skeptic

No matter my different interpretations of some of this, I too find this letter well done and worth every word. As, no matter where you may be in the larger mess, I have to think we are all simply disgusted with ALL the lawyers, or most anyway. Thanks.

It occurred to me this morning that the problem I, and others, may be having is equating the BSA, the organization with the people behind it. It is the people that have made the poor choices and not responded as we may think, or even know, today, they likely should. (We are likely not seeing the total pictures due to time and lack of actual information). The organization is made up of people, and often those people let it down for whatever reasons. Having the skill and actually even bravery to stand against wrong actions and especially evil is hard, and far too many of us fail. It then somehow gets transferred to the larger organization, and all its people, which is where the "broad brush" I speak of comes in. It is interesting that a quote from a completely unconnected article this morning seems to pinpoint much of this discussion/debate/diatribe. "Our society has become so quick to judge and point fingers and blame, and somewhere along the line, we've forgotten about kindness and compassion and forgiveness. And we've forgotten that we're all human and we all make mistakes."

At least some of it likely fits your assertions. And again, that was wrong, but pretty much the norm. Just like the sheriif, or the D.A. did cya for things, or the schools and their boards, and the orphanages, and the psychiatric hospitals and so on. I do not perceive of it being as rife throughout though as some would have us believe. It still happened, and the goal of Scouting should have been to NOT go along with the societal "look the other way" attitudes, or other similar common CYA things. Again, I believe that was why Mr. West conceived of the IV files, seeing them as a way to stop some of the moving around of people with less savory habits. Not making them public is where the concerns with libel would have come in at the time. As a legal scholar, what is your view of that part of the discourse. With the laws in effect at the time, would making the IV files open to others have been a real risk for legal issues? Especially since they included more than just possibly abuse, but also fraud, embezzlement, and from what I have read general felonious concerns? Enough of this. There is no excuse for obviously poor choices, even if in theor y were to somehow "help" protect for the, in theory, better good. Especially so with abuse, period. But, I do not believe it was as rampant as some would have us believe, and it certainly was not part of some kind of plot to allow abuse of children. That just reinforces the point that every member, and connected people to them, needs to be aware of the need to watch for the predators, and understand what they need to recognize as possible concerns. And we need to somehow get parents to be seriously vigilant, but not make them paranoid. Keep improving YP and developing the oversights discussed. In the meantime, maybe we can try to focus on the overwhelmingly positive offerings of Scouting.

Not a really balanced or maybe even unbiased set of comments. There is no recognition of the efforts of YP that were began earlier than most and often held up as good examples for others. Most damning might be that he a terminated employee and not a happy camper. Of course, you might also ask why all this only comes up after he is out of a job? No one is without fault, and too many chose the easier way out by simply ignoring or bailing with prejucice.

Not sure it was unique, only unique in that they actually recognized a reason for awareness when few others were.

The big question is would you make that effort if you were seldom able to verify much things, or others, including family members chose to not pursue it? Add the just posted difference in liable law back then, what might be the best option. Today, we see that to be bring it out and nail them. But, we all know that even today, many cases never are prosectuted due to refusal of someone, either the victim, their families, the strength of the case, and so on. We cannot know, only recognize we need to do better and alway alert. We will not change the basic perversions of the human animal, male or female. They will always be there, and often we get careless for whatever reason. Hopefully, most of the time, once it is recognized, we can move on it. Yet we cannot fix what already happened, nor can we change many of the fears that some may have, for whatever reason. And, as noted here by some survivors, the very process we are in is becoming torture as well. There is no perfect result or answer. Yet we also need to take others here now and involved, generally we hope in a positive manner, into account so as to not make them just another type of victim. JMO of course. That is not to excuse the mistakes and bad judgment too often in the past. It is only taking into account that those involved today should not painted with the mistakes of the past, nor should the current youth lose out in order to salve those past mistakes.

Little of what you suggest has any verifiable validity. Not sure where you get the ideal of the high level of abuse, other than projections based on little or no factual information. Also, as has been noted a number of times, the BSA levels were far lower, percentage wise than the larger society, based on what is actually known. Could it have been much higher; possibly. But, the whole thing today is all conjecture if you go back prior to 1960 or so, as records were not kept, and other factors are lost or were never recorded. As far as the IV files; again, no one else did even that. The secrecy, as you suggest had as much to do with the society at the time as anything else. As has been shown and discussed, libel and slander law was different back then. " Defamation is a tort that encompasses false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. There are two basic categories of defamation: (1) libel and (2) slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation, though much spoken speech that has a written transcript also falls under the rubric of libel. The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press. Right to protect one's good name is heart of defamation law Defamatory comments might include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities. The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. He explained in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.” Defamation suits can have chilling effect on free speech However, defamation suits can threaten and test the vitality of First Amendment rights. If a person fears that she can be sued for defamation for publishing or uttering a statement, he or she may avoid uttering the expression – even if such speech should be protected by the First Amendment. This “chilling effect” on speech is one reason why there has been a proliferation of so-called “Anti-SLAPP” suits to allow individuals a way to fight back against these baseless lawsuits that are designed to silence expression. Professors George Pring and Penelope Canaan famously referred to them as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP suits. Because of the chilling effect of defamation suits, Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, and Arthur Goldberg argued for absolute protection at least for speech about matters of public concern or speech about public officials. The majority of the Court never went this far and instead attempted to balance or establish an accommodation between protecting reputations and ensuring “breathing space” for First Amendment freedoms. If the press could be punished for every error, a chilling effect would freeze publications on any controversial subject. Libel was once viewed as unprotected by First Amendment Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation weighed more heavily in the legal balance than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. Defamation, like many other common-law torts, was not subject to constitutional baselines. In fact, the Supreme Court famously referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words. Justice Frank Murphy wrote for a unanimous Court that “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.” So, the secrecy partly related to what is shown in relation to the laws of the time. Again, should they have feared legal issues? Probably, just as today we do. Was that the right course of action? Based on today, no. Back then, maybe unless very couragous or powerful in society. There is no excuse that any abuse, from day one, occurred. On the other hand, trying to somehow establish stats based on little or no actual records is foolish and simply bad fiction. We will never know for sure, but the whole mess has been completely misrepresented in too much of the case, and very worst is put forth as the majority of the problem, when it is/was not. Not sure why I even attempt to draw a clearer, more subjective picture. Those that want to demonize will do so, no matter how many times their projections are noted as being skewed.

Well, it does not appear that some of your fellow survivors found the Peanuts post amusing. But, if you are offended, I apologize. It seems so fitting for this whole mess, at least to me. As for "as they are known today"; that is simply not true. Just as the ACA is still the Affordable Care Act and not Obama Care, the IV files are still the IV files and not the Perversion Files just because some choose to "pervert" it. I suspect you actually completely understand all of this.

Stop trying to evaluate things out of context. The entire perception of these things was different back then. Yes, he actually was instrumental in the IV files, which was a step in the right direction based on the era. I suspect that given today's systems and information, Mr. West might well have been pushing for major changes and protections now recognized. Secondly, stop calling them the perversion files please. That is not what they are called, nor are many of them remotely related to "perversion". It is like the corruption of the ACA to the Obama Act. It is misleading and distorts the overall picture or meaning. This hyperbolic exaggeration and lack of understanding how society affects things is simply foolish.

Too often the case, but definitely not a universal issue. We have had numerous closely aligned board members, and in the over forty years I have been here, a great many of them were active in the real trenches. BUT, still, we have also had our share of disnconnected and, shall we suggest, puppets.

Related, but peripheral to the topic. I found myself wondering how James E. West might have reacted to this whole mess today. If some may not know, West came from an orphanage and had physical issues. But he baecame a lawyer and was an early player in the legal protection efforts of children. Much of his work was based on his own childhood and experiences in the "system". And, while in many ways, West was difficult and dogmatic, I have to think he would have been on the right side of this mess given the changes in society since his death. Just a thought.

Now, this is surely interesting, and perhaps something of what the public today might wish to note. " Chief Scout Executive James E. West visited Houston in late January 1923. The following quotes are from Jan 23-24, 1923 Houston Chronicle articles. The Ku Klux Klan was very much in the national headlines. While he does not explicitly mention the Klan, I believe Mr. West's remarks which follow are directly aimed at the Klan. "At this time when the spirit of intolerance apparently is gaining such headway in the social life of this great American government I think it would be appropriate for every big daily newspaper in the United States to carry the 12th Scout Law in big headlines so the world might occasionally read it and maybe profit by it." "The basic law of scoutcraft is that the scout must be reverent to God; faithful in religion and tolerance toward the religious conviction of his fellow scout." "More than 90 percent of the Boy Scout troops in America can be traced to churches or to the leadership of the churches. We have Catholic Boy Scout troops and we are proud of them. We have Jewish troops and we are proud of them. We take them all -- all religions and creeds -- and weld them into the melting pot of pure Americanism and build them into responsible American citizens."

Just my personal opinion, but the local council there is not showing good judgment. Would rather see the land protected with a smaller profit on it, than see it developed. From my perspective, even with all the issues currently, that should be a major consideration. Once it is developed, other than as a park or preserve, it is gone, period.

This really surprises people? They are simply validating my descriptions from early on in this mess.

In this case, you need to paint with a broader brush, one that includes most of the past attitudes of society at the times. Family fears of embarrassment or harm to the victims, officials that did not comprehend the problem or were fearful of law suits for slander and such due to the often vague or difficult to prove cases, and other issues beat to death on these pages already, And yes, it does need to be addressed, but far beyond the BSA, as they are only the iceberg's tip compared to the darkness lingering in the larger societal shadows and past. Sadly, too many cannot fathom the idea that BSA was and is part of the larger communities then, and still is. As such, they will never completely eliminate these things, but they can do a better job at flushing them out and then doing what is right, even if local authorities of community leaders try to avoid it due to a perpetrator's money or political position. And, as has been noted in the case of the youth from the AF unit, parents must cooperate if timely prosecution is to happen. We are hearing on this board the voices of survivors who likely had no real voice in the trauma at the time it occurred, and who were made victims over again by whomever may have not responded for them for whatever reason. But, I personally do not see evidence of the BSA somehow purposely allowing or plotting abuse. I see, again people with misplaced local agendas to not harm or embarrass the organization, and simply a hard to comprehend, based on today's views, societal response. And I still also see BSA as a positive option for youth development today, and one that overwhelmingly has had positive effects on the vast majority of its members. This view does not mean that I now or ever have condoned the terrible abuses that have taken place. We just need to be sure we are using cleaner and more healthful bath water.

"Uunderfunded" is in the eye of the beholder. I find that comment ludicrous; but then what do I know? The whole thing is a ludicrous swamp of intermingles pain, grief, and greed. I just want it done so we can try to move forward with todays world, rather than trying to remake the past.

"extended interpretations". Hmmmm.😀

Every contact I had in the past had the details available. It was certainly clear to me then, and still is. Yes, it is sort of part of the vanity press world, but it is not a scam, as the details are readily shared. On the other hand, the follow up cards and even phone calls can be confusing. In the end, it is a personal choice. Like most things, just be sure you understand it and decide for yourself. My comment about negative is that too many suggest it is IS a scam, even though it has been around for over a decade now. Just because some do not feel it is worthwhile and too expensive does not make fraudulent. But just my view and not worth any more discussion.

It is an apparently annual thing, sort of like the publishe your poem or short story things. Not a scam, just a way to get the Eagle out there in some manner, but mostly a fund raiser to support the annual scholarships. The book itself is mostly vanity, though it may have some use for historical review in a vague way. I doubt many outside Scouting will review it though, at least I have not heard of it being used by recruiters or others. Every year now for the last five or six we get this same question. And we get the same individuals making negative comments while most just note it is real, but not of great use except for the money it raises for the very "useful" scholarship program. You do not have to buy it, but you might want to make sure the info is correct.

Not being the legal guy, I may have simply not seen or understood. But, I think our unit, as Methodist, is part of the final plan with no other action needed by our local entity? What I do not see anywhere is reference to the other claiments that filed to attach to the lawsuit, such as GS of USA and some in process lawsuits? Any clarifications from someone?

Just about twenty minutes ago I got off a short Zoom with two BSA senior staffers, one being Mr. Mosby and the other involved with membership, and two high level Methodist leaders who have been involved with the ongoing challenges with the church and scouting. Most importantly, the Methodist leaders very forcefully states the Methodist Church IS NOT turning their back on Scouting. They see it as a major avenue to reach young people in more positive ways, and feel Scouting has the means. They discussed that we, Methodist units need to immediately update "Membership roles", as opposed to Charter issues. The BSA and UMC have already agreed to extend the Charters through June; but the actual membership needs to be updated in order for legal safeguards to stay in place. The Bishop from the church, and the leader from the United Methodist Men, who is the connection within the larger church for all youth groups, have been working on working out the issues and hope they will not have to have extensions past June. So, this was a direct broadcast on Zoom and will have copies shared with all who attended and others interested within the programs. Please stop with the ongoing noise about the Methodists tossing Scouts out, and so on. However, some individual churches/congregations may choose to do so anyway, but it is NOT the direction of the National Church. One other statement that came from this was that whatever new type of CO arrangement is developed, it will hopefully be viable for other CO's as well, and help with the concerns regarding legal problems and such. If this might be better in the main thread, please move it.

My response is that the jerking around is being done by the whole process and the continuing threats against CO's by some involved in the process, or on its periphery. CO's, especially Methodist, who is the largest now, and always was the one with the most membes outside LDs, just like other CO's cannot afford to just sit back and let the legal hounds continue to prey on them. So, they are working to try for a viable process going forward for their best protection on the legal side. The misconception that all the churches are deep pockets is just that, a misconception. It is much like the ideal that because there are large camps and so on in the BSA network, they can just sell it all. Not true, and many local churches are in serious financial stress due to aging congregations and the changes in spiritual direction of much of the population. Meanwhile, those old church properties continue to serve their communities, often as meeting sites for other non profits and community outreach. If the are sold, due to location or whatever, they end up with no place of their own and often put out other service oriented groups. Few of them could ever again afford to have the sites they now have due to the factors noted about the congregations, as well as simply the out of sight real estate costs in what now are often prime locations in many areas. If we are part of the community, we are connected to it. And every piece that plays a small positive part is important. Money does not make the community. The people and their groups make it with their participation and sharing. Until the majority can see the error of basing almost everything on themselves and monetary "worth" we will continue to sturggle more than we should. Egotism and selfishness never serve us well in the long run.

Just for info; there is a Zoom meeting this afternoon/evening with the National Methodist leader for Scouting and Mr. Mosby. It is only open to listen or give written questions, but hopefully will clarify some things. Charters are now extended through June, but that still leaves a hole with registrations, which is our major concern at this time. The good thing is that there is actually effort being made. Or that is my perspective, anyway.

Now you have made me suffer my tauma of flunking canoeing a number of times due to never mastering the J-stroke. But, I did get sympathy from a row boat full of cute girls on Jenks Lake at old Camp Arataba summer of 1959.. They offered to rescue me while I was swamping my canoe in the middle of the lake before eventually paddling back to shore in my zig-zag pattern that doomed me.🙂 Oh well, I get there; just not in a straight line. That included war canoes on Catalina; though there were others to make up for me.