George Morris on the SS list

[ladyj79]

no fordtraktor’s credentials definitely aren’t of interest to me. I’m just confused because this is a person claiming the safe sport investigators aren’t trained and has not answered my question who specifically isn’t trained for the position they occupy at safe sport?

[beowulf]

@ladyj79

So we can’t presume investigators for safe sport are trained but we can presume a person on the internet who says they’re a lawyer is a lawyer and has done all the research

She’s a lawyer. :yes:

I don’t think her line of thinking is wrong - it’d be nice if there was distinction and clarity.

There’s always ways things can be improved. :encouragement:

SS is far from perfect, but god I am thankful it exists.

[midwestalter]

@ladyj79

This is actually the third time this has been posted on this thread alone

Apologies, I went through all 50 pages but missed it. I just thought it was interesting, particularly since to the best of my knowledge, at least one of the individuals named is still a trainer and working in the industry.

[poltroon]

@fordtraktor

I would hope so but I gather there are many who are willing to say the process is JUST FINE and is working well. They have on this thread. I find that lack of nuance in thought depressing for actual justice.

There is no process that can’t be improved.

I’d agree that notification by email alone is not legal notice - it’s not reliable enough for a number of reasons, nor is it necessarily timely. A phone call - even if it’s “check your email” is I think appropriate. In addition, email can be sent in a way that allows the sender to know if it was opened, with a timestamp. They should consider this if they are sending any important information that way.

The interim suspension process is always hard and there’s no way to make it without error. The question is, do you prefer the error of letting someone stay in the community longer or the error of putting an innocent name out? This is always going to be a judgement call and the factors I’d consider would be proximity to minors, the weight of what you have in hand, and the reliability of it. This kind of judgement call is made all the time in workplaces. When you’re in a school, you don’t have to move as fast in summer as you do the day before a multiday overnight field trip. I think this has been the rockiest area of SafeSport.

There aren’t many people who have been genuinely interested in making SafeSport work better and fairer who have made solid, informed suggestions. I think this is because there are very few outsiders who both want that and have the insight to know what would improve it. Our journalists may be of help there.

It is a new organization with new staff working in the confines of new legislation and hopefully they are coming up the curve quickly.

And certainly, if they find that someone needs to leave sport, we want their judgement to be correct and also to stand up to any further appeal or legal scrutiny.

All that said, I’m not aware of any case where a final judgement was reached by SafeSport that wasn’t fairly serious and worthy of their attention, even when they were overturned.

[enjoytheride]

@ladyj79

no fordtraktor’s credentials definitely aren’t of interest to me. I’m just confused because this is a person claiming the safe sport investigators aren’t trained and has not answered my question who specifically isn’t trained for the position they occupy at safe sport?

Oh COME ON. You just said that there was no proof she was a laywer, people say that she actually is, and she offers for you to PM her for details, and then you say it isn’t of interest to you.

I would assume that people in similar fields would have a good deal of experience and what they have to say could be quite helpful.

[ladyj79]

I’m not the one questioning qualifications. I didn’t suggest people weren’t qualified for their job, I asked who specifically @fordtraktor feels isn’t qualified for their job as an investigators with safe sport.

[fordtraktor]

@khall

fordtraktor then you must have problems with the Boy Scouts and how they proceed as well. A child has to make one complaint and then that adult is removed from contact with any child at that point. No trained investigator at all. I have problems with what the BS are doing in other areas, but their policies for protecting the children now are IMO well done.

I am not responding any longer to Denali or Ladyj but will respond to you as you have a legit question. I have been involved in the BSA as a helper. No BSA leader is allowed in a room with Scouts without another adult present. I have rescheduled work meetings to meet this requirement. It is a great idea for a once a week, one hour club with some weekend activities, and I fully support it.

I could not find procedures or a published list of currently interim suspended people. Am I missing it? They absolutely should prohibit contact during an investigation of abuse, but it is not evident to me they publish this information outside those concerned.

http:/www.crossroadsbsa.org/report/

Also, they have mandatory reporting to the police so the determination is made by the justice system, as far as I can tell. Maybe we should do mandatory reporting and follow the edicts of the court system like they do.

““Reason to Believe” means evidence which if presented to individuals of similar background and training would cause those individuals to believe that a child was abused or neglected. Under no circumstances are you to conduct an investigation or ask others to look into it. Confidentiality is a must as well as immediate reporting. When in doubt, report.”

or not, as I want something broader, myself. Broader, but fair and accurate.

[poltroon]

@541hunter

@ladyj79 it’s not that the investigators aren’t trained, it’s that the policy doesn’t specify that the investigators are the ones evaluating the claim at the very beginning of the process. They assign a trained investigator after someone (unclear who) performs an “initial inquiry” to determine if the claim should be investigated. That “someone,” it seems, has the right to decide if interim sanctions should be applied. Small distinction, and it may just be that the “someone” IS a trained investigator, but it’s not laid out in the Code.

I am certain that person is trained in some way and is not, for example, today’s temp from the Kelley agency.

The way I read that section, for what it is worth, is that there is someone who does intakes and assigns them but does not stay with the case. They assign them to a person - a trained investigator - who will stay with the case from beginning to end.

This is, for example, the process we use in my workplace for software development, for new bugs and features. The person doing the assigning is manager level, more experienced and more trained than the developers who get the assignment. This person evaluates and creates the requests, gives them priority, then hands them off to the best available developer, who then is responsible for making sure the work is completed and reports back to a manager when done.

[enjoytheride]

@ladyj79

I’m not the one questioning qualifications. I didn’t suggest people weren’t qualified for their job, I asked who specifically @fordtraktor feels isn’t qualified for their job as an investigators with safe sport.

There is no requirement that the interim investigators be trained, maybe they are, we have no way of knowing that. That’s the point, they might be trained, they might not. A trained investigator is only required after the interim. If we were concerned about people getting caught up in false claims, a trained investigator required from the start would help calm those fears and provide more legitimacy it would keep the people saying Safe Sport is flawed at bay.

[fordtraktor]

@beowulf

She’s a lawyer. :yes:

I don’t think her line of thinking is wrong - it’d be nice if there was distinction and clarity.

There’s always ways things can be improved. :encouragement:

SS is far from perfect, but god I am thankful it exists.

I agree. It needs improvement so the findings seem legitimate to all.

[pds]

SafeSport sure has alot of people with “skeletons in their closet shaking in their boots”. I say GOOD!

Makes me really wonder about some of the most vocal opponents to SafeSport.

Time to drain the equestrian swamp!

[fordtraktor]

@poltroon

I am certain that person is trained in some way and is not, for example, today’s temp from the Kelley agency.

The way I read that section, for what it is worth, is that there is someone who does intakes and assigns them but does not stay with the case. They assign them to a person - a trained investigator - who will stay with the case from beginning to end.

This is, for example, the process we use in my workplace for software development, for new bugs and features. The person doing the assigning is manager level, more experienced and more trained than the developers who get the assignment. This person evaluates and creates the requests, gives them priority, then hands them off to the best available developer, who then is responsible for making sure the work is completed and reports back to a manager when done.

I believe it would be better if the intake person was known to be trained in the issues at hand, the requirements should be at least equivalent to the other assigned investigators, easy peasy, but costs a bit more to hire them.

[541hunter]

@poltroon

I am certain that person is trained in some way and is not, for example, today’s temp from the Kelley agency.

The way I read that section, for what it is worth, is that there is someone who does intakes and assigns them but does not stay with the case. They assign them to a person - a trained investigator - who will stay with the case from beginning to end.

This is, for example, the process we use in my workplace for software development, for new bugs and features. The person doing the assigning is manager level, more experienced and more trained than the developers who get the assignment. This person evaluates and creates the requests, gives them priority, then hands them off to the best available developer, who then is responsible for making sure the work is completed and reports back to a manager when done.

I too feel that’s probably the case; I’m the head writer in my department and I have a similar process when a request comes in from a client so I see how that is a fine way to mete out cases. I’m simply suggesting (and perhaps poorly so) that spelling that out in the policy document would be helpful, so that those of us who are defending Safe Sport in hullabaloos like the one we’re currently embroiled in can point to something concrete.

Once again, very few cases are affected by my small suggestion to clarify the process; it would only be claims where the perpetrator in question is deemed to need interim measures against them before the official investigation starts, which I don’t think we have evidence has even happened yet. But clearer policies make for better trust in the process IMO.

[khall]

fordtraktor, I do not know if a list is published or not. I do know that DFACS or LE are involved as well as going up the food chain in the scouting organization. Both the BS organization and LE will do an investigation, a determination will be made by both based on that investigation. BS are volunteers not trained investigators.

As for pointing out the LE should be involved and the court system in general I give you Epstein as a reason why the courts can and do get it wrong.

[poltroon]

@fordtraktor

Also, they have mandatory reporting to the police so the determination is made by the justice system, as far as I can tell. Maybe we should do mandatory reporting and follow the edicts of the court system like they do.

Everyone involved with youth in any official way has mandatory reporting to law enforcement, including SafeSport. What is different for SafeSport is that because they are taking a civil action, they can work with claims that are beyond statute of limitations and also are able to act in other circumstances where there isn’t any one crime that can be charged under current code but there is a strong pattern of behavior that makes someone a threat.

In most of these organizations, we are able to act on quite a bit less than law enforcement needs. For example, if we had a volunteer pick up a teenage girl and sling her over his shoulder and carry her when she was not injured and in no way needed or asked to be carried - we can tell that individual goodbye and don’t come back even though it is not a crime.

[poltroon]

I noticed that SafeSport did just revamp their website substantially. I hope they notice that we’re beta-reading their documentation for them.

[dannyboy]

@ Tiramit

it hasn’t been OK for a 30 something adult to engage in sexual relations with a teenager, especially a young teenager, since the 1800s. Actually, that may be too recent. 1700s?

I’m not arguing that it’s OK, or has ever been OK, but here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

While the general age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

For example, Edgar Allen Poe married his first cousin in 1835 when she was 14. Sorry, I was a history major.

[fordtraktor]

@poltroon

Everyone involved with youth in any official way has mandatory reporting to law enforcement, including SafeSport. What is different for SafeSport is that because they are taking a civil action, they can work with claims that are beyond statute of limitations and also are able to act in other circumstances where there isn’t any one crime that can be charged under current code but there is a strong pattern of behavior that makes someone a threat.

In most of these organizations, we are able to act on quite a bit less than law enforcement needs. For example, if we had a volunteer pick up a teenage girl and sling her over his shoulder and carry her when she was not injured and in no way needed or asked to be carried - we can tell that individual goodbye and don’t come back even though it is not a crime.

I agree which is why I prefer something broader. Fair and accurate, but broader. Have the process done by people required to be qualified. Follow the procedure. It isn’t much to ask.

[dannyboy]

@ RainWeasely

That actually might be good, the flaws can be found and fixed.

Except if it means that GM gets off on a technicality.

[fordtraktor]

@khall

fordtraktor, I do not know if a list is published or not. I do know that DFACS or LE are involved as well as going up the food chain in the scouting organization. Both the BS organization and LE will do an investigation, a determination will be made by both based on that investigation. BS are volunteers not trained investigators.

As for pointing out the LE should be involved and the court system in general I give you Epstein as a reason why the courts can and do get it wrong.

Courts can get it wrong, orgs can get it wrong. That is why we need a good procedure. Fair procedure is the best way to protect all sides.