fgoodwin

I think this thread has reached the point of diminishing returns, but to answer Bob's question to me: its possible Dadnow mis-spoke. I agree that Mr. Smith has not been charged with pedophilia, but instead he pled guilty to charges of possessing & distributing child porn. But I do agree with DN's assessment that this incident creates a public relations problem for BSA. Rightly or wrongly, the public will wonder what's up with BSA leadership when it turns out that the professional in charge of the YP task force is himself into child porn. It may not be fair, but its a fact of li

Bob, you answered my question by providing quotes. I disagree that the quotes you cite somehow indicate that the authors are "manufacturing allegations" against BSA, but of course, you are free to interpret them how you wish. I will conclude with a direct quote from Ed:I don't think the BSA is in anyway at fault here and I would be surprised if they were.Doesn't sound like someone who is "manufacturing allegations" against BSA, but that's just me.

Bob White writes:Manufacturing allegations where no evidence existed is a misuse of that freedom and invites a rebuttal.Bob, honestly, I'm not trying to bait you or needlessly extend this thread, but you've made this claim several times. Would you mind naming names and quoting quotes? Because I fail to see anyone "manufacturing allegations" against BSA. If you'd rather not, I understand, but then, that would tend to argue against your claim that people are "manufacturing allegations" against BSA.

By the way Bob, if you'll read my comments again, I said nothing about families going on "troop outings". I said he should make families feel welcome to JOIN the Troop -- after all, anarchist did start this thread as a recruiting issue and when a boy joins, you want his family to be involved, right? Because if you don't, you won't have a TC or many ASMs after too long.

But Bob, you're not telling any one person to lay off his personal witch hunt -- you're telling us as a group to back-off. As I count, there are 73 posts in this thread (excluding yours). Rather than try to count those which might constitute a witch hunt (I'll let you do that), I count 55 posts that are basically neutral or that support your position. That's approx. 75% saying BSA has done nothing wrong, leaving 25% guilty of a asking questions (and Ed is on record as saying he doesn't think BSA is guilty of anything). That doesn't make a "witch hunt", as far as I'm concerned,

BW, I agree that Boy Scout camping is not like Cub Scout camping, with respect to family involvement. But Scouting is an open program at all levels. Nothing happens in secret (OA included) -- if a boy's parent insists on accompanying him on a Boy Scout campout or any other Scouting event, the parent must be allowed to attend. With that in mind, telling parents that they are not welcome on a Troop campout hardly comports with BSA policy. But when a Troop has good reason to limit attendance (as anarchist gave), then by all means do so -- I just think there are better ways of doing it tha

BW, I appreciate your vigorous defense of BSA, but there is no witch hunt going on here. A few people are asking questions; asking a question about what BSA knew and when they knew it is not a witch hunt; it is not an accusation or even an implication of wrong-doing -- its just a question. And as more facts come out (like the ones you just reported), the amount of uncertainty goes down. I've read all six pages of posts so far, and the vast majority of folks take your position that nothing has been formally alleged (much less proved) against BSA. If the vast majority of posters ag

anarchist: Rather than telling parents up front that they are not welcome on camp-outs (and what parent wouldn't be offended and deeply concerned about such a policy that separates them from their kids, given the child-molestation hysteria currently in the air?), have you considered a different policy? Announce that all families are welcome to join the Troop, but disclose upfront that, because of facility limitations, camping trips will be filled on a first-come first-served basis. And once the facility limit is reached, everyone else stays home. That might be a better approach

I concur with BW's advice: get a copy of the Commissioner materials at your Scout Shop and take a look. I attended UC training about six months ago, and I have a copy of the Commissioner manuals -- there are no CO-specific materials that I can recall, and the only level-specific materials were in the the unit visit checklists. Fred Goodwin Unit Commissioner Alamo Area Council

2CD writes:a Scout who starts the requirements for a given award is generally allowed to complete the award under the original requirments, even if the requirements are changed.That's true, but please explain to me honestly how a Cub went to day camp last summer to fulfill the requirement for this award, when the requirements for the award weren't even released and available to work on until after last summers camps were completed!? Fred Goodwin Alamo Area Council

BW, cool the jets, willya? Nobody said the SM was 17 years old -- jkhny referred to a 17-year SM, meaning the man had been SM for 17 years.

OGE, that story was worth reading twice!

Well, I have a good story to tell. I took my son to "Nemo on Ice" last weekend. I got up to get us some refreshments, and at teh counter, took my wallet out to pay for an armload of stuff. As I walked to my seat (in the Alamodome, and I was a long way from the food counter), a stranger came running up to me asking if I had lost my wallet. Sure enough, I had left my wallet on the counter as I walked back to my seat. The guy could've kept it and no one would've been the wiser. I thanked him profusely. Yes, there really are honest people still left in this world!

Chris: I've taught the Tiger Leader position specific training, and I can say with certainty that nothing in the syllabus mentions saying a prayer before a field trip. Now, if your Pack is sponsored by a church, and all your boys are of the same faith, I don't see a problem with a prayer. But if your Pack is sponsored by a school, or if your boys are of different faiths, I'm not sure if a prayer is appropriate. In any event, it bothers me that a BSA course instructor would deviate from the National syllabus, because we are told by our Council not to deviate. Although we can ce

Chris, I'm curious which training was it in which you were instructed to say a prayer before a field trip? . I'm a Cub Trainer myself, and I don't recall anything about a field trip prayer in the syllabus for any course that I teach. Fred Goodwin District Training Chairman Keystone District Alamo Area Council

IANAL, but if it is true that Smith pled guilty, doesn't that obviate a trial, meaning there will be no investigation into BSA's prior knowledge (if any) of Smith's activities? So we may never learn what BSA knew or when they knew it. Not that I was relishing a trial -- in fact, getting this over and done with may be best for all involved.

Bob White writes:I am awed that some want to give the defendant his time before the court before they count him guilty, but the BSA they are willing to presume as guilty when there has not even been a suggestion of wrong doing by anyone involved in the case.I don't think anyone in this thread is saying BSA is guilty of anything. But don't you find it the least bit ironic that the National Chairman of the Youth Protection Task Force would be into child porn? Anyway, the question I have is: where are NAMBLA and ACLU to defend this guy?

Bob White writes:Youth protection program development was not a race with just one winner.I agree; I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But Trevorum implied that BSA was ahead of the curve on this issue, when in fact, they weren't, and apparently drug their feet every step of the way. Again, for those who haven't read Scout's Honor, I recommend it. As far as I can tell, the author's intent is not to smear BSA but rather to report factually on the evolution of how BSA dealt with pedophiles in its ranks.Whether we were first or not is irrelevant.Again, I agree; but it might be relevant to

fotoscout writes:I am aware of no situations where BSA intentionally, knowingly or willfully relocated professionals, or even volunteers, in an effort to cover up any wrong doing. Read Scout's Honor, which I referred to above.We should be careful in making analogies to the Catholic Church. Unlike the Catholic Church, BSA appears to have done all the right things.I hope you're right -- but until all the facts come out, nobody can say how much the BSA knew about this man's background, or when they knew it.

Trevorum writes:I am so glad that BSA was way ahead of the social awareness curve with regards to youth protectionSadly, BSA was actually behind the curve on this issue. I'm currently reading "Scout's Honor" (published in 1994) about child molesters in BSA, and it is the author's position that BSA drug its feet on this issue for years, denying they had a problem, preferring to bury the issue everytime they became aware of a pedophile leader. He notes that other youth serving agencies like Big Brothers actually recognized the seriousness of this issue before BSA and issued policies

Is anyone going to the National Meeting this year? It will be held near Dallas. I will be there and attending the Religious Relationships Committee Meeting. Fred Goodwin National Episcopal Scouters Association http://www.episcopal-scouting.org/

I went through WB21C in course SR552, back in the spring of '03 (finished my ticket in summer of '04). The one complaint I have is that, despite pre-course assurances that the course would be of benefit to Scouters at all program levels, I saw very little benefit to Cub Scouters like me. Within minutes on the first day of the first weekend, we "crossed-over" into Boy Scouts and formed patrols. We kept our patrols for the duration of the course (there might have been a final crossover into Venturing; my memory of it is kinda fuzzy). All of the coursework was focused on how we he

ScoutNut, I apologize if you thought that was the impression I was trying to give from those two articles -- it wasn't. I was trying to show, from two different points of view, that GSUSA has no policy of refusing lesbians as leaders, in answer to the question that was asked. I make no value judgement on their policy -- but the fact is, that is their policy. Do you do agree that GSUSA's leadership policy does not exclude lesbians as leaders?

If the "National Review" is not your cup-o-tea, try this from the National Center for Lesbian Rights: http://www.nclrights.org/releases/girlscouts071101.htm GIRL SCOUTS ATTACKED FOR INCLUSION OF LESBIANS AND GAYS Please Send Your Letter of Support June 2001 A group from the religious right called the American Family Association, based in Tupelo Mississippi, is attacking the Girl Scouts because that organization refuses to discriminate against lesbians and gays. Unlike the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts has always been inclusive. All girls are welcome in Girls Scouts, not just

Here is a quote from, The Cookie Crumbles: The Girl Scouts go PC http://www.nationalreview.com/23oct00/lopez102300.shtml So why isn't the Girl Scouts, like the Boy Scouts, being sued and protested against for not allowing lesbian Scout leaders? Because they have them. The Girl Scouts does not have "a discrimination policy," as they like to put it Girl Scouts doors are open to all, gay Scout leaders and girls. Girl Scout policy forbids sex on Girl Scouts time. But the book On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience, published in 1997, is filled with coming-of