Bob White

I do think it's fair to say that reasonable people can look at what is known about the St. Jean case and think that it looks unfair. While I on the other hand I think reasonable people would realize they did not have all the facts and would restrain from criticizing either party. If in fact St.Jean was treated unfairly he has the resources of the legal system does he not? Why is this treated as a sport where spectators choose sides, and not a private matter between an employer and employee?

What would keep YOUR second pack from losing as many boys as the first? It would not appear to me that you have growth problem, you seem to have a retention problem. I would turm my attention to the program and let the charter organization worry about what they want to do if THEIR pack gets too big.

"I'd say some of the responses to me in this forum illustrate how it's completely inappropriate for government entities to charter BSA units finally we get to the crux. This is neither a leagal or philosophical disagreement. This is about your personal feelings and how you see BSA or its members as treating you. Hoe can your logic be so shallow as to consider any person on this forum as a spokesperson for the BSA? as you have seen for yourself we are all just local volunteers who do not even agree amongst themselves and have varying knowledge, experiences, and responsibility in the program. To assume anyone is representative of the BSA, let alone everyone, simply by the limited exposure to some posts is poor methodology to say the least. This is a personal gripe you have with a program that would not have you as a member, and nothing more. Nothing the BSA will ever do will heal your self-inflicted wound.

on what grounds do you disallow retirement benefits to Smith? At the time he took retirement he had no charges against him! You cannot just imagine rules and then say that they should have been been used. Do not confuse membership rules with employment rules. St.John's dismissal as an employee has nothing to do with membership rules. You have no knowledge of what was in his employment contract. His actions must have violated that agreement in some way, as did Smith's. The difference being that St. Johns action became known to the BSA while still employed by them, Smith's was not.

Actually Ed I believe that the constitional elemennt you refer to led to the American judicial standard of not being found guilty unless evidence can prove so beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby establishing the principle of being innocent until PROVEN guilty. I would be interested to know if any other posters beside you were unfamiliar with this concept. If not, I suggest we can continue with the original topic uninterrupted.

ED, I did not refer to the Constitution did I? I was refering to the judicial principle widely to know to MOST people. jhnky, To say that if they can't operate that wqay then they shoud is ludicrous to say the least. Leagal boundaries force all employers to operate they way they must not they way they "should". Your personal opinion does not count as legal grounds for action. I tried to discuss this other case with you, at your request, in another thread and you abandoned the conversation after two posts. If you now want to continue it... it is still there. BUT you need to promise me on your Scout's Honor, that this time you will remain in the conversation and limit yourself to the single topic at hand. Something you have not yet shown an interest in doing thus far. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Good lord jhnky, can't you give a simple answer to a simple quetion. Look, just because you have an opinion it doesn't have anything to do with real life. An employer cannot punnish someone for being investigated. Ever hear of innocent till proven guilty? Smith was put on paid leave. Then he chosse to retire BEFORE any charges were announced. An employer, even the BSA, cannot refuse him retirement when at the time there was no known impropriety. You can't just make up YOUR rules and then hold the BSA to the ficticious standards YOU set. As far as the council being a representive for of 'government' it is, it just doesn't designed to represent YOU. It is structured where local volunteersw represent the BSA scouting program to you, not YOU representing scouting to them. Thank goodness.

Aren't theories based on information? It seems so odd that you would develop the theory THEN ask for infomation. There are many things that both Jamboree and Philmont add that cannot be gotten at the local level... Scope: It is hard to picture just how big the scouting movement is until you experience activities such as these. World Fellowship; Thes activities allw scouts from the BSA to meet and make friends with scouts from other countries face to face. A cultural exchange of scouting on this level is not possible locally for most scouts. Memories; These events are exciting, challenging, fun, educational and often once in a lifetime for many scouts. And of course there is the exposure to what scouting is capable of being, and sadly too often isn't" at the local level. Then there is the beauty. For thousands of scouts Philmont is there first journey through the western mountain ranges. If you have never seen Philmont it is difficyalt to explian what a gorgeous place it is. You cannot turn a corner and not see something that will awe you. Having never scouted beyond the unit it might be easy to form a theory that there is probably nothing beyond where you have been of any value. Like Aesop's fox whose theory was the grapes must be sour since he cannot reach them to get a taste. Fortunate are those scouts and scouters willing to explore, excited but what lies beyond their own back yard, willing to step into new adventures, BEFORE deciding that there is probably nothing more out there for them. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Jhnky, why is it you cannot accept that the BSA, and the council and district that serve your community Are not about YOU or what YOU want? Funny but most of the leaders I know think that BSA is supposed to be here to serve and support the VOLUNTEER leaders that actually do the real work of Scouting. Why does that not suprise me. Tell the people you hang around with that the district and council are there to support the local program and the organizations that use scouting. We help train their volunteers so that the CO and the scouts can have a stronger program. The support is to benefit the Scouts, we do that by helping scouters. But make no mistake we are here for the children far more than for the adults. SO SHOULD YOU BE. maybe that's WHY the number of adult leaders is dropping even faster than the numbers of Scouts. More horse hockey, you have no data to support that. Now about that one question you have yet to answer. As Smith's employer on what grounds would you fire him, when he had not been charged with any crime, and when once he was charged he no longer was an employee?

The Scouting program that YOU are responsible for takes place at the scout meeting of the charter orgaqnization YOU work for, serving THEIR scouts. WHO ever told you that the district or councils responsibility was to represent YOU? Who ever told you that YOU had representation on the council? The charter organizations have representation on the district and council, not adult volunteers. COs own the unit...not YOU. The District and council are there for the scouts and scouting. They provide services to help and support adult volunteers. YOU agreed to deliver the BSA program, and the council and district is there to help you keep your promise. They are not there to help you CHANGE the program, They are there to help you learn and follow the program. Now that I have answered your question...AGAIN...isn't time you answered mine? You know what it is, you know which thread.

Was he active for the required length of time after earning his Life Rank? That's one requirement. Has he completed his requirement for holding a position of responsibility, That's a different requirement. Does he live his everyday life according to the vales of the Oath and Law, that's what the scout Spirit requirment asks. There is no requirment in the Scout Handbook for Eagle rank to attend a certain number of meetings or activities.

As has been explained to you a board cannot be un-elected, why you insist on refering to them as an un-elected board is a personal problem you will need to deal with. The board is not un-elelected. They have just not been re-elected nor has a replacement board been elected yet. So until a board is elected the existing board continues to serve. How do YOU get the changes you want. I have no idea, you are not in a position of reposibility or authority that gives you any say in the current situation. Your are an angry bull with no horns. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

oh bother! It would seem to reason that if there have been two votes that there will likely be a third. The nominating committee appears to be continuing to do their job of submitting nominees to be approved. The process will continue unitl a full board is approved. My point was to explain that the CRs are not there to represent their unit's volunteers but to make decisions that are for the gOod of the council scoutng community as a whole.

I t would seem to reason that if there have been two votes that wthere will likely be a third. The nominating committee appears to be continuing to do their job of submitting nominees to be approved. The process will continue unitl a full board is approved. My poiunt was to explain that the CRs are not there to represent their unit's volunteers but to make decisions that are for the god of the council scouitng community as a whole.

I do not see where anyone has questioned if he should have been fired. The question revolves around COULD he have been fired since he was not in the BSA employment at the time the charges were announced. Can an employer legally refuse a person the choice of retirement if they have no legal reason to do so. Can you fire someone who no longer works for you? jhnky thinks they can, I want to know how!

Volunteers are not represented through the CRs. CR stands for Charter Organization Representative, not volunteer representative. Unit volunteers work for the charter organization. They agree to follow the Scouting program and deliver it for the CO. The Charter Organizations are represented on the district and council by the CRs. The district and council board is made of individuals who are looking past the needs of an individual or individaul unit and work for the intersest of the council Scouting community as a whole. They look not only for what is best this year but to help insure the future of the council as well. It is not the unit volunteers role to make decisions for the council. Nor is it the councils responsilbility to make decisions based on the emotional outbursts of volunteers.

While you may see it as convenient for scouts to do that...they can't. There are many other ways however the scouts in your community cam help without collecting cash. Simple things for personal hygiene are needed organize scouts to collect them and take them to the Salvation Army. Organizations that do need funds may need help answering phones or distributing information. Rather do the easy activity that you are prohibitied from doing do to existing regulations (and by the way you will find that many other non profits have the same rule) contact the Salvation Army or Red Cross in your community and ask for other ways you can help.

Now the same post in English St. Jean and Smith were both keenly aware that there behavior if discovered could lead to dismissal from the BSA. Both hoped to conceal their behavior from the BSA. Neither succeeded. Ironically, it was Smith whose job responsibilities put him in the position of firing St.Jean once the decision was made to do so. St. Jean was going to be fired by someone, it just happened in this circumstance to be Smith. This was no diabolical plan on the part of the BSA. It's not like they new when **** h dismissed St. Jean that Smith was a criminal. To say that because Smith had character flaws that all of the BSA is at fault is illogical and unsupportable. Had Smith's behavior been exposed while he was an employee then there would have been someone at the BSA who would have been responsible for firing him as well. Was Smith being hypocritical? Perhaps, more than that though he was trying to keep his own behavior concealed. St. Jean's behavior was discovered while he was still an employee, Smith's was not. Now jhnky one question and one only. And you know what it is. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

St. Jean and Smith were both keenly aware that there behavior is dicovered could lead to dismissal from the BSA. Both hoped to conceal their behavior from the BSA. Neither succeeded. ironically It was Smith whose job resposibilities put himm in the position of firing St.Jean once the decision was made to do so. St.jean was going to be fired by someone, it just happened ib this circumstance to be Smith. This was no diabolical plan on the part of the BSA. It's not like they new when **** h dismissed St. Jean that Smith was a criminal. To say that because Smith had Character Flaws that all of the BSA is at fault is illogical and unsupportable. Had Smith's behavior been exposed while he was an employee then there would have been someone at the BSA who would have been responsible for firing him as well. Was Smith being hypocritical. Perhaps, more than that though he was trying to keep his own behaviour concealed. St. Jean's behavior was discovered while he was still an employee, Smith's was not. Now jhnky one question and one only. And you know what it is.

TJ St.Jean is totally different situation and worthy of its own thread. Please feel free to start a new thread to discuss it. But in between the coffectioners convention we are waiting for jhnky's answer to a single, simply, question. Jhenky wanted Smith fired, but he seems to be having quite a bit of difficulty telling us what he was to be fired over since A) prior to his retirement he was not charged with any crime. B) After his retirement he was no longer an employee and couldn't be fired.

At the time that Smith's computer was confiscated there was no charge of a criminal activity, and there would be none until the investigation was completed. The BSA had no legal grounds to fire Smith yet. Prior to the charges being released Smith took retirement. An employer cannot deny benefits because the employee is being investigated for an unknown reason and without at least charges being filed. I await a response from jhnky. It would nice to see him calm down and answer a specific question directly related to the topic of his rants. Tell us, if you were the employer, and as far as you know your employee had not committed a crime, WHAT exactly would have have fired him for?

I would not like to see the thread shutdown as I do not see that as a solution from keeping identical threads to be started. And what makes this thread any more obnoxious as similar threads that have been originated by other posters who share jhnkys beliefs and values. I am a huge supporter of the freedon of association, where a private group has the right and authority to choose to associate with people of similar values and deny association to those who do not. hint hint. Freedom of association, one of the great freedoms of a democracy. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

TP because you have chosen to be an unruly adult regarding this matter I have deiced to delay the paperwork for two weeks . BW

Of the 10 largest charter organizations only five are religions. Any guesses who they are? Who has the most units? who has the most Scouts?

Oh no you you don't jhnky your not gonna weasel out of this without answering a direct question. At the time that Smith took retirement no charge was made, no charge was known. On what grounds as an employer could you fire an employees who was not under arrest, had not been charged, and was eligible to retire? On what grounds to you think you can fire this employee? This only requires a one sentence statement from you. Focus!