A new scandal

[eisely]

My information is very fragmentary and limited to what little I have seen on line. So please bear with me if I have some of my facts wrong.

 

Apparently the Los Padres Council here in California (think Santa Barbara) is in the process of losing a law suit involving a pedophile in the ranks of the adult volunteers. This individual engaged in actual molestation of one or more scouts. The particular scout involved in the litigation was 13 at the time and is now 17. When parents complained, this volunteer was ousted.

 

Allegedly some senior scouter (I presume the Scout Executive) initially told the mother not to call the police. Apparently the police were at some point called. What happened after that I do not know.

 

According to the mother, this boy is still suffering the effects of the trauma, which may well be true.

 

She is blaming the BSA for failing to detect this individual and preventing the crime, and is seeking damages on behalf of her minor son.

 

The most recent newsworthy event in the litigation is that a local judge has ruled that BSA must turn over files on banned volunteers to the plaintiff. These files will be redacted to eliminate names. BSA has argued unsuccessfully that these files are irrelevant to the case, and contain unproven allegations and information. Information that was sufficient for BSA to ban membership, but not sufficient to support other actions. It is not clear from what I have seen whether these files will show a pattern of avoiding police investigations or not.

 

If there has been a pattern of steering complaining parents and youth away from law enforcement, then this does resemble how the Roman Catholic church has handled pedophilia over the years. One can understand the motivation to avoid the scandal of a police investigation, but the alleged actions of the executive made things worse rather than better.

 

Has anybody heard about this case or have better information?(This message has been edited by eisely)

[Twocubdad]

No, but I believe the so-called Perv Files were released to the plantiffs in the Oregon case last year.

[Beavah]

Yah, I think you're lookin' for this news report: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/19/judge-orders-boy-scouts-to-turn-over-files-in-california-sex-abuse-case/

 

One of the sad things about the ineligible volunteer files is how plaintiff's attorneys see 'em as a gold mine. If you've been watching the reports, the same fellow who represented the plaintiff in the Oregon case has been filing suits on behalf of victims all across the country now. A few of those no doubt looked him up, but I expect the betting men among us would lay odds that his access to the files allowed him to go drum up business.

 

The fellow in California seems to want to get in on that gravy train.

 

In fact, the files are the exact opposite of what the Catholic Church did in Boston, LA, and other places. Where they covered things up and moved molesters from place to place, the BSA expelled them and kept a list so they couldn't just move to another troop or town and do the same thing. The BSA should be applauded and emulated for that effort.

 

Unfortunately, now folks are makin' preposterous arguments that the BSA didn't do enough. In Oregon, the argument that succeeded was that the BSA should have turned the files over to researchers, and had training for parents that told parents "if you enroll your kids in scouting, he may be molested.". Essentially the equivalent of the dumb-a** warning labels we see on everything.

 

I don't know too much about the CA case. All such things are tragic. But let's keep in mind that the whole bit about the SE telling the woman not to call the police is just a claim by a plaintiff, eh? If yeh read the article, you find that the scouter was pled out to a much lesser charge and released in two years. He's back on the street. That suggests to me that the evidence against the fellow was pretty thin, eh? When you're in that predicament as a plaintiff attorney, yeh try your case in the media lookin' for a settlement.

 

So let's not all fly off the handle thinkin' the BSA has been putting kids at risk for decades. Their record compared to most is pretty darn good (though their representation in Oregon was uncharacteristically inept).

 

Beavah

[Eagle92]

IMHO, while not perfect, the BSA's record is very good. I've known people to get lose their membership just on the accusation of a youth. Also knew someone who, while there was enough to remove their membership, not enough to have him arrested. BSA takes things VERY seriously.

[eisely]

That is the most complete story I have seen so far. Please note that I refer to the "alleged" statement by the scout executive asking the mother not to call the police.

[RememberSchiff]

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Donna Geck vacated her order this week, pending a March 21 mediation session between lawyers for BSA and plaintiff . She set a new date of May 9 for the BSA to produce the "perversion files", which are not to be disclosed to the public.

 

Adult troop leader Al Stein pleaded no contest to felony child endangerment in 2009 and was sentenced to a two year prison term. He was paroled early.

 

Some of us are keeping an eye on Scouts Canada approach, where they have released their "perversion files" for independent review (KPMG will make public their report later this year) and allowed victims (scouts) to talk post settlement as part of their healing process.

(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[Basementdweller]

As long as the BSA exists this will never go away...

 

So the entire law suit is based that the SE told her not to call the law???????

 

Unless she has it in writting somewhere or maybe an audio recording I don't know how she could win....

[nldscout]

The best thing the BSA can do at this point is to shred the files. Keep a simple list of those not qualified for membership. Once its determiined the decision to exclude you is final then destroy the background papers.

 

One list for anyone excluded period, no reasons, no appeals.

[skeptic]

We had our annual meeting gathering last night, and when the SE gave his report/speech, he spent a lot of time on this subject, indirectly. Basically, he noted the multi-level youth protection safe guards, and specifically mentioned the file as one of the barriers. While I have no idea if this came from National, it would seem that a SE would not publicly make these comments to a large group of scouters without some type of higher up approval. The fact that we are right next door to Santa Barbara adds to the weight of these statements. Maybe this is a new front on this issue by National; put it out there as our policy, one that was implemented to keep these people out and was way ahead of the time.

 

Would have to disagree that shredding the files would be a good choice, especially now. That just adds fuel to the fire to those that will find issues. Basement, while I too would "think" that in this case the plaintiff is on very soft ground, I would not have predicted the outcome in Oregon. The illogic in many jury decisions, as well as what often appears judicial bias in some judges, constantly amazes me.

 

 

[Basementdweller]

Maybe I don't understand the content of the files.....

 

But aren't they just list of names that for one reason or another cannot be members of the BSA???????

 

 

The fix for it would be to go to every state and add all of the people convicted of domestic violence, rape, drug distribution, prostitution and assault......

 

After that let the lawyers figure it out(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)

[Engineer61]

My thoughts...and you all can correct me as needed.

 

If I recall my reading, in the Oregon case, the files were not turned over, BSA acknowledged their existence.

 

The CA case in unique on a couple of points. 1) The incidents are only 4 years ago, post YPT/background checks. (Which would point to the idea the YPT and background checks are not working...a big legal point.) and 2) The court as order the files turned over to the Plaintiffs, with victim names redacted.

 

Now there is a report that the case will go to mediation, and the files need not be turned over...

 

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ae2d2a3e4ff044e7a0521b5823267a6b/CA--Boy-Scouts-Lawsuit/

 

[Basementdweller]

Engineer.......Doesn't matter how much ya train folks.... Bad folks will be bad folks. half an hour of online training aint gonna change that.

 

I think the FAIL is the boys being one on one with an adult.....

 

So did we Fail with the boys and their youth protection training.

 

Or did we Fail with the Parents and their understanding of youth protection...

 

 

 

As a leader I understand that never being one on one with a boy is for my safety as well as his.

[Scoutfish]

"She is blaming the BSA for failing to detect this individual and preventing the crime....."

 

Did any of you ever see that movie : Minority Report?

What does she expect? Is BSA supposed to run some sort of "pre-cog" task group?

 

Nobody can know beforehand what somebody "may" do.

 

All you can do is act on it.

 

Now, if the man already had a record, and he passed background anyways..that is an issue. But if his background was clean and he had no record up to that point..then nobody can do anything.

 

[Beavah]

If I recall my reading, in the Oregon case, the files were not turned over, BSA acknowledged their existence.

 

BSA has always acknowledged their existence. In da Oregon case, the unredacted files were turned over, but only for the period relevant to the case (through 1985 if I recall correctly). This case sought to get the BSA to release the most recent 20 years.

 

Background checks manifestly don't work to stop new offenders or folks who haven't been caught yet. We all should recognize that. And identity theft of the sort required to spoof a background check isn't really that hard. YP stuff acts perhaps as a mild barrier to abuse or at least accusations of abuse within scouting, but I reckon most good scouters will recognize that there have been times when they technically weren't in compliance. Life is too messy and complex for trite phrases like "no one-on-one" to apply all the time.

 

The thing of it is, almost all of these cases, like all abuse, happens outside of the public meeting time where there are people around. It happens at the parents' home, and the scouter's home, and the family picnic, not so much at the campout. Once an individual is a trusted adult, whether it's Coach Pete or Uncle George or Scouter Bill, they have access at times that allow greater opportunity than a campout or scout meeting. The trainin' that I suppose needs to happen is to help parents be more alert to those things, and worry less about the scout outing. But da real issue is secrecy. If the boy has many adult friends to turn to, friendships with older boys, open lines of communication with everyone from parents to ministers, that's as safe as we can make 'em. Because a pedophile needs to be able to isolate and groom a victim.

 

Kids that have a lot of good, healthy, personal relationships within and outside their family can't be isolated, which protects 'em from all sorts of stuff, not just molesters. Scouting is a good activity for that, eh? We do our part. But other organizations and schools and churches and especially parents have to do the rest. It takes more than just scouting.

 

Beavah

 

[nldscout]

 

 

They are more than just a list of names. Depending on the person they may have collected statements of they sometimes have actual court documents.

 

As an example, In December I sentence a sex offender who was a registered leader. The local council asked for a formal disposition and any related paperwork they were allowed to have under NY law. So if you look in this mans file now there will be several pieces of paper.

 

Once they declare you not suitable for BSA, then destroy everything. All you need from that point fwd is a name.