Scouts with porn on campouts

[Second Class]

Beaver, this was told to me, and others, IN PERSON, by our Scout Executive.

I'll go by what he says.

 

Yes, Oak Tree, if there is abuse out there, report it. And everything else that is reportable!(This message has been edited by Second class)

[Beavah]

Yah, Second Class, your SE was wrong or was lying. It happens sometimes. Or, quite possibly, yeh didn't really understand what he was saying.

 

Have your COR go ask da council business manager directly for da master contract on da first tier general liability policy. Or call National yourself.

 

Or just ask any attorney or insurance agent in your jurisdiction.

 

Gettin' good information by diggin' a bit is always a better choice than premeditated ignorance, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

I would never call someone a "liar" because they repeated a Scouting myth. To "lie" is to deliberately state a known falsehood with the intention to mislead another person. Get real.

[Beavah]

Yah, so FScouter, I'm curious.

 

Do yeh really feel that an SE doesn't understand that da Neverending Insurance Myth is actually a myth? I've seen that with plenty of DE-level pros, because da business side of the operation is not (yet) a part of their training, and they tend to be young and inexperienced. Young and inexperienced folks will sometimes feel like they need to assert "authority", and da variations on the Insurance Myth usually come up because someone is tryin' to force a fellow scouter to comply with their authority when they're still a bit wet behind da ears and insecure. We see da same sort of thing workin' with new Patrol Leaders, eh? It takes a bit of time and mentoring before boys learn that collegiality and honesty are better forms of leadership.

 

So if da SE actually told Second Class what he claims, then yep, there's a fair chance the SE was lying. Deliberately usin' a false or misleadin' statement in order to assert social superiority or primacy in an argument. Like one of packsaddle's monkeys. Sad to say, it does happen occasionally at that level.

 

I reckon the most likely thing, though, is that Second Class doesn't know the difference between an SE and a DE, or that he just didn't really understand what the SE was sayin' in that particular context.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

Arguments tend to get heavily discounted when you accuse others of "lying". It serves no real purpose; merely an attempt to belittle and trivialize another person. You've done it twice on this page, and do so with regularity. I find that rather revealing of one's character. And that's no lie.

[Beavah]

Ah, OK FScouter. It was just another one of your posts that's nuthin' but a personal dig at another forum member.

 

Silly me, I thought it might actually be a rare attempt to contribute to da discussion in a meaningful way. But yeh gotta keep up your reputation I suppose.

 

For my part, I'd say that repeatin' a myth as an authoritative statement to others when yeh know, suspect, or have been informed that da myth isn't accurate is a type of bearin' false witness. When the fellow who is doin' it is a professional who should be well-informed, it is either a lie or a form of self-servin' incompetence. Sadly, I've seen both in a few SE's, and have been involved in their removal from scouting employment. I may be old-fashioned, but I reckon it's reasonable to expect that da CEO of one of our councils should give accurate information to volunteers.

 

As I mentioned, though, in this case I suspect that Second Class just didn't hear da fellow right, or misinterpreted what was being said. National for reasons that surpass understanding likes to play coy about this stuff with da rank and file membership, and da council folks seem to take "coy" and turn it into "bizarrely opaque".

 

So my advice to all da victims of the Great Insurance Myth, if yeh aren't willin' to listen to folks who know better, is to have your COR go insist on a full insurance disclosure as a condition of rechartering. Or just call RichardB at National and if he gets enough annoying Great Insurance Myth calls maybe he'll finally post somethin' a bit less coy that allays the irrational fears of many of da rank and file membership.

 

Beavah

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Beavah,

 

 

Once again you have discovered the limits of making claims based on your authority as an anonymous person posting on an internet discussion board.

 

Of course it happens to us all.

[Second Class]

"I reckon the most likely thing, though, is that Second Class doesn't know the difference between an SE and a DE, or that he just didn't really understand what the SE was sayin' in that particular context."

 

I had to laugh out loud at that one.

Good ol' second class, the big dummy, don't know the difference from a 80K man and a 350K man!

Please......

 

 

[FScouter]

Dummy indeed. And don't forget you're not "mentally awake", and don't follow the Scout Law either. The beav told us it was so.

[Beavah]

Once again you have discovered the limits of making claims based on your authority as an anonymous person posting on an internet discussion board.

 

LOL! Yah, for sure SeattlePioneer.

 

I always find authority arguments funny, eh? Da information on how general liability insurance works is available from any insurance agent. Yeh can go to any of da state regulator sites and learn, too. Folks can send their COR to talk with da council business manager, call RichardB at national, consult with a local attorney or look up any of the many dozens of cases and settlements around da country in order to confirm what I've said. In other words, yeh just have to be mentally awake and willin' to learn, then yeh don't need "authority" or furry Internet critters. You've improved your own knowledge and judgment.

 

Remember a few years back da case of da Utah forest fire that was started by unsupervised youth during the burn ban? I think we had all da Great Insurance Myth folks comin' down on a many-page thread and saying how it was a G2SS and National Camp School rules violation and insurance wouldn't cover, yada yada. Of course insurance did cover, and in the actual court papers both the BSA and the Court agreed that da G2SS and other internal BSA documents do not establish a standard of care for liability purposes. Anybody can look that thread and those documents up too. No need for furry critters with authority.

 

I reckon this stuff gets under my tail a bit just because of da poor example it can set for the scouts, eh? I want da boys to learn to think for themselves, not just trust some random "authority.". Or some random myth! They should understand that expert opinion is valuable and worth listenin' to, but that just because someone has expertise at runnin' a scout council doesn't mean they have expertise in other areas like insurance and law. Keepin' mentally awake is important.

 

Mostly, though, it annoys me because I've lost or nearly lost units and good scouters because folks repeated da Great Insurance Myth to them, and they decided as a result that da BSA wasn't trustworthy on its insurance agreements and pulled out. Spreadin' false myths hurts real kids.

 

Da Scout Oath and Law are aspirational statements, eh? They are things we all try to get better and better at over time, not things we achieve perfectly. Da only true failures in livin' up to da Oath and Law are when we stop tryin' to do better.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[WasE61]

Ok...what the heck... from the BSA website....

 

"The general liability policy does not provide indemnification or defense coverage to those

individuals who commit intentional and/or criminal acts. The Boy Scouts of America does not have an insurance policy that provides defense for situations involving allegations of intentional

and/or criminal acts."

 

So, it seems to follow that in those states (like Arizona) where failing to report act of child abuse (by the State definition of what constitutes an act of abuse) is a felony, the BSA will not cover the Adult, because he has in fact committed a criminal act.

[Beavah]

Yah, hullo WasE61. Welcome to da discussion.

 

If yeh have questions about particulars of Arizona jurisprudence, yeh need to talk with a fellow who specializes in that area in da state of Arizona.

 

All I can say is that yeh can't just pull a random statement like that, or a random read of a statute, and come to a simplistic conclusion. Many of da words and phrases are terms of art or have statutory or case law definitions that aren't intuitive, and other laws like da laws and regulations governin' insurance in a given state might take precedence.

 

No insurance policy anywhere covers for intentional or criminal acts, eh? That would be payin' somebody to commit a crime. But those words have very specific meanings, eh? Running a red light is an "intentional" act and at least a civil infraction, but your auto insurance will still cover you. Da issue is intending harm to the person who was injured, or committing a crime against da person who was injured or which caused the injury. Like sexual battery. There's no insurance coverage for the molester.

 

Then there are other definitions that matter, like what actually constitutes child abuse, eh? In most jurisdictions, child abuse can only be committed by a parent or guardian. Da special laws and reportin' requirements with respect to child abuse are there specifically to counteract da special privileges accorded to parents by the law. They aren't there for general crimes against children, because da folks who perpetrate those crimes don't have the same special legal protections that parents have.

 

Even when yeh wade through all that, then there are matters of equity, eh?

 

Then there's da issue that almost all state laws are vigorous in how they address "bad faith" insurers, and da penalties that can be leveled against bad faith by insurers are severe.

 

That's before we get to resolvin' any issues of genuine negligence, where non-reportin' would not be considered a proximate cause, or issues of volunteer immunity, or other stuff.

 

Or, alternately, yeh can just look at da record of recent cases to discover how things are actually applied and interpreted.

 

Nobody can stop folks who choose to be ludicrous and fearful about this stuff from makin' believe that there are monsters and demons hangin' out in their closet waitin' to eat 'em, eh? No amount of evidence or rationality ever seems to satisfy folks who believe in da boogeyman. All da rest of us can do is try to be honest so that ordinary scouters and COs can go about their business in peace.

 

Of course nuthin' yeh read from anonymous furry internet critters should be considered a legal opinion or advice, especially when it's bein' read in 50 or more jurisdictions. Such guidance and speculation only allows yeh to help inform your own judgment or opinion, in concert with competent legal counsel in your area.

 

Until individuals do that, though, or follow-up in one of da other ways that have been suggested, it's probably not honest to keep tellin' folks stuff that likely isn't true, eh?

 

Beavah

 

 

[WasE61]

We aren't walking about traffic lights here. Or traffic law. Running a traffic light (provided you are not drunk and do not kill someone) is a civil, not a criminal, matter.

 

Failure to report is a criminal felony in Arizona. And I do have more than enough first-hand experience with the workings in my state (Arizona) to know that failure to report child abuse *is* a felony...they are VERY cut and dry about it. Either you reported your suspicion or you did not...you do not have to have proof of abuse to be mandated to report it. Intent is not a factor.

 

Of course, BSA doesn't care one way or the other if it gets reported or not. If an adult reports, they did the right thing and BSA is off the hook. If the adult does not report, then the adult committed a felony, and BSA is off the hook. Win-win for BSA?

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, WasE61, this thread is about a lad havin' one or more pornographic photos on his phone, eh? That's not a legally reportable offense in any jurisdiction. I'll humbly suggest that yeh don't have enough knowledge or experience to reach da conclusions yeh seem desperate to reach.

 

I'd suggest yeh:

 

Talk to a licensed insurance agent in your state.

Talk to competent legal counsel in your state who are experienced in this area.

Have your COR go sit with your council president and business manager and get da straight scoop.

Call da national office of the BSA.

Review da actual case history for da BSA in your state.

Or pursue any other course of action that will lead yeh to a better understandin' than what yeh seem to have at present.

 

Or, in da alternative, cite at least one case in your state where an appellate court rulin' has established what yeh seem to be claiming. I assure yeh that such a novel interpretation of insurance contract language would be litigated to at least that level.

 

Alternately, continue to believe in da boogeyman. Just don't expect anybody else to take yeh seriously.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[DeanRx]

Oh Beavah,

 

Don't you know that once you start talking about people's naughty bits, all common sense goes out the window? If you even THINK that it MIGHT look a LITTLE like abuse, you MUST call the cops or YOU are a felon on the same level as the alleged abuser!!!!

 

This is WHY YPG sucks for BSA.

 

The pendulum for many people has swung too far to the other extreme that rational adult thought and judgement are not even part of the discussion any longer. If it has to do with naughty bits, you MUST report it. You MUST demonize and slander and liable someone's reputation and scouting career, because after all - you are protecting the scout.

 

YPG is about being aware. Its about being on the lookout for things that just-don't-look-right. Its about being informed so you don't put yourself in a bad situation or allow another scout or scouter to be put in a bad situation.

 

It is NOT about a witch hunt.

It is NOT about a leader on a campout who confiscates a Playboy or an iPhone with naked pitctures on it and not calling the cops because of it being accused of a felony.

 

Here's a news flash folks... anyone can sue anybody for just about anything.

I have patients threaten to SUE me if I don't renew their narcotic prescription. I have patients (and regulatory agencies) that threaten to sue / sanction me if I do renew it. At the end of the day, I have to make a best case judgement call from my professional standpoint.

 

Any DA can charge you with ANYTHING and try to make it stick.

Any DA worth their salt and wanting to keep their job, uses discretion in vetting cases so they don't look like fools or they loose their job (remember the little fiasco with the Duke Lacrose team a few years back)?

 

How about adults grow up and actually LIVE the 10th point of the scout law?

Yes, be BRAVE. Be BRAVE enough to make a judgement call that doesn't involve relagating your responsibility to a 3rd party? Better yet, get a GROUP of adults together (3 or 4) and come to a consensus on what the best course of action is. Take into account the CIRCUMSTANCES and INTENT of the offender and ACT accordingly. Then if BSA or a local DA comes after you, you have a quorum to lean on.

 

"Well, all the adults got together at the time and discussed it and decided that this was the best course of action given the circumstances...." Then you are not standing alone with a unilateral decision. Most issues do NOT need the intervention of a DE or SE, and even fewer need the attention of local law enforcement.

 

How the heck does a post about a kid with a smut mag on a campout turn into a DEBATE about insurance law and mandatory reporting of child abusers?

 

If we (as a group of adult leaders) are REALLY this sideways over a simple issue like this, what the hell are we doing LEADING young adults in the first place? The average teenager would look at this thread and think we're a bunch of idiots, unable to come to a rational conclusion about a very realistic "mistake" by a youth!

 

No wonder most teenagers think adults are nuts!