yknot

In my state everyone is a mandatory reporter and the requirement is that the abuse be reported immediately to an identified state agency and possibly 911. I think that's pretty clear. Again, I'm not clear why there is this degree of pushback on immediate reporting. Who is it protecting? Your scenario of 9 p.m. vs. 1 p.m. is fictional. You or I have no idea how the reporting process would work once it veers outside of what is legislated or inferred or seems responsible. I don't care what my position or role in an organization is, if I see child sexual abuse occurring, hear it occurring, or suspect it is occurring I am immediately calling legal authorities, not legal counsel. It is discussions like this one that make me question whether scouting should continue. If the focus isn't on protecting kids, then ...

Once again, I am having trouble with the logic. I think a lot of religions have positions that are in some kind of gray area as do plenty of other fields. Doesn't change the fact that you are a mandatory reporter. That's a failing of the organization if it doesn't adequately inform its members of their responsibilities and train them if needed.

That could be true except a priest is not a layman in this situation. They are a mandatory reporter in many if not most states. They would be, or should be, at least as conversant with reporting requirements as would be a licensed driver would be with traffic law. Especially given the abuse environment since the 1980s. This is not new or surprising information to any clergy in just about any church.

I'm still having trouble following this logic. When I see flashing lights behind me, I don't call my lawyer before pulling over for a traffic stop and complying. The laws in each state are pretty generally known to residents in those states. I don't understand what is being advocated for here or why.

"Who h'are you? I must know...." -- Inigo Montoya. The Princess Bride

Perhaps the only outside way to effect it now would be AG investigations in various states that might uncover some of the dysfunction that is inherent in the organization. Scouting insiders have become like boiled frogs -- we are accepting of the dysfunction to some degree. More outside light is needed.

BSA uses CWIG as a base source for YP. Not sure what you mean. I'm also not clear what you are trying to show with this recap or what the purpose is. Correct me if I'm wrong but this discussion started with a line on an internal church form that advised priests to contact internal legal counsel first before reporting abuse. If I understand you correctly, you are saying based on the above, it is reasonable for XYZ church institution to direct its mandatory reporting personnel to contact legal first. I look at this same information above and that seems not at all reasonable. The intent of all these laws, despite some of the different permutations, are clear: that suspected abuse should be reported promptly to authorities who will do something about it in a timely manner in order to prevent more abuse. There is a special onus placed on anyone who is a mandatory reporter and institutions may not interfere. There are some very specific situations, such as perhaps a priest hearing an admission of abuse in a one on one confession, that could be considered a privileged communication and might be legitimate cause for a legal consult, but the initial form we were discussing went far beyond that kind of limited situation.

I want BSA to survive. Right now I don't trust it to. There are so many comments on this board and elsewhere that make me think that a reconstituted BSA would simply be the 2.0 version of what we have. If that happens, the next crisis is merely around the corner. The idea of making decisions now about scouting's future with the current leadership in place with no plan or road map that indicates any real internal analysis has taken place seems like history waiting to repeat itself. I was hopeful that bankruptcy would lead to a complete restructuring that would address some of the inherent dysfunction. It doesn't seem to be happening. The only new plan I've been hearing for post bankruptcy scouting is the same plan we've been hearing connected to the old one: increase membership.

I completely agree and have made many similar comments over the years. There is no defense for near zero communication from top leadership. All good leaders communicate. We needed a general but have gotten what feels like a car pool driver. A nice bland guy who will move us down the road instead of leading the way.

It was pretty awful. I kept waiting for the cat face filter to pop up.

Again, I'm sorry, but I am not reading this the same way you are. In 9 states the mandatory reporter is required to report directly to authorities first, not to an institutional head or resource, and in 17 states there is a variation of that. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf I think the Sandusky case showed the dangers of having indirect reporting and it seems like some of that has been tightened up.

A lot of the information in this seems to indicate differently. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf

It may not be the way we want it to be but if it is the way it is, does it do any good to ignore it? You will never have a chance of influencing different behaviors if you can't even get them to knock on the door.

Yes that really is one of the best things that Qwazse has ever said. It is so profoundly true. Why, though, is scouting having such a hard time seeing this?

I'm not sure. I'm looking right at the bottom of the form and it says priest should never be advised to report abuse but that it should come from legal counsel. If I'm misreading that, by all means show me but it seems pretty clear.

This seems very ineffective. The policy you see it you report it seems to be the standard of the day.

We had one. No help, just hindrance. And a very, very strange guy to boot

I can't think of a single media occasion either in all the years I've been involved even going back well before pre bankruptcy days. Only time I remember to the membership was Surbaugh asking us to fill out surveys about opening up to girls and how whatever was decided would be implemented gradually. Then about three days later it was announced as already happening lol.

I meant what I said -- promoting from within hasn't produced great leaders for us. YMCA, on the other hand, whether he came from within or without, seems to have a good leader. YMCA has weathered its share of controversies over the years but seems better positioned than ever before. Can't say the same for BSA.

Agree. Most importantly, he appears to have provided commonsense leadership that allowed what seems like a very similar kind of organization to pivot and remain relevant and active through the pandemic. YMCA seems very well positioned to have a successful summer meeting its mission -- which is serving kids. Somebody like this at the helm could help BSA post bankruptcy. Promoting scouters from within is overrated in my opinion.

I'm not sure it's a secret. I think it was a conscious decision on the part of BSA not to address this because it would have resulted in a loss of membership. As far as LDS, I count that as one of BSA's leadership failures. They should never have allowed an organization to create a program within a program. BSA was not the LDS church, but the situation resulted in the BSA adopting many LDS positions that warped or outright paralyzed BSA in it's efforts to run a nationally focused organization.

OK well that's their reasoning, but that wasn't what I was referring to. I don't want to get into a further negative discussion about BP on a scouting web site, but there is an awful lot out there to read about him that has nothing to do with isms. He came up with a great kid program but he was a very strange guy. If you don't want to hear it, leave it there. If you are interested, there are a number of books out there beyond what was published through official channels. I got interested in this because I wanted to develop some historical perspectives in how scouting got where it is now so I went back to the beginning. There is a good book by Tim Jeal that is fair in how it recounts his talents and his flaws.

I don't know why they changed but outside of scouting BP has a problematic history that has nothing to do with cancel culture. Most scouters just know the official biographies about him. There has been a lot more published, some outright scurrilous, some serious research, that has to be taken as a part of the whole when considering him. For my part, I think he had some great insights into the minds of kids and how to engage them in constructive fun - an approach that I think works for girls as well as boys by the way - but he was by no means the paragon that the scouting world has set him up to be. I don't fault people for being a product of their time but he had some weird interests including a morbid fascination with executions. He was not a normal guy. .

I wasn't arguing with you I was supporting what you said. Edit: Or at least that was what I was trying to say.

Yes, it is not a comparable situation. In a healthcare system you could have claims for everything from a radiation patient being improperly blocked to an intubation injury in the ER to a patient slipping in the bathroom. A couple of other differences are in the fact that the medical arts evolve rapidly unlike scouting so you can be in new territory almost daily. There is also a huge oversight system in place. There are professional and institutional standards of care and medical and ethical review boards. As we all know, despite all the measures in place, problems still happen but the negligence there is largely one off. Healthcare systems are also subject to outcomes management and if say a large percentage of infants are dying in a NICU, that trend becomes known, is analyzed, and is addressed. It might be just an unhealthier patient population, or there could be something amiss in the unit. Negligence might be found but it doesn't usually continue. That kind of review does not occur in scouting.