elitts

I'm not sure how this is a false timeline, what I was talking about is the response time of government agencies, not how long the child would be "safe" for. Obviously if you think a kid is being abused "right now" you would call 911 for immediate help. But If you call any state agency except a police or fire emergency line, you aren't going to get someone jumping up out of their chair to go knock on the child's door to check on them. It will take a certain amount of time to record the information, do background checks, assign an investigator and then get the investigator out to make a first

When I was talking about emotional appeals I was referring to the logical fallacy known as an "appeal to emotion"; I wasn't accusing you of being overly emotional or anything. Though I'll grant you that my tone was perhaps a touch harsher than I really intended. That said, my problem with your arguments is unchanged. The issue we are discussing is whether or not it's reasonable for employers to establish a policy requiring contact with the Legal/HR departments before making a required report of abuse or neglect to a state agency. You believe it's not reasonable. But your actual argume

Yes, I do tend to put a lot of thought into policies of this nature, trying to consider the viewpoints and needs of all the people and organizations involved because I know that compliance only works when people buy into both the reasons behind a policy and the procedures required to comply with it. Furthermore, I think avoiding unintended consequences is fairly important with laws and policies involving sensitive issues because it can be significantly harder to fix problems after the fact than it was to establish the law or policy in the first place. And of course there is the fact that dec

I think you are overestimating how widespread the knowledge is. I think everyone is aware that Nurses, Doctors, LE officers and the like are mandatory reporters, but those designations get updated sometimes without a lot of fanfare and it would be easy for some of the less common reporters to not realize they'd been so designated. Kinda like the state that designated all "Independent Contractors" as mandatory reporters. This line of discussion started because you were implying that XYZ church was doing something either illegal or immoral or just wrong by instructing the priests to co

I'm not sure why you think this. A cram down only requires that a plan be better than liquidation, have at least one creditor's support and be fair. You could argue that the judge won't do it, but it's certainly an option for her.

BSA has influence over the LCs, not control. It's very much like some of the more involved franchise agreements where the Franchisor can control virtually every aspect of how a business is supposed to operate, but in the end, if the franchisee decides to tell them to pound sand, the only action they can take is to revoke the agreement; they can't step in and implement the changes they want. Actually, assuming the bankruptcy is discharged, the "new BSA" organization wouldn't have ANY liability for claims made in the future if they occurred prior to the discharge since it would effectiv

Actually, the judge will decide the compensation contribution, not the victims. The victims merely get to vote on which plan they like. Ultimately if the TCC puts forward a plan that takes everything and leaves the BSA with $100 in it's bank account and the victims all vote for that plan, the judge will still be able to say "Nope", and put her own plan in place. Using the average jury or settlement award for this calculation is rather silly as anything but a bargaining tactic. Scale matters and you just can't ever use the cost/price/value of an individual item as a direct measure fo

My apologies, I missed that sentence regarding the 9 states that require immediate reporting. Although, apparently the Child Welfare Information Gateway has some of the same document creators as the BSA since that section isn't entirely accurate. _______________________________________________________________________ California : Requires reporting with 36 hours Connecticut: Requires reporting immediately Hawaii: Requires reporting immediately, but does not require reporting of suspicions resulting from Penitent confessions Illinois: Requires immediate reporting, but

There is nothing in there that contradicts my point. (and actually the variety of information regarding reporting laws displayed there makes it that much more useful for a Priest to contact Legal before making their report) Being a mandatory reporter has nothing to do with following protocol for your employer when the information you've got resulted from your employment. Even in states where a Priest is a mandatory reporter with no recognition of confessional confidentiality, there's nothing that says "The mandatory reporter must report the abuse immediately without discussing it with an

I'm a Michigander. Well, as far as why it's happening. The biggest reason is the fact that in Michigan everyone is limited to 2 terms, so pretty much every AG is setting up their run for Governor and this is guaranteed headlines for Nessel, particularly since her much discussed prosecutions for the Flint water crisis aren't making as much noise as I'm sure she hoped. But also, the state is primed for such investigations after the horrendous discoveries of years of inaction with the Nassar case. As far as why she was vague, well, I'd imagine she knew next to nothing about the BSA b

You need to look at the whole text to get the context of that last line. This whole form appears to primarily revolve around taking information from Priesthood Leaders who have had something confided to them and is not really aimed at people reporting things they have direct knowledge of. All of these lines of text are talking about the Priests being informed of the abuse, not witnessing it themselves. And what that final line means is that the standard process for the church officially relaying a 3rd party report of abuse is that the notification goes through the Legal Counsel offi

I think you misunderstood the form. That form, and my comments are all about how the abuse hotline folks are supposed to act upon complaints and "You see it you report it" is the preferred approach per their form. It specifically specifies that the phone operator should urge the witness to report it to the police themselves. All those other actions detailed on the form are the ones the phone operator is supposed to take, not the person who witnessed the abuse.

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Different aspects of an organization are going to focus on only those aspects related to their purpose. This form is about how the Abuse Line worker should deal with an accusation, it's not about how the church should handle the matter internally and it's not a general statement of priorities. Encouraging the person who is making the complaint to report it themselves is a good idea because the person with first-hand knowledge is who the police are really going to need to talk to anyway. Advising a perpetrator to retain legal counsel AND turn thems

A adult staff member was raping 15+ year old staff members and only got warnings? Wow, I would have thought that unlikely for a number of reasons; particularly since you must be talking about recent years since being openly gay wouldn't have been allowed for a staff member before 2015(I think?) I don't understand how they could have any other choice? (and this isn't me arguing, it's me legitimately not understanding) Are you talking about while the contract details are still clouded or without knowing the total amount they will be held responsible for? I'd think getting a hard tota

That same argument would work in the case of hospitals though. They keep seeing malpractice claims and they make settlements, but they haven't implemented anything to stop the malpractice. (To be clear, I'm only arguing that the existence of suits and (particularly) settlements don't automatically indicate culpability since in so many cases settling even a rediculous case is preferable to litigating it) As far as their public statements, well, that's PR. Even if the BSA was firmly convinced that they have no moral or legal culpability, there is no possible statement to be made in a si

It's fairly clear from the post that Qwaze was attempting to illustrate a point regarding legal liability and the peculiarities of it under US law, NOT actually directing blame at the victims for either filing their cases or staying quiet. It was an insensitive method of making the point and was riding the line of what will be acceptable in this thread, but it was not the kind of outright "victim blaming" that was an issue a few weeks ago. So.. To everyone out there, while there is a responsibility upon the reader to read posts in their entirety and consider the context before responding

I'm confused, what "paid counselors" did BSA hire with a known history of abuse? Most pedophiles are pretty dedicated to maintaining their cover as "respectable" and mask themselves fairly well. And what other action do you think the LC should have taken? Typically with accusations of this nature you'd get an immediate suspension with orders to "stay away" following a review of the accusation, but then the actual investigation takes a couple of months because you have to do everything officially, with plenty of notice. And then only after a complete investigation would official sanctio

Yeah, one page is about the right length to make a letter that will actually get read (really more like 3-4 paragraphs); so even a dedicated person is going to put that novel on the bottom of the pile. Unfortunately it's clear from his complaints that most of what he's upset about revolves around a mistaken understanding of how organizations, events and activities work in general. I work (volunteer) for an organization that runs an annual arts festival that is run almost entirely by volunteers, with only one paid part time person. Even with all staffing being free, the budget is over $

I don't have specs on Lifestraw, but I do know that the vast majority of those contaminants are fairly heavy and if you simply scoop out a bucket/bag or whatever of water and let it sit for 10 minutes before filtering it, much of the nasty will sink to the bottom. It's also just a good way to prolong filter life. At a bare minimum I generally have the scouts filter water through a piece of fabric before running it through a water filter. Saves on the backwashing.

I think sports has to be kind of a category of its own. Generally masks outdoors don't do much because the wind makes a buildup of aerosolized virus pretty much impossible. But when you are playing football and a couple of lineman spend a few seconds forcefully breathing directly into the face of their opponent from a 1 away, maybe a mask might be useful, even outdoors. Not to mention that many HS athletes were doing things like sharing cars to get to practice, and you can bet most weren't wearing a mask. As someone else mentioned, HIPAA rules only apply to health care providers,

The reason I think the fallout would be different is that I view much of the collective anger over the situation (as opposed to the anger any one victim might feel) as being directed at the BSA primarily out of a lack of a clear target for the "masses". You can't pick any one perpetrator to be angry at for 80k+ cases, so instead that anger falls on the BSA which is a large faceless organization. But when you get to the local level that shifts for a couple reasons. First, because it becomes easier to pick a "poster child" perpetrator to vilify. Take for example your abuser of 5+ guys; h

Lets be clear here, the issues aren't with the Youth Protection policies, they are with the reporting and tracking of violations and responses. I have yet to see anyone come up with any suggested adjustment to the actual YP policies that would be functional. But past that, insurance companies are pretty good at evaluating risk. If they can be assured of the accurate reporting of incidents so that they can quantify the risk of abuse, they'll insure at a reasonable rate. (high, I'm sure, but reasonable relative to the risk) Personally, I think the best possible change they could m

At least in Michigan (I don't know about other states) you only get interest on court awards from either the time of judgement or sometimes from the time of filing, not from the time of the tort occurrence. The only time I've ever heard of getting interest from the time of an occurrence would be in cases of funds being taken for tax debts or something like that.

I agree that it will continue along, in my experience most state legislators just aren't forward thinking enough to actually walk down the paths they create with most of their policy measures to see where they might lead. Instead they usually have to get slapped in the face with a result before they say "Oh... Maybe we shouldn't have done that". What I think we've started seeing thus far is quiet pressure from the professional organs of government urging "wait and see what happens with the current changes before making more". I don't imagine we'll see a full stop or even a recapping of SoL

Well, if a tort occurred 40 years ago, it would seem to make sense that you should get an award based upon the value of money at the time of the occurrence. So if a current award for a similar tort today was $100, 40 years ago that may have only been $25. I haven't actually reasoned my way entirely through that whole idea, it was just something that popped into my head to wonder if it would be addressed.