BSA Secret "Perversion" Files

[Scoutfish 16]

Basically sounds like an attorney is quick to jump the gun on something that is generalized.

BSA has files about people......OOOOH My, that must be illegal.

Nobody thought it might be just what BSA said it is: People deemed unfit to be leading boys around.

 

But if BSA just up and decided to print this list in the local papers.......BSA would be faced with defamation of character and slander lawsuits( probably championed by the same lawyer of course!).

 

And while naot declaring a blanket statement of all journalists - I do remember a funny, yet true saying concerning newspaper and news headlines:

 

"Never let anything stand in the way of a great story....including the truth."

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

sailingpj,

 

Background checks only work IF the person in question has ALREADY acted in the past.

 

For example....JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT... I had a thing for boys in uniform. But so far, I never said anything or acted on it. How would BSA check my background?

 

They couldn't! Without any formal or written record of past "bad" behavior, it is the assumption that I'm clean.

 

Basically, until anybody commits a crime and is CAUGHT, they have a clean record to which a background check comes back clean.

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Why would the BSA call these the Perversion Files if they were just internal files about some people?

 

I'm thinking they will quickly settle this case out of court and clamp a secrecy clause on the settlement.

[Twocubdad 665]

The BSA official responsible for keeping the files testified in the case. You can read the details at

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/boy_scout_executive_details_pe.html

 

The case relates to a molestation which occurred in the early '80s. The files which are part of this case were collected between 1965 and 1985.

 

It is significant to note, and isn't being mentioned in the coverage, that attitudes were certainly different 30 years ago and BSA and societial means of handing this were different. I know when I volunteered with my old troop in '81 and '82, the current youth protection policies were not in place. I remember taking the troop on a campout as the only adult on the trip. Does anyone know when the current policies took effect?

 

That the Boy Scouts have "Secret Pervert Files" is certainly a juicy headline. But when you think about it, the real liability would be if we didn't keep records on unfit volunteers.

[GernBlansten 10]

The problem to me isn't that the BSA maintained the Perversion Files, but that when faced with a complaint from a former youth member, they refused to release those files to that individual in a clear effort to protect themselves. It took a supreme court ruling to get the BSA to do the right thing. Perhaps we should require every BSA professional to take the Citz merit badges.

[Eagle92 110]

2cub

Late 1980s, early 1990s, apporx 88 or 89. I remember b/c we has a physician in the troop, either a MC or ASM as we held both roles during his tenure. He use to give us free physicals and used to do them alone with no other adults to respect the privacy of the youth. Then YP came along and he needed to have another adult with him to do the physicals. This led to a bunch of us older making the comment " what ya mean Doc needs someone else with him, he's a good Irish Catholic with 11 kids and 1 on the way, he aint gonna do anything to us."

 

The records being discussed is something I know a little about. I actually did a report on them while an undergrad, and unfortunately had to inform my SE about someone who was put into them. Never heard or read them called the "Perversion Files" until this article. I believe they were referred to as the "Red Book" or maybe hte "Black Book" ( it's been over 15 years since I did that report)and I beleive they dated further back than the 1960s. If memory serves, all leaders applications were compared against these records to prevent folks who should't be a leader from being a leader.

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

I am of two minds. On one hand, refusing to give relevant info to a former youth member who is suing and alleging this sort of terrible misdeed, is problematic.

 

On the other hand, there is a concern about setting precedent. Could releasing the files to this individual pave the way to needing to release files to pretty much anybody who asks? Without knowing what is in those files, I can see where it might be salacious, and there might be legitimate interests in protecting the rights of the accused too.

 

Tough issue. Eye popping headlines probably don't help anybody (except the news org.), but then too, there are probably good reasons why many people are suspicious of the BSA's motives, unfortunate as that is.

[Scoutfish 16]

Gern,

Problem is, BSA can't just hand out records of any person to anybody who just asks. Especially if the files aren't public documemnt OR is the person in the file hasn't specifically broken a law. That would lead to breaking privacy laws and defamation lawsuits.

 

If a person did actually break a law and went through the legal system, those files would be public record ( unless a judge sealed them) and anybody could get a copy at any courthouse.

 

If BSA keeps records of folks they just don't feel meet BSa criteria to be leade5rs or members...then they don'y have an obligation to show those records to anybody at all with the exception of the person who the file was kept of,

[jhankins 10]

In my opinion, if they were trying to hide something, there would be no documents to subpoena.

 

Keeping a paper trail is a way to protect yourself to show you've done everything you can.

[GernBlansten 10]

Scoutfish,

in this case, the plaintiff requested access to the files. The BSA refused. I don't know the plaintiffs intent, but I can assume it was to demonstrate that either the BSA had records of the abuser before the incident, or had demonstrated a lack of follow through with other known abusers. In either case, that information was pertinent to his case. Usually the court will seal these records to the parties in the case so that the content is not release to the public. That is not what this verdict was about. The BSA refused to turn over the files to the plaintiff and the supreme court ruled against the BSA.

I just can't see how anyone can defend the actions of the BSA in this matter.

[Twocubdad 665]

It's not as if the victim was asking for the file on the guy who molested him in order to go after the perp, he was requesting some 1700 files spanning 20 years in order to make a case against the BSA. There's a difference.

[Eagle92 110]

A few disclaimers

 

1) I am not a lawyer. 2) it's been over 15 years since I did my report.

 

If memory serves, the information in the "Red Book" ( sorry that is what I've heard it call and will continue to call it despite the media) is extremely confidential, with highly restricted access to it. The information, if released by the BSA freely, could cause numerous slander lawsuits. The only time information has been released is when a court order has been issued, and that subpoena protects the BSA from any type of slander lawsuits.

 

Please remember that not everyone who is removed form the BSA has done something to warrant an arrest. The BSA will remove any leader on just the accusation of anything by a scout. Trust me I've seen it happen once. Although the leader was found to not have done anything wrong or inappropriate, the leader was still removed from Scouting and placed in the book. So releasing the information would open the BSA to a lawsuit from the leader.

[sailingpj 18]

scoutfish - I know what a background check is. My mom dated a guy who is a Captain. He has to have a background check done every few years, so every so often we have the people come around asking questions.

 

Having the background checks is one good way to prevent things from happening. While they can't catch someone who has never done anything, as you pointed out, they still make it more difficult for repeat offenders. The information in the background checks is very confidential. I am not even allowed in the room when the background check person is talking to my mom and I lived with the guy for several months.

[T2Eagle 902]

To my knowledge there is no blanket "privacy" or "confidentiality" law that covers the BSA. There are laws about confidentiality and privacy that cover some specific entities, most especially the government, plus some other obvious ones like lawyers and health care providers. There are some laws that cover the consumer credit and similar reports that the BSA obtains, but those laws are primarily aimed at the providers of those reports. For the most part all the information you give to BSA and all the information about what you do with BSA is their's, not yours, to do with as they please. If they want to put everything up on a website for the world to see there are no laws preventing them. There are some minor exceptions, but they are minor.

 

That's why this is so problematic. This wasn't stuff the BSA couldn't release, it was stuff they didn't want to release --- and now they have to anyway.

 

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[nldscout 18]

GernBlansten,

 

Your statements that they should have turned htese files over right away is totally off base with the way civil trials are handled.

 

If you are being sued you as the defendant never turn over documents voluntarilly. Its part of the prcoess f a civil suit that the defendant always tries to limit the amout of evidence that they must produce. The fast that the plantiff sued to get the document is pretty standard in a high profile case like this.