CynicalScouter

We'll never know because a) BSA fought tooth and claw to keep outside experts OUT and b) only agreed in the RSA plan (remember that) to have an outsider that IT SELECTED ("External Evaluator") and then only allowed that that person could "suggest" and "recommend" changes. BSA has demonstrated it clearly cannot be trusted in this particular area. I will note that in the last TCC townhall it was brought up that the TCC plan (which should be filed with the court literally any day now) will include much stronger language including, I suspect, that the BSA does NOT get to cherry pick its expert, that that outsider will have more power than just "Suggest" and "recommend" and that the outsiders report and other material will be made public (which is what USA Gymnastics does and the Catholic Church does as well annually). After all this time, after all this mess, do you really think BSA is going to change voluntarily? Unless it is ordered to by a court-ordered external person?

Like I said: there are people for whom "Keep the campfires AT ALL COSTS" is an acceptable stance. Not for me. If child sexual abuse is running as rampant as it has been and is? You just keep doing what you are doing and keep dumping on people like Johnson who "don't get scouting"

Worse, that means it got merged or dropped. IF (and this is a giant if so brace yourself) IF BSA was strapped for cash, offered him a buy out and THEN hired someone cheaper? Ok, maybe. Maybe I can see that. But just an outright force reduction? I mean, I can't. I just can't.

If those elements were leading to children being sexually assaulted? Nope. They had no business being retained.

Oh, and he wasn't fired. It was layoffs due to budget cuts. Let that sink in a second. So, to be clear, that REALLY does seem to indicate he NEVER got replaced as YP director.

BSA's response

And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest blind spot for scouters and scouting. "He doesn't really understand Scouting, therefore..." Let me tell you this. The people who really DID "understand Scouting" got the organization into this mess because they were MORE focused on Scouting and its reputation and brand and LESS about the safety of scouts. I WANT an outsider. I agree with Johnson: this cronyism of scouters and insiders leading the parade drove BSA into a ditch. There needs to be OUTSIDERS or else you are just going to get the BSA groupthink of "we are great, we are perfect, we cannot be improved".

Exactly. Outside experts. BSA cannot be trusted to police itself.

Ah, ok, yes, then I misheard a bit. Thank you.

Which indicates BSA tried to hit him with a directive NOT to cooperate with discovery requests. Ha-ha. That backfired.

AP starting to run the story, expect it in the next hour on the wires https://newsadvance.com/news/state/wire/greater-mid-atlantic-news-digest-1-30-p-m/article_38b3353b-4dcd-5c7f-8290-4f0aa8e3c502.html

Yep. @skepticsimply wants to divert and deflect from BSA's responsibilities here and blame society.

Great, so it isn't BSA's fault it refuses to exercise sufficient oversight. They are a victim of society! Please.

No one is asking for Utopia, so drop it. We are asking BSA to take YP seriously, which Johnson confirmed: they are not.

Not Mosby or at least not Mosby alone. Mosby inherited this in January 2019. This was decades in the making. If you want to make the case for "keep Mosby because he had no idea", I can understand that. May not agree, but I can understand it. But there are board members who have been there the entire time. Executives the entire time. They need to go. THEN if you want Mosby out the door, too. Fine. Also, they are alluding to a YP director "is there" but that he has "no experience". So SOMEONE is there, but do we have a name? Anything? Nope.

Kosnoff's not going to let it go, either. And we know reporters take his calls.

That's what I've asked for over and over and over and been on this forum told by many no, can't be done, shouldn't be done, no one from outside BSA should get involved, etc. Welp. how much more do folks here need before they realize BSA is NOT going to reform from within? "Scouting is not safe" was repeated at least 3 times (4?)

Yep. Time to see some criminal investigations of BSA as an organization, not just individual abusers.

"Many of these reports were kept secret from me." Wow.

The question is: will media pick this up or not and how much? This could be the lead story on CNN, and BSA's toast.

Yep. And I even pointed this out last week. There was no announcement. No indication. Nothing.

Comment: "They [BSA] pushed him [Johnson] out." Yep. He was fired/terminated. And that will be what BSA will run with: disgruntled former employee.

Right, think about what he is saying: "BSA should only have to report data on sexual abuse of children if it gets civil immunity." That's insane. Without the threat of civil litigation, BSA would still be doing what it had been doing: hide, obfuscate, deflect. And just as a reminder to @qwazse: if it has NOT been for civil litigation (and in particular the case in Oregon), BSA would NEVER have been forced to admit to the IV files, much less released parts of them UNDER COURT ORDER so we could have even the hint of what was going on with BSA and child sexual abuse. Civil litigation is the only thing that will get BSA to cooperate UNLESS we start to see criminal charges against BSA officers (Mosby in cuffs?) of the organization as a whole (and yes, corporate entities can be indicted for things like criminal conspiracy to hide child sexual abuse)

Thanks . Next time I need an example of a slippery slope fallacy, I've got a fresh example. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html There is nothing even CLOSE to a) a voluntary organization and how it opts to voluntarily organize itself and b) government taking kids away from parents. But thanks, again, for this. As for the rest. No, you mandate reporting or you start shutting down programs. Period. "Oh, might be sued." Too darn bad. The Catholic Church managed to do it. The USA Gymnastics manages to do it. Why not BSA? Because it doesn't want to. Hide, hide, hide. And removing the threat of litigation means that children who have been sexually abused are denied recourse in civil courts and limited to criminal-only. So, you want to deny sexual abuse victims their day in court? That's what "we have to remove the threat of litigation." means. It means child sex victims get no access to civil court. That might be what you want. It sure isn't what I want. And how on EARTH is that fair? "Sorry child, you can be sexually abused, but if you try to sue to cover your pain and suffering, too darn bad."