Latest Re: Restricted Files from L.A. Times

[skeptic]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boyscouts-20120805-m,0,5822319.story

 

So, here we have the first of surely many additional attacks on BSA due to the release of some of the so called "Perversion Files". Obviously, they did not always do what was intended; but they often did. And, we really do not know the details of the reentry in those that did slip through, though most were out of the original area, and predated computer records. I am disappointed that there were cases that should not have occurred after the initial record was entered, and especially disappointed some officials made very poor decisions. They have continued to advance with the protections, and we need to use the barriers that we have in place.

 

What continues to be upsetting to me is that during most of the time these records were being compiled, barely anything else was done by others, including legal authorities. There is no doubt errors were made, and sometimes egregious decisions; but where were all the other efforts to stop this stuff? Why was the general response by authorities and even those most affected to just put it out of site and mind, or to NOT believe that certain individuals could actually do this, so the victims got little or no credence, often being labeled unstable or trying to get even or something.

 

Yes, we see these things differently as a society now; but you cannot not undo what was the norm years before. So, here we are today. Let's change the rules, and let's try and destroy a group, even though they did more than others then, and continue to work to strengthen their protections. But they can bring us money and notoriety.

 

I suggest, that while they are subpoenaing records, they start going to ALL the police departments in the country and ask for their records on any similar cases, no matter how old, as well as court records if taken to a higher level. Then, when you find how many similar things may have occurred, hold the police and community leaders responsible, since they did not meet the standards of conduct now seen as prudent. And, do searches for old stories related to these types of things that indicate no guilt was determined, and go back and review them; they too likely will render opportunity.

[NJCubScouter]

The link won't work, it cuts off at the first comma, I tried cutting and pasting it myself and it still didn't work. I think it is something about the software that this forum runs on. (Or maybe I just don't know how to make it work.)

 

So try this, it works:

 

http://tinyurl.com/8hgaj29

 

 

[packsaddle]

One of the advantages or perhaps disadvantages of having lived during most of those times, is that I can relate to the actual social context of those crimes and the correspondence detailed in those documents. At least one of those guys was really nearby to me and while, yes, the times were different then, the sense of anger toward the man and the sense of betrayal of the most egregious kind by BSA is sickening. How this organization could know those things and yet do so little is a betrayal of humanity itself, of the lowest kind. Someone, perhaps many persons, need to serve serious time for what they did...or didn't do.

[Horizon]

This was my breakfast reading this morning. Some of it shows how much we have changed over time, with the concept of Mandated Reporters, etc. The fact that they would let a guy walk without calling the cops, just banning them from Scouts, is hard for me to understand.

 

This part (if accurate) was the ALSO (not most) horrifying to me: "In 1988, for instance, Scouting did away with probation; its policy now is to expel anyone suspected in "good faith" of abuse. In 2008, criminal background checks were required on all volunteers, and in 2010 the organization required all suspected abuse to be reported to law enforcement."

 

We didn't start doing background checks until 2008?

We didn't require abuse reporting until 2010?

 

I thought we were the model for this stuff! AYSO has had criminal background checks for longer than that, and has roles in the organization that are Mandated Reporters. Cal South Club Soccer also requires a fingerprint record to be made. Surely we weren't behind the soccer guys in protection?

 

(This message has been edited by Horizon)

[Horizon]

Ugh - re-reading my post - most horrifying is, of course, the abuse.

 

 

[RememberSchiff]

Yes horrifying. I just skimmed through the documents on one abuser - Slusher. Came back to be a SM in two troops???

 

http://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-paper-trail-of-abuse-documents/

 

[Eagle92]

Horizon,

 

if memory serves, BSA started background checks for all new leader applications in 2002 or therabouts. So if you moved from council A to council B, or moved from a Cub Scout leader position to Boy Scout leader position,etc, you had a background check done.

 

In 2008 was when all leaders who had registered and remained active in the same position prior to 2002, you know the SMs and ASMs who had BP as SM and GBB as SPL , had to submit to a background check or be dropped.

 

I remember that because one SM since the 1960s, and yes he is still SM in the same unit, didn't submit the paperwork for the background check and was dropped when recharter came. He had to fill out a new application and what not.

[moosetracker]

It is shocking that these people were not informed to the police.. Shocking that in that period of time, pedophiles were not reported in most places, not just BSA.

 

As for the reports easily being skirted and these guys easily finding a way back in.. If you look and any of BSA tracking reports for anything, right up to today.. Is this really a surprise? Given BSA computer systems to date, computerizing the data would have done no better then putting it on paper and into a file cabinet.

[skeptic]

Very difficult to comprehend some of the apparent actions, or non-actions. But we also do not know what else may be in the files that might have made the decision happen, such as a parent refusing to allow the filing due to concern for the child or some other reason. I also found the comment section to be very interesting. Seems to be a lot of people that are not particularly fond of the media, and the Times in particular.

[Eagle92]

I didn't read all the files, but the one I did read, where volunteers and parents knew the background and still wanted the adult to be a volunteer surprised me a bit.

[SeattlePioneer]

In the "Scouts With Porn On Camputs" thread, a discussion is continuing as to whether Scouters should follow the YPT rules as written or to use their own judgment in following the rules, which involves reporting incidents to the police.

 

I think the episodes described in the article make a good case to start by reporting incidents to the police to investigate.

 

They are the authorities --- we are not.

 

Scouting doesn't need more of these kinds of incidents and episodes. If that's hard on Scouts and Scouters who do questionable things and have to explain their actions, so be it.

 

 

[Beavah]

 

I think the episodes described in the article make a good case to start by reporting incidents to the police to investigate.

 

Really?

 

Are yeh readin' the same files?

 

In almost every case the "authorities" investigated and either declined to prosecute or they convicted and the fellow was released in fairly short order to go on and abuse again.

 

Da Times cherry-picked a few of da worst cases, and all good men and women rightly look at those with horror. But let's take a look at da record of the "authorities".

 

Dubois: Scouts expelled, authorities opted not to proceed with a case. He goes on to rape other children before the "authorities" secure a conviction.

Field: Scouts expelled, but da common name in the days before easy digital computer tracking meant that they couldn't positively ID him when he moved. Authorities eventually convict with the help of the BSA files.

Dunlap: Expelled by BSA, plead guilty. Released and moved out of jurisdiction. Both scouts and "authorities" lose track. Gets to kids again.

Bumgarner: Expelled by scouts. Authorities give probation only despite a guilty plea. National doesn't catch at re-application. Abuses again.

Slusher: BSA re-admits. Molests again. Authorities convict and release. He abuses again outside of scouting and is convicted again.

Stenger: Both the "authorities" and the BSA give probation. He abuses again.

 

So in da cherry-picked cases that show da BSA in the worst light, the "authorities" did no better. In fact, on average, they did worse.

 

Tell me again why yeh think that's a better choice?

 

Remember, da BSA during the period of time in question had millions on millions of volunteers. In an era of mostly paper records, expectin' perfection in screening that many people when they cross jurisdictional lines is just nonsense. Da "authorities" could do no better, not without enormous resource expenditures.

 

These cases are tragic, but they aren't evidence that the BSA's approach was at all flawed. Just that no approach is perfect.

 

Beavah

 

 

[fred8033]

... Mind you all the events surrounding this discussion are sad and creepy....

 

I am fairly pleasantly surprised with the detail in the files and the effort to handle. It's still creepy stuff, but it does look like BSA was trying to do something. Not always making the best decisions, but clearly making the effort.

 

I was also pleasantly surprised at the timeline included in the documents. http://documents.latimes.com/boy-scouts-youth-protection-timeline/

 

 

[Hal_Crawford]

The story just got repeated on ABC News during Good Morning America. Of course they didn't mention that these events happened over 20 years ago.

 

Question for long time Scouters: When did BSA institute the 2-deep leadership rule? When did they start offering Youth Protection training? I have been a scouter since 1996 and 2 deep has been the rule as long as I can remember. YPT was offered but not required when I started. The YP inserts were in the Cub handbooks when by son joined in 1995. My first mistake as a scouter--and there have been many--was not warning parents of new Cubs about the insert in the Wolf book. That was a surprise for Mom and Dad when their son started asking some very unexpected questions. When did those inserts first appear?

 

I am guessing that these things all appeared in the late 80s or early nineties as a result to the issues raised in this report. IMO, 2 deep is the the first and best defense against both child abuse and accusations of child abuse. Required training is a close and necessary second. While background checks are important they only catch the predators that have already been caught.

[Hal_Crawford]

OK-If I had read the LA Times link in the previous post I would have realized that it answers most of my questions and confirms my suspicion that the big shift was around 1990.