Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter 1434]

16 minutes ago, elitts said:

The other issue that I think is less obvious, but still fairly important is to revise the G2SS. 

G2SS is, I believe, in its entirety (or almost), a collection of lawsuits compiled into book form.

I will guarantee that 80-90% of all G2SS rules derived from "we got sued for this, therefore let's ban it."

So let's look at power drill or 4-wheeled cart. Again, I'll put money on the table that SOME scout SOMEWHERE got hurt with a power drill or a 4-wheeled cart, sued, won, and then either BSA Risk Management on its own accord (or the insurance companies at their insistence) put in the rule.

Look at G2SS's requirement that pioneering structures be no taller than 5 feet and the specific reference to OSHA (workplace) regulations. Again, John Scoutmaster or Jane Committee Chair did NOT come up with OSHA standards out of the blue sky; this is the work of lawyers and/or actuaries.

As for 2 adults present to allow their child to have a friend visit their house, again, I'll bet if you tried to yank that out you'd be presented with one (or more) instances in which a scout went to a friend's house and their Scout leader sexually abused the scout while the Scout leader's son was elsewhere in the house.

And trust me, on this score BSA is somewhat "lax". I am also Virtus trained as a Roman Catholic catechist (I teach Confirmation classes for kids in my parish) that included evening sessions at my home. My wife is also Virtus trained. We could NOT be each others "two-deep" because we are related; a third Virtus trained adult had to be present. That was easy; the "co-catechists" were myself and the other trained adult, my wife (for these purposes) was irrelevant for youth protection.

Meanwhile, for BSA events my wife (registered adult leader) and I can have scouts at our home since we are "two-deep" for each other.

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

That is simply not accurate.

I've spoken with people at the unit, district, council, and national level on this.

To a PERSON they all tell me BSA's YPT is the model, a work of perfection, and that it doesn't and isn't in need of any change or review. They've reached the perfect youth protection program.

Meanwhile, we've had 11,000-13,000 scouts abused since YPT was implemented.

As someone previously said, all YPT has done is to throw a bunch of training over the wall and hope it sticks.

[ThenNow 1373]

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

That is simply not accurate.  The BSA had the nation's thought leaders actively help to develop the current youth protection program using the best ideas available to protect children from all kinds of abuse.  They continue to monitor claims and other information sources to look for problems that can be corrected.

Could either of you give detail or substantiation to the view of National? CS didn't say experts weren't involved in creating it, rather that it's being view as A-Ok now. Is it hunky dory or does it need hard analysis and updating? As a claimant, the fact that they did not address it at all in their Plan is an act of conscious omission or denial of a need for improvement, since they know full well the TCC wants something done to improve safety and reduce incidents. 

[vol_scouter 365]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I've spoken with people at the unit, district, council, and national level on this.

To a PERSON they all tell me BSA's YPT is the model, a work of perfection, and that it doesn't and isn't in need of any change or review. They've reached the perfect youth protection program.

Meanwhile, we've had 11,000-13,000 scouts abused since YPT was implemented.

As someone previously said, all YPT has done is to throw a bunch of training over the wall and hope it sticks.

I too have talked with people at all levels including the professionals who created the current YPT and some of the actual national experts and that is not their attitude.  They believe that it is good but are looking for anything to make it better.  

[CynicalScouter 1434]

 

16 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

That is simply not accurate.

To followup on this. Even as a threshold matter, BSA doesn't take YPT seriously. Want to know how I know? Look at the fall 2020 recharter and the training.scouting.org fiasco.

For anyone who did YPT online last fall, the system failed to record module completion if you took all 4 modules consecutively. Meaning if you took module 1 and finished THEN HIT GO TO NEXT MODULE and did Module 2, it would NOT record completion of Module 2. Or Module 3. Or anything. And sometimes it didn't even record Module 1 completed.

For MONTHS complaints were made at every level this was a major issue. Adults were taking YPT over and over, thinking they had completed the program and finding out they were going to have to retake it. Again.

Rather than stepping up and fixing the problem, BSA National punted. My Council and others had to come up with "workarounds" on their own. My Council Advancement chair sent a "Workaround" sheet to all units. Other councils posted the "Workarounds" they found to their websites. One council, for example, found that using a  private browser tab worked. http://www.elcaminoreal-bsa.org/uploads/7/9/6/0/79603604/201009_ypt_workaround.pdf

Other councils told people to complete 1 module, logout, WALK AWAY FOR AN HOUR, then do the next one. Who the heck has time for that?

And my larger point: I've never, ever seen or heard of a BSA leader tossed or reprimanded for failure to adhere to YPT. Never. I'm not talking about sexual abuse, I am talking about a leader who gets directed to take remedial YPT because their unit is using unregistered merit badge counselors or unregistered ASMs and committee members. Remember when Scoutbook removed all unregistered MBCs? And is removing all unregistered adult leaders? Just go take a look at some of the FB groups; you'd have thought this was some new thing with all the yelling and screaming.

BSA wants to be considered to have taken YPT seriously? They need to start to take it seriously. Heads on pikes. A YPT education system that works. Annual reporting.

Edited March 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow 1373]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

I too have talked with people at all levels including the professionals who created the current YPT and some of the actual national experts and that is not their attitude.  They believe that it is good but are looking for anything to make it better.  

I assume you're not saying you've spoken with them lately, but do you have any idea why they completely passed on addressing "anything to make it better" in the Plan?

[CynicalScouter 1434]

11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As a claimant, the fact that they did not address it at all in their Plan is an act of conscious omission or denial of a need for improvement, since they know full well the TCC wants something done to improve safety and reduce incidents. 

You've read BSA National's statements. YPT is perfect, an industry leader. Etc.

Meanwhile, LARGE portions of registered adults in BSA were not even YPT trained until 2020.

Take a look; as recently as 2018 only 67.1% of direct contact leaders  had current YPT. It only got to 99.9% in 2020 when the lawsuits starting to flood in and the bankruptcy happened.

If BSA took YPT seriously, that 99.9% number would have happened DECADES ago.

Edited March 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter 365]

Last communications that I had with YP professionals was near the end of 2020.

In my council, there have been volunteers asked to not return due to YP violations.  

Remember when asking for changes to anything at the NC that many employees are gone.  It will require longer times to get anything accomplished.

[ThenNow 1373]

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Last communications that I had with YP professionals was near the end of 2020.

In my council, there have been volunteers asked to not return due to YP violations.  

Remember when asking for changes to anything at the NC that many employees are gone.  It will require longer times to get anything accomplished.

Ok. I understand. 

What I don't get is that "guys in the field" see not only the need for improvement but ways to do it, yet the official Plan filed by the BSA didn't include anything to speak to the issue. On top of the fight over possible restricted asset shell games, the non-commitment commitment to "asking the LCs for a voluntary contribution" and the crickets on YPT, one must be able to see why the Plan went over "like a fart in church," as someone said way back when. I'd say more like a simultaneous blowout diaper by triplets, but that's just me. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by ThenNow

[Armymutt 217]

18 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Unfortunately, there is no real fairness.  To me, fairness would be to see all the perpetrators in prison for their crime,  some monetary compensation for their pain and suffering from the perpetrators and enablers (which could be the BSA), and counseling that helps them to put this into the past.  The fair thing to current Scouts is to not damage the program and camps.  Unfortunately, there is not enough liquidity in all Scouting to satisfy both needs.

The entire situation is sad.  

I see this is the real issue.  Scouting isn't some large corporation where every adult involved is an employee of the national head quarters.  It has more in common with a guerilla army than the US Army.  I don't know how one can reasonably hold the national office responsible for the actions of volunteers, especially in the pre-internet days.  COs approve adult membership.  National's role would be in checking records to see if an applicant has been reported as an offender, but beyond that, I don't buy responsibility.  This is truly a case where the primary responsibility is at the lowest level.  I realize there is more money at the top and it's far easier to sue a single entity than it is to go after a thousand individual organizations, especially when they may no longer exist.   I don't think there will ever be enough money to compensate the victims.  How do you put a dollar figure on a life altering injury?  I certainly know that a paltry amount of money from insurance (my insurance company, no less) for a drunk driver destroying my foot will not fix it.  I'd rather the perpetrator be permanently removed from society so he can't hurt anyone else, and that the rules be changed to prevent it from occurring again.  To me, that harms the least number of innocents as possible.  

[CynicalScouter 1434]

16 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

In my council, there have been volunteers asked to not return due to YP violations.

I've been at this for 10 years. My Council? 0 people that happens to.

And I see it is "Asked to not return". Not "volunteer raped a child, so volunteer she was EXPELLED."

They were "Asked to not return". How...nice.

And anyone wonders why there's 11,000-13,000 abuse claims? Because BSA "asks" people not to return for violation Youth Protection.

Again, perhaps that's why what we need are annual reports from Council saying that (no names) Clery Act type reports that 14 registered adult leaders were REMOVED OR EXPELLED for YP violations. Or heck, even NATIONAL data on that number.

[vol_scouter 365]

11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. I understand. 

What I don't get is that "guys in the field" see not only the need for improvement but ways to do it, yet the official Plan filed by the BSA didn't include anything to speak to the issue. On top of the fight over possible restricted asset shell games, the non-commitment commitment to "asking the LCs for a voluntary contribution" and the crickets on YPT, one must be able to see why the Plan went over "like a fart in church," as someone said way back when. I'd say more like a simultaneous blowout diaper by triplets, but that's just me. 

So first thing is to understand that those of us in the field may believe that we have the absolute best method to do something.  However, people on a national level have a broader and more in depth knowledge and can get more in depth Health and Safety and Legal information.  Also, the BSA had help and contributions from the nation's experts on YP.  They are the same people who the CDC and others call upon for advice on YP.  So the BSA has what the experts believe to be the very best YP program available.  

That said, the folks at the BSA and the volunteers whose committee governs are evaluating the program (at least they were last November).

Why YP was not part of the plan, I could only guess so will not provide an uninformed opinion.

[John-in-KC 311]

2 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I don't know how one can reasonably hold the national office responsible for the actions of volunteers, especially in the pre-internet days.  COs approve adult membership.  National's role would be in checking records to see if an applicant has been reported as an offender, but beyond that, I don't buy responsibility.  This is truly a case where the primary responsibility is at the lowest level.  

You got it, but you didn’t get it. 
 

Money talks. Individually suing the local councils and the chartered partners was a task in economic futility.  Suing the national council reaps a lawyers payday. Remember, the payoff will be 60 plaintiffs 40 plaintiffs attorneys if the usual formula gets used

[vol_scouter 365]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I've been at this for 10 years. My Council? 0 people that happens to.

And I see it is "Asked to not return". Not "volunteer raped a child, so volunteer she was EXPELLED."

They were "Asked to not return". How...nice.

And anyone wonders why there's 11,000-13,000 abuse claims? Because BSA "asks" people not to return for violation Youth Protection.

Again, perhaps that's why what we need are annual reports from Council saying that (no names) Clery Act type reports that 14 registered adult leaders were REMOVED OR EXPELLED for YP violations. Or heck, even NATIONAL data on that number.

CS, if it makes you feel better then they were told that they will leave Scouting forever, that they are banned from all Scouting for life, and that they cannot participate in our council or any other council or any unit.  That is what they were told - it was definite and clear.

Since people are removing from Scouting for YP violation accusations, it is not reported outside a very small group at the council.  It is not right to create a bad reputation for someone if it did not rise to the level of a crime.  So volunteers likely are not aware of people removed from Scouting.

I have been involved in my council since ~1990 and have been on the Executive Board since 1994.  

So use whatever label that makes you feel better.  Sorry for stating it nicely.

[John-in-KC 311]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I've been at this for 10 years. My Council? 0 people that happens to.

And I see it is "Asked to not return". Not "volunteer raped a child, so volunteer she was EXPELLED."

They were "Asked to not return". How...nice.

And anyone wonders why there's 11,000-13,000 abuse claims? Because BSA "asks" people not to return for violation Youth Protection.

Again, perhaps that's why what we need are annual reports from Council saying that (no names) Clery Act type reports that 14 registered adult leaders were REMOVED OR EXPELLED for YP violations. Or heck, even NATIONAL data on that number.

I guess you’ve never seen a copy of “the letter”.  Volunteers are expelled and are forbidden to be at scouting events of any sort.