Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA

[Eagle1993]

Just read this again:

• Disclose details on former detective refusing to sign NDA, non-disparagement agreement

- MJ is a former detective, so this must be him providing details on how he did not sign a NDA, non-disparagement agreement.  These are typical as part of layoffs and are tied to severance packages.  I'm 99.9% sure it will be MJ later today.

 

[Eagle1993]

27 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here's the problem: the BSA remains in absolute and total denial about all of this. They still insist their YP is best in the world, no problem, it is perfect, nothing needs to be fixed or changed. We've seen scouters in this very forum repeat that line: BSA has the best YP. We're fine. That was all in the past.

It is going to be really, really hard if not impossible for them to wrap their brains around the idea that, no, it is still a problem and it is happening in THEIR WATCH.

Perhaps the report later today will be a nothing burger.  Perhaps BSA YP is strong.  I'm not ready to buy into the report until I hear it along with the evidence.  If MJ is correct, then BSA's response won't matter as I expect the organization will fade away.   It is actually more important they act if they believe there are no issues.

This will be a PR crisis and risk the settlement that was already at high risk.  The BSA board needs to take immediate action.  As ThenNow stated, the truth will eventually come out; however, you also need to deal with the immediate damage. 

This isn't a random lawyer, this is BSA's youth protection director coming out claiming Scouts BSA is not safe .... that demands immediate action by the board. 

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Same lyrics, just a slightly different tune.

One a New Orleans funeral march, the other a ridiculous circus calliope piece.

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Perhaps the report later today will be a nothing burger. 

Right but as you point out it’s not the substance of the report it’s the media and public relations nightmare.

A substantial report that identifies continued lapses in youth protection is going to get the interests of a variety of different people. We already know at least one Attorney General is looking into this.

but even in insubstantial report that doesn’t contain much new or interesting it’s going to be taken a lot more seriously when and if it’s coming out of the mouth of the former head of youth protection.

What I also I think is interesting is references to nondisclosure non-disparagement agreement that he refused. That does sound like severance or termination. Expect BSA therefore to run with the former employee/sour grapes/disgruntled line of defense.

of course Johnson can wrap himself up with the “I quit because BSA didn’t take things seriously” or “I was terminated for telling unpleasant truths”

I thought about this overnight why is he sending open letters to Congress? If what he saying or what we suspect he’s going to say is true he should be walking into the Michigan Attorney General’s office or law enforcement.

[SSScout]

""" When suppertime came, the old cook came on deck sayin'
"Fellas, it's too rough to feed ya"
At seven PM, a main hatchway caved in, he said
"Fellas, it's been good to know ya""""""""""""

[ThenNow]

26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If what he saying or what we suspect he’s going to say is true he should be walking into the Michigan Attorney General’s office or law enforcement.

He may already have done that. As we’ve both discussed, an AG investigation produces reports and they’re unlikely to holder a press conference or release a statement when they get a substantive piece of information one way or the other. “I’m not going to comment on an ongoing investigation...”

[gpurlee]

 

Credibility - that will be the issue today. If the "star witness" comes across as sincere and has a ton of supporting documents, e-mails and other persons who back his statements, it will likely be a devastating blow to the BSA.

If it turns out that there has been an effort to falsify information or hide the extent of the youth protection issue, the BSA stands to lose not only external credibility but also internal support. 

If the BSA is to survive, it must be prepared to make a compelling case that statistics show the program is safe and they are committed to youth protection. They will be forced to decide whether to portray this person as a disgruntled former employee or a person who stands to potentially earn hundreds of thousands of dollars as a expert witness, speaker at conferences and retained consultant. 

I agree that the BSA must respond rapidly and nimbly - qualities that they have yet to show that they can do.  If they truly believe in their motto, they would already be well prepared for this day as part of their crisis management planning. We will soon see.

I also agree that there may be unintended consequences for all parties. 

And I suspect that there are longer term "game plans" now in motion that go beyond the immediate issues. This may be the opening round of an entirely new front.

Edited October 12, 2021 by gpurlee

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Credibility - that will be the issue today. If the "star witness" comes across as sincere and has a ton of supporting documents, e-mails and other persons who back his statements, it will likely be a devastating blow to the BSA.

Right, and this is where I wonder.

If there are emails or documents showing or suggesting that BSA is actively engaged in not doing enough, that's on thing.

If it comes down to "IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION BSA is not doing enough", then BSA trots out someone to say "YP is great and glorious and this person is just disgruntled."

And then they can throw Johnson's words back at him in which HE said the YP was great.

One of the reason what the Oregon case and the LA Times followup were so critical is that there were documents. We could read/can read the 1970s era documents showing LCs knew what was happening and then covered it up (and that became part of several books).

In this case I wonder.

Edited October 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

Incoming…

Michael-Johnson-Letter-to-Congress.pdf

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If there are emails or documents showing or suggesting that BSA is actively engaged in not doing enough, that's on thing.

Hmmm...It was MJ who tried to skewer me in an email back in 2019 when I pointed out 1) widespread confusion with and implementation of the 72-hour policy, 2) inconsistency in application of the "registered leader" policy, and 3) incoherence of a 2-deep policy that did not extend to MB Counselors.

He cc'ed my SE on the return email, and my SE subsequently removed me from all District and Council positions to try to silence me.  The SE said he did so under the guise of addressing my outspoken efforts to drive transparency in council finances...  Of course, he retained me as one of his useful idiots as we have one of the best unit level programs in the council.

Wonder if those emails will be in the mix 😜

This is like an election year "October Surprise."

And I feel guilty for having a certain sense of schadenfreude.

[Eagle1993]

Michael Johnson is new board member of the zero abuse project.  Announced Friday last week.

https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/zero-abuse-project-appoints-three-new-board-members/

Michael Johnson (Detective Mike) is an internationally recognized expert on all aspects of child abuse and exploitation and specializes in abuse investigation, detection, and prevention efforts for organizations serving youth. An early pioneer and visionary in the field, Johnson was at the forefront of promoting the multidisciplinary team investigative approach and the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) movement in the early 1990s. In 2019, the American Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) at the 26th APSAC Colloquium, recognized Detective Michael Johnson as “one of the most influential pioneers in the investigation of suspected child maltreatment.”

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This is like an election year "October Surprise."

I said earlier, my pure tinfoil hat theory is that this was timed to hit right when the bankruptcy ballots were getting into the mailboxes of the victims to vote no.

It could be pure coincidence. But there's a cynical part of me (get it, ha!) that says this press conference timing was not a coincidence and is timed to have maximum effect on the vote.

So yes, literally an October Surprise.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I said earlier, my pure tinfoil hat theory is that this was timed to hit right when the bankruptcy ballots were getting into the mailboxes of the victims to vote no.

It could be pure coincidence. But there's a cynical part of me (get it, ha!) that says this press conference timing was not a coincidence and is timed to have maximum effect on the vote.

So yes, literally an October Surprise.

Here's a really tinfoil hat idea: CynicalScouter = Kosnoff

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Hmmm...It was MJ who tried to skewer me in an email back in 2019 when I pointed out 1) widespread confusion with and implementation of the 72-hour policy,

Read the letter ThenNow just posted from Johnson

Quote

Against my recommendations, Scouts BSA installed a policy – the “72-Hour Rule” -
that is inconsistent with ALL research for adults involved with youth, especially during
overnight programming (camping). This “rule” continues to effectively allow
ANYONE to accompany scouts on overnight trips without any proper screening — as
long as the adult leaves prior to the elapse of 72 hours. If the trip or campout is shorter,
this policy effectively allows unvetted adults access and opportunity to scouting youth.
It is of note this policy became effective at about the time girls were introduced into
the Scouts BSA program.

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

Should I forward a copy to our SE?