Proposal: Tax funds pay for abuse liability, other reforms

[ParkMan]

57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The government has no legal responsibility to protect you. The lack of an investigation is not an actionable claim.

[...]

This plan simply will not pass legal muster.

I do not doubt that the rules setup today shield the government from inaction here.  I am sure you can quote me 1,000 legal cases the show members of the government have established laws to protect it from inaction.  I'm not attempting to make a legal argument - I'm making a moral and ethical one.

Our government does all kinds of things proactively to protect us - seat belt laws, approving drugs for use, working to prevent the abuse of drugs.  There is a whole industry around federal rule making.  Clearly government recognizes a role in being proactive.  Why are set belt laws worth of government action but not child abuse?  We have a FDA, SEC, NHTSA, FHA, and so forth.  Yet, when claims are being made about the abuse of kids the government gets a pass from looking at the pattern and stopping it?  

You're right though, the government cannot stop all instances of abuse.  But, they certainly should have stopped what was going on in the BSA & LA schools  - and probably the Catholic church as well.  Without doubt they should have shut down these youth organizations until we had an adequate safety program in place.  Again, we regulate asprin but don't try to stop abuse in youth organizations?  That the government did not do it's duty to regulate these industries shows it's implicit support of what was going on.  Just as the BSA should have done more, so too should the government. No?

Because the laws have unjustly been shielding the government from fulfilling it's ethical and moral responsibility here it will certainly require the government to enact new legislation to enable this.  But, it needs to happen.

Thanks for helping to refine the proposal.  Latest:

Proposal: As this in part was a country wide issue, in addition to shutting down the BSA and selling it to settle claims, I lobby for special tax funds to pay each victim of child abuse in organizations who serve youth $25,000,000 per incident.  Funds need to be established at each level of government such that victims receive $25,000,000 payments at the local, state, and federal level - for a total of $75,000,000 per incident.  Victims must be made whole and willfully negligent governments need to be held accountable.

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by RememberSchiff
clarified a thought

[David CO]

42 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

That the government did not do it's duty to regulate these industries shows it's implicit support of what was going on.  Just as the BSA should have done more, so too should the government. No?

Yes and no.  The government is responsible for law enforcement.  It should have done a better job at investigating and prosecuting crimes.  So, in that sense, the government should have done more.  Many people in law enforcement are supporters of BSA, and some of them turned a blind eye to the crimes that were being perpetrated in scouting.  They were more interested in preserving BSA's reputation than they were in protecting kids.  Shame on them.  

 The failure of law enforcement to protect our kids should not become an excuse to relieve BSA of its liability for its misconduct and inaction. There is a difference between criminal and civil actions.  The absence of criminal prosecution does not relieve someone of their civil liability.

Edited October 23, 2020 by David CO

[fred8033]

8 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

There can be some general restrictions, e.g.,  Federal Tort Claims Act states a two year time limit for claimants against the federal government but there are exceptions for actions in the line of military service and time extensions if government agencies hid information or stonewalled the legal process. 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for why you can't sue school systems or the government. First, for state and local schools, you can sue in federal court. Second, there's the idea of sovereign immunity: the government cannot be sued without its consent.

 

I recognize you can sue.  What I'm saying is ... from what I understand ... the recent law changes that allowed re-establishing expired liabilities ... even decades in the past ... again from my understanding ... did not re-open expired liabilities to schools and other government organizations.  

If it was extended, then these lawsuits should be hitting every city, state and school district that chartered scouts for the last 50 years.  If you want deep pockets, go after the school districts.

 

[David CO]

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Of course people knew that youth were being abused.  Perhaps not every instance and case, but we all knew about abuse - that is why parents taught their kids to be wary of strangers.  I grew up in that time and remember well lessons from my parents about it.  

Further, it is only right and just that victims receive adequate compensation for all those who had some role in their abuse.  The government, through the willful disregard for their responsibility in the role of protecting children, was clearly negligent and as such needs to provide compensation.  

Yes, people knew that youth were being abused.  Parents taught their kids to be wary.

I would add that some people did a very good job at keeping predators away from the kids.  Not everybody was negligent.  Many people were, but not everybody.  My objection to your proposal is that everybody is punished alike.  The protective parents, scouters, and CO's are treated exactly the same as the negligent ones.  There is no reward for good behavior.  

Some parents recognized the abuse and didn't sign their kids up for scouting.  They avoided it entirely.  Should they now be responsible to pay for the abuses in scouting?  Should they pay higher taxes?  I don't think so.  

[CynicalScouter]

37 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I recognize you can sue.  What I'm saying is ... from what I understand ... the recent law changes that allowed re-establishing expired liabilities ... even decades in the past ... again from my understanding ... did not re-open expired liabilities to schools and other government organizations.  

If it was extended, then these lawsuits should be hitting every city, state and school district that chartered scouts for the last 50 years.  If you want deep pockets, go after the school districts.

Correct. In the case of NY, the law did NOT allow for waiver/extension of claims against local and state government.

Quote

5. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, this section shall not apply to any claim made against a city, county, town, village, fire district or school district for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age,incest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, or the use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age.

Edited October 23, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

...  Should they now be responsible to pay for the abuses in scouting?  Should they pay higher taxes?  I don't think so.  

Envisioning an omnibus tax on each child born to offset the cost to society of reparations to children who were abused by their family members.

[TAHAWK]

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Envisioning an omnibus tax on each child born to offset the cost to society of reparations to children who were abused by their family members.

Going back how many millenia? 😉

[David CO]

28 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Envisioning an omnibus tax on each child born to offset the cost to society of reparations to children who were abused by their family members.

I've never taken an omnibus.  Is that like a Greyhound?

[ParkMan]

4 hours ago, David CO said:

Yes and no.  The government is responsible for law enforcement.  It should have done a better job at investigating and prosecuting crimes.  So, in that sense, the government should have done more.  Many people in law enforcement are supporters of BSA, and some of them turned a blind eye to the crimes that were being perpetrated in scouting.  They were more interested in preserving BSA's reputation than they were in protecting kids.  Shame on them.  

 The failure of law enforcement to protect our kids should not become an excuse to relieve BSA of its liability for its misconduct and inaction. There is a difference between criminal and civil actions.  The absence of criminal prosecution does not relieve someone of their civil liability.

EDIT:

@David CO - thanks for the comments.  I'm happy to stipulate that you are correct and I am wrong.

I was really just annoyed with the continual piling on of people on the BSA for the actions of 30+ years ago.  I think abuse is reprehensible of course.  I am just dismayed with how this has unfolded.  My kids, my grandkids, and other get to suffer because of actions of those many years before.  I had nothing to do with any of this and am confused why people who started well before me got to destroy and organization that I came to join many years later.

That said - I really have no desire to continue this debate in a separate thread as I have seen the moderators have decided to move it.  I'm happy to leave the debate to those who want to sit around and continue to pile on.  I'd be happy for the moderators to remove my account.

Edited October 23, 2020 by ParkMan
Disappointed.

[CynicalScouter]

20 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I continue to not see the distinction here.

BSA is a voluntary organization. When it has a child turned over to it, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to that child ("duty to care"). When agrees to make use of volunteers, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to to supervise, properly select, properly train, and properly remove that person.

State and federal government has no such similar "duty to care". It has no duty/obligation to ensure anyone (other than a government employee or someone acting on behalf of the government like a contractor) doesn't abuse someone else.

Simple.

[ParkMan]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

BSA is a voluntary organization. When it has a child turned over to it, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to that child ("duty to care"). When agrees to make use of volunteers, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to to supervise, properly select, properly train, and properly remove that person.

State and federal government has no such similar "duty to care". It has no duty/obligation to ensure anyone (other than a government employee or someone acting on behalf of the government like a contractor) doesn't abuse someone else.

Simple.

Fine.  I think this can end this discussion.

[Sentinel947]

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA is a voluntary organization. When it has a child turned over to it, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to that child ("duty to care"). When agrees to make use of volunteers, it takes on certain legal liabilities/responsibilities to to supervise, properly select, properly train, and properly remove that person.

State and federal government has no such similar "duty to care". It has no duty/obligation to ensure anyone (other than a government employee or someone acting on behalf of the government like a contractor) doesn't abuse someone else.

Simple.

Correct. There are a few court cases that establish that Police officers literally do not need to intervene if they are witnessing a crime taking place. They have no legal duty to "protect." https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/

[David CO]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I'd be happy for the moderators to remove my account.

Me too.  I took a break from the forum a couple times.  Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.  

[Sentinel947]

18 minutes ago, David CO said:

Me too.  I took a break from the forum a couple times.  Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.  

Yup. Sometimes a little time away helps out. I quietly log out and go away sometimes. Big reason I stopped being a moderator, I didn't want to be obligated to be reading the forum all the time. 

@ParkMan Focus on what you can control. You can control how your children and grandchildren's unit's perform. You have control over what experience they get, and what kind of young men and women they become. National, the bankruptcy and all the rest is out of our control. It's good to keep and eye on it, but it's just not worth worrying about. You and I can't change or influence it in any way. 

[MattR]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I was really just annoyed with the continual piling on of people on the BSA for the actions of 30+ years ago.  I think abuse is reprehensible of course.  I am just dismayed with how this has unfolded.  My kids, my grandkids, and other get to suffer because of actions of those many years before.  I had nothing to do with any of this and am confused why people who started well before me got to destroy and organization that I came to join many years later.

That said - I really have no desire to continue this debate in a separate thread as I have seen the moderators have decided to move it.  I'm happy to leave the debate to those who want to sit around and continue to pile on.  I'd be happy for the moderators to remove my account.

I certainly understand why you're unhappy with how this bankruptcy is going. Any time anything gets into the court system rules take precedent over ethics. The only reason it makes sense to me is that, given our society is based on a system of rules then we have to follow them. I think the ethics comes in to play when the rules are created and this is where the failure is, just as you have mentioned. I'm not sure how much freedom the judge has to handle this in a balanced way.

However, all is not lost. Your grandkids will still be able to create some great memories in the outdoors with their friends in a program called scouting. It's one of the reasons I've posted about finding joy in scouting and simplifying the program. Make the program simpler with less requirements for large infrastructure and it becomes much more resilient. What we have now is very fragile and complicated. It's time for a change. I'm fairly sure the joy of watching kids grow, learn and create great memories will far out weigh the loss of camps and huge org charts.