Apologies if already posted. I may put it on the Concealment thread, as well. It is relevant to both threads.

The True Story Behind Hulu's Boy Scouts Documentary Leave No Trace

https://time.com/6188750/leave-no-trace-true-story-hulu/

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I don't accept BSA had a higher standard.  I saw your earlier post quoting the BSA handbook.  It was the same post-war marketing rhetoric we often saw talking about people in position. 

####

That does not automatically create a higher expectation.  I think about about groups that clearly failed that explicitly did have higher standards.  Police.  Courts.  Schools.  etc.  

Do you have any marketing materials, parent manuals or materials for children from another NGO YSO that mirror the BSA excerpts I posted? I am truly interested in seeing them.

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

What was a soft hands contest?  That makes no sense.  

Think about it for a minute or two. You'll figure it out. Remember, it was a statement from a pedophile and the contest had a winner who got a special "prize."

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I don't accept BSA had a higher standard.  I saw your earlier post quoting the BSA handbook.  It was the same post-war marketing rhetoric we often saw talking about people in position. 

Which war is that? WWII? These books and marketing campaigns were late 60's and early 70's, as in during and after the, "Don't believe your government" and "Question Authority!" eras.

22 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

If there MUST be strict rules in place then do away with any overlapping and confusing mandates.  If 18 is considered an adult, then make the age of 18 be the benchmark.  If 21 is the magic age, then make the rule 21. Quit messing around and make the decision.  No more "Venture Scouts, Explorers, Sea Scouts and OA members are considered youth until age 21 and are considered to be an adult for everything else.  That is just nonsense.  That's just like being almost pregnant,  you either are or you are not.  The whole concept that is in place now is too restrictive and over reaching in my opinion and still requires common sense and judgment on the part of the organizers.

I'm not sure if you have been on the thread about the new YP terms in the plan (Non-Monetary Commitments). Apologies for not looking through it to check. It might be a topic addressed there or would be a good place to raise this issue. I know it has been raised a few times in various places. Just FYI.

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

If it’s not too burdensome to facilitate this conversation, I find your perspective is very valuable.

Thanks. Not at all. I was sorta being self-deprecating to reinforce my point.

Perhaps I’m not a good choice to initiate or in any way facilitate this conversation. I am clearly biased, having been physically abused in my home and variously sexually abused by non-family men in authority positions. I can see the faces of each of them. Only one, my dad, ever showed any remorse. All had complicit actors. (Sorry, mom.)

My SM abuser stood in camp, in the presence of another ‘adult’ (20 or 21 years old), and told his Scouts to “line up for a soft hands contest.” The winner, yours truly, being directed to his tent. No sneaking around or secreting me off to a hidden location. No concealment on his part. It’s probably hard for me to fathom that no one knew or, if they did, felt the standards of the day dictated a response of, “Shhh. You know we don’t talk about children being raped. What were you thinking?”

I suppose I read that IVF from across town and unfairly assumed someone would’ve had the forethought and decency to come tell parents at a Troop 2 miles away to ask their boys if they were being given pornography or booze or other such. Maybe I am asking too much as I look at the Fb pages of my SM abuser, see his life set beside photos of me when I was 14, and wonder how he was allowed to have what he has and why so many boys were left with the dregs of his dark not so secret secrets. Dunno. I think too much.

As most in this conversation know, I am not anti-BSA, don’t seek a scorched earth scenario, am grateful to the TCC and Survivor Working Group for pushing to improve YP, and am ‘proud’ of BSA for incorporating those changes into the plan (regardless what it took to get them to that point). That does not negate my position that there was, in fact, a noteworthy elevation of leaders and their moral fiber such that they set themselves up to be held to a higher standard. Because they created for themselves a higher bar, they needed to meet that self-imposed metric in protecting kids over reputation, rosters and revenue. In my mind, all things considered based on the evidence, in many cases (the vast majority?) they chose to conceal, rather than reveal and protect kids. Keeping or trying to keep out abusers was not enough. It was Boy Scouts of America after all. Boys look to be first in the equation, no? For decades, no boys meant no Scouting. Children were and are the most critical ‘asset’. Period. As best I can tell, BSA is now behaving that way or has pledged to do so. It appears it took the force of court mandate. At this stage, I don’t really care what it took. If BSA emerges, youth will be safer and I take some satisfaction knowing our pain may benefit current Scouts and future generations. 

10 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

As I noted above, no one in BSA ever reached out to me. Here’s some more context: it was the late 1990’s (hope that doesn’t get counted as “old timer”!), my abuser was arrested (bc my family and I reported it to the police) so it was publicly known, I was in Scouts from Tiger through 18 yrs old, Eagle/Vigil/youth leadership positions so I knew/interacted with a lot of adults (SE on down). I never heard they did any reimbursement until recently (my broke college self could have used it more than now). 
 

That said, I’ve been considering it for my more recent during-bankruptcy therapy but haven’t… has anyone on here done that? 

I’m very sorry.

Yes. I encourage you to pursue it, even now while we are in limbo. You deserve it.

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Does anyone have any knowledge of what the policy to victims were? 

Institution-wide, I’m only aware of the reimbursement for counseling and therapy. I can’t say what was done individually or locally. I hope some were compassionate and facilitated assistance. Based on some Scouters here, I want to believe that was the case. Old time Scouters? What say you?

47 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

At this point, logistically speaking, how does tolling the sol with concealment impact a survivor's case?  

Under the Trust Agreement, would it require an independent review, along with the $10k to make a case for concealment?  Or would the argument simply tilt the sol factor higher under the standard procedure?

Based on adequate evidence and argument, the Trustee (and of course the Neutral) can alter the mitigation factor (discount) otherwise imposed due to the Gray State factor. My assumption has been, based on my legal interpretation of the valuation process and this provision, the reviewer may reduce the mitigation factor to zero by full tolling of the statute. Fraudulent Concealment is the strongest argument I’m aware of. I see no indication it can’t be done if an adequate argument can be presented to defeat the SoL defense. 
 

General note: the IVF relevant to my concealment case is interesting in another respect. The ASM abuser signed a letter of resignation. It was witnessed by the SM, LC president, COR and sent to the professionals, including Regional and on to Ernst. In my view, it was clearly drafted by BSA. Why did he allegedly resign? CSA? Moral turpitude? Violating the Oath or Law? Nah. “Personal reasons.” Ya. Uh huh. Personal indeed. That’s the officially notable and ‘public’ element in the file. Yup.

18 hours ago, clbkbx said:

I wonder how it will change my perception if I do find out as part of this process that he was. Reading your post about (at least) 11 other suspected victims has hit hard. I'm so sorry, it's hard to fathom. 

I'm sorry these reporting and warning failures were added to the damage of the abuse itself. It's not good. Not good at all.

I am waiting for my opportunity to request of BSA/the Trustee verification of the number of other claims that name my SM abuser, as well as any of those I know or suspect to be complicit. My discovery requests are already written. I also want to know dates and Tiers of abuse. I know for certain other boys were abused, but I do not know how many of them filed claims. I am 100% sure there are some, since I've verified that through backchannels after I saw my troop on the AbusedInScouting map of clients. It took my breath away, even though it was no surprise. Since my abuse was very early on in our SM's tenure, I am pretty sure I was the first. The thought of those who came after me is crushing, sickening and maddening. I can't express it in words and that's an unusual occurrence. One of my little brother's friends who was in the troop well after me, being seven years my junior, drank himself to death. They went to university together and my brother confronted him, in love and friendship, after I hinted at what happened to me. My brother saw the parallels between the two of us. High achieving in life and Scouts. High potential trajectory. Crash into drugs and alcohol. He confirmed he had been abused by our SM, but would never say anything to anyone. My brother drafted and executed an affidavit describing this interaction with his friend. The document is in my POC. It's a very tragic state of affairs, this thing we're tangled up in. Very, very.

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm not aware that the Y's of the world or the Little League have anything even remotely comparable.

Thank you. The example you gave, something I know of only bc of this forum, is perfect. It sets the boundary for the other side of the box I'm trying to draw. 

As to all those other YSOs, I am not kidding when I say I did pretty much anything and everything I could to stay out of the house. I have always been very observant, wanting to exceed what is expected of me. That goes back as far as I can remember, exacerbated by the various abuses from various people. During my youth, I know of no organized activity, not even the RCC, that had the repeated call to trust, obey, believe and follow. None. Granted, priests wore a crucifix and that was a powerful reminder of their position on the planet. I never had one send me home because the seams on my cassock was crooked or call me out because my scapular was hanging other than plumb, though. 

16 minutes ago, skeptic said:

You could make similar comparisons to many others of the day, and even today.  In theory, the Y in its various states over more than a century would likely be held in similar esteem; Young Mens' Christian Association (and women's); or the various youth clubs that were common prior to organized youth sport, or any of the religiously connected groups, and of course the educational boards and schools with their members.  All of them had/have some kind of "expectation" of higher moral values. 

Yup. "Esteem" and "expectations." Do you have any similar documentation going to the incredible elevation of leaders in those organizations, which elevation was used to attract and build membership, however well-motivated? I am making (or trying to make) a very specific and narrow point. Serious question and not a poke.

16 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And no amount of continued beating of the horse will change history.

That is the subtitle of this thread.

On 7/5/2022 at 2:33 PM, ThenNow said:

POST SCRIPT: THIS is the standard of the day BSA needed to rise to and above. Not what the Babe Ruth League was doing. I took part in a ton of activities and only BSA and the RCC did this sort of pre-death cannonization. For the RCC, it was deeply engrained and implied, occasionally reinforced, but not codified like the above. 

Would anyone like to comment on this? It seems to me that when it comes to expectations for transparency (reveal v conceal), the way an organization characterizes its level of integrity and moral rectitude has significant bearing on the standard to which it should be held? No? If you played Babe Ruth or Pop Warner in the day, you knew the coach may be a hard-nosed, unpleasant, hard driving, used to be a jock type person. With such people, especially in my town where men were gruff and loved to tease and taunt, you knew what you were getting. Suit up. Step up. Put up. Shut up or sit down. In BSA, the promise of purity of heart, highest integrity and absolute best intentions got plastered literally from sea to shining sea and everywhere an ad or poster could be pinned. I suggest an organizationally established (and oft stated) high bar of moral integrity raises the bar across the board for all interactions, especially when the primary subjects of the elevation are male adult leaders being placed in intimate and trusting contact with young boys. 

As per the above and my own retelling of how I perceived Scouters, it strikes me that we were strongly directed to honor, obey, trust, turn to in times of need, allow into one's confidence and basically do what our leaders said. Period. It's not far from a profession of fealty. I know of no other such statements from any YSO of the day. Is there a reciprocal pledge somewhere from Scouters to Scouts? It is, of course, implied that BSA and Scouters live by the Oath and Law, and that lived commitment should apply to Scouts. Is a fictitious entity, like a corporation, held to the same standard as its constituent parts? Does being in a board room apart from day to day interactions with Scouts cleanse one from the pledges? SMs (and others) were men elevated to pedestals. BSA pointed to those anointed and invited, no adjured parents and kids to yield an incredible level of trust to the organization and those men. Exhibit A: "You can 100% trust us. This man is of the highest repute. No spot, blemish, or wrinkle. He knows how to make boys into men under the watchful eye of Scouting, the Oath and Law, and God himself. Have no fear..." Exhibit B: “BSA did the best it could and may have even done better than others. It’s unfair to expect more sitting here in 2022. That was then, this is now.” Do those statements square with each other? I can’t help concluding that falling back on the standards of the day argument to explain/justify any acts or omissions that clearly jeopardized kids brought deep into a trusting relationship with men is a two-legged stool.

2 hours ago, scoutldr said:

When I was teaching YP (before online videos), the message was clear.  If you witness or suspect abuse, you are to call the Scout Executive directly on his private number, and NO ONE ELSE.  We were told the SE knew who to call and would handle it.  My spidey-sense was telling me this was wrong.

This helps me understand the tenor of the communications in the IVF I've mentioned several times. As I've gone over it 20 or so times, I can almost see people sneaking into the next guy up the chain's office with a sealed envelope in a lead box. "NO PUBLICITY" reads one page. "Quickly man, don't delay! Deliver the package to Mr. Ernst immediately! Do not kiss your wife or tell her where you're going. The Keeper of the Vault knows what to do. Speak to no one. Allow no one to read it. Be sure no one follows you. Your mission Jim, if you will accept it..."  

3 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

This is just a sampling of what the program reveals.  Be ready to shout at your tv.

My baby sister texted me while she was watching. My phone was smoking by the time she was several minutes in. I still have the blisters. She's small, but not to be trifled with. She was in an abusive domestic situation for years, to the point my brothers and I were going to extricate her. She then broke free. The guy was loco and heavily into drugs. He died last year and she finally feels safe. In any case, she is a survivor and reacts strongly to any such content. 

45 minutes ago, yknot said:

This similarity in viewing priests and scoutmasters as being on a higher moral plane than everyone else likely contributed to the abuse scandals in both institutions. Parents couldn't believe such things of the people they held in such high regard, in some cases even questioning the claims of their own children. The community at large also often couldn't comprehend such behavior and was perhaps exceedingly reluctant to act on reports. And we all know how the leadership of each institution reacted to the decades of claims. 

Forgive the length. This is from a case and is in my POC. For me and others, this type of strong "trust and revere your SM" applied to all volunteers and professionals. (Please forgive any wonky formatting. I'll take assistance if it ends up a hot mess.)

It states in pertinent part as follows:[1]

            BSA has issued various publications available to scouts, parents, and the general public. The Boy Scout Handbook typically contains the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. It also contains a description of troop leaders. The Seventh Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1965 and reprinted in 1967. It states: 

                        First, there’s your Scoutmaster. What a wonderful man he is! He spends hours figuring out how to give you fun and adventure in your troop. He takes special training to learn exciting new things for you to do. He is present at every troop meeting and goes hiking and camping with the troop. He is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice. He coaches the patrol leaders. Why does he do all this? Because he believes in Scouting, because he likes boys and wants to help them become real men.

            The Seventh Edition also directs scouts to obey their Scoutmasters. “A Scout is Obedient. He obeys his parents, Scoutmaster, patrol leader, and all other duly constituted authorities.”

            The Eighth Edition of the Handbook was copyrighted in 1972 and reprinted in 1973. The Eighth Edition states: 

                        The Scout Oath states “On my honor I will do my best / To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; / To help other people at all times; /To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” The Scout Law states “A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous,  Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.” 

                        “Over there watching things is your Scoutmaster. He’s a great guy. He gives hours of his time to you and the troop. And do you know why? Mostly because he knows Scouting is important to his city and nation. Besides, he is interested in boys.”

            The Ninth Edition of the Handbook, copyrighted and printed in 1979, again states that the scoutmaster “is the friend to whom you can always turn to for advice” and directs scouts to follow the rules of their troop. The Ninth Edition is dedicated to “the American Scoutmaster who makes scouting possible,” and directs scouts to be “loyal” and “true” to their Scout leaders. 

            In 1970, BSA published the “Parent’s Book.” It states that “Scouts benefit immensely from companionship with [their Scoutmaster],” who is a “man of good character.” The Parent’s Book also states that the Scoutmaster is “the kind of guy [scouts] would like to be,” and that the Scoutmaster has “the unique ability to get inside a boy and gain his confidence.” It states that the Scoutmaster has a “profound influence” on boys. Finally,   the Parents Book states that the Scoutmaster is a “mature adult of sound character,” and lists the “desirable qualities” for which a Scoutmaster is selected. 

[1] https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Boy-Scouts-ORDER.pdf

POST SCRIPT: THIS is the standard of the day BSA needed to rise to and above. Not what the Babe Ruth League was doing. I took part in a ton of activities and only BSA and the RCC did this sort of pre-death cannonization. For the RCC, it was deeply engrained and implied, occasionally reinforced, but not codified like the above. 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

the Scout's Honor article pointing out that BSA started warning about CSA back in 1986 in the official BSA scouting leader magazine seems telling.  I was not a leader in the 1970s or 1980s

In what specific form(s) and substance did that "warning" come down to LCs, COs, Units, volunteers, parents and Scouts? Interested, not poking. I used the excerpts from the book to make a point and launch the discussion. As I've said, there is much I don't know. Thanks. (Sorry I didn't have a chance to respond to you thoughtful, detailed post up yonder.)

One of the topics I brought up when I started speaking up way back when is the issue of the elevation of the SM. I said something to the effect of, "Our SM was set on a pedestal and was larger than life to us." I was summarily slapped down for that. No one has responded to the things that were widely published from the Parent's Handbook (thing) and some of the other key publications. It's neigh on to deification to the point questioning a SM fitness for service and moral purity was clearly verboten. Still curious. That makes it very hard for a Scout to even consider speaking up, maybe even for parents. 

12 minutes ago, Tron said:

So is the accused a pervert and a queer? Did Eagle1970 post that or is it a glitch in the matrix?

This is what he was told by other Scouts. That's what he said. I can't speak for my fellow, but the subject "accused" is/was an adult BSA volunteer who abused a young boy. Period. The end. Nothing further, your honor. What's the point of this line of questioning? He was quoting someone else to make his point about potential foreknowledge going to the topic of concealment. Those words were incidental to conveying his point and not the substance of his specifically stated experience. I, for one, am not going to respond further on this baiting. It's irrelevant here and likely pointless, based upon how you have spoken to me and other survivors in our various exchanges. 

2 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

s I have posted elsewhere, my BSA summer camp abuse occurred after several weeks of prior campers clearly experienced my abuser's tactics.  When I arrived and signed up for his merit badge, other scouts (who were attending multiple weeks) told me that he was a pervert and queer.  He was quite comfortable at his little hideaway in the woods.  If BSA didn't know, they certainly should have known his actions were inappropriate.  They did not remove or reassign him.

What was the buzz among the Scouts and do you have any sense that adults had an inkling. I recognize this speculation, but I ask based on personal experience. As I posted eons ago, when I went to my 40th high school reunion a girl I dated and was very serious about was talking about how "complicated" I was and how sorry she was for not better understanding me, breaking up" yada yada. She was drinking...too much. Anywho, when I told her about the abuse, she told me something that blew me away. Her brother, 3-4 years younger, was a Scout. I mentored him. She told me one of our mutual Scout friends overheard my former girlfriend father say to my abuser SM, "If you ever tough my son I will kill you." I felt like I was drunk and hadn't touched anything in 15 years. I immediately went home and amended my Proof of Claim, Part 4: Nature of Sexual Abuse, Paragraph R, "Are you aware of anyone who knew about the abuse." This added the complicit SE and AMs. 

1 hour ago, Tron said:

I am going to assume that you were a scout in the 60's and 70's based on your alias; and assuming that is true I struggle with your narrative. Those of us old enough to remember how perverts and "queer" folk were treated prior to the 1990s know that toleration would have been a dream for them compared to the outright romper stomping and GTFO of town treatment they took from everyone in society. 

Yeah, well, I'm old enough and was involved in theater. I auditioned for a professional company and the 'diverse' sexual 'hits' I took kept me away. A good thing. Anway, in some areas of culture and society - I'm not saying Scouting - there was celebration of the new and emerging 'freedom' fueled by the sexual revolution. You're being hugely over broad and making a stereotypical faux pax of your own. (See below for more.)

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Really?  I bare my soul and you "struggle" with it?  I don't come on here to be questioned.  But for what it's worth, I have the names and addresses of 2 scouts who told me that.  How about you go troll elsewhere?

25 minutes ago, Tron said:

You're the one who has the narrative that the person who abused you "was a pervert and queer." Help me to understand how at a time when anyone overtly perverted or queer, let alone both could walk down the street without getting the shit kicked out of them was tolerated and ignored. 

Did you really miss this entirely in your rush to jump to down his throat, based on certain hot button words that are simply a reciting of his actual, personal, firsthand experience? He was quoting...

When I arrived and signed up for his merit badge, OTHER SCOUTS (who were attending multiple weeks) told me that he was a pervert and queer. 

But for what it's worth, I have the names and addresses of 2 scouts who told me that.

Please, please, please be respectful and respond to posts based upon what is said and not what you either heard or want to use as a platform. He is sharing HIS experience. 

Several things from both a personal and professional perspective.

1. Envy (often misidentified as jealousy) is a huge driver of false accusations, especially when the accused is accomplished and, per your telling, above reproach. In today’s world, add to that being a politically conservative person of faith (politically incorrect in the minds of too many) and you become an easy target from many angles. 

2. Be wary of “protesting too much.” Answer questions and provide the requested information. He will not serve his cause by getting out in front of the questions. Because this is not being played out in public, there is no “getting ahead of the narrative” and you never want to answer questions that were not asked. 

3. As awful as this may sound, you can’t really fix this. It happened and if he did not do it, which I assume based on your posts, it’s a terrible thing. This is a ‘manage and mitigate damage’ scenario and not a restore to pristine condition. The latter is not in your hands because it is going on behind closed doors. 

4. Be wary of what I would call the “scrub out the stain at all cost” syndrome. Many people become obsessed with clearing their name, which I completely understand. If it’s not fully possible and he is doing all he can, rest in that. God knows. He sees. “All the weights of the bag are His concern.” (Prov. 16:11b)

Hang in there…

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

there were many professionals who felt that something constructive should result from the information in the IVF.  After seeing the ones that were publicly released, the paucity of information, especially for older cases, would tend to negate any useful study.

Please explain how you’re defining “paucity of information.” As to study, setting aside using the information to aid prosecution of perpetrators (and any negligent BSA folk) and protecting and caring for the specific boys/girls, what “useful study” do you mean? For me, simple pattern analysis and recognition across the data in the 11 files I read would have helped form profiles of perpetrator behaviors, locus of crimes, traits of vulnerable children victims, and contexts ripe for abuse. That’s all you’d need to conclude, “Huh. This is a pattern. We might want to let people know.” AND, I’m just talking about the cases I read which were all known by the several Districts, LC and Region. The refrain of, “Only Ernst & Co at National know about this,” is completely inapplicable when you have consistency of personnel across a District, LC and Region involved in multiple cases over a 5 year period. The left hand did know what the right hand is doing. We fail to do a proper review of this matter if we only look at individual cases or the IVF overall. We have to discuss and analyze the layers of process and people that were involved. The list of BSA and CO folk who touched the 1973 case that applies to mine is long. A lot of people knew a lot about a lot of these case over a relatively compressed timeframe. The data is not 100% siloed. Inaction took place up and down the chain, IMNSHO.

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The 1960’s and early 1970’s was a time when people tended to deny that such things were occurring, though the BSA and other organizations knew that it was.  Hard to remember the attitude of the time but it might have required convincing.  

Agreed. We had girls in our high school “go visit their aunt” for several months, obviously pregnant. (Catholic school and community.) No mention was made of it. However, in my German/Irish neighborhood, if someone had an idea that a guy was either messing with someone’s sister, picking on a buddy’s kid brother or there was a “perv” living in such and so house, or druggies creeping around the waterworks building at the lakefront, people knew and people did something about it. The difference, as I see it, between this community-level vigilance and the BSA CSA cases during the same time period is intentional institutional insulation. Back to my discussion of risk management, this is not a judgement on its face. This is me trying to understand the decision making process by comparing the examples I noted using the mindset of the times. I can’t find another reason for the different behavior. Oh. For any who remember, I forbade my younger brothers from joining Scouts, knowing they would be at risk. I didn’t say why, but I effectively protected them. I cared only about their safety and had no other skin in the game. 

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

In your case, it is obvious to me that there was concealment.  Not sure that applies to all cases.

Yeah. I do too. Perhaps. I’m not sure either, but we do have to consider more than just the overarching IVF files as an amorphous body of vague data from which to draw a conclusion of concealment or not. How many cases of what type were there in each District, LC, CO, Region during the various time periods. I’m not asking someone to do that here or suggesting anyone else needs to do so. I did it and it enhanced my belief that duty to warn and protect was breached. When I saw there were 8+ cases around me during a 5 year period I found it compelling. I’m still ciphering it all out, though.