CynicalScouter

Many/most counties go 3 tier and make the third tier go past 21. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. No one is talking about reporting data about scouts saying the word "sex" in a tent. That's a straw man that is getting conjured up. There is a GIANT difference between what I (and the TCC and BSA) are calling Tier 1 sexual abuse involving acts that I cannot even DESCRIBE here and scouts saying the word sex in a tent. You want me to get graphic? I can stop saying "Tier 1" and we can start to get into specifics. The mods have asked me not to, but since you all seem to want to use that to make it seem like that all that is being talked about is "scouts saying the word "Sex" in a tent" maybe that rule needs to get reviewed.

No, no it isn't. It isn't even close to being in the "final phases". Again, not even close to reality.

And guess what? That would probably be determined by BSA to be unsubstantiated or otherwise dismissed. Of course, we'll never know because BSA refuses to release the data. But that's OK, the court is going to order them to do so in the future. Or are you still of the opinion we need to get rid of civil litigation/deny sexual abuse victims of their day in court in order to convince BSA it should report this data?

Proven, according to whom? What outside researcher has EVER done a review of it to see if it really works? BSA has refused any such review and , per Johnson, even stopped internal reviews. This is what I cannot wait for in terms of the TCC plan. An outside, external evaluation of the BSA YPT plan. I suspect what is going to be found out is that the BSA YPT system isn't all that great but BSA has convinced itself and others it is based on wishful thinking.

Which BSA has done literally everything in its power to keep away from inspection and review by anyone not within BSA and, according to Johnson, even within BSA. That's consistent with what happened when BSA withheld the data on the prevalence of sexual abuse form Meringer when he did his report/study on the subject. You cannot have it both ways where: a) BSA is allowed to hide the data and then claim b) that because there is no data that proves there is no problem. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

It is part and parcel of BSA: they have convinced themselves they are absolute perfect. I can recall BSA in testimony/letter submitted to Congress when there were demands that ALL volunteers be subject to Criminal Background Checks (CBCs) that BSA was sure this wasn't needed, would cost too much, and the existing BSA YPT was fine. Several dozen instances of abuse later, CBCs were put in place.

BSA does, but the argument is that they are cursory and useless. 1) BSA does run a Criminal Background Check (CBC) when an application is submitted. 2) Chartered Organizations are SUPPOSED to be talking to, interviewing, and getting to know the people they are signing off on. The Adult Application even says How many actually do? Close to zero. My COR wouldn't know any of my ASMs to look at. And the references checks from the adult applications? In my council those get farmed out to volunteers. So we have untrained volunteers running reference checks and are shocked, SHOCKED to find abusers still make it in?

Which is why the Catholic Church, for example, reports two numbers annually: Total allegations (anyone can claim or file anything) and Status: Unable to be proven, Substantiated, Investigation ongoing, Other (e.g. referred to provincial, unknown), Unsubstantiated https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/2019-Annual-Report-Final.pdf So both numbers are "real" and "real" important to know.

I've been able to track down annual charter agreements from the 1920s and 1950s just via google. I'm sure a circa 1970 charter agreement is sitting on some shelf in BSA HQ or in some filing cabinet somewhere.

By the by, if you want to see just how much in the tank some of the folks in BSA are, checkout the r/BSA subreddit post about the Johnson press conference. The mods over there are all former or current BSA staff and one in particular is just trashing Johnson. The other posters are doing the same implying Johnson lied, he's doing it for money (?), this is all a plot by Anderson/the lawyers, the BSA YP program is just perfection, etc. You want to know why nothing changes? Because you have professionals (and many volunteers) convinced BSA is perfect as is and maybe should even revert BACK to the "good old days".

Next three key dates in the bankruptcy: TCC townhall on October 14. End of Exclusivity on October 18 (and what I would imagine would be the TCC filing its plan THAT DAY or the next) Next Omnibus hearing on October 19. No agenda so far, but I suspect there will be some activity regarding discovery requests and such

For those bemoaning or wailing about poor, poor BSA getting picked on by those bad old lawyers, keep the following in mind. BUT FOR the Oregon case, which included an order by the Oregon Supreme Court directing BSA to release some of the IV Files, BSA would STILL be in denial mode, STILL be operating the same way it always had, etc. It was lawsuits like Oregon and the ones that came before in the 1980s that FORCED the BSA (I'm sure with poking/prodding/shoving from the insurance carriers) to create YP in the first place. In sum, civil litigation and the threat of civil litigation is the ONLY thing that has prompted BSA to move on this subject in the last 3 decades.

The fact is, BSA has a history spanning decades of not telling anyone anything. And that means the LCs have even less information to then send to volunteers. Add to this that the BSA and LCs are parties to the case and therefore restricted in terms of what they can and cannot say about the case. Etc. I still think it mindboggling that BSA is the only not for profit I can think of that does NOT a) have a staff directory b) have a listing of its board members or c) both on its website. So, you wouldn't even know who to ask if you had questions.

Kosnoff has a message for me. It is all good: this is all material in the public domain and it isn't about attribution. I just really find it insightful of all the material we post here (and it is a lot) what gets his interest the most/is most notable. I know we produce a LOT of material but the question is whether it is relevant. I'm glad to see it is.

Depends on the state. Remember: some states have as much as "fourth degree murder", whereas another state would call that "involuntary manslaughter". The language matters from state to state.