Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MikeS72 said:

If I read the information at one of the Mic-O-Say links correctly, they and the KC Chiefs are not just in the same area, but owe their name and history to the same person.

Yes, Harold Roe Bartle who was founder of Mic-O-Say, later a Scout Executive, and later still mayor of Kansas City. As the latter, he lured a NFL team to Kansas City if they would change their name to the Chiefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK, I hid a couple of comments that I felt were a bit too descriptive for an open Scouting forum.  While they may be historically accurate, they felt a bit uncomfortable for me. I have asked the other

I work with several national staff and national OA on a regular basis, I can guarantee they would want to know and it would cause an immediate reaction, particularly given the current headlines regard

Turning a blind eye? That is more than a little insulting to people who care about scouting and scouts and are trying to make sure things are done right.  And you become indignant toward peopl

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

If I read the information at one of the Mic-O-Say links correctly, they and the KC Chiefs are not just in the same area, but owe their name and history to the same person.

You are indeed correct, he was also the long time mayor of Kansas City and the scout camp that is home to Mic-O-Say is now named after him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Back to the topic: YPT Changes in TCC Proposal

I am really, really looking forward to the Evaluating Entity going and cleaning house in BSA.

I've already shown what that can look like in the context of the Catholic Dioceses. But USA Gymnastics and its bankruptcy has some ideas as well.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47282/c66b1b09-6d90-4e99-85c9-243103212938_1552.pdf

  • The appointment of a Director of Safe Sport Education and Policy with broad, sweeping authority to investigate accusations and remove people.
  • ALL accusations must go to an independent entity: the U.S. Center for Safe Sport. No more insiders/cronies. Real, external oversight and review. That scares BSA so much it had to get a bankruptcy court to order it.
  • Local audits of USAG member gymnastics clubs. Again the Catholic church does as well. I'd LOVE to see BSA forced to see 10-15% of local councils randomly be subject audits each year.
  • USAG will work with a Survivors committee. BSA is going to be forced to work with a committee that includes survivors. No more hand picked BSA insiders (and again, I'll note that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to find out from BSA who is on that Youth Protection Committee, whereas the Catholic Bishops and USAG post on their respective websites)

Again: thank you TCC for making BSA take YP seriously.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elitts said:

The problem with this idea is that it sets the bar of acceptable at "whatever no one is uncomfortable with" and that's a standard that isn't functional.  I wouldn't support a membership requirement for OA (or anything else) that was based upon a willingness to be shirtless in public but I draw the line at not allowing those who ARE willing to appear shirtless to perform or appear that way because we don't want some kid to feel excluded.

Well... I said in my post that i think the language can be improved.

The intention with my words was not to set the bar at anything that is comfortable for everyone. However, tweaking may be necessary, since you read it that way (and others may as well). The points I want to make are

  • Adults and other youth (thanks @BAJ) should not be requesting, suggesting or directing Scouts to remove articles of clothing in the absence of a legitimate program, safety or first aid reason.
  • I see a compromise of a Scout's modesty as the Scout ending up showing more skin after an adult or other youth has coerced him or her to remove an article o clothing than was the case before. My intention was not to give a free pass in situations where the Scout might have no bashfulness whatsoever, because there is really no way for the adult or other youth to know that. It is the request, demand or suggestion that is the key.
  • We can't end up with adults being unable to tell Scouts they need to change to go swimming. Some Scouts may lack the maturity or common sense to remove wet socks, and adults may need to be able to suggest they do so. If a Scout is injured, it may be reasonable to ask the Scout to remove his or her shirt, so treatment can take place. It's hard to imagine every possible scenario, and I wish we didn't need to be explicit with such a rule. It should be common sense. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Well at least I take comfort in your confidence and affection for the Catholic church.  I do appreciate that.

What I am saying is that from my perspective, the Catholic Church is using a reporting system that BSA should emulate.

Like BSA, the Church only got there after thousands of abused children, bankruptcy, and court orders.

It is a shame it will take a court order for BSA to do what is necessary to protect children and inform parents.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CynicalScouter said:

It is a shame it will take a court order for BSA to do what is necessary to protect children and inform parents.

"inform parents" ...  does not follow.  I've been a member for my whole life without seeing any of the reported numbers ... even in the last few years.  The reported numbers are reported to channels; not members.  ...  Are you saying the Catholic church numbers are sent directly to each member?  Or are you saying BSA should do more than the Catholic church ?

"protect children" ... does not follow.  Catholic church statistics were not that different than any other faith denomination.  Now they have good vulnerable person protections unlike before.  Now they have mandatory reporting ... except with knowledge acquired from confession.  .   The protections occur via the rules (which are good).  I doubt the number roll-up will do any good.   Worse, I really believe the single-focus reporting program will eventually fall by the wayside and worse leaves many other channels unhandled.  .

Yes, the legal case is about punishing BSA.  But applying the rules to BSA only is just further punishment without a single protection improvement.  Further punishment for incidents from years ago ignoring many of the current improvements.  

If TCC lawyers wants to protect children, TCC should focus on legislation for all youth organizations.  

But yes ... we could add reporting.  Fine.  I believe in numbers and quality control programs.  I've been the advocate for many.  I've seen many (lean, TQM, SPC, six sigma etc).  The sad point is they tend to build excitement and then die a quiet death.  I've seen quality programs adopted by individual organizations and every one falls by the wayside eventually.  

That's really why I don't like the analysis being BSA specific or Catholic church specific too.  

We need industry like oversight for all organizations that do youth programs similar to FAA for flight, FDA for medical, NHTSA for roads, etc.  Expecting an individual organization to fund and run it's own reporting program is a bad decision.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Yes, the legal case is about punishing BSA

No the legal case is not about punishing BSA...it is about the BSA looking to survive via bankruptcy by giving the least amount they can legally get away with to survivors.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

"inform parents" ...  does not follow.  I've been a member for my whole life without seeing any of the reported numbers ... even in the last few years.  The reported numbers are reported to channels; not members.  ...  Are you saying the Catholic church numbers are sent directly to each member?

I am saying here, now, I can determine whether the Catholic Church is doing better/worse at preventing and reporting child sexual abuse. Right now. Just a click away. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

I am saying here, now, I can determine the professional in each diocese/local level whose sole purpose is to ensure the safety of my child from sexual abuse. Right now. Just a click away. https://www.usccb.org/node/25794

I am saying here, now, I can determine the list at the national level of who it is that is responsible for reviewing and implementing child safety from sexual abuse the the Roman Catholic Church in America . Right now. Just a click away. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

And BSA? Hide. Hide. Hide.

Data? Not collected or if it is collect it isn't reported. Hiding.

Professional in each diocese (local council) dedicated to making sure the child sexual abuse of the past doesn't happen again? Nope.

Who at the national level are those responsible for YP? No names. No contact information. No listings. Hiding.

82,500 claims of sexual abuse and the BSA still doesn't get it.

That's ok, the TCC is going to make sure they do.

30 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If TCC lawyers wants to protect children, TCC should focus on legislation for all youth organizations.  

First of all, it isn't the TCC lawyers. It is the 9 survivors of BSA-induced child sexual abuse that are pushing this. You want to tell those victims to go away? Ignore them? Go ahead.

Second, the TCC is NOT legally obligated and has no authority outside the realm of the BSA bankruptcy to pursue anything about legislation.

Third, the individual members of the TCC in their personal capacities have made clear that they will be pushing for legislative reforms.

Again, thank you TCC. BSA wasn't about to do anything without you and a court order.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I read what you wrote. I stand by my post.

I don't want to speak on behalf of @CynicalScouter, but I've read many of his posts on multiple threads in this forum. I think the exchange you and he have had in this thread has resulted in a communication breakdown. You're not getting the message I think he's trying to send.

The BSA has been opaque in its dealings with the general public throughout its history, and it remains so to this day. CynicalScouter did some research and found that many youth-serving organizations list their board members on their websites, and the information is easy to find. Since the tax returns of the BSA and its local councils are public documents, lists of board members can be found there, but only if one knows where to look.

In 2021, the opaqueness is a bad look. It really should come to an end. Identifying decision makers is just one of many areas where we see it.

In the context of child sexual abuse, the BSA currently acts as if it were still the 1920s, when it first recognized the issue. Back then, there were no mandatory reporting laws and no Good Samaritan laws that protect reporters when abuse claims prove false. Had the BSA (or anyone else) reported abuse in the 1920s, and no conviction resulted, the accused could have successfully sued the reporter for slander.

In the early days, the BSA did what it could in creating the confidential file with the goal of preventing perpetrators from registering in the future. Even if it didn't always work, the effort was made, and it was commendable given that the undertaking required management of paper files and matching up handwritten leader applications.

At some point, that system became less than adequate. Mandatory reporting laws should not have been the trigger to start reporting. Good Samaritan laws should have pushed that button. It seems that, in some cases, that didn't happen. Everything remained in the confidential files.

We're left today with a system that might have been partially upgraded by technological advances and compliant with mandatory reporting but remains opaque largely as a consequence of organizational legacy. Although we promote change as something good at Wood Badge, we need to recognize that there's a natural tendency to leave things as they are.

The 1920s system needs to look more like something suitable for the 2020s. Given there have been well over 100,000 victims (with over 82,000 claimants, it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to assume there are more than 18,000 more who are deceased or simply decided not to file claims), the opaqueness with which the BSA addresses this issue need to come to an end.

Here's what I think it would take for CynicalScouter to begin to believe the BSA is taking youth protection seriously:

Each council should have a web page that is easily linked from its home page. That page might read: During 2020, we proudly served xx,xxx youth members. While it is our goal to keep safeguards in place that minimize the risk that a youth will become a victim of abuse while participating in Scouting activities, some participants may deviate from the barriers to abuse set by the BSA and perpetrate crimes against our youth members. The following summarizes incidents of sexual abuse during Scouting activities reported to us during 2020:

  • Number of reports xx
  • Number of reports referred to law enforcement xx
  • Cases referred to law enforcement that resulted in prosecution yy
  • Cases prosecuted that resulted in conviction zz
  • Cases prosecuted that resulted in acquittal aa
  • Cases prosecuted that are still pending bb
  • Cases referred to law enforcement in prior years that resulted in conviction during 2020 cc
  • Cases referred to law enforcement in prior years that resulted in acquittal during 2020 dd
  • Reports during 2020 with accusations of rape ee
  • Reports during 2020 with accusations of other felonies ff
  • Reports during 2020 with accusations of misdemeanors gg

THAT is what CynicalScouter (I think) means by reporting. (If I got it wrong, I hope he will politely let me know. I think HelpfulTracks is sincere about wanting to address this, and we should take this opportunity to get him to run this up the flagpole.)

Considering the road the BSA has been down on this issue, the faith of the general public cannot be restored without complete transparency. Assuming the reorganized BSA emerges from bankruptcy and gets past the pandemic, this won't go away until the BSA looks open and honest about it. In 1921, that was not possible. In 2021, it should not take a court order to make it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

No the legal case is not about punishing BSA...it is about the BSA looking to survive via bankruptcy by giving the least amount they can legally get away with to survivors.

Yep. And remember: the BSA plans including NOTHING about how to prevent future abuse. The BSA had to be forced by the TCC to include these provisions.

That's why I am saying BSA still doesn't get it and still doesn't take YP seriously. They have convinced themselves they are perfect.

They are in for a court-ordered rude awakening.

Thanks again to the TCC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

THAT is what CynicalScouter (I think) means by reporting. (If I got it wrong, I hope he will politely let me know. I think HelpfulTracks is sincere about wanting to address this, and we should take this opportunity to get him to run this up the flagpole.)

You got it exactly right.

BSA is in hide mode.

  • Who is the BSA board? No listing on the scouting.org website. The ONLY and let me repeat ONLY youth serving not for profit that is true for that I can find.
  • Who is in charge of YP for BSA? I can find that information for every diocese in the U.S. I can find that info at the national level as well. BSA? Nope. Hide, hide, hide.
  • How many occurrences/how prevalent is child sexual abuse in scouting today? We know the IV files have not gone away. We know there is a reporting system. Will BSA share the data as the Catholic church does (at least at the national level)? Nope. Not without a court ordering it to do so.

But remember. BSA's learned its lesson about child sexual abuse. It's being open and honest.

So I have a challenge for @HelpfulTracks. Here, now, today, this minute: can you answer and of these three using ONLY resources available to the general public? Not any insider knowledge you may have.

  • Who is the BSA board?
  • Who is in charge of YP for BSA? Either paid professional, volunteer committee members, or both. I'll take any.
  • How many occurrences/how prevalent is child sexual abuse in scouting today?

Show me how transparent and open BSA really is about child sexual abuse TODAY. Not in the past. TODAY.

Let's see if BSA learned any lessons other than "hide, hide, hide".

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CynicalScouter said:

I am saying here, now, I can determine whether the Catholic Church is doing better/worse at preventing and reporting child sexual abuse. Right now. Just a click away. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

I am saying here, now, I can determine the professional in each diocese/local level whose sole purpose is to ensure the safety of my child from sexual abuse. Right now. Just a click away. https://www.usccb.org/node/25794

I am saying here, now, I can determine the list at the national level of who it is that is responsible for reviewing and implementing child safety from sexual abuse the the Roman Catholic Church in America . Right now. Just a click away. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf

And BSA? Hide. Hide. Hide.

Data? Not collected or if it is collect it isn't reported. Hiding.

Professional in each diocese (local council) dedicated to making sure the child sexual abuse of the past doesn't happen again? Nope.

Who at the national level are those responsible for YP? No names. No contact information. No listings. Hiding.

82,500 claims of sexual abuse and the BSA still doesn't get it.

That's ok, the TCC is going to make sure they do.

First of all, it isn't the TCC lawyers. It is the 9 survivors of BSA-induced child sexual abuse that are pushing this. You want to tell those victims to go away? Ignore them? Go ahead.

Second, the TCC is NOT legally obligated and has no authority outside the realm of the BSA bankruptcy to pursue anything about legislation.

Third, the individual members of the TCC in their personal capacities have made clear that they will be pushing for legislative reforms.

What side are you on? The TCC and victims? Or BSA?

That's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

TCC / victims or BSA?  What a horrible mean inference.   Don't do that.  It's just mean, inaccurate and wrong.

You said parents will know.  That's not true.  99.999% percent of parents won't look just like I've yet to meet a parishioner that knows.  This will stay in the reporting channels.   Worse, the emphasis on oversight will change and diminish over time.  As less people pay attention to the numbers reporting, less effort will be put in to collecting and managing.  

TCC statements sound like self-hype to misdirect away from the negligent revictimization of promising huge settlements.  

I'm glad TCC will also work on legislation.  That is what should happen.  It's how society improves.  This whole category screams for broad national oversight and expansion.  

 

I've seen that with DOD programs too.  At one point, they all required a specific quality vender quality program as part of contracting.  Now, then magically it was gone.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

Each council should have a web page that is easily linked from its home page. That page might read: During 2020, we proudly served xx,xxx youth members. While it is our goal to keep safeguards in place that minimize the risk that a youth will become a victim of abuse while participating in Scouting activities, some participants may deviate from the barriers to abuse set by the BSA and perpetrate crimes against our youth members. The following summarizes incidents of sexual abuse during Scouting activities reported to us during 2020:

I'll say this: while I would LIKE that level of detail (council by council) I would at LEAST like the Catholic Church model of those data points reported NATIONALLY and historically (Catholic Church goes back 5 years, that's fine).

BSA says "No way! You don't get data from us (without a court order)! Child sexual abuse is being addressed in BSA, but you don't get any data. TRUST US."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...