Eagle1993

I was reading into the package again. 1) The Coalition is expecting a direct payment from BSA of $18M if the agreement goes into effect in March ($16M in February). This is on top of the 30 - 40% they will get from their claimants. I really hope the judge denies this. 2) There is a footnote. The Coalition & FCR agree with the TCC that the BSA estimation of claims is wrong (page 433). They just believe it isn't worth fighting anymore.

If the current plan is approved by enough claimants and the judge confirms it then it is locked in. The earliest we can probably say it is locked in is end of January or early February next year.

To be clear ... someone has the data to calculate the 50% number. I think all that is being asked is some additional details behind that number. If forum members here didn't care, they wouldn't even be posting comments. If there are further details, it may spur discussions on what actions can be taken that protect scouts while still maintaining the program. For example, MJ mentioned vetting older youth ... what does that look like, how would we do that and what are the impacts to youth & the program. Just a high level number doesn't help that much other than to raise these questions. More details would really help us understand the situation further.

I agree with you & @Eagledad's comments. To me, this one should drive BSA to release more details. If this includes a lot of minor non abuse incidents then less concerning. There is more grey area with youth than there is with adults and youth. If this means 50% of CSA is older kids raping younger youth then that is a completely different story. While the tenting rule helps, there are still many cases where an older scout will be alone with a younger scout.

I completely agree. Many of us have added our own safety requirements on top of BSA's in terms of youth protection ... so some of what he said was not surprising. The two areas I was surprised was that 50% of the abuse are done by youth and known abusers are in the BSA. I knew that was a growing concern, but if someone were to ask me a week ago, I would have guessed 10%. Honestly, that was the point that scared my wife. She knows the rigor we apply YPT to other adults ... but knowing half the assaults' are done by kids was a bit of a wake up call. The other is known abusers are in the BSA. That one needs specifics. I'm struggling to accept that one. I hope it isn't true.

Yes. My wife told me yesterday she will have a hard time letting my daughter join Scouts BSA. My daughter dropped out of Cub Scouts due to various conflicts and lack of girls in the Pack, but we always talked about her joining Scouts BSA. I also talked with an ASM and as a Troop we may start ignoring the 72 hour rule. (We already require YPT). We may require any adult who wants to spend the night with the Troop to register as an adult leader. Finally we started having 1 scout per tent during COVID. That may continue.

Looks like the TCC removed themselves from the claims aggregator discovery. I found that a bit interesting. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/614bb955-d899-44d5-a2f7-3f995b92f932_6589.pdf

Looks like a great trip!

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 school. So why continue? Risk management is not eliminating all risks. It is mitigating them while still ensuring the program/process/product can continue. My son downhill skis. Yes, he can die. He could get seriously injured. He wears safety equipment and skis within his ability ... but there is still the risk. The ski club makes me sign a wavier to tell me of the risks. My son mountain bikes. Yes, he can die. He could get seriously injured. Once again, there are mitigations & waivers. At scouting ... yes, there will and should be an outdoor program. There should be mitigations in place to protect him. However, there will still be some remaining risks. Perhaps there should be more transparency over some of those risks for parents and perhaps more mitigations ... but there must still be an outdoor program. Otherwise, I see no need for scouting.

Thank you for contributing and sharing this info! I really think having external CSA experts with experienced scouters working on change is a great approach. There are aspects of the program that are critical. External experts may not realize that so hopefully they can help provide solutions within the framework of the program. I could imagine that is a tough balance at times.

Um ... really. You laid off your Director of Youth Protection while in bankruptcy due to issues with youth protection? Um ... ok. I am just laughing right now .... I just. I hope there is more to the story.

https://www.umc.org/en/content/umc-leaders-share-important-information-for-churches-sponsoring-scout-troops

The many speakers did talk about other organizations. However, they emphasized that BSA is a higher risk organization for youth because you have men taking young boys for extended overnight outings. They also said that older youth (15-17) is the age when pedophilia begins. BSA should be screening older youth more for those risk factors. They also said boys are taught to be tough and many times boys translate that to being silent. Finally, the pedophiles are known to utilize religious aspects of organizations to harm children. So, the BSA is a mix of these that makes them much more risky than most youth serving organizations and why they need to do more than other youth organizations. They also compared BSA to what the Olympic committee is doing. One expert said in 2010 he was excited as BSA was one of the 1st to hire an outside expert. Now BSA is going backwards and the Olympic committees are doing a much better job (BSA should copy some of their actions). So, I think you are correct there are societal aspects of this, but BSA is now falling behind and it needs to be way out in front given its risk factors.

@ThenNow ... could use your magic https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-boy-scouts-head-of-abuse-prevention-says-group-is-still-unsafe-for-kids-11634066497

What MJ said was that the BSA told him that he could not talk about the BSA to anyone unless it was required under a subpoena. He said no one would ever tell him when & where to speak ... which is why he didn't sign the NDA nor the other agreements.

Interesting ... he defends the IVF. He said there is a really good argument about having these files and using them to protect kids. However, there are some issues and there should be disclosure & more done. He said that many volunteers & professionals pushed him for changes. He came out due to the upcoming disclosure & the fact he didn't sign a NDA. Said he is fed-up with the organization on what he is allowed to say. He said he didn't spend 40 years of his life to protect kids to have anyone tell him what he can and cannot say. He called Jeff Anderson as he is not afraid of the BSA.

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 expert. This was a major unforced error. This ignores everything else and assumes firing MJ was the correct move. This was under Mosby and he should be dismissed due that move regardless of anything else. There may be more reasons, but I feel that is enough.

This is devastating ... Mosby should be walked out today. It is not just MJ ... there are others coming out right now. Edit: To be fair, I was never a Mosby fan and thought he was a poor Chief Scout, so I would have walked him out a year ago ... so that may influence my opinion.

America needs the ideal of scouts BSA & every kid should participate in scouting. If you know me, it is not about ending scouting. We need oversight that is independent to make scouting safer. He mentioned scouters ... you know me, I want scouting to continue, it just is not safe right now.

Interesting ... he has others that worked for BSA with him.... so he is not alone. That would be tough when there are multiple people who worked for BSA reforms. ALSO WOW, BSA withheld findings from him while he was in his role. If that is true ... that could be criminal.

My issue ... who did they backfill him with? Who is the director of youth protection that took over? I can't find one.

I don't think every argument has to go full tilt. If the expectation is 0 abuse, then end 100% of all youth organizations. That is likely the only way 0 abuse will be achieved. So, clearly, any time there is a youth serving organization, there is risk of abuse. The key is to understand what mitigations can be executed while still preserving the goals of the organization. I think the questions are valid. How & when did the abuse occur. What other mitigations could have been in place to prevent that abuse? Lack of training, better screening of volunteers, tenting policies, etc. I think there could be other answers outside ending Scouts BSA. That said, I was surprised to hear over 50% of the abuse was caused by other youth. I expect we could make changes to reduce the risk. We would need to know more details to really understand mitigations. I tend to agree that splitting Scouts BSA into two separate age groups could help; however, it could still be worked around (dual meetings) and also negatively impacts scouts. So, I would look for other mitigations first.

That’s a win….

I think Scout BSA is much more dangerous than Cub Scouts. Much of the abuse occurs between the ages of 11 and 14 (during Scouts BSA). Also, parents are not present. I could see BSA saying anyone staying overnight with a Scouts BSA unit must be a registered leader. I expect that could be managed.

Yep ... she is a member of the Zero Abuse Project (MJ is now a board member there).