YPT Updates from TCC Term Sheet (Bankruptcy)

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Then, perhaps, you can have a registered adult.  They cannot sign off on rank, etc.  However, they are registered, go through YPT and a background check.

 

5 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Current process is 1) completing a full application, 2)getting it signed/approved by Committee Chair, 3) get it signed and approved by Chartered Organization Rep., 4) Get it to council office along with printed copy of YP training certificate, 5) pay $45 registration fee, 6) council has to obtain background check, 7)  Scout Exec has to review application & background check, 8 approved application has to be entered into council system, 9) unit has to be notified that volunteer now approved and registered.

So, currently it's a one size fits all set up. Has this sort of tiering been proposed?

[T2Eagle]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think any process would be last minute.  There is probably going to need to be some lead time to allow a background check.

True last minute is rare, I was thinking more about the number of times where at the Wednesday night before a campout we count heads and realize we need one more person, or we need a sub for someone who had previously committed and now has to back out.  

[Eagle1993]

Just now, T2Eagle said:

True last minute is rare, I was thinking more about the number of times where at the Wednesday night before a campout we count heads and realize we need one more person, or we need a sub for someone who had previously committed and now has to back out.  

I think what I will do is basically register most parents every year.  Ask all parents ... hey, do you think you ever want to stay overnight?  If so, let's get you registered now.  Otherwise, you may not be able to attend overnight later on.

[malraux]

5 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Current process is 1) completing a full application, 2)getting it signed/approved by Committee Chair, 3) get it signed and approved by Chartered Organization Rep., 4) Get it to council office along with printed copy of YP training certificate, 5) pay $45 registration fee, 6) council has to obtain background check, 7)  Scout Exec has to review application & background check, 8 approved application has to be entered into council system, 9) unit has to be notified that volunteer now approved and registered.

Often times, when we're talking about a previously unregistered parent attending camp for the first time, it can either be a last minute decision where we need more leaders to drive and cover the activity, or at best it's maybe two weeks out when plans for both troop and volunteer family are finalized.

 

Step one is completing ypt. Which is a process that could be easier. Registering on the BSA site and watching 4 videos sounds easy, but the training section of the site feels clunky and hard to navigate. And I'm not sure how well the videos do at imparting the rules of youth protection and ways to identify problems vs stressing the importance of caring about youth protection.

[Eagle1993]

Overall, I don't see any major concerns with the proposed YPT changes.  I think over time, it could improve safety.  It is hard for me to know where we have issues today, so until I see the reports and updates from the committees & 3rd parties, I can't fully say.

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Overall, I don't see any major concerns with the proposed YPT changes.  I think over time, it could improve safety.

Elucidate? 

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

13) Volunteer Screening Database

Plus reporting statistics, etc.  

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

So I support reporting statistics, trends, findings, etc.  Those convicted in a court of child abuse should be listed.  My concern with what I read above is that someone could be accused of some action in Scouting that gets him or her ejected from the program.  That bar should be relatively low because we are trying to screen out people who might be abusers.  However, for their name to then be reported as such when there was no due process or findings in a court of law would seem to improperly impugn their character and be a reason for Scouting to be sued.  Should we not eject people who were felt to have inappropriate actions, keep them in a file so they cannot join Scouting somewhere else, add them to statistics, use demographic information to learn how to better screen, but do not publish their names until found guilty?

The volunteer screening database is a huge part of why we are here now.  Society wasn't ready.  So BSA tracked and excluded problematic volunteers.   #13 now expands that and makes it more than publicly visible and coordinates with the rest of society?  This just begs a huge new set of issues.  The issue is not the database.  The issue is BSA owning a national database shared with other organizations.  I can 100% guarantee it will become the target of job searches and background checks.  It will be a future legal mess.

IMHO, BSA should minimize that database and instead focus on the #13 sub point.  "The BSA will take a leadership role and re-engage with other YSOs and agencies including but not limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to explore the feasibility of and advocate for a shared national database of adults who have been excluded from working with youths for youth protection related offenses."  

Such a database is absolutely needed.  It can feed statistics, trends, reporting, etc. 

The problem is BSA owning the database.  It's like one company saying they will share their HR employment records with all other companies to let other companies know why they terminated an employee.  It would be a mess.

When BSA encounters a problematic volunteer, BSA records should show "Membership revoked.   See national youth reporting database incident #####."

Edited February 10, 2022 by fred8033

[yknot]

I've read through this once and my initial reaction is that there are some good elements to it and I like some of the additional oversight and transparency. Some of the specifics I'm interested in I assume would be addressed later as part of the general statements about reviewing procedures and policies with other best practices and experts. At this point, we also kind of don't know where we've been without access to data (other than the claims and anecdotal reports) so it hard to be sure we are targeting the right things.  Certainly the addition of SWG individuals to the process will be extraordinarily helpful going forward. 

There is a missing piece here unless I've skipped over it and that's consquences. It isn't clear how YP will be integrated with operations. It can't be just a committee or department that, however buffed up, is still to the side. I want to know what will happen when there are incidents - what will an incident trigger? Hopefully, a mandatory review process that could ultimately lead to revocation of charters for units or even councils if necessary. One of the things that has driven abuse in BSA in my opinion has been the overwhelming focus on membership at all costs. If membership is still allowed to smudge youth safety in any way, we are still in the same place with just more bells and whistles. We need to make sure YP has teeth. 

I particularly like the provisions increasing the data flow to parents in individual troops. Parents should be able to get a "report card" on the unit they are placing their children in . I would hope that report would also be available for the district and council as well. 

[fred8033]

11 minutes ago, yknot said:

...  It isn't clear how YP will be integrated with operations. ... I want to know what will happen when there are incidents - what will an incident trigger?

Yes.  ... Are there two paths?  One for criminal activity.  One for G2SS violations without actual crime.  

Will the public database show only actual crimes or also rejected volunteers because they repeatedly violate G2SS?  Then, non-crimes are in the publicly shared visible to the world database?    

The challenge I see is one I have personally encountered (not thru scouting).  When I see criminal activity, my mandatory duty under the law is to file a police report.  That's the law.  Everything else is a nice have and extra hoops being asked of volunteers who donate their time.  I hope I get it right, but it's not my professional paid job.  I'm going to make mistakes there.  My job is to make the police report.  Period.  

 

[yknot]

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Yes.  ... Are there two paths?  One for criminal activity.  One for G2SS violations without actual crime.  

Will the public database show only actual crimes or also rejected volunteers because they repeatedly violate G2SS?  Then, non-crimes are in the publicly shared visible to the world database?    

The challenge I see is one I have personally encountered (not thru scouting).  When I see criminal activity, my mandatory duty under the law is to file a police report.  That's the law.  Everything else is a nice have and extra hoops being asked of volunteers who donate their time.  I hope I get it right, but it's not my professional paid job.  I'm going to make mistakes there.  My job is to make the police report.  Period.  

 

That is a whole unclear area that was a subject of at least one contentious thread a year or so ago. Mandatory reporting varies by state.  It would seem the BSA policy ought to be report to police first, BSA second, but in some places it was BSA first. Hopefully new YP guidelines will clarify that if it still needs clarifying but more importantly publicize it. It's not clear, or at least it wasn't the last time I went through YPT.

[skeptic]

Three things come to mind initially for me.  Living in California where a new Volunteer law took effect this year, we have to adhere to that state madate.  It is not overly expensive, but there is a price factor for the fingerprinting and background check.  The councils within the state are supposedly developing a plan to to include all councils, but it is still not presented to us.  This is on top of any other background checks already done through BSA.  It is my understanding that some other states also have some type of similar law on the books now.  These, it seems to me, should be joined in a nation wide statute which makes them all alike and offers their implementation as inexpensively as possible.  Having overlapping and possibly conflicting laws and checks in varous state will be confusing at least, and possibly very problematic in some cases.  How does the California law and therefore requirement effect a Scouter simply coming to the state on a trip, with or without scouts?  Similarly, in other states with their own versions of this?

Second, what will be done to combat the real issue of parental/guardian  lack of concern and "real" adherance to the parental/guardian part of YP, discussing in depth with their children, and they themselves actually being aware and informed?  Right now we all know that the "sign off" is often just that.  These then are the same parents that scream that their child was not protected, even though they never actually addressed it.  To me, this seems a major concern, not just in BSA, but in society as a whole.  People simply choose to ignore things unless they are suddenly confronted with them directly.  Too much of the "int is not my problem or conern" attitude.

Finally, I find it possibly contradictive to talk about protecting the survivor, while at the smae time putting up memorials of some kind and offering a "pin" or something.  Granted, the wearing of such an item would be a choice by the survivor, but does it really serve a purpose?  Should its meaning, like square knots, be open to youth wanting to knwo what it stands for?  Is that the place of the survivor to explain it to a minor, possibly without their parent/guardian approval?

Lot of vetting before implementation of some of these things, or so it appears to me.  With our legal system, the same one that has put us here to begin with, are we opening up another "legal" morass for the less than ethical lawyers?  And, we still are not admitting that no matter what is done, there will be bad actors that somehow get by.  

 

[ThenNow]

46 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

#13 now expands that and makes it more than publicly visible and coordinates with the rest of society?  This just begs a huge new set of issues.  The issue is not the database.  The issue is BSA owning a national database shared with other organizations.  I can 100% guarantee it will become the target of job searches and background checks.  It will be a future legal mess.

IMHO, BSA should minimize that database and instead focus on the #13 sub point.  "The BSA will take a leadership role and re-engage with other YSOs and agencies including but not limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to explore the feasibility of and advocate for a shared national database of adults who have been excluded from working with youths for youth protection related offenses."  

Shared this with my wife. She's busy, but the initial reaction was swift and simple. Either or both entities - BSA or an association of YSO's - better insure up and lawyer up. After she said that, my reflex is that one serious misstep with clear compensable damages for tortious interference and/or defamation with emotional and reputational impacts could be a plaintiff's lawyer's playground. The proof in defamation is difficult. In an employment recommendation process, which this could be construed to be even if a volunteer, the former employer's statement would need to be reckless, known to be untrue or reasonably know to be untrue. At the least, this could generate a bevy lawsuits. All that said, this seems to be an "explore and see if we can do this" type deal. It will need to be well thought out and examined. 100%. 

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

Lot of vetting before implementation of some of these things, or so it appears to me.  With our legal system, the same one that has put us here to begin with, are we opening up another "legal" morass for the less than ethical lawyers?  And, we still are not admitting that no matter what is done, there will be bad actors that somehow get by.  

Agree. As I read it, a critical piece is the presence and (apparently) critical role of the Youth Protection Committee. If active and empowered, as it seems to be, the YPC should be able to drive assessment, implementation, and adjustments as appropriate. Selecting the right Youth Protection Executive will be enormously important. Goes without saying.  

On the memorial, some of BSA survivors shudder at the notion of going anywhere near a Scout camp. Others will find it honoring and comforting to be acknowledged with more than prepared statements.

Good point about  the pin. Appropriate and timely explanation would need to be considered. As a survivor who was about to get back into Scouting if only at a distance, I would be hesitant to wear one. Others, like the memorial, will be honored. For me, it boils down to whether I want to be recognized as a survivor and possibly deferred to on that basis alone vs on my character, contribution, personality and commitment. That is just ME and not meant to reflect on anyone who feels or chooses otherwise. I will think about it some more.

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

There is a missing piece here unless I've skipped over it and that's consquences. It isn't clear how YP will be integrated with operations. It can't be just a committee or department that, however buffed up, is still to the side.

I've thought a lot about this too. I've gone over the terms several times. The YPE and YPC appear to be tied at the hip. With my attorney's eye - only one and not two so I can hedge if I'm wrong - I think there's something perhaps not visible to the naked eye. It's imbedded and inherent. One would hope there will be a batch of motivated, vigilant, intelligent and very engaged survivors on the YPC. I see nothing that says they will be bound by confidentiality, unable to scream bloody murder in the town square if things go afoul of their expectations and directives toward a fully-integrated YP focus. Sidelining or marginalizing that group would be a very dangerous move. I may be an idiot, but I think it's a noteworthy leverage point. BSA must take the YPC very seriously and I assume they will. Time will tell, but this is Hulk in the House move. "Hulk smash" if Hulk provoked. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

The proof in defamation is difficult. In an employment recommendation process, which this could be construed to be even if a volunteer, the former employer's statement would need to be reckless, known to be untrue or reasonably know to be untrue. At the least, this could generate a bevy lawsuits. All that said, this seems to be an "explore and see if we can do this" type deal. It will need to be well thought out and examined. 100%. 

I trust as you say that this is a "explore and see" type of deal. 

I agree with your wife that this begs everyone to lawyer up.

This web site every periodically hosts questions from removed scouters looking to get the situation corrected.   Add a publicly visible database.  Add broadcasting the info to the world.  Add assocation with an ugly, ugly crime.  

This really does need to be a public database but one managed by the appropriate government or pseudo-gov authority.

[vol_scouter]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I trust as you say that this is a "explore and see" type of deal. 

I agree with your wife that this begs everyone to lawyer up.

This web site every periodically hosts questions from removed scouters looking to get the situation corrected.   Add a publicly visible database.  Add broadcasting the info to the world.  Add assocation with an ugly, ugly crime.  

This really does need to be a public database but one managed by the appropriate government or pseudo-gov authority.

Totally agree with you and @ThenNow.  That was the point that I was trying to make earlier.