Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, PeterHopkins said:

@IWasAbusedinScoutingI'm sorry for what happened to you and your troopmates. I hope you find this forum welcoming and compassionate.

The situation the BSA currently faces is particularly difficult for me. As a child, I was severely abused and neglected at home. Scouting was my safe place. I hope that's what it will be in the future for any youth who wants to participate.

I also was abused at home. Best thing my father ever did was leave. Scouting was my safe place, and all of the adults were positive role models who i can never thank enough. They showed me positive ways of acting and behaving,  guided me, and mentored me. Over the years I have encountered many with similar and worse situations.  So this is hard on everyone.

[RememberSchiff]

20 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

...Scouting was my safe place...

And for me.

[ThenNow]

10 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

I officially have a fan as do others including @ThenNow

 

First Dr. Kennedy’s encoded shoutout, now this! I know what to do. Since I used to manage artists and such, I will take on myself doubling my client base. My firm is booming! Pah. I wonder if I should engage a copy editor for my new client. Hm. Managing a big practice is complex and exhausting.

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

The situation the BSA currently faces is particularly difficult for me. As a child, I was severely abused and neglected at home. Scouting was my safe place. I hope that's what it will be in the future for any youth who wants to participate.

I am truly, truly sorry for the abuse you and the others who posted suffered at home. Unfortunately, I know that as well. I say this not to lessen the importance of your trauma or elevate my experience in any way. I am very glad you had Scouting and found what you needed as a foundation for your life. As a young boy, I believe I was attempting the same, but waded into the wood chipper.

My dad was badly physically abused by his mother, which pattern often repeats. He was the oldest son, as am I. (What he passed on to me was not nearly what he suffered, thankfully.) I joined Cub Scouts and did not find any connection having a woman leader. Frankly, I hated it. Felt like being babysat. My mom was ok enough, still hit me in the face and such, but I was looking for a man who would mentor me, with all that meant to a small boy who didn’t even know what “mentor” meant. I think this made the impact of my abuse that much more grave. This is not uncommon and I’ve heard the fact pattern repeated often with boys in need of a “father figure.” I’ve heard it told by one of the TCC members who lost his father at an early age. He and his mother fell prey to a monster who viciously manipulated that loss, pain and vulnerability. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[David CO]

8 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Scouting was my safe place

I think some people came into scouting with an unfair expectation of us.  Yes, we always strove to be safe.  Teaching about health and safety is an important part of scouting.  My unit never promised to be their safe place, as you put it.

I am not Fred MacMurray.  I never adopted Kurt Russell.  I had a few foster kids in my program, but I never adopted them.  My troop was not an adoption program.  

We were also not a big brother program.  I did use adult association as a method of scouting, but that is different from being a big brother program.  

I did have some scouts who had terrible relationships with their fathers, but I was not their surrogate father.  Being a surrogate father was not my role in my unit or my Chartered Organization.

Like everyone, I am shocked and appalled by the revelations of child sexual abuse in scouting.  That is not scouting.  Parents and scouts had a reasonable expectation that this would not take place in scouting.

I also think that some people came into scouting with an unreasonable expectation of what we would be able to do for them, and what we would be able to be for them.  Scouting is not a panacea for all of the world's problems.  That is too high an expectation of us. 

My CO only asked me to run a nice scouting program.  I think I did that.  But I apparently failed to meet many people's expectations.  Sorry.

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by RememberSchiff
No edit.Likely u did better than you'll ever know

[mrjohns2]

@David CO Sometimes, things end up being what you weren't trying to do. You may not think that your troop was a safe place, that you didn't adopt any of the scouts, and that it wasn't a big brother program. Some of your scouts might disagree. For some, a safe place is somewhere that people don't hit them and yell at them for no reason. A place where people listen when they talk and a place that gives them even a tiny bit of time and attention. 

[skeptic]

I occasionally still hear from a young man, once a boy, that fit that description.  He remained in the unit for close to 4 years, often not around, but coming back and enjoying, with a lot of other scouts' help, outings and such.  He lived with his alcoholic father who often beat him badly, yet he stood up for his father if anyone said anything.  It was hard for me to understand that defense mechanism, especially when it came to my attention that very often he stayed with other scouts when his father was on a binge.  He was part of our troop, no matter what, and he still notes on occasion that even though he lived a hellish childhood, the troop was a safe place.  And that is the real truth about our program beyond the anomalous predators that have been allowed to sneak in.  JMHO of course.

[johnsch322]

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

beyond the anomalous predators that have been allowed to sneak in.

30, 40, 50 plus years ago they weren't just allowed to slip in because the door was open wide for the abusers.  The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period.  Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files and you hadn't changed your name from your previous time when you had been caught.  

[David CO]

53 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

30, 40, 50 plus years ago they weren't just allowed to slip in because the door was open wide for the abusers.  

That really isn't true.  The committee chairman was expected to thoroughly review all applications for unit leadership.  If the committee members weren't personally aquatinted with the applicant, they expected references from people who were well-known in the Chartered Organization.

At one time, the local Superintendent of Schools was expected to review the charter renewal and unit roster.  They were pretty well aware of most of the disreputable persons in their school district, and were in a good position to point them out to the unit committee and chartered organization.  

This was a lot easier when scouting was more local, school districts were smaller and less bureaucratic, and each unit had only a handful of leaders.  

Edited August 29, 2021 by David CO

[Eagledad]

Our troop had a reputation for being a safe place for many reasons. One reason was it was safe for scouts to make wrong choices and not be shamed for it. Wrong choices were considered a requirement for character growth.

But we also had a reputation where scouts were physically and mentally safe. Several families with physically and mentally handicapped sons picked our troop because of our reputation.

We also had active scouts who were there because it was safe from mental and physical abuse at home.

just from the number of scouts in our troop who used our program as a safe refuge, I’m confident there are many many times more of them than scouts abused in their units.

That is not to take away from those who were abused, they have the right to seek justice. But there should be balanced in the discussion.

Barry

Edited August 29, 2021 by Eagledad

[MikeS72]

46 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

30, 40, 50 plus years ago they weren't just allowed to slip in because the door was open wide for the abusers.  The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period.  Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files and you hadn't changed your name from your previous time when you had been caught.  

Not to be argumentative, but it is hard to say "The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period."  While also saying "Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files".  The IVF may not have been the best system in the world, but it was an attempt to keep people out of the program.

Fifty years ago we could not do the kind of background checks we can now.  While I am sure that there were people who found a way around being in the IVF, there was no fool proof method back then of insuring it would never happen.  I will not try to say that things were always done right, I know they were not.  But I do know that people were removed from Scouting, and when possible charged and jailed.  I have first hand knowledge of a case where the adult was removed from the program, but not charged; and also of another where the adult was both removed and sent to prison.

[MattR]

56 minutes ago, skeptic said:

He lived with his alcoholic father who often beat him badly, yet he stood up for his father if anyone said anything.  It was hard for me to understand that defense mechanism, especially when it came to my attention that very often he stayed with other scouts when his father was on a binge.

What I've learned is that when it comes to trauma like this, where someone that society says you should be loyal to and yet they traumatize you anyway, it's next to impossible for the victim to walk away. Whether it's parents abusing kids, spousal abuse, CSA, or even war, this seems to be the crux of the pain. My understanding is that parts of our brains, the older parts, are wired towards loyalty towards community. So that part of the brain is keeping the victim from leaving the situation. The newer parts of the brain, including the parts that control reason and speech, you might think would just say "hey, this is a bad situation, leave!" but the two parts don't really talk to each other very well. Consequently there's a huge tension, words and reasoning don't work, and the result is PTSD and all the things we've been told about by the victims on this forum. My impression is that a compassionate community is probably the biggest type of help for the victims. The trauma makes a lot of changes in the brain and, again, just my impression, but it takes a lot of effort to rewire the brain.

 

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, David CO said:

That really isn't true.  The committee chairman was expected to thoroughly review all applications for unit leadership.  If the committee members weren't personally aquatinted with the applicant, they expected references from people who were well-known in the Chartered Organization.

At one time, the local Superintendent of Schools was expected to review the charter renewal and unit roster.  They were pretty well aware of most of the disreputable persons in their school district, and were in a good position to point them out to the unit committee and chartered organization.  

This was a lot easier when scouting was more local, school districts were smaller and less bureaucratic, and each unit had only a handful of leaders.  

So how did at least 2 abusers get into my troop?  How was one of them able to go to another state and allowed to apply and only when his name found was his application denied?  Only god knows what the second person was able to continue doing.  
I think that the imperators in your reply is “expected”.  Judging by the size of the perversion files this was not routinely carried out. 

[PeterHopkins]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

30, 40, 50 plus years ago they weren't just allowed to slip in because the door was open wide for the abusers.  The BSA had no safeguards in place for prevention period.  Anyone could be a volunteer unless the name you were using was in the files and you hadn't changed your name from your previous time when you had been caught. 

No disagreement about how wide the door was open. That's why we're here. Nevertheless, those who perpetrated these crimes were anomalous. That's a hard thing to say, when there are 82,000 survivors who have become claimants, and we know the true number is larger than that. Given the number of youth that went through the program and may still be living, the percentage of instances of abuse is very small. Anomolous does not equate to acceptable. One instance of abuse that could have been prevented is unacceptable. But folks like Mr. Kosnoff fail to see that there is a huge baby that has done so much good for society and for former youth participants that they want to throw away with the bath water.

I don't want anyone to feel as though I am trivializing the horrific experience they had by calling it anomolous or analogizing it to bath water. It is heartbreaking to me that so many were unable to rely on their Scouting experience to be a safe one as I was.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

I think some people came into scouting with an unfair expectation of us.  Yes, we always strove to be safe.  Teaching about health and safety is an important part of scouting.  My unit never promised to be their safe place, as you put it.

My pack and troop never promised to be safe places either, at least not within the context of how you're using the term. Scouting activities were simply a place to go that got me away from what was happening at home at the hands of both of my parents. No conscious effort to design Scouting to meet my needs was required. When I used the term safe place, it was a simple comparison to home. Every single Scout who has ever gone through any BSA program had the right to expect Scouting to be safe. Sadly, that has clealry not happened.

I internalized nearly everything. I didn't start to openly deal with what happened to me until I was 41. The only thing I did in my youth was call New York City Child Protective Services when I was 17 and had been thrown out of the house. My sister was 16 and had run away, since I was no longer there to protect her from the violence. The person with whom I spoke asked whether we were safe just then, When I said we were, they told me that they would not open a case given our ages. They suggested we call back, if we were in danger. An entire childhood of abuse and neglect was invalidated, because we escaped it.

Had I grown up in the 1990s and 2000s instead of the 1970s and 1980s, my parents likely would have served time in prison, but they both died free people with no felony convictions. I can never get justice, and I have no one to sue. My mother died second and wrote a will leaving my sister and me nothing. We're contesting it, since neither of us ever remember a time when she was of sound mind.

Scouting played a larger role than any other childhood experiece I had in helping me shape my moral compass. For that, I am eternally grateful.

I've been involved as an adult in Scouting for many years at the pack, troop, crew and district levels. While I agree we are not Bog Brothers, Big Sisters, I am always mindful that I have no idea what is going on in the lives of Scouts I serve when they leave. I don't know whether they see Scouing as their safe place. All I can do is make sure they are safe while I'm responsible for them, be alert and be willing to listen.

Edited August 29, 2021 by PeterHopkins
typo

[Life]

On 8/27/2021 at 1:26 PM, ThenNow said:

Question for my fellow survivor/victim claimants. What say you about this effort? As I’ve said, I hate the prospect of fraudulent claims and unethical attorneys, but have trepidation about letting the camels (Century/Chubb and Hartford) get their nose under the tent. Curious to hear your thoughts and feelings. Both matter to me. 

I think it’s a catch 22. On the one hand I don’t want someone to capitalize on what has been a life (for me) of constant struggle and just really hard. To say the least. 
on the other hand the motive to vet, at least in appearance, is to minimize damage to the insurance companies. So that process alone will come with its own darkness. This whole thing has been draining but we carry on.