There are 24 cases of possible sexual abuse in 14 East Bay communities by Boy Scout troop leaders and volunteers listed in the organization's sexual abuse files released Thursday to the public.
Four of the cases were from Alameda while three were from Berkeley. Two cases each were listed from Walnut Creek, Concord, Livermore, Hayward and Oakland.
The communities of Danville, Pleasanton, Union City, Piedmont, Silverado Canyon, Richmond and El Sobrante were listed as having one case each.
The cases are found on a map included in documents put together by the Los Angeles Times.
For decades, the Boy Scouts of America kept the files as a way to keep volunteers suspected of inappopriate sexual behavior away from children. The cases were not shared with parents or police.
A psychiatrist who reviewed the files and testified on the Boy Scouts' behalf in the trial that led to the release of the files, found that 60 percent of the cases were already reported in various forms of public documents, including newspaper articles and police reports.
The Los Angeles Times has created a list of the cases by year, city, state and troop number. The newspaper's list includes the time period covered by today's release (1965 to 1985), but also other accusations and documents gathered and released in various court cases.
Here are the 24 East Bay cases listed in the Los Angeles Times' documents. In all but one case, the suspected sexual abuser is listed only by a number. The one possible suspect named is George William Leavitt, in a case file from 1973 in Berkeley.
In some cases, the suspects were convicted of sex crimes. In others, they were only suspected.
The dates are the years a file was begun by the Boy Scouts, not necessarily the year an incident took place.
Alameda: 1959, troop number 56
Alameda: 2003, troop number 11
Alameda: 2003, troop number 2
Alameda: 2003, troop number 101
Berkeley: 1973, troop number 20
Berkeley: 1988, troop number 22
Berkeley: 1990, troop number 22
Concord: 1969, troop number 495
Concord: 1969, troop number 465
Danville: 2004, troop number 36
El Sobrante: 1989, troop number 146
Hayward: 1993, troop number 5816
Hayward: 1993, troop number 5816
Livermore: 1986, troop number 999
Livermore: 1993, troop number 919
Oakland: 1966. troop number 201
Oakland: 1987, troop number 452
Piedmont: 1958, troop number 5
Pleasanton: 1996, troop number 913
Richmond: 1966, troop number 132
Silverado Canyon: 1994, troop number 9613
Union City: 1987, troop number 273
Walnut Creek: 1966, troop number 89
Walnut Creek: 1989, troop number 2811
Patch editor Chris Winston contributed to this report.
A few comments have been deleted because they were just personal attacks and responses to those attacks. There are plenty of issues to discuss here. Let's keep it to that.
Now we all know how to look for signs, talk to children, recognize suspicious behaviors and warning signs from perpetrators. We are more informed now, thank goodness. Knowing how most people over 40 grew up, nobody knew---it wasn't front page news all the time, and culturally, people just had no idea that this sort of thing even happened. Naive? Perhaps. It wasn't discussed in depth.
Dear Troop 14 Families, Recently there is news from Moraga about a young man being denied his Eagle Rank because he has declared himself to be Homosexual. What I have learned from reading several sources this morning leaves me saddened and disappointed on several levels. Most importantly…I want to reassure all Troop 14 families that as long as I am Scoutmaster…Troop 14 does not and will not discriminate against anyone for their sexual orientation. Period. Years ago, when I was the Pack 3 Cubmaster, we had to deal with the National Policy then too. Some parents demanded we take a public stance. A couple families wanted direct action. Within my first four days as Cubmaster, some quit without ever meeting me or Committee Chair Bob Guletz. They were gone before our first Pack meeting. We were stunned because, we also are firmly against discrimination of any kind. We also strongly felt that quitting was not going to help change the policy. Change must come from within.
At the parent meeting it was decided to ignore the National Policy. We would handle our Pack, and now the Troop, in a manner that reflected our values…the values of the Scout Law. A “Mission Statement” was drafted and then finalized. It has been modified to fit Troop 14. It is short and straight to the point. “Troop 14 reflects the values of the community which it serves. Troop 14 does not discriminate in any manner and welcomes all”. Our track record indicates we back those words up with action. We continue to protest the discriminatory National Policy. If the Pentagon can change, then I am confident that B.S.A. will change eventually too. Sincerely, Don Ford Scoutmaster Albany Troop 14
What I mean is that the most common ideas (of toleration and egalitarianism etc) are not sufficient to reconcile issues like The Boy Scouts having a policy not to allow gays. Here is the problem, Everyone (and every organization) has a right to free association, but this is different from legalized discrimination. The state should make no law discriminating against its citizens (even though it still does like drug laws for example). Free Association may often be viewed as discriminatory but it means that no one is forced to associate with whom they don't want to. Criticism, protest and persuasion are peaceful means to debate the issue but force is never acceptable. The ends do not justify the means. So while the Boy Scouts apply an illiberal policy, it is their right as a private organization and limited to their association. I understand this principle is not followed in American law consistently but while it is non inclusive on one level, it actually allows society to be more at peace and resolve conflicts that would arise if everyone were forced to accept things they don't agree with. This is one difference between a free society and "egalitarian" society. Please no mendacious remarks, but friendly discussion is welcome.
Although each case is different, I would default to freedom, and put a steep burden on those seeking to curtail it. My view is that the government should not protect us from offensive speech, ideas or hurt feelings. Ryan may have some kind of estoppel/reliance type moral claims depending on the nature of his prior assurances, but I don't think the primary harm inflicted by being excluded from a private group should trump general freedom. Those who hold the opposite view (that gov't should force scouts to accept gays) should pause and formulate a general framework that they would be willing to live with in all circumstances. For example, should the burden be on the homeowners to establish a compelling justification for not inviting an acquaintance to their Christmas party? Can they hang a sign on their door that says "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" and not invite known atheists or Jews?
It is hard to agree on what "unreasonably harm others." However, I think the limit of liberty is objectively drawn at violence and the threat of violence. I would add that we put names on the ideas so people get an understanding of the philosophies at play (as best we can). I am trying to reason from the Classical Liberal philosophy which I think resolves 90% or more of the worst problems in politics, society and the economy. The major parties are mostly composed of anti-liberal policies, which is why they ought to be abandoned. Socialism and Egalitarianism outside equality before the law, are the poisons on the left that often go unexamined when resisting the social intolerance and military hawkishness on the right. Unfortunately now, each side is adopting the worst aspects of the other.
Second issue, the much more important one, is that yet another organization has been found to put its own needs above the protection of children. Even worse, this is an organization that attempts to play the morality card and claims to be about leadership. If the national BSA truly cared about children why did it fight tooth and nail to prevent the release of these files? Why did it wait until 2010 to have a mandatory reporter policy? If the BSA wants to be seen as a moral organization that promotes leadership then its national staff needs to act that way.
Who would be more amused and titillated than a pedophile in a "child protection course"! I take no comfort from such a bandaid-like veneer of precaution. BSA is living in an age where denial regarding the very existence of child molesters was the norm. Now that it is apparent that the world is teeming with these creeps, such half-measures as 'courses' are criminal. If BSA cannot protect the innocent then they are an accomplice to these crimes. I urge every victim to find the courage, and I know the pressure to remain silent is powerful, to report and bring legal action against the BSA. Until they shape their rules to make it as close to impossible for these acts to occur, parents should avoid BSA in favor of alternative organizations that put protection of these innocents as their highest priority.
Similarly, I think evolving social norms will soon resolve most of the desires of the "gay rights" movements (including the BSA policies)-- all without granting them any new "rights" or any government action. In short, they self-organized, started shouting "We're here; we're queer; get used to it."--- and it pretty much worked/is working..... That's how I think much of this stuff should get resolved.....
A 'private' entity has the right to be exclusive as long as it is self-supporting through its members contributions or other means independent of the government. Once it accepts tax benefits or, for example, free or reduced-rate use of public property, it loses any claim to practice freedom of exclusion. I would not condone the use of a single cent of my tax dollars to support a group that denies Constitutionally guaranteed rights to others. Seems pretty simple to me. You pay your own way, you can do what you want as long as you do not violate the criminal code. C N can close his (presumed) factory to celebrate Hanukkah or Milad un Nabi as long as he pays all his workers (assuming a variety of races and religious affiliation) for the lost time. As an Agnostic, (What I 'do' is more important than in what I believe) I have always been mildly offended by the premium placed on Christianity in a country that simultaneously holds religion(s) separate from state in all matters. My children were taught that generosity is a full time job and that there are a plethora of ways to show affection aside from material gifts. We try to make our gifts fill a perceived need recognized at any point on the calendar year and to always stay within one's means when giving. The apparent contradiction caused by preferential treatment of Christian belief is on a collision course with the true 'melting pot' society.
Coming out can be a freeing experience, Pop.....or so I have read.
Gee, that'll stop'em. Or entertain the hell out of the sick twits. Find them, prosecute to the full extent of the law. They'll be a big hit at Pelican Bay. You all must know that this is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg. It is a well know fact that organizations that put their own will being over the safety of children are usually playgrounds for perverts. It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... Like hell it can't. It is likely happening somewhere to a kid as you read this.
However only 4% of Child Sexual Abusers have a criminal record that will show up on a criminal background check, The Diana Screen® identifies an estimated 50% of the men and women who should not be placed into positions of trust with children because they present a sexual risk: either because they have already sexually abused a child or they have a very weak understanding of the strict sexual boundaries required between adults and children. The Diana Screen® does not compete with criminal background checks. Rather, it is intended to complement an organization`s current Abuse Risk Management plan. Thus, it is recommended that organizations that begin use of The Diana Screen® continue use of criminal background checks. www.dianascreen.com