Beavah

Yah, that's been a LNT discussion for many years. At what point does "trash" become "an artifact", eh? That really does matter... do yeh tell kids to Dispose of Waste Properly (take the trash out with them) or to Leave what they Find (leave the "artifact"). IIRC, there's even a loose LNT standard of 75-100 years bein' the "crossover point". B

Yah, to summarize: The Teton Council should not be terminating the employment of people just over undocumented rumors about what they did back when they were high school sophomores. (BTW, I note that the Idaho Supreme Court just remanded the civil case with a firm ruling against the plaintiffs, who have now settled for a reasonable amount, so the courts aren't necessarily finding a huge amount of liability here either). So that whole "the BSA is evil" argument has gone away. The BSA didn't have any supervisory responsibility over Evans, and the abuse (probably most if not all of it) seems to have happened at non-Scouting events and private meetings, or after the end of Scouting meetings. And even then, two-deep leadership wouldn't apply. So that whole "the BSA is evil" argument has gone away. We now recognize that court records are sealed only with the consent of the victims, and for da victim's protection. And that once sealed, the BSA is subject to the non-disclosure agreement and can't be usin' the stuff for commissions and whatnot. So that whole "the BSA is evil" argument has gone away. The BSA's YP program, while not perfect, has more safeguards than many other organizations that have paid staff (let alone volunteers) doing youth work. The BSA moved immediately to revoke Evans' membership. And the BSA YP program is apparently what led the whistleblower scout to "resist and report." So da BSA really doesn't look evil at all, does it? Could we do better? Always! One abused kid is too many. But it sure seems like all this foo has been just to push an agenda, rather than bein' valid criticism or really concerned with da welfare of kids. Has anybody looked at the molestation rates just for youth soccer coaches? Seems like there's twice as many reports for them as Scouting. Beavah

The Mormons that I know use the old and new testaments, they just have a few more books to thump than you do. Yah, and that's the point, eh? Christians have a few books more in their holy scripture than Jews, eh? Those few books change the character of the original scriptures enough that I don't think many Jews would consider Presbyterians to be Jewish. Those new books are new and novel and therefore outside Judaism. No different with Mormons. If da additional books change the character of the original scriptures enough by bein' new and novel, then yeh have something that may be based on Christianity, just as Christianity was based on Judaism, but is no longer Christian. Yeh might say da same about Islam, which added its own "book of Mormon" to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and called it the Koran.

But at some time for any faith, near the origin of that faith, there must have been very few followers. My idea was that with a small population and little time to develop differences, they might have been more unified. I could be wrong but at least it seems to work that way today with churches (there's that uniformitarianism thing again). In our area anyway...the little ones seem to have fewer squabbles. It's a nice theory, but there's no evidence of it. Yeh have to sit through small Christian churches rippin' themselves apart over who to select for the next pastor to understand, eh? Yah, sure, for as long as the founder is alive, maybe. And only maybe. Jesus spent half of his time yellin' at the apostles. By contrast, there is strong evidence of a general reduction in da number of separate religions worldwide. And as close as I can tell, there isn't any significant internationalism that doesn't have its root in religion (and typically folks with a strongly Christian bent, or at least who were raised in a Christian culture). If yeh want people to reach beyond national self-interest (or tribal self-interest), there has to be some common idea that's greater than Nation for them to buy into. A notion of "World Citizen" is only very recent, eh? Before that, there was only religion. And it's not insignifiant that the only places a notion of "World Citizen" really has any traction is in countries that are culturally Christian. Da problem is that if yeh don't have an absolute morality, there's never any justification for intervention. No reason to stop genocide if it's not in your national interest to do so. No reason to sacrifice in order to help da starving. The notion of a "brotherhood of man" that yeh take for granted is a religious notion, in its origin and practice. Beavah

Merlyn, lad, two-deep leadership is protection in the event of an emergency and such (and in a more limited way against false accusation). It ain't proof against poison. Truth is, anytime any adult becomes a "trusted person" to a child and parent, there become opportunities to engineer private meetings and the like. Just the way it is. Bad guys do their best to look like good guys, and don't necessarily follow da rules, eh? Meet early at the boat to work on the engine, stay late to clean up, go to dinner for a skipper conference. Doesn't have to be a Ship activity, eh? "Come over to mow my lawn, I'll pay you." "I've got an extra ticket to the hockey game, ask your mom if you can come." Search warrants were served at multiple locations, not just the boat. The man was a school teacher for many years. We both know it's pretty likely they'll turn up some abuse of those high school boys too, eh? Are yeh goin' to go after public schools for their lack of a two-deep policy? But the most important thing is that it ain't the BSA's job to supervise unit leaders. BSA doesn't have any responsibility for that. That's the role of the Chartered Organization. BSA is just the insurer and the materials provider. So we're back to using hurt kids to bash the BSA unfairly. Much as we like to blame people, often the only people who really should be blamed are the criminals. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm still wonderin' how the BSA was "lax." Merlyn, would you fire someone from their job based on thirdhand rumor about what they did when they were a high school sophomore? With no substantiatin' documentation of any kind? That was the situation in Idaho, eh, that yeh seem to feel so strongly about. The BSA moved immediately to terminate Mr. Evans' BSA membership as soon as there were credible allegations against him. That seems pretty responsible. Or do yeh feel like the Berkeley council member that closeted gay men all become child molesters? And the BSA is lax by not lettin' 'em "come out."? Pretty much, the BSA's incidence rate of this kind of stuff is no worse than any other youth workers, and better than some. Their response is pretty good, actually, given that in most cases they aren't the supervisors of the volunteers in the units. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, there was just so much personal prejudice embedded in that odd set of theories yeh just described, it's hard to know where to begin. First, it's pretty clear that historically Jews and Christians or whatnot were not necessarily more unified than at present. Read Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters, or any of the Hebrew Scriptures, eh? Disputes and disagreements just like we have now, eh? Different issues, different factions. In fact, it's safe to say that humans always acted ... like humans. Second, it is just as plausible, perhaps more plausible, to suggest that the splits into factions and more micro-denominations arise not from critical re-examination of fundamental truths, but from the introduction of selfishness, sin, and error. So rather than implicit admission of fallibility, yeh have self-interested spinoffs. Joe Smith lookin' for attention, and claimin' a special revelation. Then yeh have da bigger trends. Over history, we've seen a gradual decrease of sects and faiths, and a unification of people under broad religious banners. Religion is the one idea that stretches beyond nation-state and tribe, and dares to call Samaritans neighbors (or even brothers). To do that effectively, to be a bridge, religion must be absolute. It must trump tribe and nation. Makin' it less absolute only allows economic status, race, tribe, nation, etc. to become the dominant "theme" of human relations. Beavah

Yah, we all tend to vote for people who are more like us, eh? Folks in California are more likely to vote for a Californian, Italians are more likely to give an Italian a closer look, businessmen tend to vote for successful businessmen, farmers tend to lean toward farmers, etc. etc. Religion is a part of who people are, too. Mormons are more likely to consider a Mormon, etc. Especially in the early period of a campaign where folks are tryin' to gain traction, it seems pretty natural to "pitch" what a candidate has in common with the voters he's wooing. Just watch all these slick politicos pretend to "ordinary folk" eating in diners and such, eh? Huckabee has an advantage in Iowa; there's more Baptists than there are Mormons. Iowans also have more in common with Arkansas than they have with Massachusetts. He's got the language of midwestern faithful farmers down better, eh? We see Romney tryin' to talk in Iowa about how his background is bigger than his time in Massachusetts, and we see Romney tryin' to talk about his background is bigger than LDS. Ain't no difference. So if you're da "outsider" in an area, the governor of a New England industrial state campaignin' in the farm belt, you talk about your support for farmin'. If you're a rich white lady campaignin' in urban areas, you talk about your solidarity with the poor and your anti-racist credentials. And if you're a Mormon campaignin' in the Baptist bible belt, yeh talk about that too, eh? Only natural. Beavah

Yah Lisabob, yeh need to distinguish between membership revocation and bein' granted membership in the first place. Membership revocation and "black listing" comes after some definite negative behavior or credible accusation. That's a different thing than the background check process, which is pretty much as Secret DE describes (and pretty much the same as any business or other organization runnin' background checks). It's the difference between being fired for cause, and having a background check issue in the process of bein' hired. B

Did anyone catch this bizarre comment: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2492 Openly gay Berkeley City Councilman Kriss Worthington, who led the fight to revoke the Sea Scouts' free use of the marina, recalled Evans this week as "the guy who made it a crusade to fight the city over our not giving resources to a group that discriminates." ... "He and the kids are just one more casualty of the Boy Scout's discriminatory policy. If the Sea Scouts and Boy Scouts would allow people to be out, then he could have led his life as an out person and not had to ..." ------ So he's saying that closeted gay men are all child molesters? We need to let them be "out" in order to protect the children?? Another great example of how silly and distateful it is to try to use child victims to advance a personal agenda. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

All of the Lifesaving awards can be used to recognize adult scouters as well as youth. http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-521.html And we should do that, eh? Good PR for the program, good example for the kids. I think GW is right, sometimes we don't think of it for adults. Beavah

Yah, I gotta admit that PTOs in general seem to make poor Chartering Orgs. If there is a real alternative, that might make for a much better relationship as long as yeh don't have any issues with school access. Beavah

Yah, forget terraformin', eh? What's with flyin' all this garbage up to the planet and leavin' it there? Parachutes, landing craft, rovers junkin' up all the good hikes. Not to mention I remember readin' that we don't do a great job of sterilizing our stuff before we ship it, so we're also doin' our best to introduce our microbes all over da solar system. Worst by far though is our TV transmissions, busily bein' beamed out to all the local stars in the galaxy. Talk about junkin' up the neighborhood! Imagine that our first contact with our neighbors is dumpin' Jerry Springer in their backyard! Beavah

Yah, one really does get tired of bein' called a liar. Merlyn and GW must be peas in a pod, eh? What I actually said was "I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn." That was da truth, eh? I would be really astonished if Merlyn supported such a thing, given his emphasis on civil liberties and all. Now, it may be that Merlyn couldn't understand my accent, eh . And it could be that I would have been clearer had I put an "if" in there..."I'm astonished if yeh would support...". But da nature of typin' fast on-line means that sometimes the words we "hear" in our own heads aren't the same ones others "hear" in their heads when they read 'em. As I would tell a scout, when we listen to another, we should presume that the other person is a good soul, and interpret their comments in the best light. And if we can't, we should ask for clarification. Look for error in our own communication or interpretation first, and never throw a temper tantrum or berate someone in public unless we first gently approach 'em in private. I don't always succeed in livin' up to that, but I will continue to try. So though Merlyn misinterpreted me, I shan't call him a liar . And though he dropped the discourse to a new low rather than respondin' intelligently to the issues presented, I shan't call him a fool. But I confess I do find his efforts to use the victimization of children to press his personal anti-BSA agenda to be distasteful. Beavah

Yah, havin' been involved in several removal actions, I can say da reality is much closer to what GW and LongHaul report than not. In fact, I seem to recall seein' "immediate removal upon credible accusation" in a policy document at some point, but can't lay hands on it at the moment. Da procedure for reinstatement is as described, but it's not often done. Beavah

Yah, what local1400 said, eh? Your son has to live with da troop and its kids, not you. It'll never work if it's not somethin' that's a good fit for him that he buys into. Havin' his friends there helps, but he should "like" the older boys and the SM/ASM's and the "feel" after a visit or two. All da rest is really negotiable. Most of us like to see certain things in terms of various methods (youth leadership, patrol method, uniform, advancement, outdoors, etc.). But the reality is every troop is good at some of those and not as good at others. The real magic of Scoutin' happens in the relationships kids develop with adults and older boys (and peers and eventually younger boys). Avoid the glitz. Let your son choose based on where he feels at home (and secondarily what he cares about in terms of da methods). Make sure you can live with his choice and be a supportive parent, not a complainer. Presto, you're done! Beavah

For the life of me I will never understand why some people involved in the BSA seem to hate BSA so much. Odd discussion for a trademark thread, eh? I think this is an unfair comment, or at least a red pickled herring . I'm an American, but I'm pretty pointed in my criticism of congress and both of da last two presidents, eh? That doesn't mean I hate America or want to leave. Just means I believe in stayin' Mentally Awake, and bein' honest in criticism, and wantin' to do my part to spread ideas around to others that may change the way they vote or do things so that they get just a bit better. Or sometimes, just to vent. Especially when it comes to Congress, eh? Beavah

Yah, I agree with FScouter and Merlyn, eh? Sharing data is a good thing. Not statistics in this case, but rather sharin' detailed case reports to look for patterns. In the Grand Teton case, for example, the one thing that may have helped was if BSA folks were trained to recognize "grooming behaviors", the way the current Catholic Church YP materials focus training. There was some clear evidence of those behaviors, eh? Dat's helpful data. BSA YP, like a lot of BSA safety, is probably too procedure-dependent (and a predator ain't goin' to follow the procedures). We're movin' to be more education/judgment based, but pretty slowly. Problem is, sealed records are sealed records. If da court orders 'em sealed and both parties sign non-disclosure agreements, that's it, eh? And happily, abuse cases are still rare enough that even if yeh redacted names, the circumstances would allow a committee to know where the incident came from, eh? This isn't da BSA bein' dense, it's the BSA complying with the law. So unlike accident reports, it's hard to do this kind of "open analysis" when we're talkin' youth victims of sex crimes, even though it may well be helpful. Just the way of things. Beavah

I'll give yeh the practical answer, then. Nope, da situation you describe ain't unusual. Though DE's are supposed to visit the IH every year, and COR's should be trained and such, neither happens very often . Lots of units out there like yours. I'd suggest you "reach out." Take the IH and COR to lunch. Ask what the pack can do for the church. Invite 'em to your Blue and Gold. Go meet the youth minister and say "hi". Relationships are a two-way thing, and it doesn't really matter which side reaches out, eh? There's some good reasons for doin' so. Lots of times, if da CO is thinkin' about you, they can plug you into more resources, get you more space, etc. If a complaint comes up, you're a "known friend" that they will support, rather than a problem. If suddenly your pack has a problem that needs a firm resolution, they can be there. Just like anything in Scoutin', if the CO relationship isn't what it should be, put it on your list of things to work on. You'd be surprised by how it can help. Beavah

I didn't acknowledge that. But you're just lying again. Not lyin'. Just bein' sarcastic. Though I would truly be astonished if yeh supported such a thing. That was the truth. The pattern is usually Merlyn: claim. Someone else: explain why claim is wrong. Merlyn: ignore the information presented, but find one sentence to object to and get huffy. OGE, words can't describe my sympathy. And a Scout Salute to yeh for recognizin' how the issue affects yeh emotionally. As yeh say, emotion makes logic and civility hard, and is a bad way to legislate. FScouter, remember we're talkin' civil cases here, not just criminal. Preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt. Molestation and fondling and such, not just rape. And there just isn't any physical evidence usually. It all turns on da testimony of the accuser. The only reasonable defense against that is to catch the accuser in a falsehood, and that usually requires access to records and other witnesses which become less and less available with time. I don't want the victims of child abuse to forget about it or let bygones be bygones. I pray that some day they experience healing. The rest is between their religion and their God in terms of forgiveness of those who hurt them so terribly. But I also don't think da law should be set by those who are hurting. Like as not, that leads to usin' the law for vengeance, not justice. Same on the other side, the law should not be set by those who are hurting from being falsely accused or imprisoned. Peace. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Golly, BSACompass, and I thought my accent was hard to understand, eh? I think it's easier if yeh make quotes italic and your reply regular text, rather than vice versa. But thanks for a thoughtful reply! Volker (Slouchhat) and Eduardo (helper, I think) are Scouter.com folks. I don't think BSA should listen to them, I think we should . They're just fellow volunteers from other countries, eh? But when the scout usage is 7% as it was in Picarquin... Yeh gotta read carefully when folks are makin' their best "case". That's 7% by revenue, not 7% by usage time. Presumably use by WOSM would be on a non-revenue basis, and use by WOSM scout groups would be on a substantially discounted basis. So real usage by time is probably quite a bit higher. After all, real usage by time of a boy scout camp only amounts to 6 weeks out of 52, plus some weekends. Call it 12 - 18% of the year. If we were to rent our scout camps out at other times (at the higher, non-council rate), we might be at 7% by revenue too, eh? I don't look at it that way, I think the BSA exhausted all other means and was left with no other choices. I don't know who influenced Mr. Missoni to continue these unpopular pursuits (70% against). I missed da 70% figure. Where was that from? But if we really had 70% support, then we clearly hadn't exhausted all other means. Yeh just call (or wait for) a meeting of the full WSC and vote, eh? I'm not meaning to be argumentative. Like I said, I was in favor of Mr. Perry's actions. But I think it's worth thinkin' and listenin' to how others perceive us from time to time. And sometimes not followin' the right process is wrong, even when we're right on da issue. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Merlyn, thanks for acknowledging that in fact both victims and BSA agreed to seal the files, and that keepin' the files sealed from the press is a way of protecting victim privacy. And for tacitly acknowledgin' da points MarkS and I make about the Grand Teton case. As for Statutes of Limitations, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, eh? Probably should have spun that off. I was makin' a general argument about statutes of limitations, without direct reference to either case. Substitute "Mr. Poopyface" for Mr. Evans. Yeh already had my real feelings about Mr. Evans from earlier in the thread. Shotgun, remember? But I believe eliminating statutes of limitations in these cases is da wrong thing to do. It amounts to limiting our civil rights if we are accused of certain types of acts. What do you think, Merlyn? OGE, I can sympathize, and you're right in sayin' that most kids don't report. But our system deliberately errs on the side of liberty and a presumption of innocence, for good reason. False accusations happen too, eh? All da time. Memories fade and change and are re-interpreted. The accused is entitled to a real defense, and that just is impossible if too much time has passed. Cultural norms change too, eh? It wasn't that long ago that pullin' down a kid's pants and paddling him was an OK thing. Now it would be presumptive abuse. That's another good reason for statutes of limitations on civil cases in particular - da norms of society change with time, too, and holdin' someone from 40 years ago accountable to todays norms just ain't fair. That's been true of some of da Catholic priest cases, for example. Beavah

Yes, not in evidence. The rant of an editorial (by an agitated editor who feels himself "under attack" no less) is not evidence. Though I did note they achieved their objective, and sold more newspapers! But the editorial you refer to does allow me to bring up another very important point, one that is often missed in these discussions and one that we should all be aware of. Statutes of Limitations. I find it utterly tragic that Idaho followed da trend of several states in abolishing da statute of limitations on abuse. Dat's roughly the equivalent of abolishing the right to a trial by jury when someone is accused of certain heinous crimes. It's a gross attack on civil liberty, and I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn. Of course, I'm surprised yeh support firin' a guy based on rumor and innuendo with no documentation, too. Da thing is, for any of us who are involved with kids for any length of time, defending ourselves against an accusation is almost impossible without a reasonable statute of limitations. Imagine bein' a 64-year-old scouter like Mr. Evans, nearin' retirement, and having first one lad and then a bunch of copycats accuse yeh of molesting them 40 years before, back when you were 24. And it doesn't have to be you, eh? You might be the Camp Director who didn't notice that an aquatics director was abusin' kids. Do yeh have your calendar from 40 years ago? Do yeh even remember who was on staff who you could call as a witness? Are they even still alive? If they are, where are they? We're a pretty mobile society, eh? And of course, you're probably not goin' to be covered by that insurance policy from 40 years ago, and maybe not by your current policy either if it excludes acts prior to when the policy went into force. In short, it becomes impossible to mount a reasonable defense. Same applies to parents, eh? How do yeh defend yourself against an accusation from 60 years before? Great way for kids to "change" their parents' will, eh? I urge everyone to oppose changes in the statutes of limitations, especially for this type of crime where "credible accusation" often carries the day. Beavah

Nuthin' much wrong with that, scoutldr, that's one of the elements of establishing negligence, eh? Where yeh miss is that the standard of care or "reasonable man" isn't defined by Scouting's regulations/policies, but by the broader world. What is reasonable for a volunteer in a youth outdoor program? Would an ordinary parent volunteer in a church youth program do this? Would a teacher or an experienced river guide or paddler do this? You can not follow da G2SS and still not be negligent. You can follow the G2SS to the letter and still be negligent. Just depends what the standard of care is in the broader world. But if yeh are found negligent, that's what insurance is for. Insurance covers us when we do something wrong. So the moral of the story is that we as scouters act prudently because we care about keeping kids safe. We would do that if G2SS didn't exist, eh? But it's a useful guide, so we read it, and we read other good guides, and we get training from da BSA and we get training from Red Cross and other places. All because we care about kids, not because we care about lawyers. And if, some day, we screw up and something bad happens, then the law and insurance are there to protect us. That's da BSA's commitment to its volunteers and CO's, and the reason for insurance in the first place. To support us even when we were dumb. Beavah

Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge....Yes, at the request of the BSA's lawyers. That's not in evidence, eh? In fact, that would be part of the sealed records, so you're really just blowin' smoke. Sealing records generally happens only with the consent of both parties. So sure, it is a benefit to the BSA not to have the record splashed all over the media, in the same way it is a benefit to the victim not to have the record splashed all over the media. They both agreed. Yeh must be careful, in your interest in castigatin' the BSA, to also respect the rights and privacy of the victims. That doesn't explain the lawsuits pending against the grand teton council and the BSA. I didn't see anything in the articles about additional suits, though the newspaper articles sure did their best to encourage additional suits. What explains lawsuits in general is that something horrible happened to kids in our care, for which some compensation is merited. That's what lawsuits are for. Not one is goin' to trial, yeh won't see da BSA fightin' this unless the victims are asking for a Lotto Win, which isn't likely. They will all be settled. To me, that's bein' responsible. Beavah