jkhny

Isn't the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to teach youth to make ethical and moral decisions?

But with image taking precedence over substance these days.....

The following fundraising effort was proposed by a unit:

"Prizes" - different items like a framed poster, tools, etc, were solicited from local businesses as donations to be used in a raffle.

Cub Scouts - in uniform - were to sell raffle tickets to the public in front of local businesses (with an adult leader present).

Note that this is occurring in January (a cold January) - with specific goals set for tickets sold per hour, shifts to be staffed etc.

The raffle drawing would be held at the Blue and Gold Dinner. Winners need not be present to win.

If there was an objection to having Scouts do this in uniform, it would be done as "Friends of local Scouting"

It appears that no approval was sought from the chartering Organization and no Money Raising permission obtained from Council....

"The Illinois Appellate Court yesterday set the Council's motion for a stay pending appeal and our motion to dismiss the appeal for oral argument on next Thursday, April 20 at 11:00 a.m. in the 16th floor courtroom. So it looks like we will get a ruling on the stay before the vote is scheduled to take place at 6:30 that evening. As with the proceedings before Judge Agran, this hearing is open to the public and folks should be encouraged to attend. "

So, why does BSA keep fighting AGAINST having a vote on a slate that volunteers might actually approve (after they voted down the hand-picked slate TWICE). Where's that "representative Democracy" BSA touts? Seems like its a great "concept" unless volunteers manage to put it into practice.

"The issue could be handled in a couple of ways, all with the same result. One had the potential to pocket the Council a 7 figure payment, which could have been used to make real improvements to the camp. The other ways (rezoning, suing to stop sale) will keep the property as it is, but will result in NO payment for development rights. Gee, which would be the wise course to take?? "

But the Council was deeded property for the use of Scouts - to be preserved for the use of Scouts. PERIOD. There should have been no expectation of additional value to be gained and no thought given to any sale. IF the Council no longer wished to be responsible for the property it should have reverted to the donors - and Maynard was one of those - correct?

If the Council acted ethically and morally, a sale would NOT be on the table - nor should offers ever be entertained for that property.

Any attempt to garner further value from this gift is questionable ethically and morally. At BEST, a conservation or preservation easement might be obtained as long as the property was preserved. Yet it seems clear that the Council had no interest in pursuing these possiblities UNTIL after all the criticism raised over a potential sale. Seems like a smokescreen - after the fact, a possibility that was never real and is now brought up only to show "loss of value" in re-zoning.

But by even considering - and apparently soliciting - offers, Council breached the conditions of the deeding. Weaselly lawyers will jump in and say - "not in writing" - and even if it were, odds are they'd find a way around it. This has happened with property given to BSA all over the country. Somehow it never reverts to the donor and BSA pockets the sale proceeds. Which goes back to "ethical and moral" and Trustworthy. BSA is being none of those. The donors deeding the property were remiss in trusting BSA to act ethically and morally and abide by the stated conditions of the deeding. I expect it was beyond the capability of Mr. Maynard and others to imagine that BSA would betray that trust. Mr. Maynard acted in a way that helped preserve the property in the form it was deeded - and in the way it was intended to remain. He used the courts to in effect make it so BSA would have to comply with the original conditions if the bequest. FOr once, someone beat BSA at their own legal weaselling. Seems like THAT is why he was removed.

BSA has regularly benefitted from tax-exempt status and preferential teratment for its properties BECAUSE they preserved land in an undeveloped state. Land has been donated to BSA for the use of youth - NOT for future sales or additional profit making opportunities. Yet it always comes back to "its worth more if we sell it" - worth more HOW? In these cases the possibility of a future sale was NEVER considered. BSA was never supposed to be able to sell the property.

The legalistic justifications profferred for the most appalling unethical and immoral behavior may make such actions legal. It is bad enough to see this in other circumstances but in Scouting?

In talking about the potential for gain and value lost it is clear that the focus is on MONEY - and NOTHING ELSE here.

And btw, isn't BSA supposed to be a non-profit organization?

And as for the justification for Mr. Maynards removal - just what would that be? Specific procedures, rules or regulations?

BSA seems to have a hissy fit when its members DO express their right to free speech - and gets even madder when volunteers stand up to what is simply wrong. And - in so many ways - what has occurred here is wrong.

capnwhizz -

BSA's own statements say that it is a "representative Democracy that welcomes a diversity of opinion." In the Scout Law, being "Brave " is defined as speaking up for what you believe in. "Trustworthy" - means that your word is your bond. BSA itself, its paid staff and structure exist to serve and support the Scouting efforts of volunteers, not to dictate to them.

given this and all Scouting claims to represent:

First - how can a Council's leadership even entertain selling property accepted with the understanding - formally and legally stated or not - that it had been deeded to BSA with the understanding it was to preserved for the use of Scouts? Is such a move ethical and moral?

Even entertaining the legally and morally specious argument that sale of this property still "benefits youth", shouldn't Council leadership have sought out those most directly involved - and openly discussed the issue beforehand?

How can you possibly justify the removal of a volunteer for doing as he was taught by Scouting - for standing up for what he believes in?

What is the justification for Mr. Maynard's removal - and please cite the SPECIFIC line in the relevant BSA publication defining those grounds.

Quite frankly, it appears to many that you have a Scout Executive who has forgotten that BSA does NOT exist to provide him with a job. HE exists to serve and support the volunteers in Scouting. YOU as a Board Member exist to represent not the Scout Executive but the VOLUNTEERS.

You claim that it is your fiscal responsibility to entertain offers on property - yet many times in the past BSA has claimed (clearly without seriousness in retrospect) that property is sacred in Scouting - to be preserved forever. If that were the case, why didn't the Council forst explore any and all options to preserve this property under conservation easements and such?

Now, you and others may not care one whit about Camp Flying Eagle. It may be far from where you live and you may never use it. BUT as Councils become larger and larger there is the concern present in any democracy that they tyranny of a few large "locales" not disproportionately marginalize smaller ones. It seems that Manatee has not had a real voice in your Council and has been marginalized.

Does than make the situation morally and ethically right?

Since BSA states that its mission is to teach boys to make ethical and moral decisions, how can any of what has transpired here be considered ethical or moral - specifically Mr. Maynard's removal?

It seems that you, the Executive Board and your SE are expressing a corporate - or autocratic mindset - that views any dissent or opposition (especially SUCCESSFUL opposition) as a "betrayal" or "disloyalty" or "failing to follow orders." Instead, most will argue that this is expression of "free speech" and a successful "petitioning of government" to achieve an ethical and moral aim. Where in the BSA or Council Charter and Bylaws does it specifically state that volunteers do NOT have these rights?

The larger point is -

YOUR house may be fine but if ther eare serious problems in a house down the block and another one street over ultimately it IS your concern.... do you let the neighborhood get worse and worse?

Great if YOUR Council is OK. BUT why are there so many problems in OTHER Councils - SERIOUS Problems - anything but minor, despite how some would try to paint them.

BSA National has done a disasterous job running Scouting for YEARS now and have created the conditions that exist in these local Councils.

Another pointed out - in WHAT other corporation would management remain intact after so many acts of malfeasance? How many PROFESSIONALS have been FIRED for their bad behavior? Open your eyes. When BSA DEFENDS professionals that lie, break the law, fail to report abuse and more, there is somethign VERY wrong.

When volunteers say - they're cooking the books in my Council, BSA should IMMEDIATELY have an INDEPENDENT group conduct an open audit. NO Whitewash, nothing hidden. Instead the SOP is BSA itself "investigates" and says "nothing wrong" - though they don't tell you what they "investigated" - or didn't and even when its clear that there were problems, nobody is ever held accountable - except for some sacrificial DE maybe. NO WAY you can defend Idaho.

SO...... when the neighborhood starts going to hell, what do you do?

Give up and move? - which MANY have done, given membership numbers. They ARE "voting with their feet"

Hole up in your own house, put up a fence and pretend all is well?

Try to work together with your neighbors to limit the problems, correct them and make your neighborhood the BETTER place it USED to be?

Well, here in not necessarily "liberal" but far from "conservative" NY, at least half the registered leaders think BSA's changed and is pandering to religious conservatives....

"Gay or athiest" is a topic avoided simply because few agree with BSA's policies. It's not a matter of concern to anyone I know - except for those that end up quitting on a point of principle. I lost two good Cub Scout Leaders that way. Contrast them with the parent fooling around on his wife, the divorced father who seems to have a nice abuse problem (shacked up with someone he's not married to) and a few other appalling examples of ethical and moral behavior.

The older boys in Scouting themselves think it's a joke. Most know kids who are gay and athiest.... it's simply not a big thing to THEM.

Even the seriously religious - those that are involved in religious medal instruction are pretty tolerant around here.

And the attorneys that are involved peripherally - most lacking the time to be more active - are firmly of the opinion that BSA has been trying to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to "private/public".

The few "BSA all the way" types are viewed a bit suspiciously by other leaders as they are rather "black or white" people - overly simplistic in their view of the world - frankly, they are NOT great leaders of youth and one had their own behavior called into question at camp. A bit too autocratic and harsh themselves in their treatment of boys and others.....

And even some of them think our SE is something akin to Satan - destroying our Council. They can't figure why National lets guys like him stay.....

Long Haul -

the same applies to Westchester-Putnam, an area with a rich history in Scouting. More than a few 75 year units, surviving IN SPITE of "Council." That word has become an epithet here.

We are a once-rich Council that's been looted of its assets. Too many professionals found it easier to sell off property and live off trust funds than do some real work building and increasing support for Scouting. The sad part is that this is an affluent area and there was a natural base of support. The professionals have killed it over the years.

Each time an old Council was combined and property sold off, you lost more volunteers and alienated more of your support base. This is one of the most affluent areas in the country and BSA has squandered a dedicated support base. You still have strong financial support in some local communities like Bronxville - but there the community supports units directly and maintains ownership of the local Scout cabin - rightfully not trusting BSA to preserve assets.

Look at Greenwich Council in Connecticut - they're remained independent because THEIR Boards have simply refused to allow BSA to do what it wanted to do - merege them away and sell off their facilities. Scouting there is strong and successful with broad support.

When you're selling off property over the objections of volunteers every few years, you're driving off your most ardent supporters.

We'll be down to TWO facilities from over a dozen when I was a Scout.

One is in the Adirondacks - fine as a High Adventure Camp but as a parent I was appalled to drop a 12 year off there. This was NOTHING like my first summer camp in Scouting.

The closer reservation operates under a conservation easement for SWAMPLAND. Its mud, rocks, stagnant lakes and swamps. NO open ground or fields for events. It's pretty pitiful. Nice new cabins - built at more than twice the budgeted cost, more than we sold a whole Camp for 5 years back. Most volunteers felt the money would have been better spent holding onto that facility. It sold for half the expected amount - only $2 million - to a neighbor of the SE at the time. Lots of questions were never answered.

Council finances continue to worsen and you can't even get an enrollment number out of Council now. BSA whitewashed on investigating enrollments and only determined that "there is no evidence that BSA-approved procedures are not being followed." Do they think we're stupid? Exec Board reports showed enrollments drastically lower than public numbers...... there's been NOTHING released for months - no more reports at District Meetings.... so....w're not going to notice that there are NO numbers ANYWHERE now?

Do they plan on quadrupling LFL to make up the shortfall before releasing counts? At least the charity event run "To Support Handicapped Scouting" isn't the blatant fraud it had been - we haven't had a handicapped Scouting Unit for years and when we did they never got funds from Council. Now they admit it all goes to LFL.

OUR "inner city units" finally reappeared again (they went strangely invisible when scandals broke in 2005). Paid staff run them now though one volunteer near by notes that the numbers are pitifully small and questions how real and viable the units really are.

Scouting is becoming ALL local..... volunteers focus on their units and ignore District and Council. Even the hand-picked politically vetted people are fed up and walking away. The SE does as he chooses - and ignores everyone. An Executive Board Committee acts in lieu of the full Board - same game CAC played to limit volunteer oversight. All District Chairs were removed from the Executive Board when the SE arrived.... nobody's even SEEN the local Council bylaws since he got here. One Board member said outright - the SE makes his own rules.

We tried organizing Chartered Org Reps to vote out leadership - the SE put in quite an effort countering it..... it failed and more people walked away. You have two year Cub Scout Leaders filling District spots because long time Scouters won't have anything to do with Council. More than a few spots are filled on paper only.

When even former Board members are expressing their disgust you know something's wrong. But the same things happened in this SE's former Council. He must have friends in high places...... he should've been pushed out long ago for all the damage he's done to Socuting.

Most figure we'll be merged out of existence in a few years. Won't be anyone left to object.

And the prolem is not changing times or any other excuses - Girl Scouts here has TWICE the membership BSA Scouting programs have. Interesting contrast. The NY Times wrote it up a while ago. Simple explanation though- GSA has had leadership here that cared about Scouting.

Be glad. P&T actually made BSA look better than it is. The membership quoted was "almost 5 million" when even BSA is stating "4.1 million youth served" - including Learning for Life.

They went easy overall. It would have been far more damaging to bring up the abuse issue - which BSA is still having serious problems with.

If they really wanted to make clear BSA's problems addressing homosexuality, the Smith vs. St. Jean contrast would have been brutal.... Kiddie porn distributor firing respected closeted gay staffer.

All in all, it was a lightweight "investigation" but it wasn't intended to do more than highlight the inherent hypocrisy in BSA right now. Same approach used on other groups. Their piece on "life counselors" made that bunch look more absurd.

If anyone was to do a REAL investigation of BSA, you'd have serious cause for concern. After all, there was no mention of enrollment scandals, Camp Sales, excessive compensation for executives and cases like "Red Dog Maynard" - which would have really pointed out the hypocrisy.

Be glad the focus was on gays and athiests. It's easier for people to ignore criticism that way. Most have already made their mind up one way or another - though P&T did point out that many are NOT in lock-step with National. I wonder if BSA is going to start testing Units now for ideological conformity now..... can they afford the losses that would result?

But like it or not, P&T are saying what many are now thinking -

BSA HAS been hijacked by religious conservatives. The current focus was NOT there 25 years ago.

BSA DOES pander to the LDS contingent.

BSA IS hypocritical in seeking as much governmental aid and funding - and preferential treatment as it can get - while then claiming it is a "Private" organization. You CAN'T have it both ways.

Homosexuality is NOT a concern to many - despite BSA's position.

A focus on formal belief in God - instead of ethical and moral behavior - is "questionable."

As another pointed out - everything is fine in BSA until the issues raised happen in your Council.......

These things shouldn't happen in ANY Council.... and those that prefer that the "dissidents" simply leave should reflect on what is at least the "official" position of BSA in that they are a representative democracy that respects a diversity of opinions - (well except for the gay and athiest thing.....) Gotta love the "tolerant" attitude where raising valid issues is always portrayed as an "attack". (BTW did you hear Nancy Grace's rant after Sovreign Smith? THAT was an attack.....bet it helped many parents decide to keep Scouting at arm's length... even O'Reilly seems to have issues.... why is that?) But some Scouts remain "Loyal" despite all - have to love how the "character and values" crowd can ignore and excuse such wrongdoing as long as "it's not happening here."

(And France has EXCELLENT child care, great benefits, better health care than here and vacation policies that we can only dream of..... 7 weeks with 4 guaranteed between May and October..... while here "60 Minutes" is trying to convince us that it's a GOOD thing to work 70 or 80 hours a week and skip vacations to make the same your father did working 40 - and HE had real healthcare, vacations AND job security......and his wife didn't have to work so your kids could go to college.....

Spend some time going through 990's - its astounding how much some are paid in BSA..... even others are raising eyebrows about the compensation levels for this NON-PROFIT organization..... lots well over $100,000, $200,000 a year - in areas where MEDIAN income is a third of that.

Not too many dual income SE families. Seems like there are none in Irving....When so many paid professionals make so much more than the volunteers in Scouting that they are supposed to serve - something is very wrong.

There's a very basic issue here.

Should BSA be less centralized, representing communities directly with volunteers having a real say in management of their Councils as it was for its first 60 years -

or

should BSA continue its headlong rush to bigger and bigger Councils - with more distant management NOT accountable to local volunteers, run by ever higher paid professionals?

Is BSA a corporation to be run in a way that paid management wishes or is BSA a volunteer organization with paid staff that exist to serve and support the volunteers that make up its membership?

You've heard OVER and OVER - from a ton of diverse sources - that the paid professionals are evaluated on TWO things - numbers and money. That's it. You've heard that plain and clear.

Counts are designed to boost year-end totals, not measure REAL increased in participation or retention. There's no concern at all about "retention" - in fact turnover BOOSTS the year-end number. There's no real concern about the "quality" (in any real sense) of the program - like days spent outdoors per kid, average years in Scouting for kids AND adult leaders, merit badges earned, and such.... it's all about numbers and money. PERIOD.

Somehow the "numbers" aren't even "boys" anymore and the money is a goal unto itself - not the means to provide a "program" for boys.... but then it's also been said over and over that the paid staff seems to exist mainly to raise money to pay their own salaries....... with the SE and REGION and NATIONAL making disproportionately high ones.

In a sense, yes......Same thing they did when the IRS said they were too "profitable" for a non-profit -

Offer the executives a nice cushy early retirement package on their 6 figure salaries - with benefits none of us will ever see in retirement. Full health care, even a car as a "Thank You" Most at the SE level and above live better in retirement than most volunteers do while working. Follow the money......

and that's straight from a CURRENT "paid professional"

Funny how many private messages I get confirming what I say......

If there's nothing to hide, why does BSA hide so very much?

In a thread on Camp Flying Eagle on Scouts-L

http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0603&L=scouts-l&D=1&T=0&F=&S=&P=69664

Have been involved for 10 years. Brought a unit back from the dead with no help from paid staff who - literally - showed up only to do FOS. Our current SM will say the same. We use Council for patches.

Council never returns calls, lots of luck trying to get the simplest corrections to records. Even paying for summer camp is - quoting the leader who went up to Council to do so - "a pain.... it's like they don't want to take your money." I'm one of the best known Scout Leaders in my community - and was pretty involved in District. like many others, I'm no longer involved outside my own unit. Have written some pretty hefty checks to Scouting - now they go only to local units where I know they directly benefit boys.

All Council cares about is signing up as many kids as you can and selling popcorn. Not what Scouting is about to me.

I've seen a rich Council looted of assets - used to fund operating expenses - mainly salaries for paid staff that we never see. Too many questionable things - properties selling for half the original price to someone connected to someone - and subsequently resold for far more. We have two places left - one hours away. The othere operating under a conservation easement for swampland. Rocks, swamps and stagnant lakes are all that's left. You'd be furious too if you saw what we once had.

Paid staff and hand-picked "leaders" at the Council level have squandered the resources of a once strong Council, alienated volunteer leaders and the support base for Scouting and presided over a continual decline in Boy Scouting. GSA has more than twice our membership - their head makes 2/3's of what our SE is paid.

Council leadership would rather boost "total served" counts with bribes to sign up kids who don't stay and sell off all they can and fund operations trhough trust fund income...... but since they've alineated so many, fundraising has tanked..... no amount of popcorn can make up for a 35% drop in donations in 2 years. FOS is budgeted at 20% less than last year - a tacit admission that people refuse to donate. Over 400 adults have walked away. No enrollment numbers have been released for 8 months - after the Board was challenged on enrollment claims. Scouting isn't serving "over 10,000 youth" - we showed less than 7,000 in an internal report. Paid staff has turned over almost completely - even they're fed up. In his previous Council DE's simply quit BSA completely to get away.

All clear warning signs things are very wrong. They tried to organize COR's to oust leadership..... lot's of luck. There's a reason BSA structures things this way. Many believe the damage is deliberate - a prelude to merging us out of existence. Force out all the old volunteers who'd object.

We've already lost too many of our best leaders. They've gotten fed up and left. Tired of fighting an "unwinnable" fight. Speak out and get thrown out - it's happened here too. Why SHOULD anyone stay around?

"All I can say is the situation you describe might as well be on Mars. It certainly isn't the situation I see in Atlanta, nor anywhere else. "

So all those missing disadvantage youth - 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 depending on the number originally cited - were an honest misunderstanding. Larkin resigned why?

All the news reports about enrollment fraud are sheer fabrications.

Some just don't see anything they don't want to see........ and BSA is SO successful that it just keeps losing members......

As another noted, would the management team in charge of a corporation with SO many serious issues - that have attracted the press and law enforcement - remain in place anywhere else? (except for the federal government as another pointed out)

When you have to make excuses for things like Alabama, Idaho, Sovreign Smith, and more, it's time to step back and take a long objective look - something is very, very wrong.

You're not sticking your head in the sand if you're wondering how Council costs come out to $239 a kid......

Seems like more than a few people wonder about just what the paid staff really do to support Scouting and volunteers.....

Many of those with questions in the back of their heads are just lucky enough not to have gotten in a SE who throws their weight aroung and treats the volunteers like serfs..... If it happens to you, you may be wondering about alot more than what Council money gets spent on.

Here Camping and activities revenue more than covers Camping and activities costs. I expect that's typical. Other expenses aren't all that high. Salaries, benefits, travel expenses and expenses directly related to staff are more than half the budget. Many volunteers DO believe that the only thing professionals do is raise money to pay their own salaries. That is the only time you're likely to see a DE around here.

But look beyond your local Council. BSA National is sitting on half a billion dollars. That's only in the National Council. GO look at other filings under BSA Disability Trust Fund, BSA Foundation and Learning for Life.

Look at the salaries paid at the National level - and benefits. Sorry but nobody can justify what National pays out in salaries. Even the non-profit world is raising questions about excessive compensation - and Williams package was over $900,000 in 2004?!?!

That makes him one of the best paid Non-profit CEO'S in the country - and he's done what? As another pointed out - any CEO in an organization that's had the failures and scandals BSA has had in the past few years would have been fired a long time ago.

So, what DOES National do? Seriously, how often has the basic program been revised? It's sad how old some of the stuff is. Just what does National do to justify its expense? There are more than enough references to how well paid staff live in Texas. Comments about new cars given as retirement gifts. Pretty good gig working for BSA National.

Meanwhile, "front-line" DE's are poorly paid - though they spend little time actually helping units. Office staff could use real help given the state of most records and accounts.

And what DO SE's really spend their time on? They are pretty well paid. In some Councils the SE is a third of the salary budget making more than double the next highest paid employee. I don't know too many other organizations with that kind of salary structure. Some are outrageously well paid - far more than any volunteer leaders. And every leader I know is laying out some serious $ from their own pocket supporting Scouting.

The paid staff are supposed to serve the volunteers but just try asking what your SE makes at an open meeting and see the reaction. The current culture among the paid staff views volunteers as employees - cheap labor that's readily replaced. Except they're not. TRY and find good volunteer leaders ......it's not easy.

Reputed Feb 28, 2006 numbers

Cub Scouts - 1,497,362

Boy Scouts - 837,101

Venturing - 222,404

Total Traditional 2,556,867

Learning for Life 1,616,223

Total Youth 4,173,090

Simply passing on. If accurate, that 2.6 million is pretty lame, BSA is back to what, 1950 membership in Scouting?

You can't blame it all on "changing times"

On "one side" of things.......

BSA continues to lose members and youth. An increasingly autocratic paid professional staff seems to have forgotten that they EXIST to support the efforts of volunteers. BSA itself says it is a "representative democracy" though anyone that has tried to put that into action has found out how little "representation" occurs.

SE's are like any other CEO - they handpick Executive Boards willing to support them. How many Corporate Boards actually represent shareholders now? BSA has been like too many corporations - excusing the bad behavior of its executives instead of holding them accountable. As asked above - how many other companies would tolerate the far too numerous examples of malfeasance by their executives that have been shown over the past year by BSA? If BSA were a SUCCESSFUL organization, gaining members and GROWING STRONGER then defense of the professionals in BSA might have some merit. But BSA is LOSING members at an astounding rate. Yet according to some defenders, this has nothign to do with the paid leadership of BSA. It is the fault of volunteers.

In too many cases "failing Councils" occur because paid staff manage to alienate the volunteer base by ordering them about instead of listening to them. A meaningless focus on increasing numbers and raising money angers dedicated volunteers who get NO help from paid staff in running units. How many new volunteers has a paid staffer ever brought in to YOUR unit? How many units never SEE a paid staffer except when they do FOS?

LOSE the support of your VOLUNTEER base and you are doomed. BSA seems NOT to realize that. If they are doing something that enrages a alrge number of volunteers then odds are it's WRONG.

And the issue of finances is too often bogus. Too many volunteers have seen contrived strategies used to make a camp "unprofitable" so it CAN be sold. ANd too many camps that were donated for the use of boys - that were supposed to revert to the donor when that ceased are STILL sold through contrived legal arguments.

As a very successful professional noted, BSA tars volunteers as "problems" when they speak out on valid issues, volunteers that CARE about and believe in Scouting. Too many professionals prefer to drive out old dedicated "Red Jacket" Scouters and put inexperienced novice leaders in spots who will do as they're told. That's happening here and it is hurting the program. When you lose over 400 adult leaders in a year and a half - real leaders not paper ones..... THAT hurts. And it's happening directly because the volunteer base is fed up with the SE and a Board that does NOT listen. When your SE spends all of a fireside chat looking at his watch, refusing to answer questions and belittling long serving volunteers.... who wants to put up with THAT BS as a VOLUNTEER?

Executive Boards are staffed with local businessmen who have little direct involvement in day-to-day Scouting, they are chosen for fundraising abilities or business contacts. THese businessmen too often take a SE's word on issues and do NOT look closely at things. Two year limits mean few have any real memory of past promises or issues. BSA doesn't WANT knowledgeable oversight. Here District Chairs - who HAD real Scouting experience and credentials were removed from spots on the Board. Our Council Commissioner has never run a unit, done nothing in Scouting since receiving his Eagle years ago. To many Boards have NO real Scouters on them.

BSA has forgotten that Scouting is run by VOLUNTEERS - and they are NOT easy to come by in these times. How many people are willing to take on the responsiblity boren by a Scoutmaster or even Den Leader?

But professionals view volunteers as "employees" - not very valuable (they work for free, right?) and readily replaceable ones at that. Our local SE - confronted with an open boycott of FOS by volunteers literally ordered DE's to "Find new volunteers who will raise money for us!"

That says much about how paid staff view volunteers. A dedicated Scouter's response was "I will not put up with the same underhanded politics and mistreatment too many of us have to endure at work where I VOLUNTEER my time." Whose fault is it that he simply quit Scouting?

This is about the BASIC focus of BSA.

Does BSA and its paid staff exist to serve and support the efforts of volunteers that run units, run activities and make Scouting possible?

Is BSA truly a democracy that serves and represents its volunteers?

or

Are volunteers serving at the beck and call of paid staff who can do as they wish - irrespective of what volunteers feel?

Should the paid staff in BSA be paid far more than almost all of their volunteers earn - with far better benefits and job security?

Baden Powell himself had real doubts about having ANY paid staff in Scouting - something BSA prefers not to mention.

And for those so vocal in defending the professionals in Scouting -

Please justify the very large salaries paid to those overseeing DECLINES in membership?

Please explain how so many executives caught in wrongdoing and fraud remain employed by this corporation? Why have none been fired?

As noted, BSA does not even have GOOD leadership. Membership continues to drop, "success" is faked but nothing changes. Financial goals are met by selling off valuable assets - not reducing excessive management costs. Volunteers that call for change are ousted.

Which summarizes all I've said in about as clearly as possible.

And how sad that this is in an organizations whose stated mission to to teach boys to make ethical and moral decisions.

What example is BSA setting?

Would ANY parent be happy if their child had shown the behavior exhibited by BSA leadership lately? - lying, lying to get money, refusing to follow the law (especially in not reporting child abuse), blaming others for your own misdeeds (the ACLU is responsible for "missing units"), failing to follow their stated ideals, throwing out anyone that validly questions bad behavior.....

If BSA's own supporters WILLFULLY excuse clear wrongdoing - wherever it occurs - they they are failing to follow the Scout Law.

and under the circumstances, I suppose you can say that the current Administration in DC really IS acting like a bunch of "Boy Scouts" - or their leaders - grabbing all they can while professing to defend "values".

Look up your Council's 990 and see what your SE makes - do YOU make that much money? Forget what Williams and those at National make.....

He was over $900,000 total comp in 2004.

from OldGreyEagle:

Talked to the people involved in Fla. today. Have had long conversations with those in Atlanta, Alabama, Chicago and elsewhere - which is more effort that any detractors have put into finding out what's going on. CAC may be the first time volunteers have managed to take control of their own Council and is of interest especially because the former President was the National Head of "Learning for Life" and one of National's favorites. He'd rather sell off property and pay for membership in LFL to boost counts. Doesn't do much for Scouting though.

There is a growing network of people fed up with the abusive behavior shown by some professionals and their hand-picked Boards. And more than a few "insiders" from BSA - some prety high up - support the efforts being made to hold BSA accountable. They can't speak out publicly unless they want to lose their jobs - which may account for the info fed to S4A and others.

These aren't "outsiders" "attacking" BSA - these are Scouters with DECADES of service to Scouting calling for BSA to practice what it preaches. It's time for an end to enrollment fraud, financial games and questionable property sales. The past two years have shown a growing resistance to this BS - and a willingness to fight BSA's increasingly desperate efforts to silence "dissidents". BSA seems to have forgotten that paid staff - indeed BSA itself - exists to serve and support the efforts fo the volunteers running Scoutng for boys in the US. BSA is NOT supposed to be he means to a very well paid and secure sinecure for a few high level executives.

As noted previously, these issues are not everywhere. But the minority involved dominate some regions and National and set the tone for the whole organization. They do NOT want ANY questioning - fearful of the result. At some point, the volunteers in BSA - or worse yet, the government - may actually demand full and open accounting - to see just where all the money IS going. BSA should worry. It's losing many of its friends in high places to their own corruption charges. A full and open accounting may prove very embarassing. The whole LFL issue is one that long serving Scout leaders are incensed over - and the finances are quite "convoluted" and "questionable."

Guess it's all hard for some to believe. BSA not "trustworthy" - horrors. You can keep your head in the sand if it makes you happier. You don't have to read anything I post.

From headlines link on this site

Some seem to believe that BSA can do no wrong and refuse to believe otherwise. Your choice. Amazing how much evil occurs when "good people" remain silent and avert their eyes.

SCOUTING is a great program. When those running it subvert its values they should be held accountable.

I love how those who no nothing about issues presume to know MORE - or presume that others know nothing. Have talked with a number of people in this Council which is more than those here have done. NO VOLUNTEER leaders in this Council support this sale. One said 3,990 out of the 4,000 adult leaders there were screaming to the Boartd there about this. Note that the SE has a rep for punishing people - comments below cite others worried about retribution.

Like it or not, there are some VERY bad things going on with some of the professionals in BSA - things that BSA SHOULD find intolerable. Instead, National ignores or supports this behavior. We should all be appalled. A professional I know with roots in Southern Region notes that paid leadership there has been a recurring problem..... the scandals there are far from over...despite efforts of those higher up to bury things.

Any organization that stakes out the high ground for "character" should avoid ANY behavior that leads others to question those claims. BSA is hiding far too much.

But then it's easier to personally attack the poster than refute the posts.

From L-server

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:03:42 +0000

From: "waikiki2@comcast.net"

Subject: Not one Scout volunteer in Manatee County has come forward

Posted on Sun, Mar. 26, 2006

Frittering away 75 years of good will

Jim Jones

East Word

*T*here is finally a human face on the conflict over whether Camp

Flying

Eagle should be sold to developers. Or whether it should remain a place

for Boy Scouts to get acquainted with nature, to learn values and

skills

that will benefit them for a lifetime.

That face belongs to longtime volunteer camp master B.J. "Red Dog"

Maynard, 75, who has been asked to resign for daring to fight to keep

Camp Flying Eagle a Scout campground.

Reporter Nick Azzara confirmed the details Friday with both Red Dog and

Gary Hampton, executive director of Southwest Florida Council of Boy

Scouts.

It didn't take long for the Scout hierarchy to seek Red Dog's

resignation as a volunteer after he invoked his constitutional rights.

Those would be the right of free speech and the right to seek redress

of

an issue through the court system.

Red Dog is president of the Manatee County Boys Development

Association,

the group which filed suit against the Scout council to stop it from

entertaining offers to buy the camp.

The professional Scouts who manage the council have squandered much

good

will in Manatee County by first denying that Camp Flying Eagle was for

sale, and then later grudgingly admitting that they were considering

offers.

The truth seems to be that the Scout hierarchy would sell Camp Flying

Eagle in a heartbeat if the price were right. That they did not come

out

and say that initially sends the wrong message to the community, and

more importantly to the boys whom scouting is supposed to serve.

If the paid Scout officials really believe that they no longer need

Camp

Flying Eagle, then they should return it to the community which made a

gift of it to scouting more than 75 years ago.

Not one Scout volunteer in Manatee County has come forward, to my

knowledge, to publicly support the council's plans to sell Camp Flying

Eagle.

In fact, we've heard from several volunteers fearful of retribution if

they go public with their opposition to selling Camp Flying Eagle. What

kind of retribution? Being kicked out of scouting, we suppose.

There is no shortage of subdivisions in East Manatee, but there is only

one Camp Flying Eagle, a valuable piece of wooded real estate on the

upper Manatee River.

Where would Scouts go if this property were sold? Hampton has said in

the past other property several counties to the south would be the

place.

No one in Manatee County is swallowing the argument that this would be

a

better deal for local Scouts. Maybe it would improve the financial

standing of the council, yes. But better serve local Scouts, no.

We hope young Scouts are paying attention to the fight going on over

Camp Flying Eagle. There's a good lesson to be learned from Red Dog

Maynard in showing the courage of your convictions.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/14188317.htm

This is getting absurd.... about "free speech" American values and listening to its members? The hypocrisy is getting to be a bit much - BSA has too many well paid Execs and BSA National is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in LIQUID assets doing NOTHING to support Scouting.

From:

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/14201540.htm

Scoutmasters fighting to have leader reinstated

Support grows for 'Red Dog' Maynard; some call for ouster of executive director

MICHAEL BARBER

Herald Staff Writer

MANATEE - Manatee County Boy Scout leaders flocked to the defense of Scout leader B.J. "Red Dog" Maynard on Monday as the fight over Camp Flying Eagle continued to fester.

Officials at the Southwest Florida Boy Scout Council office in Fort Myers asked Maynard, 75, to resign Friday because he spearheads a group suing the council to ensure Camp Flying Eagle is not sold to developers.

The Southwest Florida Council, headed by executive director Gary Hampton, oversees scouting in a seven-county area, including Manatee County.

Carlos Mendez, a local pediatrician and scoutmaster for Troop 8 for the past three years, said Monday he's organizing a grassroots effort within the scouting community to have Hampton fired and Maynard reinstated.

"We've had a conflict with the executive board of the Southwest District for some time," Mendez said. "It started when they took bids on the camp; then when they asked Red Dog to resign, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. He is the reason the Boy Scouts of America exist in Manatee County."

Don Hall, assistant scoutmaster of Troop 8, also said the conflict between the council and Manatee County Scout leaders has been simmering for some time.

"I don't know of a single Scout leader in Manatee County that has a favorable impression of the council office in Fort Myers," Hall said. "They just don't listen to Manatee County."

For much of the past year local Scout leaders have been concerned that council officials might sell Camp Flying Eagle to eager developers interested in the 187-acre waterfront property located off Upper Manatee River Road.

Hampton has steadfastly maintained that the council is not actively marketing the property but it does listen to offers; and if the price was right, the camp could be sold.

The price would have to be substantial because in August 2005 the council's executive committee rejected a $12million offer for the camp from Silver Companies of Fredricksburg, Va., according to Herald archives.

Also on Monday, Andrew Romines, chief operating officer for the Foundation of Dreams, said the foundation's board of directors extended an offer of $6.5 million for Camp Flying Eagle on Feb. 14.

The Foundation of Dreams leases 10 acres of Camp Flying Eagle from the Southwest council for its Dream Oaks Camp, a facility for developmentally challenged, physically handicapped and terminally ill children. The 10-year lease cost the foundation $1 a year.

"We have not received anything in writing regarding our offer," Romines said. "Part of the provisions of our contract would be to keep it a camp for scouting and for youth in perpetuity; and to keep the name Camp Flying Eagle."

Conflict of interest?

On March 21, Manatee County Commissioners voted 6-0 to change the county's future land-use map so that Camp Flying Eagle would be required to remain a recreational area, thus saving its use as a Boy Scout camp.

It was at that meeting that Maynard spoke as president of the Manatee County Boys Development Association, an organization that filed suit in September 2005 to keep the Southwest Florida Boy Scout Council from selling the camp to developers.

Hampton said it wasn't until that county commission meeting that council officials learned Maynard's role in the lawsuit.

"It was a little bit of shock to learn that he is the president of the organization that is suing an organization of which he is a member," Hampton said Monday. "We think that is a clear conflict of interest."

There were other ways, within the structure of the Boy Scouts, for Maynard to address his concerns over Camp Flying Eagle, Hampton said.

"There is a process within the system that he could have followed to keep it from being sold," Hampton said. "Mr. Maynard went a direction that is inconsistent with being loyal to the scouting program as a whole."

Hampton also defended the council's accomplishments over the last 10 years.

"We've been a quality council," Hampton said. "We've gained national recognition, we've had hundreds of Eagle Scouts, we have a balanced budget and we've had hundreds of thousands of dollars improvements to both camps (Camp Flying Eagle and Camp Miles in Punta Gorda)."

Mendez and Hall said Maynard's dismissal just drove a deeper wedge between Scout leaders in Manatee County and the council office.

"Maybe it's time to go back to our own council," Hall said. "That way we would have a council more in tune with this community."

Prior to 1995, there was a separate Boy Scout council covering Manatee and Sarasota counties. The name of the council was the Sunny Land Council, which merged with the Southwest Florida Council on Jan. 1, 1995.

Communication is key

Margi Nanney, scouting volunteer committee chairman for Manatee County, said Maynard's forced departure will dramatically impact local scouting activities.

"He's the heart of volunteer spirit in Manatee County," Nanney said. "It would take a lot of people to fill all of the roles that he fills and his departure affects the kids and adults alike. From a district standpoint, his loss cripples us."

Nanney said the entire situation is unfortunate.

"This could have all been prevented long ago with the proper communication," Nanney said. "It's all been bubbling up for quite some time because of how an entire county feels about preserving what is to us, a sacred piece of property."

Meanwhile, Maynard answered an endless stream of phone calls Monday and tried to respond to more than 200 e-mails he received over the weekend.

Asked what he would say to his ardent defenders within the local scouting community, Maynard issued a warning.

"I'd tell them to throttle it back a little bit," Maynard said. "Our council executive (Hampton) has a history of getting rid of people who disagree with him."

Michael Barber, Herald reporter, can be reached at mbarber@HeraldToday.com and 748-0411, ext. 2640.

Keep in mind that the WAY BSA calculates members has changed over the years. You used to have a spread-out re-chartering effort on the anniversary of a unit's founding. This provided a reasonably accurate picture of current enrollments at any point in a year.

Now you now have a year-end effort with new numbers posted at the BEGINNING of a calendar year. So the 12/31 numbers quoted are of ALL youth enrolled in Scouting at any time during a calendar year (for however short a time). Since new members are added throughout the year BUT not removed until the next year, BSA's count inflates active membership by the incoming cohort of youth every fall. This change in counting methods goes back to the 1970's and falling membership then. SO BSA counts have been inflated by 15% or so since then.

Learning for Life is a contrived program set up to receive funds from government and charities that BSA is NOT elegible for. BSA goes to great lengths to say that "Learning for Life" - which now also has the career oriented "Explorers" program under its umbrella - is NOT "Traditional Scouting." Yet BSA rarely issues a count that does NOT include "LFL" as part of their total "youth served."

Like it or not, BSA had a serious drop in numbes in 2005. Much of that was likely due to disappearing bogus members that voluteers would not sign off on. WHat ever the count - 2.77 million or whatever - it's pretty likely there are under 3 million youth in "Traditional Scouting programs" as of 12/31/05. In truth the actual count of "Active" youth is likely close to - or under - 2.5 million. Membership - drawing from a SMALLER age range - hasn't been that low since before 1950. And even with "increased" competition from other activities, there is a FAR larger pool of available youth to recruit from.

That is pathetic. BSA has managed to lose 60 years of growth?

BSA "professional" management has done an abysmal job for decades. Their focus on "numbers" has led only to a continued decline in Scouting enrollments - offset only by the contrived "Learning for Life" program. If BSA wants to be open and honest about who they are, they should break out "LFL" completely into a separate organization.

Meanwhile the professionals and volunteers that DO work hard to provide a quality Scouting program see their efforts undercut with continued property sales and a singleminded focus on numbers and money. Looking at some councils you'd think BSA was a variation of Amway - selling popcorn instead of soap and pushing endlessly to "add members." No matter if they stay. Just sign them up. Lots of incentives.

No matter how you look at things, BSA has done a horrid job in even keeping pace with the population of available youth. Yet National Execs and SE's are very well paid.

And for all that talk about character, there are far too many scandals about too many issues surfacing regularly........

BSA has gone to great lengths to obfuscate information. They file multiple 990's for separate corporate entities. Their "Disabilities" 990 has a huge amount of money in it. And when BSA has too much money being retained - like when the market ran up a decade back - their solution is not to dump money back into local Scouting but to pay executives to retire early.

Spend some time going through BSA financials. Make comparisons to other youth organizations. BSA is a scandal waiting to blow. And given the difficultite their friends in high places are having of late, BSA may be losing the political pull they once had to keep things under wraps.

It's not just "discrimination". It's not just "God" and "religion." It's NOT any "different" youth. Some Councils are doing a great job with Scouting. It CAN be done. But if anyone thinks all the scandals and issues DON'T hurt....... you're wrong. We've lost dozens of Chartering organizations and I've had people quit over "issues." More than a few long serving leaders locally were appalled at the Soveign Smith thing last year.

And put in an autocratic professional who throws his weight around - we've lost over 400 adults (REAL leaders - not the paper ones) in the past couple years. THe ONLY 'growth' was in LFL - and we haven't seen new numbers which are expected to show serious overall drops. You can make $100,000 off popcorn, but if you come up short $200,000 in FOS and drop 35% in total contributions...... it's hard to claim "success" - but in BSA it happens.

Our BEST Scouting units are run by leaders that remain IN SPITE of all at Council and National. They run a great program for kids and use "Council" for patches. That's it. A Silver Beaver winner walks out of FOS and popcorn pitches and brings his unit out of state to camp now. We rarely use Council facilities - but then there's not much left we own any more so it's not like we have a real choice. Truth is we could do pretty much all we do WITHOUT the "support" we really don't get from BSA anyway.

James Madison - "When tyranny cones to these shores it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

We're already building "detention camps" for "immigrants."

Warrants are no longer required despite laws that say they are.

Whistleblowers that expose illegal acts are more in risk of being jailed than those committing the illegal acts in question.

An FBI translator is under a court ordered gag order for reasons of "National Security" - unable to discuss the issues she stumbled across involving arms trafficking, governments, terrorists and more - things that had Congressmen outraged..... but it's Secret. Talk and go to prison.

We are outraged when ports are managed by an Arab company but stay silent as Constitutional rights are taken away.

Franklin was asked "What kind of government do we have - republic or monarchy?" His telling response - "A republic if we can keep it."

We are in grave danger of losing it. And why? Are a few "terrorists" a graver threat than Fascist Germany and militaristic Japan were? Are they a larger threat than the Soviet Union was - a nation armed with hundreds, thousands of nuclear warheads with the means to deliver them?

We should be ashamed at standing by silently as this happens.

This once shining beacon of individual rights and democracy now tortures people, violates international law and strips its own citizens of Constitutional rights. We were never perfect but we TRIED to be better than the rest of the world. We TRIED to uphold ideals. No more. We are a bully who thinks we can force others to do as we want. All the good will felt towards the US after 9/11 has been squandered. We are hated, seen as a profligate glutton, consuming more of the world's resources than any one else - and confronted with an ever declining supply of oil - believes the simplist solution is to take what we want (using specious justifications).

We are becoming all we once fought against in the Soviet Union - a "one party" state where membership in the Nomenklatura gives you priviledges no others can have. A corrupt few exploit the majority and do as they wish with no consequences. Or - using another analogy - we have gone from Republic to Empire and are well on the road to decline - all in less than a decade. At least Rome lasted a thousand years.

Many in our military, the FBI and CIA are outraged at what is going on. We are only seeing a small part of it all.

When even former Reagan officials are saying THEY think information being collected is being used to pressure media figures and even politicians...... think about it.....why have so many caved after first speaking out? About all those investigations we were promised?

It wasn't losing school access that hurt.....Let's be real people. Don't you think that this pretty major drop has something to do with all the scandals and changed reporting rules?

Of course Greta vanSustren - or was it Nancy Grace going off on a rant how she'd never let her kids join Scouts after the Sovreign Smith thing.... well, THAT whole incident didn't have ANY effect either, right? Enough leaders - and parents - were horrified. BSA's usual sonewalling - issue a statement from legal and don't answer questions didn't help. About those sailing trips out of Miami, and past contact with boys? Any investigation contacting people to MAKE SURE nothing happened? We wouldn't want to HIDE anything - not like in Idaho where legislators are calling for the SE involved in failing to report abuse cases to be removed

Sometimes the view here is like all the "good" Enron employees that don't want to believe the Execs are looting the company and selling stock while THEY can't and are losing their retirement accounts...... the least offensive analogy I can find....

Things smell to high heaven in too many parts of BSA. The utter LACK of transparency is itself a HUGE red flag. BSA's refusal to allow outside audits means they ARE hiding something. In an organization that touts character and values, why is it so hard for BSA to simply do "the right" thing? ANY time there's a scandal about ANYTHING, it hurts Scouting.

As far as numbers now, volunteers now have to sign off on them and many aren't willing to sign off on "questionable" ones. It seems that there are other changes as well - like a SE personally vouching for small units. Like it or not, too many professionals have been playing fast and loose with numbers. But they are evaluated on numbers and money. They have goals. Blame these simplistic measures on National and Williams. His statement last year noted how BSA uses "statistics to measure success" - and too often lie about it. Atlanta's SE apparently did the noble thing and fell on his sword - he took responsibility. Have any others involved in scandals resigned?

As far as transparency goes, oh for the good old days when BSA annual reports had full and complete numbers - but even the old reports have disappeared now. BSA doesn't like people to make comparisons. But it WAS funny how the ending numbers for say 1999 did not match the opening ones for 2000.

As far as the "questionable numbers" reported at the beginning, look at the site below and please explain because I'm at a loss on the Units figures. I hope they didn't lose THAT many units though we seem to have had enough questionable under 10 member ones. But the enrollment ones fit with the numbers quoted.

http://www.iac-bsa.org/bsa_at_a_glance.htm

The above site is apparently an official site. It looks like someone posted a report they weren't supposed to. BSA doesn't like to report ANYTHING but year-end numbers - these are APRIL 2005

Given the way BSA Counts, the numbers here fit with the initial reports in the first posting since BSA counts will add more in the fall when school opens.

And there's word that Williams and the good old boy crew are feeling heat. Look for early (and generous) retirement offers to cut back the higher professional ranks. It's not like BSA really needs them anyway. Besides, they need to clear out the Supply Division for all the SE's caught fudging numbers. Gotta put them somewhere.