kasane

There is a difference between being "dropped" by a troop (failure to recharter, non-attendence, etc) and "removed" on the basis of allegations, behaviour or safety issues, etc.

I have been in discussions with parents whose son only turns up (or they do) to recharter for another year and yet do nothing, do not attend activities, or anything for the remainder. That is a troop issue in regards to dropping a scout. There may be issues that prevent a scout from participating (school work, doesn't fit with the troop, meeting nights don't work, or he just doesn't care). This doesn't prevent him from enrolling with another troop.

Removing a scout from a troop involves a whole other process, including involving the committee, the Charter Rep (sometimes the institutional head gets dragged in), and the scout executive. Unless there is a clear chain of events leading up to the removal of membership (that is apparent to everyone), the first time most parents find out about it is when they get a letter from the scout executive. I don't know any Troop Committee that is going to put forward a letter to parents, revoking their son's membership on the basis of allegations. That task is laid at the feet of the Scout Executive. It is this process that will cause the boy or the adult to be barred from scouting for life (including stepping onto any scout property).

In an ideal world, the parents would be informed as to problems with their son in the troop, meetings could/should be held and if the membership were revoked it would be through due process.

This however doesn't happen as often as it should (see my postings under revocation of membership).

If the troop revoked the boy's membership in that troop, it causes a chain reaction up and down the scout hierarchy. It generally prevents the boy from ever registering with another troop (particularly if his previous troop initiates a revocation of membership at the district/council level) anywhere.

When a membership is revoked, more often than not, the first time a parent hears about it is when they get a letter from the Scout Executive informing them of such an action. The Scout Executive does not have to have proof, allegations against an adult or child by anyone (another parent, child, scout leader) are sufficient to have their membership revoked.

Even if you can prove the allegations to be false, it is very difficult or impossible to have a membership reinstated.

The canned letter from the scout executive read in part "we have received information that has compelled us to revoke the registration of your son (name) with the Boy Scouts of America." "We reserve the right to refuse registration whenever there is a concern that an individual may not meet the high standards of membership that the BSA seeks".

"If you wish to have this decision reviewed by a BSA regional review committtee, please write the regional director (region) within sixty days of the date of this letter, explaining your version of the facts supporting your claim that his registration should be granted."

The letter did not say what information was received by the BSA nor did the Scout executive say what the information was. The parents were stonewalled until after the regional review, when the Region finally said something on the case that allowed them find out about the allegations and what had transpired nearly 6 months earlier. Their first appeal in this process was done in "the blind" as it were. In essence, whatever you said my son did (which you won't tell me and I don't know), he didn't do.

The parents were told, in writing, by the scout executive that they can explain "their version of the facts" in an appeal letter, but were never told what those "facts" actually were. They asked and asked and were turned down at every level, until pressure and advice from a scout executive in another Council got the region to talk to them (only on a limited basis). How can you fight an invisible foe?

The scout executive (and at all BSA levels)would not provide any information, no matter how abstract, regarding membership standards, violations thereof, burden of proof required, etc. to the parents or to a commissioner.

I believe this goes beyond the role of the commissioner, as we are obviously not privy to all the procedures and policies of the BSA.

No, i don't believe any of the adults involved were mandatory reporters. No one was in any of those professions.

After spending many evenings in Youth Protection Training at Round Table, it was my understanding that the SM is not a mandated reporter. I believe that is why the Scouts have the YPG. If an allegation is made, the Scout Executive provides the information to the appropriate agencies to investigate.

This removes the scouter, troop or committee from any liability regarding malicious reporting. That's how it was explained to me.

The alleged victim was not in any danger from the other boy, as his family had also moved from the area two months before the accusations were filed. (it wasn't a sudden move as the entire troop threw a farewell party for the alleged perpetrator and his family - the alleged victim and his family were present at the party as well). The parents said said that the SM (when he finally talked to them) told them that he felt the Council wasn't moving fast enough on this - so that's why he filed the police report).

I am not a lawyer, so I can't advise the parents on legal issues. They did what was required of them in the appeal process outlined by BSA. I don't know what other recourse they have (except a lawyer). That step is up to them - they have been angry and hurt and stunned by what happened. I don't think they have the financial resources for a lawyer. I think they are resigned to what is done is done.

As far as can be determined, the route of the allegations were from the one scout to the SM and CC, who then phoned the alleged victims parents (and then to their son i suppose). It was reported in person the next day to the Scout Executive by the SM, the CC and the parent.

There is still no information as to how the first scout came to have the information he passed on to the scoutmaster. As far as it is known to date, the alleged victim did not report it to the scout (so it may have been hearsay or rumor from that point forward).

There is no indication of what transpired in the alleged victim's family, except that the father was with the two leaders at the scout office. Aside from naming dates and places, after the phone call, when the incidents supposedly occured (at which other scouts, leaders, parents (including those of the two boys involved) were present, the alleged victim and his parents did not report the incident, file a police report (the scoutmaster did) or pursue any other avenue of recourse. When the SM filed the police report, within a week, the other family moved out of state.

Obviously as commissioner it isn't my role to investigate these events, but sometimes you end up being the counselor to confused parents and end up at a total loss as to how to help.

At this point I would say the process.

The parents actually had to go through two levels of appeal without actually knowing what had happened at all. All they had to go on was that their son had had his membership revoked as he did not meet the "standards of membership". Calls to the Council executive were unfruitful at best and many calls were unreturned. The Council Executive stated that he could not comment on anything. I don't think the parents wanted comments, they wanted to know what had happened and what the accusations were.

The parents were extremely upset to say at the least. Without knowing what the accusations were, imaginations ran into overtime and every little movement of their son and all the other boys and leaders in the troop was reviewed, timetabled and scutinized.

No one ever told them how to even appeal the ruling until they enlisted the support of another scout executive in another district, who was able to tell them how to go about the process. He was also able to assist in the parents in getting some reluctant cooperation from Regional and National executives, so they could at least find out what the allegations were.

Yes, there is an appeal process. Aside from letters or other documentary evidence that you can submit (and you have no idea what is being submitted on the other end) for evidence on which you don't even know what the charges are, the appeallant is out of the loop. A discussion and decision is made based on submitted evidence and if it is hearsay, what defense does anyone have?

The law in this country is that you have a right to know the charges against you and to face your accuser. If the accusations are based on hearsay, then there has to be other evidence to back it up and the accused has a right to see it.

I think the hardest part of this process is the boy asked me and his parents why did the scouts not follow the constitution in dealing with this matter, especially since he had earned his Citizenship in the Nation merit badge and was working on his Citizenship in the World when this all blew up.

I've been a commissioner for years - I had no idea what to say to him.

Here's one for the discussion heap.

The new scoutmaster and the chairman of a troop are on a camping trip (non-scouting) with their sons and some other boys from the troop). During a campfire session, one of the boys (not one of the sons) who was the SPL said that another boy (not on this trip) from the troop had allegedly been molested by another scout on at least three separate occasions.

The leaders immediately phoned the parents of the alleged victim and tell them what had been told them and identified the boy who had allegedly done this deed. The parents needless to say were extremely upset. Once they returned from the camping trip, the SM, CC and the father went to the scout executive to report the matter. What transpired at the meeting is unknown, however the Scout Executive apparently took the appropriate actions required under the youth protection guidelines. At no time did the parents of the alleged victim actually contact the parents of the alleged perpetrator once they knew who he was.

These matters take some time to investigate, but apparenly not fast enough for the SM who filed a police report on the matter. This was not requested or done by either the parents or the Scout executive - he did it on his own initiative because he felt the investigating bodies and the scout office were not moving fast enough on the matter.

The parents of the alleged perpetrator were given a "heads up" by the CC that the scout office was going to be taking action against their son, but would not tell them what had been reported or what he had been accused of. They received a letter from the scout executive later stating that their son had not met the standards of membership in scouting and that his membership had been revoked. The boy was a Life Scout, with 5 years in scouting, had been to jamboree, was a ASPL, and had no behavior problems or accusations of anything (in scouting or out) against him up till that point. The boy was not an aethist, was not homosexual (declared or alleged), and met all the standards of scouting and was a good scout.

It took the parents nearly 6 months to find out what the accusations (anyone involved int this matter from the scout executive to the troop members refused to tell the parents what had transpired) were and then to investigate the allegations. In reviewing the alleged incidents, it was found that there was no motive and actually no opportunity for the events to have actually happened. Both boys, plus 25 other adults and boys were at all three events and the boys paths actually did not cross without other adults or boys being with them.

Additionally, the parents of the alleged perpetrator were never contacted by Child Welfare or police to investigate the matter. Not even a phone call, letter, summons, home visit, etc. These agencies had the family's address and phone number and could have contacted them at any time and did not.

However, what was rather interesting in all of this was that within a week of the SM filing the police report on the matter, the alleged victim's family packed up and left the state.

There were a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding this matter. The boy who was accused never had his "day in court" to face any of the accusations and refute them. His parents went through the entire appeal process with the Boy Scouts to have his membership reinstated based on the fact that these were allegations and not proven, but it was turned down at all levels.

I guess you could say the youth protection guidelines do work. As soon as someone is accused of wrong-doing (whether they are guilty or not), they are immediately evicted from scouting. Possible a good policy, but it becomes a "star chamber" process in that the accused is accused, tried, found guilty and punished without ever seeing the charges facing them.

Just thought I'd throw this one for a discussion that is not based on gay or aethist issues.

I was advancement chair. ASL's son was up before the BOR for his Life Scout. Something was up before the meeting when the ASL asked who the board was going to consist of (aside from me, there were 3 others - 2 with many BORs and a new member). The ASL clearly told me his disappointment in the makeup of the BOR. At that point alarm bells should have rung. I also must point out I had been Advancement chair for nearly three years and had chaired over 15 BORs without incident.

When the BOR started with the ASL's son, the boy looked ill (ill at ease and actually looked like he had the flu). He was also a mess (his uniform looked like it had been in a laundry basket and he was missing parts of if). When asked at the start if he was okay - he said he was tired and didn't feel well. He was given the option of delaying the BOR until the following week when he would be feeling better - but he refused.

We always open the BORs with an easy question so the boys could relax for the remainder of the Board. After the 1st question, one of the Board members asked about what constitutes scout spirit and did the scout believe he had it. The boy could define it, but there was a followup question which I was not prepared for - apparently the boy had been very angry and violent and totally uncooperative on a campout within the last month. The two men on the Board had been on the campout and witnessed this ( I was not aware of the incident) and asked him if that constituted scout spirit. (This is when I realized why the ASL had asked me who was going to be on the Board).

The boy began to cry and could not continue with the Board although we tried to calm him and move off to another topic. We said that we would reschedule another BOR when he was feeling better. I then had to go out and explain to his father (the ASL) what had happened. The ASL then ripped apart me, all the members of the Board, the scoutmaster and anyone else who came near. I understand his son got it also on the way home that night from his dad.

The entire BOR felt badly about what had happened and certainly I wished I had been able to stave off the question about scout spirit so that it could have been couched more carefully. I do however feel that the boy would not have passed his board that night anyway based on his overall demeanor, uniform, cleanliness, and responsiveness to questions, etc.

The incident didn't end there - a member of the board began receiving harassing phone calls, messages and email. I spent the next three days on the phone with his parents going over and over the reasons why there son had not passed. I was finally able to have them understand that 1) the boy was under extreme pressure by them to get that Life Scout status at any cost (the boy was ill and tired and had not eaten that night) 2) the kid did have behavior problems (the kid is on medication and the father constantly excuses his behavior, but the mother doesn't - her husband didn't tell her what happened on the campout) 3) the kid was not allowed to fail anything in his life - ever (if he did his parents would fix it).

As chair I got a lot of grief over this, but I was backed up by my Board. We scheduled a new Board for the kid - he was told to be prepared - eat a meal, be properly dressed and get a good night's sleep. Totally different kid - the same scout spirit questions were back, but he was able to talk about the incidents and we reviewed methods of dealing with those issues with him. I also used the same board as before (although the parents were pressuring me to get a totally new one). Same kid - Same board. This time he passed. The parents were taken aside by one of the board members (who had been advancement chair years ago and read the riot act.

I believe we handled a bad situation as best as we could - every BOR was a learning experience. I always tried to have a mix of members - new parents to get them used to the process and parents/community members with more experience on the Board. We even had ex-military sitting as members (and they know what a Board of Review is on a professional basis). Contrary to popular opinion a BOR is not a cake walk or rubber stamp - we used it like a job performance review and interview. The scoutmasters and ASLs may feel the boy has met the requirements/skills, but the board wants to see how they are using those skills in their personal development.

No scout "fails" a Board of Review (how many people actually fail a performance review at work?), but there is always room for improvement and you do get a chance to put your best foot forward again.

Does the Freedom of Information Act apply to the Boy Scouts of America? I know it isn't a department of the Federal Government, but it is chartered by them.

If it does apply, how does one go about filing an application to obtain information?

After reading all these posts on this topic, I have yet to see what was actually done to have the ASM1 and his wife and sons removed from their troop. As a Unit Commissioner and many times a committee member the ONLY person/organization that can remove a leader is the Charter Rep/Chartered Organization. They are the ones that "hire" you and they are the ones that can "fire" you. Take a look at a leader application and see what signatures are on it. There is no signature space on it for the scoutmaster.

A scoutmaster cannot "fire" anyone from the troop. He can meet with the committee and Charter rep to discuss an issue related to the leadership. The charter rep and the committe chair then meet with the affected leader to discuss the matter. It is only then that a leader can be removed if the Charter rep feels it is then warranted.

It is apparent that the new scoutmaster feels that his authority was challenged and decided to rectify the situation as he saw it. The Committee Chair and Charter Rep had better sit down with him and explain the heirarchy to him and get him to training before other issues like this arise.