BSA Secret "Perversion" Files

[Eagle92]

Forgot to add, in both cases no arrests were made.

[Beavah]

Yah, there's really quite a difference between the evidence needed to convict someone of molestation and the evidence that yeh think is sufficient to not want 'em to be youth leaders.

 

That's why I think folks who believe background checks and involving civil authorities offer much protection are foolin' themselves.

 

I haven't seen anything yet in da news reports which amounts to negligence on the BSA's part. It's not even clear that much (if any) of the abuse actually happened on scout outings, let alone BSA properties under their supervision. Just a grandstanding attorney hopin' to get to a settlement by slinging enough PR mud that the defendant will manage the case with $$ instead of legal arguments. Probably could have gotten something, too, if his demands weren't so high.

 

If da story ends up being what it currently looks to be, it's a good example of how intellectually and professionally weak our media have become. At the moment, the headlines should read "Scout files show BSA was far ahead of the government in tracking abusers in order to protect kids."

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

Beavah,

As a member of the Bar, do you agree with the BSA stance not to release the Perversion Files to the plaintiff?

[Oak Tree]

Gern,

 

Despite the fact that many of us attribute barrister-hood to Beavah, I don't recall that he has ever claimed that status himself - and on a number of occasions, I know he has intentionally refrained from making such a claim. He's just an id on the system.

 

So Beavah, I'd still be interested in the answer to Gern's question: Whether or not you are a member of the bar, do you agree with the BSA stance?

[Eagle92]

grant you there are lots of different jurisdictions and laws vary , but don't we have a judge onthe forums who culd give us some insight?

[T2Eagle]

I have tried to find the Oregon Supreme Court opinion giving the files to the plaintiff's attorney, but I haven't been able to find it. All the press reports reference it. I don't have access to any of the commercial legal databases but nowhere on the web can I find it.

 

I'd love to see what legal theory the scouts were using. People can talk about confidentiality, protecting reputations, etc., but unless some sort of privilege can be asserted: attorney-client, attorney work product, etc. most records that an organization has can be pried lose by subpoena in the right lawsuit.

[nldscout]

T2Eagle

I looked in all the legal research available to me at the court , and I can't find any opinion relating to this case. The only explaination I have is that nothing will be published until the case is concluded so as not to tait the Jury pool.

 

From a Judges stand point I think BSA's labeling of the files as "Perversion" was a serious tactical error. They could have used a more publicly acceptable name for that group of files.

[DeanRx]

While I'm not a lawyer, I do practice in a very regulated and lawyer happy field...

 

I see several issues going on here:

 

1) Plantifs lawyer is using sensational press to bolster his client's claim. Whether there's any justification or not remains to be seen and ultimately is irrelevent as perception is what matters in an issue like this.

 

2) BSA is right not to release the info until ordered by the court. Its obviously a fishing expedition, let them ask for specific documents and then supply only what is requested. I have internal files resulting from QA meetings that I would not want released to the public. Does it mean I'm a poor practitioner? No, it means that I keep track of error issues, no matter how minor as required by state law and review them for patterns and have quarterly meetings to discuss with staff any procedural changes we can make to minimize future incidences. I have on occasion had patients ask to see such files. A polite refusal is always the case followed by, "these are internal QA documents and aren't even discoverable as evidence in court proceedings." If they were to push it further, they can speak with my counsel. That's just good TQM, but it shouldn't be open to discovery if not applicable to a given case.

 

3) BSA (it appears) has kept or keeps files not just on KNOWN abusers, but SUSPECTED abusers as well. A suspected abuser could be anyone from someone that BSA had very strong suspection of abuse, but no proof, to just someone that scout Johnny got pissed off at and made a false claim, so the adult leader had their membership revoked and now they are blacklisted from the organization. Problem is, they are both lumped into the same file.

 

Problem with a file such as this, no matter what name someone uses to describe it, is that it is murky water at best. One can look at it and state, "Well at least BSA is being proactive and keeping out the suspected riff raff." Another can look at the same file and proclaim, "BSA sure had a lot of perverts in their ranks, I'm sure there's got ot be more." Still a 3rd can claim, "Look, so and so had a complaint filed 3 years before they admitted to molesting 17 youth... and BSA did nothing." Whether or not BSA had enough evidence or found the claim from 3 years ago valid, not to mention the social and organizational attitudes of the time vs current policy, is irrelevant. The person is going to see what benefits their stance in the document.

 

The good is that documenting usually protects you because it shows what an organization did or was doing to prevent and remedy an issue. The bad is that decades of documentation is open to Monday morning quarterbacking by lawyers who are playing by today's rules and laws, with no regard to what the policies, laws, or social norms were at the time the documentation took place.

 

If BSA wanted to look like the "good guy" in this incidence, then when faced with a request for the entire record, they should have countered with - we will provide what is relevant to this case with regards to Mr. X as determined by a court appointed oversight panel. Offer to let the court determine what is relevant and keep to remainder private.

 

Now, as I said, I am no lawyer, so I'm not sure such a counter offer is even a viable legal option in such a case, but it seems common sense. Often, the law is not common sense in nature. If not, their only option may have been to refuse and hold out until told to release the entire record by the court. If so, WHY is the BSA PR folks not quick to point this out when asked by the press for a comment on the situation?

 

I agree the BSA looks bad for waiting until a court orders them to turn over the files as evidence. But, if that is the normal judical procedure and was their only recourse - then WHY hasn't it been pointed out to the press by the BSA? Otherwise, BSA comes off looking like they had something to hide. Maybe they do, maybe they don't - but the handlers must realize the potential public perception regardless of the truth and spin their stance in a positive light.

[NJCubScouter]

I just looked for it on the legal research service that I use -- not one of the major ones but it would have a published decision of the Oregon Supreme Court -- and it doesn't seem to be there. Since this seems to have been a discovery ruling it may have been done by what in some places would be called a "memorandum decision" -- often just a one-liner -- and it might not be published in the online services.

[nldscout]

After researching some more I have found ou the reason nothing has been published is because its an ongoing case. Normal rules there are they don't publish till concluded.

[NJCubScouter]

Interesting, nldscout. That is generally not the practice in my state and I don't think it is true with West's federal reports either. Decisions of the Supreme Court and Appellate Division in NJ and of the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal are published all the time even though the decision is to remand to a lower court, and the case is still going on in the lower court. I guess things are different in Oregon.

[Frank17]

Looks like their files just cost BSA a packet of money:

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOY_SCOUTS_ABUSE?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

[Oak Tree]

Frank17, that conclusion doesn't really follow from the story.

 

For reference:

"Jurors on Tuesday found the Boy Scouts of America negligent and awarded $1.4 million to a former Portland man who was abused by an assistant Scoutmaster in the early 1980s"

 

[...]

 

"Clark opened the trial by showing the jury the six boxes of documents. He made little actual use of them during the trial, but during their deliberations the jury had the opportunity to look through them.

 

There was no mention of whether the jury consulted the files after the verdict was delivered Tuesday morning following two days of deliberations."

 

Keeping the files didn't appear to be the problem. Continuing to allow a known molestor to associate with the troop appeared to be the issue. Without knowing more about the case, I don't think I can really reach a conclusion as to whether the files were important or not.

[skeptic]

We all know that his will lead to more suits; it is inevitable. No matter how much has been done in the meantime, it appears that things will be judged based on emotion and the continuing media bias and sensationalism towards anything of this nature. Certainly there is a "big pocket" mentality here, as well as judging things from more than 2 decades ago on today's laws and responses. Still, perhaps more could have been done. Does it merit the ridiculous sums of money?

 

The idea that "keeping records", which due to their content, should be kept private, is a cover-up is simply ludicrous. Really another "Catch 22" situation.

 

Find it interesting that the courts apparently instructed National to remove their response to the verdict from the National web site; I guess they think it will somehow conflict with the secondary ruling. Meantime, the press and internet blogs can continue to demonize and worse without being stopped. Does not quite appear to be fair; but I did not actually see the response before it was removed, so perhaps there was a good reason for that decision, other than tying their hands.

 

Hopefully this too will be overcome sooner than later, and we can get back to trying to run a program. The real concern is that with every one of these that happen, there are more limitations put on what and how we do things. At some point, no one will want to be involved, as they will be afraid of what "could" happen when these warped people find a way around, or someone drops the ball in the protections in place.

[Engineer61]

I'm curious, does anyone happen to know who the Troop sponsor was?