CynicalScouter

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

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.  

We'll never know because a) BSA fought tooth and claw to keep outside experts OUT and b) only agreed in the RSA plan (remember that) to have an outsider that IT SELECTED ("External Evaluator") and then only allowed that that person could "suggest" and "recommend" changes.

BSA has demonstrated it clearly cannot be trusted in this particular area.

I will note that in the last TCC townhall it was brought up that the TCC plan (which should be filed with the court literally any day now) will include much stronger language including, I suspect, that the BSA does NOT get to cherry pick its expert, that that outsider will have more power than just "Suggest" and "recommend" and that the outsiders report and other material will be made public (which is what USA Gymnastics does and the Catholic Church does as well annually).

After all this time, after all this mess, do you really think BSA is going to change voluntarily? Unless it is ordered to by a court-ordered external person?

Just now, vol_scouter said:

  So we should have just ditched the outdoor program?

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"

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Um ... really.  You laid off your Director of Youth Protection while in bankruptcy due to issues with youth protection?  Um ... ok. I am just laughing right now .... I just.  I hope there is more to the story.

Worse, that means it got merged or dropped.

IF (and this is a giant if so brace yourself) IF BSA was strapped for cash, offered him a buy out and THEN hired someone cheaper? Ok, maybe. Maybe I can see that.

But just an outright force reduction? I mean, I can't. I just can't.

Just now, vol_scouter said:

he had difficulty in understanding what elements needed to be retained

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

Oh, and he wasn't fired. It was layoffs due to budget cuts.

Let that sink in a second.

Quote

The Boy Scouts said his employment was terminated “as part of a difficult but necessary reduction in force” resulting from the bankruptcy restructuring. Like other eligible employees whose positions were eliminated, “Mr. Johnson was offered a severance package that, as standard practice, included a nondisclosure agreement and a nondisparagement clause,” the spokesman said.

So, to be clear, that REALLY does seem to indicate he NEVER got replaced as YP director.

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

@ThenNow ... could use your magic

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-boy-scouts-head-of-abuse-prevention-says-group-is-still-unsafe-for-kids-11634066497

BSA's response
 

Quote

A Boy Scouts spokesman said on Tuesday that Mr. Johnson was the architect of the expert-informed policies the youth group has implemented to keep children safe, put in place over his more than 10 years of service.

“Today, Scouting is safer than ever before,” the spokesman said. “We are disappointed to hear Mr. Johnson’s characterization of the program he spearheaded and the concerns he raised, especially given his past public support for the robust measures the [Boy Scouts] instituted at his recommendation.”

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

He is a nice fellow who really cares about children but never seemed to really understand Scouting.

And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest blind spot for scouters and scouting.

"He doesn't really understand Scouting, therefore..."

Let me tell you this. The people who really DID "understand Scouting" got the organization into this mess because they were MORE focused on Scouting and its reputation and brand and LESS about the safety of scouts.

I WANT an outsider. I agree with Johnson: this cronyism of scouters and insiders leading the parade drove BSA into a ditch.

There needs to be OUTSIDERS or else you are just going to get the BSA groupthink of "we are great, we are perfect, we cannot be improved".

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

They also compared BSA to what the Olympic committee is doing.  One expert said in 2010 he was excited as BSA was one of the 1st to hire an outside expert.  Now BSA is going backwards and the Olympic committees are doing a much better job (BSA should copy some of their actions).

Exactly. Outside experts. BSA cannot be trusted to police itself.

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

What MJ said was that the BSA told him that he could not talk about the BSA to anyone unless it was required under a subpoena.  He said no one would ever tell him when & where to speak ... which is why he didn't sign the NDA nor the other agreements. 

Ah, ok, yes, then I misheard a bit. Thank you.

16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

He said he didn't spend 40 years of his life to protect kids to have anyone tell him what he can and cannot say.  

Which indicates BSA tried to hit him with a directive NOT to cooperate with discovery requests.

Ha-ha. That backfired.

AP starting to run the story, expect it in the next hour on the wires

https://newsadvance.com/news/state/wire/greater-mid-atlantic-news-digest-1-30-p-m/article_38b3353b-4dcd-5c7f-8290-4f0aa8e3c502.html
 

Quote

BOY SCOUTS-YOUTH PROTECTION

DOVER, Del. — The former youth protection director for the Boy Scouts of America says the organization has not done enough to protect children from pedophiles and from being sexually abused by fellow Boy Scouts. Mike Johnson is urging Congress to investigate the cover-up of decades of past abuse and the dangers that he says the BSA still poses to children. Johnson's appearance at the National Press Club on Tuesday comes as ballots are being sent to tens of thousands of sexual abuse claimants to vote on whether to approve the BSA's bankruptcy reorganization plan. By Randall Chase.

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

We are talking about BSA. Why must this deviate to the broader population to dilute and distract from the focus? That’s why we’re here, right?

Yep. @skepticsimply wants to divert and deflect from BSA's responsibilities here and blame society.

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I would suggest that the blinders that some are referring to, or the obfuscation of many indications of problems is common to not just BSA, but to our society as a whole.

Great, so it isn't BSA's fault it refuses to exercise sufficient oversight. They are a victim of society!

Please.

Just now, skeptic said:

Utopia is shown to be basically impossible. 

No one is asking for Utopia, so drop it.

We are asking BSA to take YP seriously, which Johnson confirmed: they are not.

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Mosby should be walked out today.

Not Mosby or at least not Mosby alone.

Mosby inherited this in January 2019. This was decades in the making. If you want to make the case for "keep Mosby because he had no idea", I can understand that.  May not agree, but I can understand it.

But there are board members who have been there the entire time. Executives the entire time. They need to go. THEN if you want Mosby out the door, too. Fine.

Also, they are alluding to a YP director "is there" but that he has "no experience". So SOMEONE is there, but do we have a name? Anything? Nope.

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I sent it the link to one of the top bankruptcy division chiefs in the country. I can almost 100% guarantee it.

Kosnoff's not going to let it go, either. And we know reporters take his calls.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

We need oversight that is independent to make scouting safer.

That's what I've asked for over and over and over and been on this forum told by many no, can't be done, shouldn't be done, no one from outside BSA should get involved, etc.

Welp. how much more do folks here need before they realize BSA is NOT going to reform from within?

"Scouting is not safe" was repeated at least 3 times (4?)

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

ALSO WOW, BSA withheld findings from him while he was in his role.  If that is true ... that could be criminal.

Yep. Time to see some criminal investigations of BSA as an organization, not just individual abusers.

"Many of these reports were kept secret from me."

Wow.

The question is: will media pick this up or not and how much? This could be the lead story on CNN, and BSA's toast.

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

Who is the director of youth protection that took over?  I can't find one.

Yep. And I even pointed this out last week. There was no announcement. No indication. Nothing.

Comment: "They [BSA] pushed him [Johnson] out."

Yep. He was fired/terminated. And that will be what BSA will run with: disgruntled former employee.

2 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Anyone seeing a live feed yet for the conference??

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Litigation is the only reason that BSA has even acknowledged a problem.  Without litigation we would be back 100 years ago.

Right, think about what he is saying: "BSA should only have to report data on sexual abuse of children if it gets civil immunity."

That's insane. Without the threat of civil litigation, BSA would still be doing what it had been doing: hide, obfuscate, deflect.

And just as a reminder to @qwazse: if it has NOT been for civil litigation (and in particular the case in Oregon), BSA would NEVER have been forced to admit to the IV files, much less released parts of them UNDER COURT ORDER so we could have even the hint of what was going on with BSA and child sexual abuse.

Civil litigation is the only thing that will get BSA to cooperate UNLESS we start to see criminal charges against BSA officers (Mosby in cuffs?) of the organization as a whole (and yes, corporate entities can be indicted for things like criminal conspiracy to hide child sexual abuse)

15 minutes ago, qwazse said:

All one needs to do is substitute "patrol method" for "nuclear family" and we've sanctioned the state's removal of children from parents to "prevent" whatever ill-effects some classes of parents may have on their offspring.

Thanks . Next time I need an example of a slippery slope fallacy, I've got a fresh example.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html

There is nothing even CLOSE to a) a voluntary organization and how it opts to voluntarily organize itself and b) government taking kids away from parents.

But thanks, again, for this.

As for the rest.

15 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Another harsh reality: if we really want to promote transparent reporting, we have to remove the threat of litigation. More carrots, fewer sticks.

No, you mandate reporting or you start shutting down programs. Period. "Oh, might be sued." Too darn bad.

The Catholic Church managed to do it.

The USA Gymnastics manages to do it.

Why not BSA? Because it doesn't want to. Hide, hide, hide.

And removing the threat of litigation means that children who have been sexually abused are denied recourse in civil courts and limited to criminal-only.

So, you want to deny sexual abuse victims their day in court? That's what "we have to remove the threat of litigation." means. It means child sex victims get no access to civil court.

That might be what you want. It sure isn't what I want. And how on EARTH is that fair? "Sorry child, you can be sexually abused, but if you try to sue to cover your pain and suffering, too darn bad."