Legal settlements and abuse

[fred8033]

11 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

If anyone here has not read the Wikipedia page on Boy Scout sexual abuse cases than here is the link

Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases - Wikipedia

Please read the whole page.

LOL.   Like we haven't.  Stop trying to chastise.  Be part of a conversation.  

Like many hot topic Wikipedia pages, the page is littered with inflammatory, inaccurate statements.  Quotes taken from news feeds over years without checking if the news feed was right.   

The first statement talking about abuse says 92,000 cases (CNN).  PBS put the number at 80,000.  (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-upholds-boy-scouts-2-4-billion-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan#:~:text=More than 80%2C000 men have,the bankruptcy process was manipulated.)

Missing is the late night infomercial marketing; the lawyers not vetting claims; etc.  The number is definitely higher than expected, but the 92,000 is wrong.  Even the 80,000 seems extremely improbable.   

Edited September 8, 2023 by fred8033

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Be part of a conversation.

What does being part of a conversation mean to you?

[johnsch322]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Stop trying to chastise

I made that post because it was the first time, I read it and I thought it was interesting from both sides of the coin. Using the number 90,000 claimants may not be accurate but neither is 80,000 there are more than 82,000. I guess PBS is wrong also. 

 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Missing is the late night infomercial marketing; the lawyers not vetting claims; etc.  The number is definitely higher than expected, but the 92,000 is wrong.  Even the 80,000 seems extremely improbable.   

The Wikipedia was about BSA Sex abuse cases and what the BSA has done to try to curb the amount of abuse, not so much centered on the bankruptcy itself. I would say it is a general overview.  I saw no need to pick out anything within it to attack any point of view.

[ThenNow]

You may find this of interest. It is BSA's response to the non-settling insurers and certain claimants' requesting to pause the Trust process, per the looming spectre of Purdue.

 

Dist.D.Del._1-22-cv-01237_240 (1).pdf

[johnsch322]

I watched Scouts Honour a couple of days ago. Took me a little while to get up the courage since I wasn't sure about any triggers.

In my opinion it was well done and very factual.

Michael Johnson presented his opinion very eloquently and was quite believable and Steve McGowan the ex-counsel of the BSA was able to give what has become the old guard BSA talking points. 

I recommend everyone to watch it.

Edited September 15, 2023 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

53 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I watched Scouts Honour a couple of days ago. Took me a little while to get up the courage since I wasn't sure about any triggers.

In my opinion it was well done and very factual.

Michael Johnson presented his opinion very eloquently and was quite believable and Steve McGowan the ex-counsel of the BSA was able to give what has become the old guard BSA talking points. 

I recommend everyone to watch it.

I watched it too, also after consideration and preparation.

For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John.

As always, the survivors were excellent and their retellings, vulnerability and powerful force of presence unassailable. Patrick Boyle was very good and it was great to see him on camera presenting the process he went through in researching and writing his critical book. Kosnoff was a throwaway for controversy sake. Added little.

The MJ v Big Mac face-off? Meh. It was so obviously a predetermined narrative and story arc that I lost respect for the filmmakers and any veiled attempt to present the full picture. Michael Johnson was portrayed gloriously with dramatic settings, outdoor scenes and swooning music. The questions put to him were collegial and designed to carry the arc. I found his all too frequent jocularity not only damaging to the credibility of his "testimony," but also less than attractive. I rolled my eyes through several of the heroic warrior sequences. I am trying to be objective.

And as for Mr. McGowan, I understand he was the executive to whom Mr. Johnson reported. Fair enough to have them across from each other to slug it out. But look at the setting he was in compared to Johnson. It looked like an interrogation room. I don't know Steve McGowan, but he was a terrible spokesperson, in my opinion. He looks like a bully, responds defensively and is not the most eloquent. Have on on-camera conversation with a BSA spokesperson and Michael Johnson. McGowan was terrible and deserves to be skewered. That doesn't mean it was good filmmaking. Again, my opinion.

Last point. One of the two of them is clearly lying. Michael Johnson said flat out it's McGowan. McGowan would not say that, but repeated what I have heard others say who know what went down between MJ, McGowan and the BSA brass juxtaposed and with Johnson's statements and actions since leaving. The word they all use is "shocked." I've heard that said by three different people, one of them I know well and trust. Did I praise and thank Mr. Johnson when he cried and asked forgiveness during the press conference given by Jeff Anderson? Yes, I did. It was healing. Have I since begun to question Johnson's telling, motive and transparent full disclosure? Yes, I have.

Someone needs to do a better job with this overall "story." Doing it in a feature length documentary will never allow that to happen.

-The End (fade to black and cue the dramatic music)

[johnsch322]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John.

Your opinions are always welcome and looked forward to.

[vol_scouter]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I watched it too, also after consideration and preparation.

For once, I am going to have an opinion that diverges from my brother John.

As always, the survivors were excellent and their retellings, vulnerability and powerful force of presence unassailable. Patrick Boyle was very good and it was great to see him on camera presenting the process he went through in researching and writing his critical book. Kosnoff was a throwaway for controversy sake. Added little.

The MJ v Big Mac face-off? Meh. It was so obviously a predetermined narrative and story arc that I lost respect for the filmmakers and any veiled attempt to present the full picture. Michael Johnson was portrayed gloriously with dramatic settings, outdoor scenes and swooning music. The questions put to him were collegial and designed to carry the arc. I found his all too frequent jocularity not only damaging to the credibility of his "testimony," but also less than attractive. I rolled my eyes through several of the heroic warrior sequences. I am trying to be objective.

And as for Mr. McGowan, I understand he was the executive to whom Mr. Johnson reported. Fair enough to have them across from each other to slug it out. But look at the setting he was in compared to Johnson. It looked like an interrogation room. I don't know Steve McGowan, but he was a terrible spokesperson, in my opinion. He looks like a bully, responds defensively and is not the most eloquent. Have on on-camera conversation with a BSA spokesperson and Michael Johnson. McGowan was terrible and deserves to be skewered. That doesn't mean it was good filmmaking. Again, my opinion.

Last point. One of the two of them is clearly lying. Michael Johnson said flat out it's McGowan. McGowan would not say that, but repeated what I have heard others say who know what went down between MJ, McGowan and the BSA brass juxtaposed and with Johnson's statements and actions since leaving. The word they all use is "shocked." I've heard that said by three different people, one of them I know well and trust. Did I praise and thank Mr. Johnson when he cried and asked forgiveness during the press conference given by Jeff Anderson? Yes, I did. It was healing. Have I since begun to question Johnson's telling, motive and transparent full disclosure? Yes, I have.

Someone needs to do a better job with this overall "story." Doing it in a feature length documentary will never allow that to happen.

-The End (fade to black and cue the dramatic music)

I will echo @ThenNow's excellent critique. 

I know both Steve McGowan and Michael Johnson.  They are both good men who worked very hard while at the BSA to do their jobs well.  Both were concerned about how best to protect the youth in the program.  Ultimately, both had to take their ideas to the Chief Scout Executive and Vice-CSEs and, if a major change, to the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board.  This is the first time that I have heard about the possibility of requesting a driver's license (DL) or some other form of government issued identification (ID).  My guess is that the concern was who would be responsible to check such an ID?  The Scout Master when a registration is turned into the Troop?  The Chartered Organization is actually responsible but are nearly never present.  Many IDs have shading to prevent copying, and no one will leave a DL with someone to get it checked in a day or two.  Would have been helpful to have asked for an explanation.

Michael Johnson has said in the past and referred in the video to overnight camping as risky, but it is core to the program.  He makes some sweeping negative statements without what should be done.  At one point in time, the registration fee for adults was $33 but the cost of the criminal background check was $65!  The BSA was losing money but trying to protect the youth.  So his messages had an effect - that is not to excuse anything or to say that everything is being done in the best manner but to say that the BSA has been trying to protect youth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had by the 21st century grown to have more members outside of the USA than inside so that the Boy Scouts of America could not be the male youth program for half of the male youth members for those in countries other than the USA.  It was known that likely successors to the previous head of the church would likely want to make a change and that is what occurred when the previous head (forgive me for not recalling the proper term) died.  The LDS was a good partner until the end and all acted with grace and integrity.  Some members remain in Scouting continuing to do a very fine job.

As @ThenNow said, the survivors did a fine job.  Their stories are gut wrenching, powerful, and moving.  The continuing consequences are terrible.  It is hard to think that a program in which I grew up in the 60's and 70's did so much harm to so many.  As I have said before, I get it as to why some survivors want the BSA to go away (which may still occur). 

Many feel that the BSA did so much better than other organizations of the same time.  The data to claim that does not exist but it makes no difference.  We as a movement failed to protect these children and failing less badly than others is still failing.  

Overall, the video is clearly biased against the BSA.  Much of it is subtle (warm scenes to talk to Michael and much colder for Steve).  May this inspire all of us who are still involved in Scouting to be dedicated to preventing abuse in Scouting and, as much as, we can in society as a whole.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

This is the first time that I have heard about the possibility of requesting a driver's license (DL) or some other form of government issued identification (ID).  My guess is that the concern was who would be responsible to check such an ID?  The Scout Master when a registration is turned into the Troop?  The Chartered Organization is actually responsible but are nearly never present.  Many IDs have shading to prevent copying, and no one will leave a DL with someone to get it checked in a day or two.  Would have been helpful to have asked for an explanation.

Presenting a driver's license in order to gain access to areas that kids are in, for example a school, has been SOP in a lot of places for a long time. As an adult overnight chaperone, I have had to wear a photo ID lanyard and present a DL whenever accessing areas where kids were present. I imagine for someone like Johnson, coming from mainstream law enforcement, that would have seemed like an eggs and toast issue. 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

And then after you show your ID at the office, they give you a sticker to wear with your name, a picture of you, and whom you're visiting and/or where you're going ("Library"). Even if they know you on sight.

At my scout's school, you even have to show ID in addition to tickets to enter their sports games.

Johnson is right in that it comes off a little weird to make a big fuss about asking for ID from adults given what else is going on in schools and sports. Parents are already being asked to do it left and right elsewhere, why not in scouting also?

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

And then after you show your ID at the office, they give you a sticker to wear with your name, a picture of you, and whom you're visiting and/or where you're going ("Library"). Even if they know you on sight.

At my scout's school, you even have to show ID in addition to tickets to enter their sports games.

Johnson is right in that it comes off a little weird to make a big fuss about asking for ID from adults given what else is going on in schools and sports. Parents are already being asked to do it left and right elsewhere, why not in scouting also?

To be clear, I was not saying that it should not be done but rather speculating as to why someone might object within the upper management of the BSA or the EC.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

Oh, I see! TBH my guess for that is just that they don't have young kids at home themselves to have realized how normal this is now. I mean, outside the political issue of gun violence there really isn't a lot of reason to talk about it on social media or opine about it in op-eds. It's such a detail of the chaos that is life with young children at home.

[johnsch322]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

This is the first time that I have heard about the possibility of requesting a driver's license (DL) or some other form of government issued identification (ID).  My guess is that the concern was who would be responsible to check such an ID?  The Scout Master when a registration is turned into the Troop?  The Chartered Organization is actually responsible but are nearly never present.  Many IDs have shading to prevent copying, and no one will leave a DL with someone to get it checked in a day or two.  Would have been helpful to have asked for an explanation.

I ask people for their Drivers License and copy them every day as part of my job in the auto industry. It is required under red flag laws and i must even scrutinize them to make sure the DL is valid and that the person looks like the picture. This is for fraud protection to make sure that the person is who they say they are when applying for credit and even if paying cash for a vehicle. If no ID is required to be a volunteer or scout leader, then I see where this could be major issue.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

I recently went through all this to become a leader, and I have never showed ID to anyone in Scouts BSA. I filled out background check papers, but they ran that based on the names and SSN I gave. I imagine it's not just a matter of making up a new name to fool a background check, but the easy step of showing ID was omitted either way unlike with the background checks for employment where you also have to show ID and work authorization papers that march what comes up in the background check.

I work at the same company as our CC, so there is a de facto check on that the name I gave is my real name and that I am who I say I am, but that's luck.

Edited September 16, 2023 by AwakeEnergyScouter
Fixed typo

[johnsch322]

59 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

recently went through all this to become a leader, and I have never showed ID to anyone in Scouts BSA. I filled out background check papers, but they ran that based on the names and SSN I gave. I imagine it's not just a matter of making up a new name to fool a background check, but the easy step of showing ID was omitted either way unlike with the background checks for employment where you also have to show ID and work authorization papers that march what comes up in the background check.

I work at the same company as our CC, so there is a de facto check on that the name I gave is my real name and that I am who I say I am, but that's luck.

Just curious, did they run your fingerprints thru any data base or even ask for your fingerprints?