MikeS72

Not sure what phylum, genus or species to put some into.

If I read the information at one of the Mic-O-Say links correctly, they and the KC Chiefs are not just in the same area, but owe their name and history to the same person.

My comment was in direct response the the idea that Boys & Girls Clubs require and interview with professional staff. I am sure that my district could establish a committee to do this with volunteers, as could many others. That was not what @Eagle1993 stated in his Boys & Girls Clubs post.

Considering that we usually only have one professional staff person (DE) per district, it kind of falls to the CO (or unit) to do this. I am sure that while some CO's and units take this seriously, many just sign the adult app and depend on it not getting kicked back during the background check. Again, with that one DE in most instances, it is nearly impossible to meet with all volunteer on a monthly basis. We do see our DE at most of our Roundtables, but since attendance at Roundtable is not mandatory, there are, as you state, many volunteers who have never met a professional. I really wish that there was a way to mandate all direct contact volunteer attend a minimum number of Roundtables during the year, at least one of which would be dedicated solely to YPT and how to implement it correctly. I would support adding a social media disclosure form to the application process. Just like those people who say 'I changed my mind' about registering after being given the CBC form to sign, anyone who objects to someone seeing what they post on social media has a reason for doing so. I know that toward the end of my 4 decade career in education, we looked at social media before even interviewing applicants. In Scouting, I have occasionally come across the social media accounts of some of our parents, and have been more than a little disturbed by some of what I saw.

Not sure what state you live in, but here our local schools require bullying training for all staff and students. As a part of that training, there are several things that must be present for behavior to be classified as bullying. 1. The behavior must be unwanted or unwelcome. 2. There must be a real or perceived imbalance of power. 3. The behavior either is, or has the potential to be, repeated over time. On that 3rd point, the repeated behaviors do not have to be leveled at the same student every time it occurs. For example, if we have an older student who makes it a habit to knock the books out of a much younger student's hands, it does not matter whether they do it to the same student 20 times or to 20 different students. The behavior is still repeated. I worked in education in multiple states for 45 years, and never worked in a school that did not have objective standards for defining and dealing with bullying behavior.

Yes, as soon as it was available. I posted somewhere earlier that before we condemn the D, E, & I training or the MB (whatever it ends up being called) we should spend a few minutes to do the training. I saw absolutely nothing in that presentation that I found objectionable.

Central Florida Council

Not in my council. When the council program fee was instituted a couple of years ago, it meant an end to fees for district events such as Cub Family Camp, District Shooting Sports days, District Camporee, BALOO/IOLS training, etc. Council also lowered the costs for much of the Council level adult training.

Directly from the Barriers to Abuse FAQ: There are careers that may require one-on-one contact with youth, however aside from those roles, volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities.

So how did at least 2 abusers get into my troop? - Did either have family in your troop? Were either former youth members of the troop? Not knowing the time frame, could also have been due to not having the background check system now in place; or could also have been due to having no prior record to show in a background check. Could also have been a case of a CoR just signing off on them without checking references. (although they would have to have been exceptionally stupid to list someone as a reference who would have incriminating information on them) How was one of them able to go to another state and allowed to apply and only when his name found was his application denied? Was the abuse reported to law enforcement? If he was able to go to another state and try to register there, probably not. If not brought to law enforcement there would have been nothing to prevent him from trying to register elsewhere, although his application being denied at least shows being in the IVF helped prevent him from hurting someone else. I know that there were times when parents did not want law enforcement involved, due the the stigma that would be associated if the abuse were made public. (while child sex abuse victims should never be made public, I now of at least one instance where name was published; I cannot remember the exact age, but I believe he was 15/16, and the abuser was a school teacher) Sometimes law enforcement got involved and the District Attorney, for whatever reason, did not bring charges. That should not be blamed on BSA, but on the DA. I am sure that there were also cases where a troop., district or council allowed people to walk away with no other repercussions. That should never have been allowed to happen.

Not to be argumentative, but it is hard to say "The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period." While also saying "Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files". The IVF may not have been the best system in the world, but it was an attempt to keep people out of the program. Fifty years ago we could not do the kind of background checks we can now. While I am sure that there were people who found a way around being in the IVF, there was no fool proof method back then of insuring it would never happen. I will not try to say that things were always done right, I know they were not. But I do know that people were removed from Scouting, and when possible charged and jailed. I have first hand knowledge of a case where the adult was removed from the program, but not charged; and also of another where the adult was both removed and sent to prison.

The adult application currently has a box asking for "signature of chartered organization head or representative".

Not sure if this is someone who has not bothered to fully educate themselves on where things truly stand with the bankruptcy court; or as the last two sections imply, they are giving the impression that people in NJ can still file claims and join in the proceeding - particularly with the solicitation in the last paragraph not making it clear if they are referring to general claims or claims against BSA.

https://www.froggtoggs.com/xtreme-lite-jacket?quantity=1&custcol_item_color=17 Very light, comfortable, breathable.

I recall seeing this information a while back. At that time, part of the notice stated that while a Scout (or adult) could still earn the award the pin and certificates were limited in supply, and once your local Scout Shop sold out of them they would not be able to restock them.

Some interesting things brought up in the FAQ's. As a long time Arrowman (in excess of 50 years) I have seen a lot of things change over that time, some for the better, some not so much. Change is a part of life. Hopefully what ever comes out of Project Magellan will only serve to strengthen the OA and reinforce the positive impact it has on BSA.

Are you currently active and able to look at the new training course on my.scouting? If so, I would hope that doing so would mitigate any concerns you or others may have about the BSA approach to this subject. One of the examples used when discussing equity is that of how we can provide additional resources and support to a Scout who may be confined to a wheelchair, in order to allow them some of the same opportunites as their fellow Scouts. While that Scout may will not be able to do everything that his/her fellow Scouts can do, we should, whenever possible, give them the chance to do what is possible for them to do, and to have the same sense of accomplishment and belonging as every other Scout. As to the masking example, the only thing masks and vaccines have to do with equity is in making an extra effort to provide access to vaccines to anyone who wants them. Providing equitable access to a vaccine has nothing to do with choosing to take or not take said vaccine.

While I have not seen anything specific about a Citizenship in Society MB, or the original proposed requirements for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, I know there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the topic. Much of the discussion has been visceral rather than logical, and dependent on emotion rather than fact. I just completed the newly released Diversity, Equity and Inclusion adult training on my.scouting.org, and fail to see anything that I would consider controversial or contrary to the way any Scout or Scouter should already be conducting themselves. I would strongly urge anyone here who is currently active at any level to go into their my.scouting.org account and take this short course. (I love the fact that they set this up so that those of us who read much faster than the narration can do so without having to listen to said narration - only had a couple of short video segments that had to be watched, and was able to move through the rest of the session fairly quickly)

Examples of grooming behavior have been a part of YPT for at least the past 2 1/2 years or more.

I read the entire article. It does have a link to an article in the New York Daily News, from December of 2019. It appears that he started out as one of Kosnoff's early cases, however, a footnote at the end of the article said he is now represented by a different firm; one that pretty much everyone in FL is familiar with - won't say anything else about that particular law firm. Based on that 2019 article, this took place in New Jersey, sometime in the early to mid 1970's. I fully support the many people who have posted here who are a part of the bankruptcy case, and know that for many of those were abused, either sexually, or as appears to be the case here, physically, no one was ever told what happened. I understand that, and am not indicating that not speaking out at the time of the abuse has anything to do with whether the case is valid. As Skeptic stated however; I am incredulous that someone was forced to strip, rolled up in a carpet, and locked in a closet for an entire weekend, and no one was aware it happened (or that he did not, thank God, suffocate). I also wonder how his troop could have burned his clothing at summer camp without anyone finding out, if not during the week, certainly when he came home unclothed. Did his parents not notice the lack of clothing they sent him to camp in? Was there not at least one member of his troop that was troubled by seeing this happen, who would have reported it to someone, or talked about to someone else, even if bragging? Looking at the things he is asking for in the article: 1. The morally straight action now would be for the BSA to stand up, admit their wrongdoing, and set up a fair compensation fund for survivors. - That is what all of the negotiations and mediation will hopefully lead to 2. We need required, thourough and ongoing background checks for all adults supervising children in any capacity. - BSA does, and has for quite a while, required background checks of all registered leaders. A couple of years ago we had to sign an updated background check authorization form, which gives BSA the ability to run regular background checks on registered leaders, not just the initial check. 3. Abuse investigations must be handled by outside authorities, and we need broader and more strictly enforced mandatory reporting laws. All BSA leaders and professionals are mandatory reporters. As we saw with the camera case discussed in the past few days, mandatory reporting resulted in an arrest and very aggressive bail for the perpetrator. 4. The BSA owes children and their families meaningful reforms to increase transparency and accountability for individuals who commit unspeakable acts. Agree fully here. As I stated in an earlier post, I support efforts to have a public accounting of any case going forward. 5. People who bully, whether they do so sexually or otherwise, should be immediately removed, charged, and blacklisted from the BSA and any position that puts them in close proximity to children – there should be no second chances for anyone. Bullying behavior is already a YPT violation on it's own, and when reported can result in the individuals being banned from Scouting. Bullying such as what he describes in the article should also result in at least charges of child endangerment. 6. The Boy Scouts should also fund third-party counseling of children abused within their organization. - This has been discussed here on many occasions. BSA has offered to pay for counseling for any victim, at the therapist of their choice. This has been available for a while now, and based on what we were told more than a year ago, has been done to the tune of millions. 7. While no amount of money can make me or any other survivor “whole,” a meager payout that lets the Boy Scouts walk away will be a devastating blow. True justice in this case is impossible, but bankruptcy is the coward’s way out. The BSA has the funds to pay victims fairly, and they should. - As was also stated in an earlier post, I am not sure what result would be acceptable to him. Knowing the firm that currently represents him however, I would not be surprised if he was not initially made to think that there would be vastly more money coming to him than would be available even with the total liquidation of all BSA assets, both at the national and local levels. 8. The BSA has tried to silence me since I was 10 years old, and I won’t stay quiet anymore. - Not saying here that he is at fault at all for not speaking out almost 50 years ago, however, I do not see how BSA could have tried to silence him since he was 10 years old over something they were not aware happened... I know that bad things happened to a lot of boys, and that for many, reliving that now is traumatic. I hope that whatever the final outcome of the bankruptcy, that all survivors get some measure of compensation, and some measure of relief from what I know has been years of suffering.

I think we are in agreement that "done and gone so let's move on" is the wrong way to deal with this issue, and all others like it. My point was simply that in this specific case, part 2 of the process you described has worked so far, in that he was caught, arrested, charged, and with the court setting a $500,00 cash only bail, will be incarcerated for a deservedly long, long, long time. Now comes the 'how did this happen, and were there any warning signs that were not heeded / were there any YPT policies that were ignored by either his troop, local council, or the camp'; and if so, how do we reinforce them so that it makes a repeat there or anywhere else less likely.

My first impression would be that his capturing the 3 boys ingaged in some kind of sexual activity may have just been coincidental. The camp website stated that they serve in excess of 6,000 Scouts every summer. Hard to believe that out of that many Scouts, nothing inappropriate would happen between a few of them. If, however, he did have something to do with them being in the shower room together, I would hope that would be a factor in as harsh a sentence as possible. As for assessments, I would think that would be primarily the responsibiltiy of the local Council, although I would love to see a task force on either the National or Territory level that could come in and look at things with an outsider point of view. Ideally, that would be made up of outside experts in the field, rather than BSA personnel. I am not sure if we would ever get as detailed an assessment of the effects as you mention, but as a long time Scouter I would applaud any Council who had the intestinal fortitude to release than information.

I would agree with you that there should be (and in this climate, likely are) three componnents in play here. I am not sure we will be privy to the results of the Council's investigation, which is why I support the idea brought up here several times, by several people, of a public reporting system any time there is an incident, not just of abuse, but any serious safety violations. Those reports could go a long way toward helping other Councils in preventing similar incidents from happening. Short of either posting round the clock guards at all shower facilities, or requiring the 'buddy system' not only for Scouts but also for adults, I do not see how this particular incident could have been prevented, as even with a buddy system for adults it would have been as simple as waiting until the middle of the night to leave the campsite and set up cameras. I looked at the leader gude for this camp, and based on that I saw 3 shower facilites; one for Scouts, one for adults, and one dual use. No pictures that I could find of those shower houses, but if they are anything like every other camp I have been to in recent years, they probably have individual rooms with locking doors. If that is the case, I do not see how anyone would have known what he was doing when installing cameras. My questions as far as a potential YPT failure would be two fold. One, was he registered; and two, were there any indications at all, even if just inuendo, that he might be likely to offend. As to many of your questions in paragraph two, it seems to be very early in the investigation right now, but hopefully all of those questions will be answered. From the articles I have read, I do not see anything indicating that anyone else was involved, however, we would have to wait and see if that is true. As for "Not, “Whew! We caught him. Thank God that’s over.”; this is the main reason that I read every post in this thread, but rarely respond to any of them. It is too easy to misinterpret things in an online forum. My feelings on this would be more "We caught him, I hope he is convicted (kind of hard not to be with him appearing on video) and is given the maximum possible sentence." Now let's see what needs to be changed to reduce the chance of something similar occuring again.

It was briefly brought up in the Q & A at a Cub recruiting night the first year we enrolled girls in the Cub Scout program. The most honest answer we could give was that we take the safety and well being of every Scout, male or female, very seriously. We always do everything in our power to ensure that nothing like this will happen, but the best way for that parent to help us do that would be to register and participate along with his daughter. As to this particular incident, I saw the news reports several days ago. While I was disheartened to see it happened, I was pleased to see that as soon as it was discovered it was reported to authorities, and the perpetrator was arrested. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, zero incidents is a laudable goal, but probably not realistic. There is however, a difference between zero incidents and zero tolerance. In this case it appears the system worked the way it should have. Something happened, and as soon as discovered was reported, resulting in an arrest.

While I will agree that keeping up with the GTSS may not be the easiest thing to do, but no Scout or Scouter should ever find it "hard to tell right from wrong."