Jump to content

Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

I didn’t forget. From what comment of mine are you jumping off and into this post?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 467
  • 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

I second all of that. Factor in this little story, as well. Add it to the consideration of “who [you] are dealing with” and “Don’t send your Eagle badge back to National. It does not seem to care.” Yo

Not replacing MJ with another external CSA expert is a disaster of a decision.  It is fueling the anger in each of these speeches.  If MJ wasn't working out, they should have hired a new CSA external

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

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

Roger that, but the original post to which I posed questions was only about those accused of abuse. Someone 1 spoke to Someone 2 who told Someone of the first part that Someone of the second part they had reviewed POCs submitted by parties of the third part who had filed claims accusing parties of the fourth part of child sexual abuse. I was wondering if said Someone 2, aka, the party of the second part, indicated if said parties of the fourth part’s immediate addition to the list was accompanied by a simultaneous report to law enforcement. That’s what they’ve been telling us. I do recognize and acknowledge the slimy incline about which you spake. The insider information is what is intriguing and there is shadow cast upon my ponderer by the discussion surrounding this clandestine exchange of potentially confidential information. I found my Cub Scout flashlight so I will be okay in the relative darkness until the 52 year old battery is sapped of its life force. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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.

 

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

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

Gah! Sorry for that sloppy post. Was doing three things at once, per usual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to take a moment to respond to ThenNow’s excellent follow-up questions about my post earlier this afternoon. Unfortunately, I could not respond immediately when I had to rush a family member to the emergency room. Things have settled down enough for the moment, that while I am waiting for news, I will give it a try.

My initial post was essentially an affirmation of Vol-Scouter’s still earlier post concerning the national BSA review process and limitations.

Much of my information comes from national and regional training and conferences on youth protection that I attended

 

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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.

 

This is the summary of the process as explained to us:

The membership of the individual named in an allegation is immediately revoked if they are still active and they are prohibited from participating in Scouting activities via a certified letter. They are informed that a report has been filed with local law enforcement.

The BSA process is to report allegations of abuse to the relevant law enforcement agency. It is up to the discretion of that agency to determine the next steps. Factors may include the strength of evidence, consultation with the prosecutor’s office and certainly stature of limitations. If the alleged abuser is determined to be deceased,   I do not know for certain if  the alleged acts of a deceased person are reported (thus, I prefaced for the most part).

The BSA also reports the allegation to the executive officer of the sponsoring organization, the chartered organization representative and committee chair-person(s).

My understanding is that there is no initial review or vetting. Each claim is treated as legitimate at the initial reporting stage. The BSA’s primary goal is to immediately protect youth by removing the alleged abuser and to notify the appropriate law enforcement agency. Only later may an internal BSA review by initiated at the national level upon request of the alleged abuser. This process has yet to be established in the bankruptcy claims process.

Sharing of Information

 At the beginning of the bankruptcy process, strict rules of confidentiality were developed and agreed to by all the parties. Access to individual claim information is very limited to protect confidentiality of those involved and named in the claim. Anyone who has access to claim information must first sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements.

A large number of parties have been granted full or limited access by the courts. They include but are not limited to: The court and court staff, the claimant attorneys, the TCC, national, regional and local chartered organizations, approved BSA national staff, approved council staff, law enforcement and other approved parties involved in the bankruptcy.

Thus, information on specific claims cannot be shared beyond the approved individuals. Confidentiality is paramount with potential legal consequence for failure to adhere to signed agreements.

The comment made by a well informed participants in one of the meetings  discussing the bankruptcy  was that there was a wide range of claims submitted. This matches what we already have learned through a variety of channels including court documents. It was stated that there were clearly some well documented and evidenced claims that were horrifying and would keep you awake at night. And there were other claims that based upon the information submitted, did not appear to show any sexual abuse or violations of youth protection guidelines that were in place at the time. Of course, no specific claim information was ever shared.

Schools were used as an example when the speaker was questioned. In the 1960’s, 70’s and later, it was common for sports teams to be expected to shower after competition. Often coaches were present in the locker room, especially at away games.  Would mandatory showering by youth in view of adults be considered sexual abuse or violation of the standards of that time period? Ultimately this question may fall to the Settlement Trustee to determine.

 

I hope that more fully addresses and clarifies my comments. Thanks for asking.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by gpurlee
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

This is the summary of the process as explained to us:

Sorry to hear about the family emergency. I hope all is and are ok.

Here’s where this took hard left turn. We’re in a Chapter 11. Creditors, like us, are called “claimants.” We filed “Proofs of Claim.” You used the word “claim” when talking about allegations of YP standards, not allegations or reports. As written, I interpreted that to mean, I think correctly, that you were speaking with someone who had reviewed “the claims,” as in the POCs in this Chapter 11. I think it’s safe to say I wasn’t the only one who chased the ball into the pond, but perhaps I was. All of questions were driven by that word “claim.” Now I think I follow. If you were talking with someone at National or a LC who is reviewing our claims and giving you some measure of information, that’s another matter and what got my attention. Quick like.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to Roundtable last night and spoke with some in our district who are usually well-informed and whose opinions I seek when dealing with issues. (There is a group of five, specifically, that I seek counsel with.)

None of them knew who Michael Johnson was, nor knew of the presser. (This surprised me.)

None of them knew the latest plan was out for a vote.

Only one knew how much our council contribution was to the fund.

All were surprised to learn the former Director of YP would say that BSA is unsafe.

All understood my heartache over the issue and my wrestling with the decision on whether to renew my membership.

All do not hold our council or National leadership in any high regard.  Four of five agree we need new professional leadership at all levels...lack of true leadership is a "systemic" issue. The fifth said he hadn't really thought about it.

They all wear several hats...primarily working at the unit level, and then spending "spare" time at district or council positions.  My sense is, they feel what's going on at National has no impact on them, and if it all goes awry, they'll keep on doing a scouting-like program with their units without a national/council structure.  They'll soldier on.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to lock this topic a bit to so some cleaning.  Looks like we went way off of the Michael Johnson discussion.  I'll move some of the comments and others may just hide (no offense intended).  

Ok, I moved a couple of posts.  Others that were not on topic I hid.  I was a bit heavy handed as the forum feeds are filled with this one single topic and many points were just quick back and forth messages that were not necessarily on topic.  This isn't bad, it just makes it difficult for those who are attempting to keep updated.  If you want, you can spin off new topics in our forums.  

If you had any posts that disappeared that you think should reappear, just let me know.  I can spin them into new topics if you like.  Thanks!

Edited by Eagle1993
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, gpurlee said:

I hope that more fully addresses and clarifies my comments. Thanks for asking.

 

Ok. I slowed down and calmed down in the wake of my insomnia. I was mistaken and have now read back through and got it. Apologies for two misfires. Thanks! Much obliged. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering if anyone has seen this... Came across this "California Sex Abuse Lawyers" website which lists the names and BSA IV files of "notable abusers in the California Boy Scouts" and "full list of California Boy Scouts Ineligible Volunteers."  You can view the actual BSA IV files:

https://californiasexabuselawyers.com/boy-scout-files/?utm_campaign=1670720370&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=390952897119&utm_term= boy scouts abuse&adgroupid=82868823089&gclid=CjwKCAjwzaSLBhBJEiwAJSRokpzV8Rqj6FK5zk2MXO_gdlE_-a2YC-oEl7zVgiPWnFWLLq4UdnbgShoC1UMQAvD_BwE

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2021 at 11:16 AM, HelpfulTracks said:

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. 

In my council, at one time scouters were banned from scouting for raising questions about the council's insolvency-first, to silence them, and second, to brand them as child abusers.

Time and again, I see documentaries about domestically abused women who refuse to press charges and return to the person who abused them.

 

I just don't understand it.  That process/dynamic remains an open question in my mind.  I will sort it out, but not yet.

 

And the folks in my council ousted, were reinstated.  From what has been posted here, perhaps that was a miracle, or perhaps the system actually worked to correct a wrong.  ("How can anyone tell?" -Hunt For Red October.)  Maybe they appear in the IV files-even though being reinstated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Wondering said:

Wondering if anyone has seen this... Came across this "California Sex Abuse Lawyers" website which lists the names and BSA IV files of "notable abusers in the California Boy Scouts" and "full list of California Boy Scouts Ineligible Volunteers."  You can view the actual BSA IV files:

https://californiasexabuselawyers.com/boy-scout-files/?utm_campaign=1670720370&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=390952897119&utm_term= boy scouts abuse&adgroupid=82868823089&gclid=CjwKCAjwzaSLBhBJEiwAJSRokpzV8Rqj6FK5zk2MXO_gdlE_-a2YC-oEl7zVgiPWnFWLLq4UdnbgShoC1UMQAvD_BwE

Looks like the LA Times database wrapped with a law firm ad.

On 8/5/2012 at 8:07 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Yes horrifying. I just skimmed through the documents on one abuser - Slusher. Came back to be a SM in two troops???

 

http://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/

 

 

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 8:44 AM, ThenNow said:

I second all of that. Factor in this little story, as well. Add it to the consideration of “who [you] are dealing with” and “Don’t send your Eagle badge back to National. It does not seem to care.” You may or may not have read this post of mine long long ago, but here’s a recap.

While in Wilmington applying to be on the TCC, I spoke with a lot of guys. The tension and raw emotion was palpable. Nervous sweat and incredible anticipation. Hopeful, but intensely vulnerable. Attorneys and BSA big-wigs milling about. I connected with one fella who was literally wringing his hands. We got to talking. As I am terrible and chit chat, I invited him to unburden. He shared what he had been through, in a shallow dive, and went on to what was really vexing him (in addition to waiting to be interviewed). He described how he had reported his abuser, an important Council player, while he was Life and finishing his Eagle. The reports weren’t taken seriously and it sort of got swept away. Like me, he continued anyway and filed all his paperwork, project completed yada yada yada. Well, his paper work was “lost.” Chronically. Perennially. He never received his Eagle. I was wearing my pin. I took it off and put it on him, after I dropped it because my hands were shaking. “There. You earned your Eagle and we both know it.” And we cried. 

Keep it, brother. You earned it and then some.

My offer stands.  You and folks similarly situated need friends.

At the end of the day, I get back to one word:  "Children."

This horror was visited on children.

Adult perpetrators visited this horror on children, and adults-at BSA- COVERED IT UP.

I've lost track, for 60 or 80 years???  More than a century?

I ask, "Who stands to protect the children?"

 

BSA does NOT.

Edited by elitts
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

This horror was visited on children.

This is part of the challenge we face. When you see the aged faces, presentation, intelligence and personalities of some of the men who were abused as children while in Scouting, it’s easy to forget each was once just little boy. Some not so little, but still boys. Think of a vulnerable 10 year old you know who has a passel of siblings, is maybe a middle child, his dad is unavailable both emotionally and as to his time. Mom is chasing other kids. He is smart and eager, but has no mentor. See him? That’s me. My SM groomed me from the first second he met me. Pick another. Young man with athletic ability. Father died young. He and his mom are hurting and vulnerable. Both could use assistance with this gaping hole in their lives and they chose Scouting. There, a monster finds him and preys upon him and his mother. That’s a friend of mine.

I am fairly emotionally astute and have something of a pain and trauma radar. I can often see the child in someone that has long since faded from physical view. In Wilmington at that TCC selection process, I saw a room full of scared and angry boys wanting someone to take the time to see and hear them. It was heartbreaking. David Buchbinder, of the US Trustee’s Office, said after selection that picking the 9 members of the BSA TCC was the hardest thing he’s ever had to do. I believe him. He heard from 80-100 (?) deeply wounded boys that day. All day long. One after the other after the other.

  • Sad 4
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...