BSA Secret "Perversion" Files

[GernBlansten]

Its pretty clear that these files are pertinent to the case. They could demonstrate whether or not the BSA used appropriate measures to protect him. If they did, the files will exonerate the BSA. If they show otherwise, the BSA may be liable for damages to this young man's life.

 

The plaintiff requested the files in a lower court during discovery and were refused. It had to be escalated to the supreme court to finally get BSA to release them. The fact that the BSA fought so hard to not release the files to the plaintiff indicate to me that they will not exonerate them, and in fact will implicate them. But that is pure speculation on my part.

 

Don't lose focus on the real tragedy in this case, a young boy was sexually abused by a volunteer in our organization and it ruined his life. Doesn't that boy deserve justice?

[sherminator505]

UNLESS these documents show that the BSA knew about the leader in question AND did nothing to keep that leader out of Scouting, then these files, as voluminous they may be, are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the case at hand, and the BSA has NO OBLIGATION to release them. Under those circumstances, these files would have absolutely no bearing on this kid's quest for justice.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

sherminator505, if the plaintiff's lawyers are not allowed to even see the files, the BSA ends up deciding everything, leading to the unlikely situation where the files would only be released if the BSA's own lawyers said something like "Yes, these files are incredibly damaging to my client, which is why they must be released to the people suing us immediately" and not "Oh no, nothing relevant here, sorry, you can't have them."

[GernBlansten]

Not necessarily Sherm.

For the sake of argument, lets assume there is nothing about the perp in these files. But, the files reference other cases where the BSA was aware of an abuser and didn't do the right thing. That would be material in the plaintiff's case because it would demonstrate that they didn't take appropriate controls and the plaintiffs case is strengthened.

 

But lets assume that neither is the case. That the perp wasn't tracked and there was nothing in those files that is material in this case. Why not release them to the plaintiff? Nobody but the plaintiff and his lawyers will see them.

[Mr. Boyce]

Here's what sticks in my mind:

 

(a) we consider these cases much more significant, much more criminal, than we did 30 years ago;

 

(b) kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: the BSA should try to keep perverts from joining and deny membership to perverts. . . but try to keep track of, say, a pervert who moves from Cleveland to Wyoming, and you're damned.

 

© it all shows how the computer connects information. There was much less connection between law enforcement entities in various jurisdictions back in the 50s, 60s, 70s. Because this new capability is so valuable, we now expect groups to have somehow also provided the same level of protection back BEFORE the coordination of information.

[BadenP]

The Catholic Church tried the same trick and look at the mess now. Just when the Vatican assured everyone it was all under control, now we have new cases in Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, and Germany involving conspiracy by the popes brother and the pope himself. The BSA could learn a lesson by looking at the mess the CAtholic Church is in today, no matter how hard you try to bury the truth eventually that truth will be made known. No wonder the VAtican has been pushing those "Catholics Come Home" ads so hard, maybe the BSA could try some "Boy Scouts Come Home" ads themselves to boost membership, but I rather doubt they would help them either.

 

"Know the truth and it will set you free."

[NancyB]

My disclaimer - I am an attorney and used to defend a fortune 100 company in harassment/discimination and other employment related matters.

 

BSA wouldn't want to turn over the files b/c it may show that they didn't do the follow up they should have. It's info about other people etc. The files are relevant for a plaintiff to show a pattern and practice of the BSA regarding abuse allegations. BSA claims that they have rules and that they follow them. So the plaintiff needs these files to show that BSA doesn't or didn't in the relevant time frame follow them.

 

Will the plaintiff be able to prove this? probably

 

Does the BSA fail to follow through with its own rules: YES!

 

AFter more than a year of making an initial complaint to both the local and Omaha councils, BSA still has not done an adequate investigation into my ex. He was placed on the child abuse registry the year after his background check was done. I have offered to BSA to interview the police, physician, therapist and anyone else they would like to interview so they can have full information and then make a decision. All I have ever wanted is for the BSA to do an investigation and then make whatever decision they feel is appropraite. My son is currently being harassed b/c the other scouts do not want his dad (a bsa leader) at the meetings. no one is protecting my son or the others. Neither my son nor the leaders who witnessed the events at BSA functions were ever asked by BSA officials for any information. At the very least, this is negligence. At the very worst, this is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Additionally, BSA has a two-deep leadership rule. My ex, who at the time was scoutmaster for jamboree, was living with his girlfriend who is the asst. scoutmaster. A employee of our local council was at the meeting when this was discussed and other parents and the scoutmaster expressed their concern about this clear violation of bsa rules. She did nothing. Several weeks later, I called our local office, they knew nothing about it. Promised to look into it. Several weeks later, called again, he didn't remember ever talking to me. Sorry BSA, lying to an attorney is a sure way of getting sued.

 

I have no ill will toward BSA in general - just our local councils. And I pray that if nothing else that this trial will be a wakeup call to BSA to start protecting the boys before the lawsuits put them into bankruptcy.

 

BSA needs to stop worrying about protecting its leaders and worry more about protecting the boys.

[Trevorum]

ummm... a "clear violation" of what BSA rules? I'm not aware of any rule saying a SM can't cohabit with an ASM of different gender. Am I missing something?

[Beavah]

Yah, NancyB, you're all over da place here.

 

There's no BSA rule about an ASM living with a SM. Happens quite a bit, if a scouter can find a wife who actually likes camping with smelly boys! And two deep is two deep, eh? There's no BSA rule that they can't be related, though it's a good practice IMHO.

 

Yeh also don't seem to understand the corporate or legal structure of the BSA. You are a member of one council. Your reference to two different councils ("local" and "Omaha") therefore doesn't make much sense. And a scoutmaster is a volunteer for a chartered organization, not for the council or the BSA.

 

So I'll return to what I posted in another thread, eh? Yeh need to find some professional counseling help. If yeh are an attorney, it's clear that you are so emotionally wrapped up in what's goin' on in your life and divorce that it's affecting your professional judgment. That means it's also affecting your ability to be a good mom, and your son needs you to be a good mom right now.

 

Monday morning, no putting it off. Professional counselor. First agenda item of the day. No excuses, if you care about your kid.

 

Beavah

 

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

In everything that I have been able to read about this case, there has been no proof offered that Cascade Pacific Council - BSA had received any information on self-confessed abuser Assistant Scoutmaster Timur Dykes.

 

Proof was offered that the LDS Bishop, Gordon McEwen, had received allegations about Dykes' abuse, confronted Dykes who admitted abusing 17 boys, investigated and could not find one of the boys willing to admit the abuse. Dykes was later arrested and pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse, received probation and was ordered to stay away from children. Knowing this, McEwen still allowed Dykes to be a Scout leader. The parents of the youth involved did not know about Dykes being ordered to stay away from children until called to a police station to pick up their boys. A police officer pulled over a van that Dykes was driving loaded with Scouts on a camping trip. The officer, realizing that Dykes was a sex offender and was not supposed to be around minors, arrested him and took the boys to the police station. What in the world was the bishop thinking?

 

Proof was also offered that the youth in question had at least twenty unsupervised sleepovers at Dykes' apartment, sometimes with other boys but alone on several occasions. Dykes had even been invited into the boy's home on at least one occasion, to look after the boy and his siblings. What in the world was this boy's parents thinking, to allow this man to be alone with their children?

 

How many of you have ever had one of your Scouts over for an unsupervised sleepover? None I hope!

 

What has this trial accomplished? All of those records that BSA had protected for so many years have been introduced into evidence and are now part of the public record, available for all to access. The Oregon Supreme Court should have allowed the plaintiff's attorney access to the files to determine whether or not Dykes was in the files and / or whether there was a pattern of abuse cover-up. The court should have only allowed those files pertinent to the case to be introduced to become part of the record. Unfortunately that wasn't done so hopefully the judge, at the conclusion of this case, will order that all files be returned to the BSA and that the court records be sealed to protect others from unwanted and unwarranted publicity.

 

What a mess!!! But again, I haven't seen any proof offered that BSA knew anything about the abuse. Gathering and disseminating information thirty years ago was nothing like it is today!

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

The media has had a field day with the BSA maintaining "Perversion Files".

 

Was that the official designation by BSA? Some former BSA folks on this forum had other names for the files but did not know them officially as the "Perversion Files". It appears from the following that these files were but a subset of the total.

 

From the Oregonian:

"Nate Marshall of the Boy Scouts of America told jurors that the files were meant to help the organization keep undesirables out. He spoke specifically of files kept from 1965 to 1985, but acknowledged that the Scouts continue to gather such information.

 

The information, Marshall said, helps maintain the Scouts' positive image and has helped make it "one of the safest organizations a young person can be involved in."

 

Marshall explained that the Boy Scouts of America sorts volunteers deemed unfit into six categories: criminal, financial, leadership, religious, moral and perversion. Those who fall into the first three categories have committed crimes, been involved in inappropriate financial dealings or proved themselves poor leaders by treating children badly.

 

The "religious" files describe volunteers who are atheists or agnostics, and thus not allowed in the organization. The "moral" category is designated for gays. And the "perversion" category designates volunteers who've committed sexual misconduct, such as molesting children, soliciting prostitutes or possessing child pornography."

[Gunny2862]

NE-IV-88-Beaver,

Question, Committed or been accused of?

[NE-IV-88-Beaver]

Gunny,

 

Don't know? The BSA official's terminology, not mine, but he doesn't say convicted of, so I think accused of is probably the case. That is probably the reason BSA fought so hard to keep the files private as accusations should be kept private, not the case with convictions IMHO.

[Gunny2862]

Thanks,

I completely understand given BSA's policy of removal on accusation why they would want to keep a file of folks they've removed, but an uncleared accusation isn't necessarily reason to publicly release someones name... unlike a conviction. As a conviction in most states makes one a public figure anyway, what with publicly search-able registries and all.

[Eagle92]

If memory serves, and unfortunately it's a little better in this area than most, ALL leaders removed from scouting, whether they were arrested or accused, are placed in this record. That's one reason I've read that the files will only be released if subpeoned: the subpeona protects the BSA from libel or slander lawsuits.

 

For example, say you got a scout that was caught after hours outside the campsite by a leader. Scout lies and says leader made a pass and leader get removed from scouting.

 

Or as happened at another scout shop while I was for supply. Long time volunteer scouter works PT as a salesclerk. During RU season employee/volunteer shows new Cub how to roll up the necker and places it on him, and puts on the slide. Mom freaks out, claims inappropriate touching, and employee/volunteer not only loses PT job, but gets removed from scouting, despite being in a roomful of other adults (if you have you ever entered a scout shop during RU season, youknow how crazy it is with the folks shopping).