Possible Youth Protection Problem?

[Beavah]

Hiya NealeonWheels! Thanks for joinin' in.

 

Of course it's a guidebook, but we can still read it well. When there's a paragraph in a section titled "Mandatory Report of Child Abuse" that means that the paragraph is to be read in the context of reporting child abuse.

 

Or, as I mentioned, you can follow what the YP Training tells yeh, which is the same as what I'm telling yeh.

 

Alternately, yeh can look at da whole set of YP policies in da section "Barriers to Abuse Within Scouting" and decide whether mandatory reporting to the SE makes sense. If in fact we are to report everything, that means, from a straight read of the policies, we must report whenever a boy fails to conduct himself in accordance with the Scout Oath and Law. For example, if a boy utters a verbal insult to another boy, it must be reported to the Scout Executive.

 

All members of the Boy Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Physical violence, theft, verbal insults, drugs, and alcohol have no place in the Scouting program and may result in the revocation of a Scout's membership

 

So, dare I ask? Are yeh goin' to do your duty as a unit leader and report the next lad who calls his tentmate a poopy face to da SE? Or the next time a fellow isn't Cheerful on a rainy campout, do yeh place a call to the SE's weekend emergency pager?

 

It seems very clear to me.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, Scoutfish, easy there. I have personally had to deal with a number of real genuine youth abuse issues, in scoutin' and out. Have you?

 

Still, I think in all things there is a balance, eh?

 

Strip searching is better than patting down, and so if we strip searched and did full cavity exams on everyone's six year old girls, that might be one incremental step toward better safety from whatever lunatic group folks are being made fearful of this week.

 

I just don't think strip searching everyone's six year old is worth it. I think what we lose as a human society is greater than any tiny increment of safety we gain.

 

There is a balance, eh?

 

And as intolerably awful as youth abuse is, damaging someone's reputation with accusations of youth endangerment is a close second or third. Again, there is a balance.

 

I would personally advise any scout leader who had a parent complain to the SE of a youth protection issue to immediately remove that family from da program, or to leave the program themselves. Why? Because it's the one area where even a rumored allegation can destroy reputations and livelihood, and you don't ever want to be responsible for the child of a parent who runs to that response at first blush or over ordinary events. Nor should a parent with a genuine concern about youth protection have his/her kid continue to participate.

 

I confess that dependin' on da circumstances I'd also advise any such leader to file a John Doe slander suit and subpoena the SE as a witness to reveal the name of the complainer, eh? A person has a right and a duty to protect their own reputation, and those who make accusations should be held accountable. Remember, in the broader society, a reasonable person would have no problem with you driving your nephew, and would consider it inappropriate to call that a violation of youth protection.

 

So there is a balance, eh?

 

Predators are successful because they do the same sorts of things that the very best, most caring adults do when workin' with youth. If we start to report all of da things that a kind, caring, responsible adult might do on occasion, then we're goin' to sweep up a lot of kind, caring responsible adults with da one in tens of thousands predator. I don't think the damage to youth work, and to society, is worth it.

 

Because yeh see, havin' those kind, caring, responsible adults around who really listen to kids (and who occasionally drive 'em home at night when their parent got stuck on da late shift) is how most abuse is really discovered and stopped.

 

Beavah

 

 

[NealOnWheels]

Well let's look at what the Guide to Safe Scouting says...

 

Look at Member Responsibilities & Member Responsibilities. Don't just look under Barriers to Abuse but go farther down to Youth Member Behavior Guidelines where it is explained in greater detail.

 

It lists how to handle discipline in the unit. It has several steps. The last step when all else fails is removing a scout from the unit membership. At that point the council is to be notified.

 

So to answer your question, I would not call my Scout Executive if one scout called his tentmate a poopy face.

[Beavah]

The last step when all else fails is removing a scout from the unit membership. At that point the council is to be notified.

 

Nah, you're cheatin'

 

That's not what it says. In da section you mention, there's nothing about "at that last point". What it actually says is "Any violations of the BSA's Youth Protection policies must immediately be reported to the Scout executive." And again, right after da very line you quote "The unit should inform the Scout executive of any violations of the BSA's Youth Protection policies."

 

So you ignored that very clear wording (twice!) and instead used your judgment to decide that it meant after all else had failed and it became necessary to remove the scout.

 

Good for you. I agree. I wouldn't call da SE over a verbal insult either.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[shortridge]

Beavah,

 

First, as to your contention that the G2SS is a guidebook, not a rulebook, I offer some excerpts, with bolding added for emphasis.

 

To maintain such an environment, the BSA has developed numerous procedural and leadership selection policies, and provides parents and leaders the following online and print resources for the Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Venturing programs.

 

Thus, the G2SS is the primary source that provides these policies to parents and leaders. It is not simply a compilation of optional guidelines.

 

The BSA has adopted the following policies for the safety and well-being of its members. These policies are primarily for the protection of its youth members; however, they also serve to protect adult leaders.

 

Again, policies. Not guidelines.

 

Now, as to the YP violation reporting requirements.

 

All persons involved in Scouting shall report to local authorities, as is required under state and federal law, any good faith suspicion or belief that any child is or has been physically or sexually abused, physically or emotionally neglected, exposed to any form of violence or threat, exposed to any form of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution of child pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. No person may abdicate this reporting responsibility to any other person.

 

Notify your Scout executive of this report,or of any violation of BSAs Youth Protection policies, so that he or she may take appropriate action for the safety of our Scouts, make appropriate notifications, and follow-up with investigating agencies.

 

Seems simple enough.

 

Unit responsibilities. ... Adult leaders of Scouting units are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members and interceding when necessary. Parents of youth members who misbehave should be informed and asked for assistance. Any violations of the BSAs Youth Protection policies must immediately be reported to the Scout executive.

 

Reporting any violations is thus given as an explicit unit responsibility. This section also draws a clear difference between misbehavior and YP violations (see below).

 

The unit should inform the Scout executive of any violations of the BSAs Youth Protection policies.

 

This is the third place in the new G2SS which makes this statement. I dont think, as you seem to, that requiring reporting of all violations was some sort of an unintentional error made in the revision process.

 

Additionally, you try to cloud the issue by claiming that a Scout not following the Oath or Law is a Youth Protection violation. It is perfectly clear if you read the G2SS in its entirety that that is a member behavior issue, not a YP violation. Member behavior is covered by additional elements in the G2SS:

 

The unit committee should review repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior in consultation with the parents of the child to determine a course of corrective action including possible revocation of the youths membership in the unit.

If problem behavior persists, units may revoke a Scouts membership in that unit. When a unit revokes a Scouts membership, it should promptly notify the council of the action.

The unit should inform the Scout executive of any violations of the BSAs Youth Protection policies.

 

The formulation of that section - and the one provided above, on unit responsibilities - clearly delineates the difference between member behavior problems and Youth Protection violations. Please stop throwing up that straw man.

 

Source: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[sherminator505]

Was YP protocol broken in this instance? Yes.

 

Did the SM do something wrong? Probably not, outside of the failure of the SM to realize that "no one-on-one contact" applies to vehicles as well as other situations.

 

Must the SE be notified? Yes. Reason: The SE must do what he does to determine if anything bad has happened here. The answer is probably no and most of us realize that, but it's the SE's job to make that determination.

 

Should this be treated as a major incident? No. The SE can do a low-key investigation, make his conclusions, and most likely everybody involved will walk away, hopefully wiser and more informed about the YP guidelines.

[Scoutfish]

Beavah, as a former Firefighter? Emergency Medical Technition..yes, I have dealt with all kinds of abuse: both emotional and physical. I also have witnessed it as a 8 year old as it happened even before I knew that it was considered abuse instead of just getting punched in the gut for bad grades ( neighbor across the street, not myself).

 

The thing that makes me remove any credibilty for what your saying is that you compare reporting "POSSIBLE" YP infractions as being the same as The Gulag and the former East German secret police and the KGB. Even hints of Nazism there.

 

Really? Is that what it is like to report something that looks and appears to be a viloation of YP? Do they really take scouters and adult leaders and shave their heads, tattoo their arms and toss them in camps?

 

Do we get taken to prisoner slave labor camps? Maybe we have medical experiments performed on us?

 

Or is that what most of us just call an EXTREMELY exagerated response to somebody doing a moral duty>

 

I mean, what's the bigger issue? That somebody dares to question your or my actions?

 

Then you say that if somebody does make a report, toss them out of the troop? Are you serious?

If that's what you are going to do, then PR wise...you might as well call the local nes channel and say: " I am soooo damn gulity, but how dare they even think of calling me out for it!" - because that is exactly how it's gonna look.

 

Talk about good ole boys and back room shady dealings!

 

"Strip searching is better than patting down, and so if we strip searched and did full cavity exams on everyone's six year old girls, that might be one incremental step toward better safety from whatever lunatic group folks are being made fearful of this week."

 

Yeah, and throwing everybody in jail before they have a chance to do wrong is even better, but that's not what anybody is saying..just like nobody is promoting stripping down 6 year olds.

 

Better yet, let the terrorist on planes. Then tell the victims it's their fault for taking the chance of flying in the first place.

 

Why the extremeism here?

 

You know what I will do if the SE calls me about a possinble YP violation? I am going to fully cooperate with him, and whoever is involved ( if it's not me personally), answer any and all questions and show that I have done nothing wrong ..or at the very least - that if I did do something, I did it unknowingly and unintentionally and with good faith in trying to do my job as best as I can.

 

I have at least a basic faith that the SE will look at, sort things out and make a reasonable, rational attempt to look at things.

 

I do not think they have Guilty no matter what attitude.

 

Now what really truely concerns me is that you seem to basically advocate, at every chance , that we ignore every rule BSA has because they are guidelines, and not really rules.They are most definantly not laws either. They are not written by Federal judges, so we don't have to follow them right?

 

Thing is, the rules of youth league baseball or high school volleyball are not written in The Constitution either..but you better follow them if you want to play!

[Scoutfish]

At any rate, there ain't no need to argue it. It's simple: You do as you feel you need to do. I will do as I feel I need to do. In the end, I am going to be the one I have to face to for criticism.

 

[Beavah]

Even hints of Nazism there.

 

LOL!

 

I invoke Godwin's Law.

 

B

[Scoutfish]

Well, noty quite Godwin's law. I wasn't saying your actions or arguement were nazi like, but referencing what you said my actions were:

 

"I'm an old fellow, eh? I reckon lots of da younger folks don't remember da old Soviet and Chinese practices of encouraging neighbors to rat out neighbors and relatives to tell da authorities about any "suspicion" they had about mom or dad or uncle Joe. It was a Civic Duty. It was a great way of gettin' that annoying neighbor sent to da gulag. And it was monstrous"

 

I guess that would be Godwin's law..right?

[Oak Tree]

Technically, no. Invoking Chinese or Soviet comparisons are not examples of Godwin's Law.

 

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

 

So it's pretty much the question of who used the term Nazi or Hitler first.

 

Now, this thread is not really a good example of Godwin's Law, because Nazi-like is normally used to refer to your opponent's argument, not your own. Still, Beavah did not mention Germany, or Hitler, or Nazis, or the Gestapo - you kind of expanded on his reference.

 

I'll grant you that it's a similar thing - calling your opponent a communist Soviet. And while I personally do see the direct similarity, it's of a different order of magnitude with different consequences, and so probably does fall under the general umbrella of lessening credibility through an extreme analogy.

 

My take - Beavah is working hard to come up with an interpetation of the text that would actually make sense in a practical way. I don't think the text does make sense, but I'm still going with his interpretation of how to handle the situation.

 

I feel like this discussion has become almost absurd. I don't know of anyone in real life who would do what the text literally says.

[packsaddle]

Oak Tree, if indeed no one does what the text literally says, there is unlikely to be much incentive to change the text or even clarify it. It would essentially be an acceptance by BSA of one more aspect of 'closet' local option in practice.

 

As far as Godwin's Law goes, I did catch that comment and soon thereafter the fickle finger of fate was hovering over the delete button...only superhuman restraint managed to call it back. Was I wrong?

[Scoutfish]

Ooops! My bad. Even though Beavah was saying "gulag" .. I was hearing "Dulag" which is an entirely different situation that actually invoilved Nazism.

 

So therefopre I retract my reference that Beavah's reference refered to the reference that Godwin's Law refers!

 

My appologies!

[Oak Tree]

if indeed no one does what the text literally says, there is unlikely to be much incentive to change the text or even clarify it. It would essentially be an acceptance by BSA of one more aspect of 'closet' local option in practice.

 

Yep.

 

I know that, I get your point, and you're right. But I personally don't want the hassle of being the one to call in repeated youth protection violations on my unit in order to push for a clarification in the text. I'll let Blancmarge do it. Hard to see the upside in doing that myself...big hassle for me, minor benefit for people who read the text (assuming that it even does get clarified), and no change in the way things are actually handled.

 

Reasonable people adapt to the world around them. Unreasonable people expect the world to adapt to them. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable people. Feel free to step up and make the progress - I think it's a wide open opportunity.

[vol_scouter]

It seems to me that more information is required before deciding what to do. I would ask the other adults on the outing how the riding arrangements ended with a single youth with a SM. Did the SM try to get several boys into his car and several refused? Was the backseat full of gear and, if so, was that unavoidable. In other words, did the SM try to avoid the situation? If he did and other circumstances dictated the final riding order then Beavah's approach seems appropriate. Perhaps, the issue was discussed and all adults decided in this particular instance that it was necessary. If that is the case, then I would argue that mentioning that it is a violation and that it would be better to work harder to assure that it does not happen again seems appropriate. If such explanations are not discovered, then reporting it to the SE is the best policy. Just be sure that you know that a situation has not occurred whereby such an arrangement was mandatory and the SM was the one in an uncomfortable situation. It is not the duty of the witness to investigate the incident but it is the duty to be sure of the situation.