. I can remember at one point hearing directly from BSA national debt asking for criminal background checks with simply unworkable for all volunteers.

where there’s a will there’s a way.

especially when that will be supplemented by a direct order of the court.

Just wait for the media reporting when BSA is held in contempt of court for refusing to abide by the bankruptcy court order to release statistical data on the number of occurrences of child sexual abuse in BSA every year.

The excuses won’t work anymore. BSA has no credibility in this area. 

So you are advocating doing a survey that shows some children who are being abused and doing nothing?  That is not only immoral but it is reprehensible. Any child found being groomed or abused needs to be identified and swift interventions must be done.

My statement was that I support such studies but believe that they should be done in a moral, scientifically correct, and useful manner.  You continually distort what I have said.  What I am proposing will cost more so it is not what the BSA might prefer.

For surveys, interviews, or polling of the youth, their is a legal and ethical consideration that is being overlooked.  If a child provides answers that they are being groomed or abused to include answers indicative of such behaviors, there are requirements from an Institutional Review Board perspective that the name of the child must be submitted to protect that child.  This need precludes anonymous data collection.  This further complicates data collection and interpretation.  I certainly support being proactive in looking for children that are being groomed or abused but it is not so simple as to come up with a scale and send it out.  I heartily recommend involving academic researchers to devise the scales and supervise the data collection and interpretation.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served?

Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

@CynicalScouter  If this was not a Scout forum I would be saying very un-Courteous and un-Kind things to you.  Anytime someone defends the BSA you take it to you do not want to compensate them at all or you wish to deny them of council.  Quit making up garbage!  

22 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I’m sorry, and I respect you, but why do we have to say things like that? I, for one, have had this duel for many pages back in the day. It is not fair to create that juxtaposition and say “all this good outweighs this little bit of bad.” It is not a reasonable, moral, ethical or compassionate calculus. Please don’t do that. I can tell you from this one victim, it feels very demeaning and invalidating. It just does. 

@ThenNow  My sincere apology for any discomfort as it was not meant to do so.  It was certainly not to be demeaning or invalidating.  It is time for me to exit this discussion and I will endeavor to do so.  

@HelpfulTracks  Well said.  There are many times more stories such as yours for every victim.