Jump to content

Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA


Recommended Posts

The larger question remains; how many of the "reported" files from the IVF are actually in the categories other than the two that might actually cover abuse?  There is a strong likelyhood that many of the files the media, and others continue to enumerate "do not" fall into the "abuse" categories.  But, it that suggestion is made, the individual is immediately labeled in some manner as accepting of CA.  Of course, the average person if they see a story, it is likely one written with the intent to ignore all the peripheral things, and to simply dramatize the worst elements.  That is our world in this country, and too many do not have the ability, or so it seems, to separate the chafe from the wheat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 449
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think anyone said that.  What they said is that we shouldn't just do weekly meetings and eliminate the outdoor program.  Honestly, scouting without an outdoor program is not scouting ... its s

You need to slow down and take a few breaths between reading and typing, you aren't even responding to the right point of outrage here. Eagledad was talking about the Scouting program and the pat

As you to which you allude, it was a stupid decision.  He should have been one of the very last to go before turning off the lights for the final time.

5 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The larger question remains; how many of the "reported" files from the IVF are actually in the categories other than the two that might actually cover abuse?  There is a strong likelyhood that many of the files the media, and others continue to enumerate "do not" fall into the "abuse" categories.  But, it that suggestion is made, the individual is immediately labeled in some manner as accepting of CA.  Of course, the average person if they see a story, it is likely one written with the intent to ignore all the peripheral things, and to simply dramatize the worst elements.  That is our world in this country, and too many do not have the ability, or so it seems, to separate the chafe from the wheat.

 

I can say anecdotally, I have heard people make the assumption if someone is made ineligible that it is because of CSA, even in cases where there is public knowledge of some other crime, like assault. 

I think that is mainly because most people had no idea the IVF existed prior to the CSA stories broke, so that is their only knowledge/perception of what IVF is, So it is not surprising if someone finds out that an individual is made ineligible they make that assumption, unless they are directly familiar with that particular case. 

What is more alarming, I have seen people leave scouting for personal reasons (not related to any IVF violation) and at times people assume that it MUST be CSA. Even when in reality, it might be financial reasons, health reasons or just fed up with BSA for some reason. People have a tendency to fill in the blanks and usually with worst case assumptions.  

If by "reported" you mean the media. I have little doubt that early reports included non-CSA in their numbers. As I stated earlier, the file dump I saw was inclusive. However, I think the numbers we see generally have been cleaned up to only include CSA. Frankly, using a larger number may have better shock value, but could backfire if people realize that the number was inflated by non-CSA violations. Some would just assume the whole thing was bogus and move on. If it were me, I would want the number to be accurate so as to prevent anyone from making that assumption. I am sure the legal teams would say the same. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The larger question remains; how many of the "reported" files from the IVF are actually in the categories other than the two that might actually cover abuse?  There is a strong likelyhood that many of the files the media, and others continue to enumerate "do not" fall into the "abuse" categories.  But, it that suggestion is made, the individual is immediately labeled in some manner as accepting of CA.  Of course, the average person if they see a story, it is likely one written with the intent to ignore all the peripheral things, and to simply dramatize the worst elements.  That is our world in this country, and too many do not have the ability, or so it seems, to separate the chafe from the wheat.

 

The BSA could certainly immediately release the names of any individuals who were convicted. It could also separate out those who are in the IVF for financial, theft, or criminal reasons. An independent third party could establish criteria for whether names should be released for those abuse related situations that did not lead to conviction. I don't think the public particularly cares about the names of people who were listed because of financial malfeasance or a DUI. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, we continue to have the non-vetted number of files thrown out as the reality, and we have no idea regarding most of them.  Are some actually completely fraudulent?  Do some fit into the categories of discussion the last few days, like kids being kids in adolescense, or discomfort under normal camp activities, especially when they still had open showers and kybos that had multiple holes without dividers?  So many misleading, or possibly even grasping at the dollars reports.  Vetting, including why or how it may have not been dealt with, would make the questions out, for the most part.  

And please, those that will immediately suggest I do not care, I do.  I just want the complete story if we are to hand the dirty laundry, and that should include the dirty laundry of the scammers and victims of the era in which it happened.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I just want the complete story if we are to hand the dirty laundry, and that should include the dirty laundry of the scammers and victims of the era

Clarify, “the dirty laundry” of “scammers and victims...,” please? Especially interested in the latter. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We likely have no idea what may have transpired behind the scenes with messed up families and simply poor decisions, recognized looking back, of people based on societal norms "of the time".  And likely, some of those thngs would fit the description, though hopefully not many.  IF we are going to open it all to the world, then let it be ALL, not just that which fits the most grossly.  You only need took at myriad stats on this subject that indicate really odd family interactions and fears of retribution or worse.  You can read whatever you wish into that, but it seems simply reality, especially when looking back to different "norms".

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to remember that in the Ineligible volunteer files were actions taken by Scouting without the person having much input.  If someone was accused of a bad act, in whatever category, the person could be ejected.  There is no right to be a volunteer in Scouting and it is a private organization so it can decide who is a registered member.  So there are people who have been removed from Scouting for various reasons who did nothing wrong.  They had no hearing, no review of evidence, no fairness in the proceedings.  The people may have fought it or appealed without success.  Their name would appear in the files.  Would you not sue if your reputation was tarnished if those files were to be released with names?  It is wrong to release the files with names attached.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

.  So there are people who have been removed from Scouting for various reasons who did nothing wrong.  They had no hearing, no review of evidence, no fairness in the proceedings.  The people may have fought it or appealed without success. 

And that is a concern with the present bankruptcy claims. For the most part, the persons named as an abuser in a claim were automatically removed immediately from Scouting without any review or vetting of the claim. This is done to attempt to ensure youth protection. I have been told by individuals reviewing the claims that this occurred even in cases where the claim states no apparent act of abuse or violation of a youth protection guideline that was in place at the time of the alleged incident.  And this is an additional concern when there are allegations that some of the claims may have been altered in the solicitation and submission process.

Unfortunately, at this time, the BSA has no process for appeal or review in place apparently, at least until the bankruptcy plays its way out.  Persons who request a review are simply sent a response stating that while this may seem unfair, there is no approved review process at the present time.  As a result, several persons named even in what appear to be clearly frivolous claims are now in a state of limbo.  And unfortunately, once the bankruptcy process concludes, there may well be a lengthy backlog of cases in which a review has been requested. Assuming that the individual still wants to be a part of the program after enduring the stress of the process.

Courts have held in some previous decisions that while the BSA can develop and apply their own membership standards, individuals do have a right of review and due process.  But the BSA can use its own review process and committee to review the process. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

For the most part, the persons named as an abuser in a claim were automatically removed immediately

Is that not really the same thing that would have happened if a police report was made out?  Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting.  In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

And that is a concern with the present bankruptcy claims. For the most part, the persons named as an abuser in a claim were automatically removed immediately from Scouting without any review or vetting of the claim. This is done to attempt to ensure youth protection. I have been told by individuals reviewing the claims that this occurred even in cases where the claim states no apparent act of abuse or violation of a youth protection guideline that was in place at the time of the alleged incident.  And this is an additional concern when there are allegations that some of the claims may have been altered in the solicitation and submission process.

Please define, identify, explain and/or comment on:

1) “for the most part;”

2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?;

2)“told” and “by individuals reviewing the claims,” as in who, what, how, why, and under what degree of authority, confidentiality and right to disclose?”

3) on what basis are they (those individuals who did the telling) determining “without any review or vetting?”and

4) how are they defining and or determining failure to state an “apparent act of abuse of violation of a youth protection guidelines.”

Please and thank you.

9 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Persons who request a review are simply sent a response stating that while this may seem unfair, there is no approved review process at the present time.  

 

9 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

once the bankruptcy process concludes, there may well be a lengthy backlog of cases in which a review has been requested.

As to reporting to law enforcement, what follow up there and are the names abusers aware of whether they have been reported?

10 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Courts have held in some previous decisions that while the BSA can develop and apply their own membership standards, individuals do have a right of review and due process.  But the BSA can use its own review process and committee to review the process. 

Ditto the issue re law enforcement, which create and entirely different issue. 

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

Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting.  In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.

In one case i am familiar with, the accused was found innocent by the law enforcement investigators, but still remained in the IVF. 

So even if innocent, your nsme can still be in it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Is that not really the same thing that would have happened if a police report was made out?  Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting.  In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.

The answer is yes.  Also, the person may never be allowed back in Scouting even if the case had little evidence and was not pursued by authorities.  A close friend served on a committee reviewing appeals by people who felt that they were wrongly removed from Scouting.  He told me that the process required the Scout Executive in the council to make a recommendation to reinstate along with a volunteer committee from the council also making that recommendation.  The appeal is reviewed at the national council and if they think that it is reasonable, it goes to a regional committee.  The regional committee reviews all th e materials and votes - most of the time to deny the appeal.  Even if the appeal is voted in a positive manner by the regional committee, it still goes to the general counsel's office.  My friend does not know what the final dispensation was for any case.  Some of the cases he felt like the Scout Executive did not like the actions of someone but there was no real evidence of wrongdoing.  When I picture myself in my friend's role, I would definitely have to have very persuasive evidence to allow someone back into the organization in an effort to be as protective as possible.

The regions of been eliminated, the national council has laid of a major portion of its staff, so it might be that there is not a path at this time.

All this is to say that there are some names in the files that have done nothing wrong.  To ruin their lives by releasing names is not just.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThenNow  Remember, people can be removed for many actions.  Perhaps a volunteer cursed at a Scout or showed very poor judgment or invited a few boys to his pool.  Those people could be kicked out but would not have done something to involve the police.  There are reporting guidelines for involving child protective services and the police where a child as made an accusation, where a volunteer has witnessed an action, and a long list of similar things.  Mandatory reporting requirements for professionals and volunteers began, if my memory is working, in the 1990's.  States began requiring non-professionals to report in the 1990's and 2000's whereas medical professionals, teachers, and others were required to report suspicions in the 1980's and 1990's.

Beginning in the 1990's, the BSA started emphasizing believing the child and reporting suspicions.  At times the BSA was slightly ahead of the curve and at other times slightly behind.  However, the volunteers have become aggressive about youth protection.  In the 2010's, we were all told by Michael Johnson that the BSA was the leader in out of school youth protection.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Is that not really the same thing that would have happened if a police report was made out?  Until guilt or innocence was established they would not be allowed in scouting.  In fact if a scouter came forward today and named an abuser wouldn't the person be removed from scouting until scouting was 100% positive that the claim was bogus.

Yes, they do.  Upon any accusation, the leader is supposed to be automatically removed.  I have seen this in writing somewhere, but cannot find the source just now...

 

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...