A new scandal

[KC9DDI 11]

Once they declare you not suitable for BSA, then destroy everything. All you need from that point fwd is a name.

 

Why? It would seem to me that if they're going to deny you membership, they'd need a reason beyond "your name is on this list."

[Beavah 205]

The point nldscout is tryin' to make is that in most organizations there is some form of "document retention policy" which specifies not just documents that should be preserved for some period of time, but also when documents should be destroyed. As a general rule, yeh should only preserve documents for which there is a genuine business need for preservation. Anything that yeh keep longer than that just costs yeh money in storage and maintenance, and becomes a liability in cases like this where someone wants to go on a fishing expedition.

 

A wise document retention policy in this case would be what he suggests - hold on to documents just long enough to give folks a chance to appeal, clear their name, defend the BSA in the event the fellow decides to bring a defamation case or petition for injunctive relief or whatever. And then hold on to just enough information to definitively identify the person yeh need to exclude. In the case of John Smith, it probably requires a bit more than the name, but there's no reason to be holdin' on to statements, court documents, victim identifying information and all the rest. The BSA has already admitted that the record keeping wasn't standardized or complete enough to use for research purposes on how to improve protection, so there really isn't any reason to keep it around. An ordinary document retention policy would have avoided much of the current problem.

 

Of course right now the stuff is under subpoena so it can't be touched, and even if it weren't in the present climate if the BSA went and burned the records it would be a PR mess and look like a coverup (or even obstruction in the case of pending cases), so the option is at least temporarily unavailable.

 

Beavah

 

[KC9DDI 11]

Beav - That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

[Engineer61 19]

I do wish there was a solution to this.

 

[RememberSchiff 3683]

Engineer 61,

 

Our fellow scouters to the north face the same problem but their solution focuses on the good of their scouts past and present as opposed to the good of corporate.

 

Please read Scouts Canada Chief Commissioner and Chair of the Board of Governors, Steve Kent 2+ page letter to all.

http://www.scouts.ca/sites/default/files/Youth-Protection-Update-Feb13.pdf

 

I will include the last part here

 

"Scouts Canada, and I personally, have committed to this course of honesty and open

transparency. We know it will ensure the strength and vitality of our organization for the

future. Our focus is dedicated to nurturing the skills and abilities of young people, and there is

nothing more important to Scouts Canada than the wellbeing of the children and youth with

whom we work so closely and whose lives we aspire to influence for the better. It is a

tremendous privilege, and an enormous responsibility, and each of our volunteer leaders takes it

very seriously and cares about it very deeply on a personal level."

 

Thank you once again for your support. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you

have questions or concerns. "

 

He includes his phone number and e-mail address!!!

 

Maybe Scouts Canada has no lawyers or they are still Scout. They may have found a better scout-like solution that the Catholic Church and BSA did not.

 

Consider the Scout first! My $0.02,(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[Engineer61 19]

He also said ...

 

" ... I urge you to contact us at this time, if you havent already done so."

 

When he should have said ...

 

"...I urge you to contact the local law authority in your area and us at this time, if you havent already done so."

 

That's the rub...it's still Scouts (the business) first...just worded a little nicer.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

Good point. He should have worded it more accurately. Their youth-protection policy is

1. Contact Child Protection Authority

2. Contact Scouts Canada

...

scouts.cs/ca/youth-protection

 

[skeptic 997]

Still curious as to the thoughts on our SE report at our annual meeting which I noted yesterday. Has anyone else seen such a public exposure of the latest policies? Is it an indicator of a change in direction?

[Twocubdad 665]

So Shiff and E61, you guys are are agreeing BSA has it right, since the BSA policy is to contact authorities first, scout folks later?

[RememberSchiff 3683]

That much they both have right, but it wasn't always the case. Remember for years, BSA YP stated call the council SE first, it was even a test question.

 

IMO, there is more to be done. Scouts-Canada realizes this and is working in that direction. I am eager to read KPMG's "perversion files" report due later this year and hear what action is taken and how much work was involved in reviewing 350 records (BSA is estimated at slightly over 5000 records).

 

BSA?

 

Another $0.02(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[Twocubdad 665]

So what changes would you make to the current YP policies.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

1. We need to help scouts (past and present) who were harmed through Scouting. The public perception is that things have "improved" to the point that the BSA now quickly drops the abuser's membership and there are programs in place which, well apparently were not enough.

- Scouts Canada removed settlement gag orders so those scouts can freely talk as part of their healing process.

- BSA or their insurer covers 100% of medical expense (therapy, burial expenses, etc.) of any scout abused by a registered member of BSA.

 

2. We need to remove this albatross about our neck - the "perversion files". We need to do a one shot apology, controlled release and take our lumps. Scouts Canada having KPMG doing an independent review with public release sounds better than an federal special prosecutor that I suggested earlier. As it stands now those files will be sought for every future case with the BSA always appearing as they/we have something to hide. Contract a 3rd party to review and direct information to the police accordingly. Maybe have the BSA youth protection committee/task force should also review the "files" in parallel, note this was not done when a YP policy was being formulated.

 

3. We need to earn back the public trust. When I camped back in the day, at times we had just 1 adult. No problems, no worry. I have been the lone (token?) adult at other youth activities and no problem. I am known one of the good guys, well maybe one of the grumpier old good guy, anyway there is trust.

- We relatively recently required that any suspected abuse be reported directly to Child Services/local police. Good.

- Our scouts need more real training in protecting themselves, not just a short couple of pages in the handbook. As I young Cub Scout (my CM was a cop), I remember practicing what to do if a stranger grabbed me. "YOU"RE NOT MY DAD! HELP!ME!" It wasn't giggle time. Wouldn't it be a change to read, "a suspected child stalker picked the wrong victim, a boy scout, who used his youth protection training to alert... I am so GD angry to read today of all the police Explorer scouts who have been abused by cops. If a police Explorer scout cannot self-rescue from abuse, then our YP needs serious re-work.

- BSA should lobby for no statue of limitations for child abuse. Start with the states where we have high adventure camps!

 

My $0.02,(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[Twocubdad 665]

I'm with you on the YP training directed at the boys. When I was CM the pack committee previewed "A Time to Tell" with the plan to show it to the boys. About a third of the way in we shut off the video and sat in disbelief. Not a single parent was comfortable showing it to their sons. By the same token, when we showed "It Happened to Me" to the Jamboree Troop (it was a national requirement) we could hardly restrain the laughter. Throughout the jamboree whenever anyone would ask one of the boys to do something -- cleaning, hauling out trash, making a food run -- the boys would shout, "I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT" to rolls of laughter from the rest of the guys.

 

It's definitely time for a realistic update.

 

I don't know about your other points. Adding coverage for counseling, etc., seems resonable. But the rest don't seem to be oriented toward protecting the children in the program, rather making up for the past. My hunch is with the state of tort laws in the US, trying to do as you suggest could put the organization at risk of hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities. While some past victims may accept the assistance as offered, many more will use the opening to go after millions in damages. Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't seem to allow folks to do right by the victims without giving away the store. Yeah, at some level someone needs to be looking out to protect the corporation. Would you be willing to make those offers if you knew the potential liabilities would cripple the program? But I'm the first to admit this is WAY outside my area of knowledge and expertise. I'm perfectly willing to let those with that expertise make those decisions.

 

And I dont' really understand the issue with the Perversion Files. Seems to me BSA is getting screwed for trying to be conscientious. That they kept records on these people was a good thing, right? I understand how the tort lawyers want to mine them for clients, I dont' understand how the existance of the files has been spun into a public relations negative among the general public.

[JMHawkins 15]

BSA should lobby for no statue of limitations for child abuse. Start with the states where we have high adventure camps!

 

Y'know, it sounds all nice to say that, but statue of limitations don't exist so that criminals can "get away with it" if they just wait it out long enough. They exist because after a long enough time, it's difficult or even impossible to obtain reliable evidence. If someone is accused of a crime, especially a serious and morally repugnant one like child abuse, it is our responsibility as a society to make a careful examination of the evidence. If it's something that happened 20 years ago and all there is to go on is fragmentary memories and a handful of documents that perhaps nobody can place in context any longer, the accused probalby can't have a fair trial.

 

And if anyone's not terribly concerned about fair trials for people accused of child abuse because we want to protect the kids, please consider the harm done to the children of an innocent scouter wrongly accused, let alone convicted, of child abuse.

 

No, I think Beavah has it right - the best thing we can do is give kids as many trustworthy friends - adults and peers - in their lives as possible so they have someone they feel they can turn to if something isn't right. Teaching kids to should "HELP!" is great if they're attacked by the proverbial pervert hiding in the bushes, but that's not where most of the danger comes from. It comes from adults who work themsselves into positions where they are the only person the kid feels he can talk to, and then there's no one for him to go to when that adult turns out to be a predator.

 

 

 

 

 

[RememberSchiff 3683]

Twocubdad,

I wasn't saying that 2-deep coverage was not a good idea just that the fallout that we (singularly) are suddenly not to be trusted because of the actions of a few is not the desired Scout image. Maybe we scouters will never earn that trust back. A scout is "trustworthy", well not anymore, maybe two or three scouts together are trustworthy. Hurts scouts, scouters, and scouting.

 

Is it "better" to hold on to the "files" (as pointed out they cannot be destroyed with legal action pending), watch as plaintiff attorneys for each case request those "files" and the resulting negative press over and over for the next 20, 30 or more years or have a controlled third party release of the files now, takes the lumps, and move forward rebuilding? The former is the status quo which continually paints the BSA in a negative image and hurts membership growth. Ask which will cost the "corporation" less in money, well we don't how much the status quo is costing us. Both approaches I suspect will be costly. Maybe the results of Scouts-Canada , will give us more info.

 

JMHawkins

They exist because after a long enough time, it's difficult or even impossible to obtain reliable evidence.." Victims of abuse can take a long time to come forward, the reasons can be shame, desire not to let their parents know i.e. wait for Mom and Dad to pass before going to court, desire to forget, or fear ("say anything and I will kill your family") and then there is the possibility of DNA evidence which may have been unknown at the time of the crime.

 

Whether the trial occurs a year, ten, or forty years later, the accused still has to be proven guilty beyond a doubt. This applies to murder cases, add "child abuse' as well.

 

Here's that police-Explorer article

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/02/29/ap_enterprise_cop_cadet_sex_case_has_precedents/

 

Another $0.02,