Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle94-A1]

55 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Successful criminal prosecution just can’t be the determinative factor in viability or grounds for exclusion. Highest standard of proof in our system. 

Agreed. That is why if cases prior to mandatory reporting did not have the victim's or his parents' approval to press charges, nothing was done legally to them. All BSA could do is place them in the IVF.

Also I want to apologize to @johnsch322 for the snarkiness  of my post at the end. YP is an extremely big deal for me, and I get ticked off, to put it mildly,  when people say things get swept under the rug today. As I have posted previously, I have had to report a friend and long time Scouter who was for a YP violation. As I sincerely stated, I hope I never have to do that again.

[johnsch322]

14 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Also I want to apologize to @johnsch322 for the snarkiness  of my post at the end. YP is an extremely big deal for me,

No need to apologize....I am not immune to go off myself.  The point I was trying to make was there may not have been YP if pressure had not been exerted upon the BSA.  I was a scout in the 60's and I am not sure what exactly was the formal procedure for reporting was then. 

[Eagle94-A1]

16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

No need to apologize....I am not immune to go off myself.  The point I was trying to make was there may not have been YP if pressure had not been exerted upon the BSA.  I was a scout in the 60's and I am not sure what exactly was the formal procedure for reporting was then. 

Prior to Mandatory Reporting Laws for youth organizations, starting in the 1980s if memory serves and varied state to state, policy was for removal of abuser, and report to the Scout Executive (SE). SE would encourage family to press charges as BSA could not legally do so at the time.. Whether charges were pressed or not, SE filled out paperwork and any supporting documentation to national office. Once in the IVF, every name registration form was checked against the IVF. This could take months as it was prior to computers, and names had to be checked manually. It was also time before SSNs and drivers' licenses were required on forms, so I did read about a 2 to 3 folks using aliases to get back into BSA after moving. But that was rare.

Initially when YPT came about in the late 198os, want to say 1988 or 89, any abuse reports would go to the SE because mandatory reporting laws varied greatly. Nowadays it report to local authorities then the SE.

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Prior to Mandatory Reporting Laws for youth organizations, starting in the 1980s if memory serves and varied state to state, policy was for removal of abuser, and report to the Scout Executive (SE). SE would encourage family to press charges as BSA could not legally do so at the time.. Whether charges were pressed or not, SE filled out paperwork and any supporting documentation to national office. Once in the IVF, every name registration form was checked against the IVF. This could take months as it was prior to computers, and names had to be checked manually. It was also time before SSNs and drivers' licenses were required on forms, so I did read about a 2 to 3 folks using aliases to get back into BSA after moving. But that was rare.

Initially when YPT came about in the late 198os, want to say 1988 or 89, any abuse reports would go to the SE because mandatory reporting laws varied greatly. Nowadays it report to local authorities then the SE.

Were these policies written as national policy or was it just something that was general knowledge?  If this written policy do you know where the policy manual was written and is there historical evidence?

[Eagle94-A1]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Were these policies written as national policy or was it just something that was general knowledge?  If this written policy do you know where the policy manual was written and is there historical evidence?

Sorry, I cannot remember where I read this at. It was in a book on the topic, maybe Scouts' Honor,  a book referenced in a previous post.  Did a report on this topic in undergrad way back in the day. And like an idiot I got rid of almost all my stuff from that time. 

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, elitts said:

Or were abused by people who just joined up as an adult leader and immediately began pulling kids off to the side to molest them?

I can speak for myself. Yes. He came to the Troop in the first months of 1972, to the best of my recollection and from looking at the memorabilia I retained. My “Eagle Award Application” lists May 1, 1972 as the “Date Became a Scout.”  First incident of sexual abuse was July 19, 1972. At that first Monday night meeting, which was May 1st, he pulled me aside and told me I had “leadership potential” and he would “let me join early” because he knew I would be an asset to the Troop. Does about 5+/- months count as “immediately”?

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago,  johnsch322 said: 

No need to apologize....I am not immune to go off myself.  The point I was trying to make was there may not have been YP if pressure had not been exerted upon the BSA.  I was a scout in the 60's and I am not sure whatexactly was the formal procedure for reporting was then. 

I’ve been through a number of the IVFs I could find. That’s how I came across the one relevant to my claim/case. It may only be anecdotal, but I can tell you exactly how that went down. I have the entire file and all the official communications that derived from the incident. Without detail, this is what it looked like:

1) 11 year old Scout was discovered going through his teenage sister’s intimates. His father reprimanded him.

2) The dad asked what the heck was going on and the boy told his parents about the incident. He and another 11 year old Scout were at the home of their ASM. He described being provided and viewing pornography, sex ‘toys’ with the ASM, and being invited and solicited to engage in physical sexual acts with the ASM and his female neighbor. 

3) The mother immediately called the LC to report.

4) Apparently, though there is no mention, the SE called law enforcement and they interviewed the boys on May 26th.

5) They were found to be credible, per the police report, which is not redacted other than the names of the boys and families.

6) On June 7th, the ASM, who was also the Institutional Representative of the CO, was given a resignation letter to sign. It was witnessed by two unidentified parties.

7) The letter was copied to the Paster of the CO, the SM and SE.

8. On June 11th, the SE and Council President wrote a letter to Robert Kilmer, the East Central Region Director of Support Services. It appears someone at National referred them to this executive. The letter was copied to the CO and SM.

9) On June 15th, Robert Kilmer wrote to Joseph Early and referred the entire matter to him, copying the SE.

10) As is apparent from the next letter, Mr. Early forwarded the file to Paul I. Ernst, Executive Registration and Subscription. 

11) On June 20th, Ernst wrote to the SE confirming receipt of the file and requesting follow up information, a letter from the SE and a Confidential Record Sheet. He told the SE it was all needed to “strengthen our position of refusing to accept any further application for registration from this individual...Unless we receive this material, it will be difficult to keep this man’s name on the Confidential File. 

Note: This is the first letter marked “Personal and Confidential.”

Note: The “unless” statement by Ernst is troubling.

12) On June 26th the Chief of Police and lead Detective write the SE to forward the Police Report and to tell him the matter is still being investigated. They close by saying they hope the report is “of value to your decision about this individual.” 

13) Confidential Record Sheet is dated 6.29.73.

14) On June 30th the parents of one of the boys wrote a “To Whom It May Concern Letter” to National (Earnst?), describing the incident, the impact it was still having on their boy and asking them to prohibit the abuser to be a part of Scouting. “If Mr. O is allowed to return as a Scout Leader we would appreciate being informed of this.”

The abuser was married and the couple had a young boy.

Back to my Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. Phase 2 appears to have worked well. Phase 1 vetting and prevention, not so much. Phase 3 and fully debriefing the situation and advising parents and Scouts about such dangers? Absolutely did not happen. You’re welcome to go back and read my posts relevant to this IVF and my claim/case.

I hope this is helpful. 

PS - Why does the number 8 followed by a close paren result in a smiley face wearing classic Ray-Bans who refuses to leave the building? Thus, the period in place of the closed parenthesis. I’m a dork...

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle94-A1]

@ThenNow, would you mind changing the quote to @johnsch322 since he is the one you are quoting and not me?  His quote is below. Thanks in advance.

 

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

No need to apologize....I am not immune to go off myself.  The point I was trying to make was there may not have been YP if pressure had not been exerted upon the BSA.  I was a scout in the 60's and I am not sure what exactly was the formal procedure for reporting was then. 

 

[ThenNow]

36 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

would you mind changing the quote to @johnsch322 since he is the one you are quoting and not me?  His quote is below. Thanks in advance.

Sorry. I didn’t realize it mattered. Wouldn’t mind but I have no clue how to do that. I reiterate, I’m a dork. 

Add: I think I did it. Probably ham-fisted, but you’re erased from the record. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[Oldscout448]

9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

If they are part of 82,000 do you believe they should be compensated for their abuse?

I'm probablygoing to catch flak for this, but no.  There was nothing in the ASMs background that would have indicated predatory behavior. The scouts were looked for and found probably within 10 minutes, certainly within 15. The scouters talked between themselves for years about this, attempting to figure out how this slipped thru the cracks, and how to best prevent any type of recurrence.

I could certainly get on board with suing the perp into oblivion. Yas,he is still alive. At least he was 7years ago. A chance encounter. He didn't recognize me, but I'll never forget him. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Oldscout448

[fred8033]

16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

4) Apparently, though there is no mention, the SE called law enforcement and they interviewed the boys on May 26th.

...

12) On June 26th the Chief of Police and lead Detective write the SE to forward the Police Report and to tell him the matter is still being investigated. They close by saying they hope the report is “of value to your decision about this individual.”

@ThenNow ... I'm not sure whether to ask these questions as it is part of a very painful experience for you and because it continues to haunt your life.  Please accept my apologies for asking.

In #4, the "they" is law enforcement right?  

Here is what I'm uncomfortable asking.  ... Obviously, the chain of events is ugly and painful.  My apologies, but I want to ask.  

It sounds like either the parents or the SE or someone in the chain of events called the police.  That is what we want to happen.  That's the right thing to do.  

Question ... If the police had the case and things were being reported and credible, etc, was the abuser charged with a crime?  It sounds like he wasn't.  Why?  

Question ... Once the police were notified, what additional actions should be expected from the SE?  The abuser was removed and attempts were made to document his case in the ineligble volunteer files.  It sounds like significant effort was made to record that the abuser should not be allowed into scouting again.  

My apologies.  I am seriously asking.  From the outside, this case seems to be handled reasonably well.  BUT, it's also being used as an example of a case handled poorly.  Considering the year and the standards at the time, it seems like the right actions happened.   Today, I would question what happened as the first adult should have called the police.  Any delay notifying police these days raises the question of trying to hide or obfiscate the abuse.   The first scouter hearing about this should have called police first.  This should have quickly left the scouting hands and gone to complete police control.  BUT, that's today's standard.  For 1973, this case seems to be handled reasonably well. 

That is why I'm asking.  I know you have stated the exact reasons.  I'm having trouble connected the dots.  So, I'm seriously asking for clarification.  

Please accept my gratitude for your detailed writing of what happened.  I appreciate that.

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by elitts

[johnsch322]

59 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

I'm probablygoing to catch flak for this, but no.  There was nothing in the ASMs background that would have indicated predatory behavior. The scouts were looked for and found probably within 10 minutes, certainly within 15. The scouters talked between themselves for years about this, attempting to figure out how this slipped thru the cracks, and how to best prevent any type of recurrence.

I could certainly get on board with suing the perp into oblivion. Yas,he is still alive. At least he was 7years ago. A chance encounter. He didn't recognize me, but I'll never forget him. 

I would be interested to hear others opinion on this...

[yknot]

1 hour ago, Oldscout448 said:

I'm probablygoing to catch flak for this, but no.  There was nothing in the ASMs background that would have indicated predatory behavior. The scouts were looked for and found probably within 10 minutes, certainly within 15. The scouters talked between themselves for years about this, attempting to figure out how this slipped thru the cracks, and how to best prevent any type of recurrence.

I could certainly get on board with suing the perp into oblivion. Yas,he is still alive. At least he was 7years ago. A chance encounter. He didn't recognize me, but I'll never forget him. 

If enough occurred that the ASM was forced to resign then that is enough for the youth victims to seek compensation. The fact I find most chilling is that he likely went on to have other victims elsewhere afterwards. These people are sick. They don't stop. 

[johnsch322]

21 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I would be interested to hear others opinion on this...

My opinion:

At the very least this is a very good case for having no statute of limitations for child molestation in both the criminal and civil sides of law.  Who was really looking out for the two boys?  Were the parents thinking about the embarrassment or shame for the children or themselves?  Who was thinking about the long term ramifications of their mental health, the anguish and mental torture they more than likely have had to endure?  Also the monetary cost of treatment.  The ASM who committed crime did not have to answer for it.  How many more youth did he abuse?  How many more will he abuse?  If it happened in the early eighties it was more than likely not until their 30's did the worst of the mental health issues arise.  

As for compensation thru the Bankruptcy I vote very much for just compensation. The abuse happened when the 2 were 10 and in the care of the Troop/Local Council/Chartered Organization/BSA National.  The ASM was an employee of the BSA which makes the BSA responsible for his actions whether anyone could have predicted it or not.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

The ASM was an employee of the BSA which makes the BSA responsible for his actions whether anyone could have predicted it or not.

It seems "employee" is bring thrown about a bit too loosely.  BSA may be responsible for it's volunteers, but ASMs are not employees.  ASMs are worse off than unpaid volunteers.  In fact, ASMs PAY to be members and volunteer.   ASMs PAY to purchase training materials.  ASMs PAY to get their uniform.  ASMs PAY to camp.  ASMs PAY to use BSA property. In reality, very little of BSA's treatment of volunteers looks like employees. 

It seems extremely shallow to summarize ASMs as employees.  In fact, BSA looks more like a vender selling a product to the ASM voluinteers (and all scouting volunteers).  

Anyone ever used an employment checklist test to see if they are employees?  I used to take one as a contractor at times.  Or how about a volunteer test checklist.  I'm not sure ASMs would even qualify as volunteers given the level of products bought from BSA.

Laws have changed.  This is not an area that has been clealy and consistently defined over time.  Volunteer responsibility law has been evolving.  

Edited August 5, 2021 by fred8033