BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?

[fred8033]

8 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

In one letter it mentions no newspaper publicity, In another it says committee worked hard to keep away publicity for victims and BSA. from the tone I would say that the committee (BSA) did not want the publicity.

PS page 4 is missing...I wonder what that mentioned.

Something else is also curious there are three perpetrators mentioned.

committee = BSA is the "legal" interpretation.   Morally, labeling "BSA" because it's the unit leaders is just manure.  There were tens of millions of unit leaders and millions more.  To call that "BSA" is calling all of society BSA.  .... But that would be more correct as BSA has traditionally been a large cross-section of our nation ... with a congressional charter and a presidential review.  ... It's why I still strongly assert the response was a sign of the times.

committee did not want publicity is more accurately stated as Mayberry USA did not want the publicity ... AND also the kid's parents did not want publicity.  That would be a statement I could accept.  

... I'm not sure what is in page 4.  It could be very private information such as membership cards of the youth and all youth involved.  IMHO, obscured content is usually to protect youth. 

... three perpetrators ... yeah, that sounds abnormal.  I'm not sure what it means either.  ... That's the trouble from trying to understand the context from 50 years ago.  I can guess, but it would not be useful.  

[mrjohns2]

24 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

In one letter it mentions no newspaper publicity,

I assume it is to track bad publicity, but in reading the files it was very clear policy to collect and add any and all newspaper clippings. So, if a council turned in a report without them, I can see national wanting to know why. 

[skeptic]

Now please do not destroy the negative bubbles mrjohns2.  So, as this thread continues, some resourceful or more determined are finding indicators from the awful files that support the idea that at the time of many of these occurences, there WAS pressure from parents and authorities to NOT publicize things.  With enough digging, how many more "might" hint at these types of choices "at the time"?

Those that continue to try to make sense of how people thought decades ago, or how they reacted, will not be able to do so with a perspective of today.  I am pushing 80, and I know for a fact that these types of things were NOT dicussed clear up into the late sixties or later, and only in the last decade or two have really been brought into the light.  Just like the use of some terms for Blacks, or for Gays, or for other nationalities.  Up until the seventies it was still common to hear terms attached to people from Axis countries that today are considered unacceptible.  Most of us as kids did not have a clue, just knew that those terms were used by many adults.  As a kid in the fifties, I had no understanding of the Red Scare, other than adults said negative things about Russia and the Iron Curtain, as well as about Asian countries.  It wasn't until I was around fifty that it dawned on me why a neighbor when I was about 10 or so told my parents I was singing a bad song.  I had grown to favor a song by Dick Haymes; my parents had it on a 78 and I liked the tune and words and learned it.  The elderly woman next door took offense.  Haymes had been Black Listed, but I did not understand that and could not figure out why she thought the song was bad.  Not the song, but the singer.  I did not start to grasp the sea changes of the early to late sixties until I went to college in Riverside and actually went to school with blacks and intermixed with them.  My dad was still calling them "colored", and he had worked with them for decades and he and my mother had Black friends in 29 Palms, as well as the San Gabriel Valley where we lived prior.  They both attended Inglewood High in the thirties; and both were born in the midwest.

Long winded I guess, but the point is that society changes on its own terms, or in a way forced by other winds of change.  Just like we need to learn to adjust to climate change and its myriad tentacles of environmental challenge, we need to also learn to adjust to changes in societal norms, understanding we cannot change the norms of the past, just as we cannot change the effects of poor environmental practices of the past, like strip mining, or water blasting, or not keeping filth from mining and our cities out of the water.  But, we CAN find ways to mitigate those things today now that we understand the dangers.  Evolve, evolve, evolve, but try keep that evolution positive for today and the future, and not think we will change the past.  

Anyone over forty or fifty might with a little memory search find similar things from their past that today seem so wrong and out of place, and those of us from the early to middle twentieth century birth dates, have seen huge swings in public attitudes and of course political changes.

[yknot]

8 hours ago, skeptic said:

Now please do not destroy the negative bubbles mrjohns2.  So, as this thread continues, some resourceful or more determined are finding indicators from the awful files that support the idea that at the time of many of these occurences, there WAS pressure from parents and authorities to NOT publicize things.  With enough digging, how many more "might" hint at these types of choices "at the time"?

Those that continue to try to make sense of how people thought decades ago, or how they reacted, will not be able to do so with a perspective of today.  I am pushing 80, and I know for a fact that these types of things were NOT dicussed clear up into the late sixties or later, and only in the last decade or two have really been brought into the light.  Just like the use of some terms for Blacks, or for Gays, or for other nationalities.  Up until the seventies it was still common to hear terms attached to people from Axis countries that today are considered unacceptible.  Most of us as kids did not have a clue, just knew that those terms were used by many adults.  As a kid in the fifties, I had no understanding of the Red Scare, other than adults said negative things about Russia and the Iron Curtain, as well as about Asian countries.  It wasn't until I was around fifty that it dawned on me why a neighbor when I was about 10 or so told my parents I was singing a bad song.  I had grown to favor a song by Dick Haymes; my parents had it on a 78 and I liked the tune and words and learned it.  The elderly woman next door took offense.  Haymes had been Black Listed, but I did not understand that and could not figure out why she thought the song was bad.  Not the song, but the singer.  I did not start to grasp the sea changes of the early to late sixties until I went to college in Riverside and actually went to school with blacks and intermixed with them.  My dad was still calling them "colored", and he had worked with them for decades and he and my mother had Black friends in 29 Palms, as well as the San Gabriel Valley where we lived prior.  They both attended Inglewood High in the thirties; and both were born in the midwest.

Long winded I guess, but the point is that society changes on its own terms, or in a way forced by other winds of change.  Just like we need to learn to adjust to climate change and its myriad tentacles of environmental challenge, we need to also learn to adjust to changes in societal norms, understanding we cannot change the norms of the past, just as we cannot change the effects of poor environmental practices of the past, like strip mining, or water blasting, or not keeping filth from mining and our cities out of the water.  But, we CAN find ways to mitigate those things today now that we understand the dangers.  Evolve, evolve, evolve, but try keep that evolution positive for today and the future, and not think we will change the past.  

Anyone over forty or fifty might with a little memory search find similar things from their past that today seem so wrong and out of place, and those of us from the early to middle twentieth century birth dates, have seen huge swings in public attitudes and of course political changes.

Things are indeed different now but comparing an epidemic of child sexual abuse to some of these other issues isn't really a defense. It really falls apart when you look at environmental or health issues, because there are many similar situations where government agencies, corporate entities, or other organizations noted, collected, and yet failed to act or do the morally right thing with the information they had and often tried to hide because it was inconvenient, just as the BSA did. Whether it was a cancer causing substance or an abhorrent medical practice, we don't attempt to excuse it with the defense of "Well, that's how it was back then." Enrolling minorities in medical trials without their knowledge or dumping a chemical into a water source that resulted in human cancer clusters was wrong on some basic human level, even if prejudice, environmental awareness, and personal health issues were viewed differently back then. Whenever society has found that entities tried to minimize or even hide these kinds of egregious results, they've been called out for their actions and often criticized and sued just as the BSA has been. You know something's wrong on a basic human level if a lot of people are dying of cancer, or they are suffering from a disease you know is treatable, or a lot of children are winding up sexually abused. I don't why there is this defense that basic humanity should have applied in these cases but not when it comes to the BSA. 

[clbkbx]

7 hours ago, skeptic said:

Anyone over forty or fifty might with a little memory search find similar things from their past that today seem so wrong and out of place,

For sure and I agree we need to keep evolving. 
 

I think there’s a difference between the norms you mention and CSA. I’m younger than you but am fairly certain male-male pedophilia was not accepted as part of society. So the everyone-was-covering-up-crimes so it’s fine approach always seems a bit gross to me. 
 

Police covering up racial violence at the time thought the violence was ok. What were organizations covering up CSA doing other than protecting their reputation? 

[johnsch322]

40 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

I think there’s a difference between the norms you mention and CSA. I’m younger than you but am fairly certain male-male pedophilia was not accepted as part of society. So the everyone-was-covering-up-crimes so it’s fine approach always seems a bit gross to me. 

You are correct. Not everyone was covering up crimes or hiding knowledge in confidential files. CSA was illegal, immoral and was punishable in the 40's, 50's, 60's 70's and up. Many men including scouters went to prison for CSA. The IV files have clippings and arrest reports of such scouters. After reading many files what impression I have is that if the parents went to the police first there was a higher probability of arrest and conviction vs if parents went to BSA authorities first. 

[clbkbx]

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

what impression I have is that if the parents went to the police first there was a higher probability of arrest and conviction vs if parents went to BSA authorities first. 

That is very interesting, thanks. I thought that the IV files would be released and there would be more in-depth study but now understand that’s not likely (noting that it seems to make sense why they won’t be fully released). BSA let someone fully review them but I didn’t think the analysis was unbiased.
 

If we know this type of abuse is on-going, there are probably other insights to minimize it (a la your example of reporting to authorities not the org, which does seem to be the better approach and I understand is current practice in BSA). 

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

... Whenever society has found that entities tried to minimize or even hide these kinds of egregious results, they've been called out for their actions and often criticized and sued just as the BSA has been. ...  I don't why there is this defense that basic humanity should have applied in these cases but not when it comes to the BSA. 

There are many reasons.  ... Though over 100 years and 100m+ youth, you will always find examples to criticize BSA, in most case files I read there was a reasonable good path taken by BSA. 

From what I've read, BSA was far from minimizing and hiding.  The last file discussed had the unit committee (parents of the scouts), state attorney and state police involved.  This is a common pattern in many of the files.  The direct purpose of the IVF files was to block dangerous volunteers.  The very same volunteers that cities, police and parents often did not do anything about. 

Basic humanity is often very ugly, and often large groups blame individuals for the group's failure.   

[johnsch322]

One major thing I can't get out of my mind is what was ever done for the victims? I have not found any evidence of the BSA extending a helping hand to those who were damaged while in the care of the BSA. Does anyone have any knowledge of what the policy to victims were? 

[Eagle1970]

I continue to believe there is no shortage of evidence to support a concealment case.  At this point, logistically speaking, how does tolling the sol with concealment impact a survivor's case?  

Under the Trust Agreement, would it require an independent review, along with the $10k to make a case for concealment?  Or would the argument simply tilt the sol factor higher under the standard procedure?  Or other legal action?

In the end, there were multitudes of failures along the way, and some appear to be intentional.  That will remain a fact, regardless of the bk settlement or the BSA's future.

[ThenNow]

47 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

At this point, logistically speaking, how does tolling the sol with concealment impact a survivor's case?  

Under the Trust Agreement, would it require an independent review, along with the $10k to make a case for concealment?  Or would the argument simply tilt the sol factor higher under the standard procedure?

Based on adequate evidence and argument, the Trustee (and of course the Neutral) can alter the mitigation factor (discount) otherwise imposed due to the Gray State factor. My assumption has been, based on my legal interpretation of the valuation process and this provision, the reviewer may reduce the mitigation factor to zero by full tolling of the statute. Fraudulent Concealment is the strongest argument I’m aware of. I see no indication it can’t be done if an adequate argument can be presented to defeat the SoL defense. 
 

General note: the IVF relevant to my concealment case is interesting in another respect. The ASM abuser signed a letter of resignation. It was witnessed by the SM, LC president, COR and sent to the professionals, including Regional and on to Ernst. In my view, it was clearly drafted by BSA. Why did he allegedly resign? CSA? Moral turpitude? Violating the Oath or Law? Nah. “Personal reasons.” Ya. Uh huh. Personal indeed. That’s the officially notable and ‘public’ element in the file. Yup.

Edited July 9, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Does anyone have any knowledge of what the policy to victims were? 

Institution-wide, I’m only aware of the reimbursement for counseling and therapy. I can’t say what was done individually or locally. I hope some were compassionate and facilitated assistance. Based on some Scouters here, I want to believe that was the case. Old time Scouters? What say you?

[clbkbx]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

you will always find examples to criticize BSA, in most case files I read there was a reasonable good path taken by BSA.

Sure, individual outcomes vary. That’s a lot different than, for example, what @johnsch322 noted about different outcomes based on reporting. 
 

National BSA was the correct entity to be aggregating (which they did) and analyzing (which it sure seems they didn’t) this information. 
 

I’ve made this comment before: that the last vote mainly changed YPT is outrageous. (I do hope the Neutral path helps some victims.) It shows me that BSA… having entered bankruptcy to address their past failures around CSA… are still prioritizing their org instead of youth. It’s embarrassing. The TCC explicitly said it was the reason to vote yes. That seems less like a negotiation and more like a hostage situation (vote for this or else…). 

[clbkbx]

21 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

reimbursement for counseling and therapy

As I noted above, no one in BSA ever reached out to me. Here’s some more context: it was the late 1990’s (hope that doesn’t get counted as “old timer”!), my abuser was arrested (bc my family and I reported it to the police) so it was publicly known, I was in Scouts from Tiger through 18 yrs old, Eagle/Vigil/youth leadership positions so I knew/interacted with a lot of adults (SE on down). I never heard they did any reimbursement until recently (my broke college self could have used it more than now). 
 

That said, I’ve been considering it for my more recent during-bankruptcy therapy but haven’t… has anyone on here done that? 

[ThenNow]

10 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

As I noted above, no one in BSA ever reached out to me. Here’s some more context: it was the late 1990’s (hope that doesn’t get counted as “old timer”!), my abuser was arrested (bc my family and I reported it to the police) so it was publicly known, I was in Scouts from Tiger through 18 yrs old, Eagle/Vigil/youth leadership positions so I knew/interacted with a lot of adults (SE on down). I never heard they did any reimbursement until recently (my broke college self could have used it more than now). 
 

That said, I’ve been considering it for my more recent during-bankruptcy therapy but haven’t… has anyone on here done that? 

I’m very sorry.

Yes. I encourage you to pursue it, even now while we are in limbo. You deserve it.