Eagle1993

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).

They include the following questions. Looking through the CDC guidelines, I do have to agree our vetting is pretty poor. What type of supervisory situation do you prefer? If applicants are very independent, they may not fit in an organization whose policies and procedures require close supervision. What age/sex of youth do you want to work with? How would you feel about working with a different age/sex? If an applicant seems fixated on one age/sex, be wary. However, it may be that the applicant has experience or is gifted with working with certain age groups. Asking follow-up questions about why an applicant has a strong preference can help you determine if there is cause for concern. Is there anyone who might suggest that you should not work with youth? Why or why not? Why do you want the job? What would you do in a particular situation? Set up scenarios that involve potential concerns, boundary issues, or youth protection policies and interactions to gauge the applicant’s response. Be concerned if applicants disregard the organization’s policies and procedures or handle a situation poorly. • What makes you a good candidate for working with youth? What would your friends or colleagues say about how you interact with youth? What other hobbies or activities do you enjoy? Determine if applicants have mature, adult relationships—not just relationships with youth.

MJ referenced this document: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf Screening and Selecting Employees and Volunteers Who should be screened? Screen all applicants, both adults and adolescents, for all positions that will have contact with youth. • Consider more in-depth written applications and personal interviews for adolescents, for whom work history and criminal background checks may be unavailable. • Rigorously screen applicants who will have more autonomy as employees or volunteers. • Do not make exceptions for people you know or have worked with in the past Written application The written application provides the information you need to assess the background and interests of applicants. Questions should help you determine whether applicants have mature, adult relationships as well as clear boundaries and ethical standards for their conduct with youth. The sidebar on page 6 may help you develop appropriate questions. • Ask about previous work and volunteer experiences. • Ask questions pertinent to child sexual abuse screening. • Provide a permission form for contacting personal references and performing a criminal background check. The permission statement should include an indemnification clause developed by an attorney to protect your organization from false allegations or other legal issues. • Ask open-ended questions that encourage broad answers. These will provide material for follow-up in the personal interview and throughout the screening and selection process. • Use disclosure statements to ask applicants about previous criminal histories of sexual offenses, violence against youth, and other criminal offenses. The applicant may not disclose past offenses, but the inquiry will demonstrate your organization’s seriousness about protecting youth and potentially discourage applicants at risk for perpetrating child sexual abuse. • Clarify that you are interested in learning about an applicant’s past perpetration of child sexual abuse rather than a history of victimization. Personal interview The personal interview provides an opportunity to meet applicants, determine if they are a good fit for your organization, and ask additional questions to screen for child sexual abuse risk factors. The sidebar on page 6 may help you develop interview questions. • Ask open-ended questions that encourage discussion. • Clarify and expand upon the applicant’s answers to questions from the written application.

That is how our GSUSA Troops do it. There is 0% chance I can be near the kids without registering.

I'm not sure there is a smoking gun, but he does bring up valid concerns. Overall, the only "inside baseball" that could turn out bad for the BSA: - 72 hour rule .. if BSA didn't follow their Youth Protection expert, why? It would be good to see their internal discussions. My guess is upsetting volunteers which probably won't look good. - Known offenders having access to kids ... really bad if true. Really, really bad. - 50% of abuse is from other youth ... that has started to be an increased focus, but I don't know if BSA ever made this public. Also, some scouting orgs do not have 11 year olds in the same program as 17 year olds. We have discussed this and I wonder if BSA had internal meetings. Overall, he raises some legitimate concerns, many of which have been discussed here. I'm not convinced this shows a lack of institutional control. I think it does show BSA struggling to adjust their program to the expectations of safety today.

Michael Johnson is new board member of the zero abuse project. Announced Friday last week. https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/zero-abuse-project-appoints-three-new-board-members/ Michael Johnson (Detective Mike) is an internationally recognized expert on all aspects of child abuse and exploitation and specializes in abuse investigation, detection, and prevention efforts for organizations serving youth. An early pioneer and visionary in the field, Johnson was at the forefront of promoting the multidisciplinary team investigative approach and the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) movement in the early 1990s. In 2019, the American Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) at the 26th APSAC Colloquium, recognized Detective Michael Johnson as “one of the most influential pioneers in the investigation of suspected child maltreatment.”

Perhaps the report later today will be a nothing burger. Perhaps BSA YP is strong. I'm not ready to buy into the report until I hear it along with the evidence. If MJ is correct, then BSA's response won't matter as I expect the organization will fade away. It is actually more important they act if they believe there are no issues. This will be a PR crisis and risk the settlement that was already at high risk. The BSA board needs to take immediate action. As ThenNow stated, the truth will eventually come out; however, you also need to deal with the immediate damage. This isn't a random lawyer, this is BSA's youth protection director coming out claiming Scouts BSA is not safe .... that demands immediate action by the board.

Just read this again: Disclose details on former detective refusing to sign NDA, non-disparagement agreement - MJ is a former detective, so this must be him providing details on how he did not sign a NDA, non-disparagement agreement. These are typical as part of layoffs and are tied to severance packages. I'm 99.9% sure it will be MJ later today.

I hope BSA’s board is ready to meet today to discuss: - Validity of MJ’s claims and what action to immediately take in terms of BSA leadership - Hiring crisis PR firm … as regardless of the validity they will need to respond today - Hiring an external agency to investigate the claims To me, those are the three immediate actions and it must come from the board not the current leadership.

Obviously we will need to let this play out. I've seen much, much lower level individuals come out with claims after being laid off including calling regulatory agencies. Most of the time that was just false acquisitions (or misleading statements) made by an upset individual. Clearly other times they are completely legitimate. We will have to wait and see. 1) We don't know for sure who this is and the timeframe it is based on. 2) We don't know what evidence the individual has and if it is opinion based or evidence based (or some combo) 3) If it is someone that recently left BSA ... why did they leave? If they were responsible for youth protection and it was failing under their watch, why not come out earlier? I have a ton of questions. No matter what, this isn't good for the BSA. How bad it ends up will really depend on the details that start coming out tomorrow.

Agreed. BSA would have to be pretty stupid to fire their youth protection director in the middle of a CSA bankruptcy without a ton of cause. I’m not saying he was fired, but if they did I would think they have some good reasons.

I wonder how he became former. Was he fired or did he resign. MJ’s LinkedIn profile shows him as the current youth protection director. So, I’m not 100% sure it is him. http://linkedin.com/in/michael-johnson-a1a9a737

Split here: