Cburkhardt

Evaluating Girls Joining Scouts BSA – Part One

Question One:  How effectively was the roll-out of all-girl Scouts BSA Troops handled?  Be very specific about how thing might have been done differently.

Notes:

In preparation for the fourth anniversary of all-girl Scouts BSA troops this February, I will be posting a different question each of the next five weeks regarding how the addition of all-girl troops transacted and what the impact has been on the BSA and the youth we serve.  I will focus on Scouts BSA and not Cub Scouts.  This first question deals with the initial roll-out.  During subsequent weeks I will deal with the quality of all-girl troops, the impact on young people, whether there are course corrections that should be considered and how the future of the BSA has been impacted.

Many of you know I am founding Scoutmaster of a large and successful all-girl troop.  Things for our all-girl troop have proceeded quite well these past four years – so I won’t pretend I am neutral on the overall development.  However, we should take a serious look at what has happened and identify good ideas for improvement.

In these threads I ask that we not re-argue whether allowing girls to engage in Scouts BSA programming was the right decision.  Those issues were fully argued years ago and the addition of girls to Scouts BSA is irreversible.  If you want to engage in that conversation again, please start your own thread over in the politics and issues category.  These threads will focus on program.  And, I will be tough on folks that make unsupported, overall conclusions such as “the girls have ruined everything”, or “female scouters have shown they can’t do the job”.  If you want to talk like that, you better be prepared to support your conclusions with clear facts.  Readers on this blog are not swayed by that kind of talk. 

MattR:

These situations are always fact-intensive and it is impossible to understand the detail of Mr. P's accusations or the fullness of how such accusations might impact the future of the person unfairly accused.  My view is very simple.  If a Scouter believes she or he has been subjected to unfounded accusations of the horrible crime of child abuse, that person should involve the CO in any investigation the BSA will perform.  It is the only way a person can potentially obtain a written exoneration (from the CO) of this terribly damaging accusation (short of filing a defamation law suit).

It is very foolish to falsely accuse anyone of child abuse.  If sued in court, the defaming party must prove the truthfulness of the accusation made.  Further, when a defendant in a defamation case has been found to have falsely accused someone of a crime of extreme moral terpetude (rape, murder, child abuse, etc.), the plaintiff is not required to prove he was damaged by the false accusation.  Being falsely accused of these kind of things is presumed by the law to have been damages (a concept called "per se" damages).

Eagle94:  You are correct, but the practical use of this approach has resulted in the BSA and CO working together and recognizing the validity of each other’s efforts.  The key point is that the unfairly accused volunteer has an exonerating document from to CO to use with employers or others who might otherwise suspect the  person as a child abuser.  This is valuable even if the BSA removes the person’s membership.

This entire discussion proves the point made by others that having a regular and meaningful working relationship with your CO is necessary.

My CO investigation process suggestion is the result of my having been involved in successfully resolving alleged YPT infractions.  It respects the role and regulations of the BSA while simultaneously protecting the reputations of innocent adult volunteers.  I suggest it as a universal approach for those who value fair treatment of line-level Scouters -- while continuing vigorous YPT enforcement. 

Rainshine should do whatever is in his best interests, but should understand that a tiny subset of ill-intended parents are not amenable to talk or reason.  They must be dealt with firmly or be removed from the scene.  I have large units, so a certain number of these difficult personalities surface.  Rainshine is the unit leader and he has the say-so over which adults attend Troop activities.  Nobody is going to override his judgement on this situation.

Inquisitive:  The camp staff situation you describe would be an internal BSA personnel matter and would be handled under employment law.  That is a bit beyond my experience and expertise.  However, the adult's continuing BSA membership status (as opposed to employment termination) would still be determined by the Scout Executive by applying YPT standards.  Because there would be no CO to issue a potentially exonerating written report, I would get personal legal counsel involved and ask that person to write a letter confirming the exonerating circumstances.  Think of the legal fee involved as lifelong assurance that the circumstance will not limit your future volunteer or professional careers.  

If falsely accused of YPT abuse, have the CO investigate and exonerate.

Thanks for bringing your story forward.  So many of us are focused on preventing YPT incidents that we sometimes fail to recognize that good adult reputations are brought into question when a person makes unsubstantiated accusations that seem impossible to unwind or dispute.  However, this is not the case.  There is a great way to handle unfounded accusations.

When an allegation is made -- directly or impliedly -- that a volunteer has violated YPT during an incident involving a youth, the matter should always be fully investigated by the BSA and the Chartered Organization (CO).  Involving the CO is the only way to protect our youth members and the reputation of an adult falsely accused.  This is because when the BSA does the investigation by itself, there is no express, written exoneration of an innocent adult.  The BSA process only results in either removal of the accused adult from the program (being added to the ineligible volunteer list) or “no action” being taken.  No written explanation is ever provided.  That “no action” is taken does not equate into express exoneration.

When an adult scout leader observes abuse of a child by another that violates YPT, the observing scout leader is required under state laws to stop the abuse and immediately report the incident to law enforcement.  Next, the Scout Executive and CO must be informed.  Depending on the severity of the circumstance, law enforcement may or may not take action.  Regardless, the BSA and CO are obligated under their own internal policies to investigate and take action (if appropriate).  We are all familiar with the BSA YPT system.  COs also have ethical policies and are required to act to investigate and prevent reported abuse.  Often the CO will defer to the BSA to conduct the investigation and defer to its judgement – but this does not properly protect potentially-innocent adult volunteers.

What any falsely-accused adult should insist on in these types of situations is for the CO to conduct its own investigation of the matter in cooperation with the BSA and issue its own CO written report.  If the allegation is false or simply an unfounded suspicion on the part of the accuser, the CO can and should exonerate the accused in writing.  The BSA in such a circumstance will conduct its own investigation and determine to take “no action”.  The difference is clear – the accused can receive an explanation and exoneration only from the CO.

Here is an actual example.  A parent of a youth accused scout leaders of child abuse in writing because the youth came back exhausted after a long hike.  In this case the youth was not injured, only tired and thirsty.  And, full permission slips were executed with adequate warning that there was going to be a long hike that day.  The semi-public nature of the child abuse accusation was humiliating and potentially damaging to the careers of scout leaders, some of whom had security clearances.  The leaders self-reported the incident to the Scout Executive and CO (a church).  The church CO conducted its own investigation (involving an attorney) in cooperation with the BSA and issued a fully-exonerating document.  Those scout leaders now have a document protecting themselves.

In the incident you describe, Mr. Pillar did not report the alleged abuse to law enforcement.  Probably because he knows the allegation is either entirely false or a dishonestly exaggerated version of innocent facts.  That the BSA camp staff was made aware of the matter and chose to take “no action” proves how those falsely accused of a YPT incident are not exonerated under the BSA system.  Finally, you do not mention whether the alleged abuse was ever reported to the CO.

Mr. Pillar will continue to hector you with express or implied allegations of child abuse and your reputation will continue to be negatively impacted.  You have three choices:

1.    You can accept his continued hectoring and manage the impact on your reputation.

2.    You can sue him in court for defamation.

3.    You can self-report the original and all subsequent youth abuse allegations of Mr. Pillar to the BSA and CO and request a written report from your CO.  You must assure that your CO is directly and independently involved in the process and issues its written report.

Mr. Pillar will be forced to appear and prove his case to the CO and their attorney with facts.  “Pillars of the community” who use bullying and slanderous techniques to destroy reputations crumble when required to prove their cases.  There is no better justice.

Displeased with Former COs who are "Iffy" about our Units 

Carter:

I formed two new units over the last four years -- a new Scouts BSA Troop for Girls and a new Sea Scout Ship.  We interviewed many potential chartered organizations and chose two outstanding entities that we knew to be examples of strong organizations that believed strongly in our Scouting missions.  Our chartered organizations are deeply involved in what we do and provide oversight and other assistance.  We are the principal youth program for both COs and they receive significant benefit through their association with us.  I say this to everyone out there:  there are many very fine potential COs out there who really want to have an affiliation with a fine Scouting unit, so there is no need to lower the dignity of your Scouting unit by agreeing to something "half way".  There is not much reason to become a "renter" if there is a strong organization that wants to be a full-on Chartered Organization.

Our units would never be associated with an organization that was "iffy" about our organization or mission.  We have nothing to be ashamed of and should rightly look elsewhere if a CO is questioning our worth, purpose or organizational quality.  We would never choose an organization that has internal political/organizational/financial problems -- because those problems would become your problems.  Why be associated with an entity that wants to put distance between them and your very fine Troop?  Congratulations on using sound judgement and leaving behind the difficulties of your previous CO.  Thank them for the assistance in the past, but do not look back or regret the change.

I am with SouixRanger on this.  1,000-Scout councils just can’t work anymore.  This council needs to be a large district within a well-run council.    Maybe a DE and an assistant.

I have been on different sides of this unnecessary divide at different times.  First a board-serving district chair and council president, and later a double unit leader (as well as other program and council leadership roles). 

While serving in council roles I often heard others express a preference to avoid interacting with unit and program people if they had opinions and behaviors that were so absolute as to be obstructionist.  When such a person presented himself, 80% of the time the obstructing behavior concerned camp property or program closely-related to the camp.  The remainder of the behavior usually concerned raising or spending of council funds – even if the person was not a financial contributor.

While executives I worked with and I never engaged in the tactics mentioned in this posting, I occasionally found it necessary to wall-off myself from a person making extreme demands or obsessing about matters that were disproportionate to existential tasks at hand.  Those who chose not to support council efforts and aggressively positioned themselves as disruptors usually assisted Scouting in other ways they personally controlled.  My approach was to appreciate the assistance provided but not allow that person to derail a productive agenda.  As a now-unit scouter, I appreciate the efforts of council and district people and make an essential FOS contribution.  They know I am a supporter, even if I express an occasional disagreement.

Our culture is drifting away from the practice of reasonable compromise and toward all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, and vilify-the-opposition behavior.  I dearly hope that we diminish such behavior between program and council scouters as we emerge from bankruptcy. 

Watch what happens with it over the next 2 or 3 years.  The Coast Guard has made it their official youth program and will likly be the driver of significant growth these coming years.  That said, it will never be a big program.  The upper end would be in the 6,000 - 8,000 range.

I did the math.  Believe it or not, we are 1.14%!

Had a splendid raft trip with 28 of our 40 Sea Scouts this weekend on the Lehigh River in PA, near Weatherly.  Gorgeous river scenery and the leaves were in peak color.  Was a great way to end our warm weather season as we store the boats and hunker-down for our indoor training season.  Thanks to all of you Pennsylvanians for maintaining such beautiful state park properties.  

The original purpose of this posting was an inquiry about how to interact effectively with and influence a council executive board, and the example of camp property and management has been used as an illustration.  
 

There is reality and there is what people would like.  The reality I have experienced with regard to executive boards for BSA, fine arts and educational entities is that the “stockholders” are always listened to.  They are the donor/investors (large or small) and workers on the tough, not-so-fun things that must be done to maintain the organizational structure to offer things like camps, teachers, and performance spaces.  They are usually past or current program-oriented users of these places as well.  These are the people who serve on or have significant influence with those boards.  They are not the unit leaders, ticket purchasers or tuition payers.

My late scoutmaster was not one of these people, and rarely had a good word for the work of district and council volunteers and professionals.  He did not want to assist their efforts, but understood he would have a more limited impact on the big decisions as a result.  He was a great scoutmaster for decades and his death was mourned by thousands.

One way to think of this is to compare the influence of a purchaser of a good to that of a person active in the management of the manufacturer or a stockholder/investor.  The consumer’s influence is to buy or not, and not much more.

You can choose to be an influencer in the BSA by being a volunteer worker, manager and investor in your council.  My scoutmaster was knowingly content with his decisions and behavior and did not fool himself into thinking he would play a big role in the significant council decisions.

Ever been something like a district finance chair, popcorn sales chair for a district, district solicitor for FOS or someone who spent significant time finding the least expensive insurance for your council’s service center?

Inquisitive and SSS,

Just curious, did either of you make an unrestricted contribution this current year to the council that owns and maintains the camps that you are concerned about?  Attending camp, volunteer hours and other “in-kind” contributions are not what I am talking about.

Eagle94:

What I said about our process did indeed happen, as I was Council President at the time and made it so.

Yes. the structure I describe can be manipulated in many ways to cause favor to particular outcomes.  What is necessary is to understand the system and carefully work to influence the outcome months and years in advance.  The challenge is that camp-oriented people are not always interested in investing in the fundraising, insurance, HR, district-council volunteer recruiting, event organizing and the many other things that end up qualifying Scouters for council board and district committee membership.  Let's face it, that is not the enjoyable programming activity.  There is no substitute for having a group of camp-oriented people on an Executive Board to assure that things are done transparently and with full knowledge.

This is an era during which there will be many properties sold to help fund the bankruptcy trust.  Further, councils that have downsized in membership due to COVID will not be able to continue some of their summer camp operations or ownership.  You will be pleased (or at least informed) about your local process if you have good relations with a group on the Board that is committed to a good process.  Or, you can advise and advocate from the outside by understanding and concentrating on the criteria the Board believes is decisive to their decision.    Ultimately the Board has a fiduciary duty to take actions in the best interests of future Scouts.  Their views may or may not be in alignment with your thoughts.  Good luck.

A few responses to recent posts.  As background, I’ve been on two council boards (a small council and one of the largest in the country, on which I served as Council President) and was directly involved in dealing with needed property closures and sales – but we did it the right way.  Everything was public and transparent more than a year in advance and all adult and youth members were given multiple rounds of opportunities to give input to the decisions – and changes reflecting that input were made.  Not everyone is going to be happy in these and other contested situations, but when Scouters have their say and observe that what they are saying is being appropriately reacted to, chances for healthy future organizational relationships are far more likely.

If your council is considering a property closure or sale in response to the bankruptcy or inability to continue funding its operation, you should be comforted by knowing that no individual professional or volunteer can sell something in our system.  That is ultimately why the above-mentioned attempt to sell Owasippe failed.  Rather, interested Scouters have the chance to impact on such decisions with logical and businesslike argumentation.  We own and operate our properties for the benefit of the young people of today, and not to continue operations that are no longer serving those needs.  There is simply no justification to limping-along with a shabby and under-utilized property that is highly-mortgaged due to lack of operating cash.  Ultimately these camps are all subject to the market.  Operating a 300-acre summer camp that is 200 miles away from a council’s population base for two weeks each year (serving 200-300 Scouts) is an actual example of what I am talking about.   

As to council board membership, there is no council in the BSA where all CORs automatically serve on a council board or district committee.  CORs must go through the nominating committees for a council or district like anyone else.  While CORs do cast an annual vote to elect the Council Executive Board, the real sway CORs have is their moral suasion because they represent the chartered organization.  Council leadership will always return a phone call to the executive director of a chartered organization.  Ignoring a well-spoken COR with a reasoned point of view is not good, because it puts the future of the unit(s) at risk.  A disaffected COR needs to discuss the situation with the executive director of the chartered organization and generate communications to resolve the circumstance.

Council Executive Boards and Council Executive Committees (subcommittees of the Executive Board consisting of the principal officers) meet in private with members only, plus special guests who make presentations on pending topics.  CORs belong to the Council, which meets to elect the Executive Board during the annual business meetings.

Including numbers of non-members in Executive Board or Executive Committee meetings is disfavored due to confidentiality issues.  Non-members attending would not be bound to confidentiality and would further expect to express viewpoints and arguments.  Well-run boards develop effective ways to gather opinion from the CORs and other stakeholders and respect those opinions.

The “Owasippe” incident is a good example of when a board did not adequately solicit and take into account the views of its constituency when dealing with property matters – in this case the attempted sale of a huge property with minimal notice.  The story is immensely complex and would take hours of blogging to explain.  The bottom line is that the attempted sale was blocked through litigation and zoning moves which greatly reduced the desirability of the property to potential purchasers.  Another bottom line is that the inadvisable board moves caused years of deformed relations among council volunteers, professionals and supporters.  It can be said that bitter feelings created during the incident was a contributing factor in the overall downturn of the Chicago Area Council, which eventually lost its national charter and was merged with three other councils into the Chicagoland  "Pathway to Adventure Council".  

Interestingly, Owasippe Scout Reservation is now in the best physical, program and financial shape it has been in for decades.  As the bankruptcy causes the sell-off of many other properties, this massive and well-run operation is easily absorbing the demand of Troops from across the Midwest.   

I posted many times about our Family Camp for Pathway to Adventure Council (Chicago).  This is located at historic Owasippe Scout Reservation at "Camp Reneker".  While it is a specifically-developed facility and program apart from the Scouts BSA program areas, it is popular and a great offering for our Scouting families.  We are in a new era for the business-side of camp operations and will need the income stream to maintain our camps in the post-bankruptcy era.

Active Scoutmaster here.  $1,000 per year is an accurate "all-in" estimate of family spending on a year of very active Scouts BSA scouting.  We can all differ on just how the resources come in, but that has been our experience over the last four years.    

CM:  While at Goshen Scout Reservation, my units stayed at Camp Olmsted, which is a Scouts BSA dining hall operation.  The reservation has two other Scouts BSA camps, including Bowman (patrol cooking) and Marriott (hot pack delivery).  There are also two Cub camps (Ross and PMI) and a high adventure camp (Lenhoc'sin) that offers week-long overnight backpacking hikes in the mountains on the 5,000-acre property. 

The Family Camp at Chicago's Owasippe is splendid.  The family camp (Camp Reneker) is a 60-year-old operation that was built to accommodate the families of "on duty" Scouters.  The Chicago-area Scouters camp with the Troop and the families have their own special program at the family camp.  Owasippe hires about 10 college students, who conduct a summer program targeted to 6 age groupings ranging from 4-year-olds through high school.  The 40 cabins have kitchens, living rooms, and two bedroom spaces, with nearby shower houses.  The family camp has its own pool, activity shelter, tennis court, bb gun range and other typical camp program facilities.  Families can also visit and use the facilities at Owasippe's Scouts BSA and Cub camps.  Here is the link:  Camp Reneker - Pathway To Adventure Council

Through the years Camp Reneker has also become a simple get-away place for Scouting families not connected with an on-reservation troop.  Families pick "their" week and "their" cabin and visit each year.  It is not a luxury operation, but is certainly a very nice family housekeeping facility.  At $350 per week for everything (except self-cooked food), the price is right for many Scouting families in the Chicago area.  We started attending years ago when I was council president and have kept coming back for this simple experience each year.  Now that my daughter is 14, she helps at Owasippe's horse ranch while she is here.

A former Chicago BSA professional who later supervised the high adventure bases patterned the emerging family programming at the bases on what he experienced at Camp Reneker.  I'm vaguely aware that there are a few other family camps on BSA council-owned properties, but I have never heard of one that has the full-scale family-focused program and facilities that exist at Owasippe.

Owasippe's future as a Scout reservation is now quite secure.  Twenty years ago there was an ill-advised effort the sell the camp to developers which was defeated through a series of shrewd moves by members of its staff association.  Today, the Council added a seventh week of operations this summer and its Scouts BSA and Cub camps still sold-out.  So, we will be considering more capacity next year.  Owasippe has two Scouts BSA camps in "mothballs" (complete with Olympic-sized pools).  As councils continue to sell properties, it is good to know there are places like Owasippe and Goshen (in Virginia) that have expandable capacity and will continue to be available to visit for summer camp.

Which BSA properties have you been to this summer and how did it go?  No serious discussion allowed in this posting!  No bankruptcy, YPT, membership standards, COVID, fingers-getting-severed, "I don't like the professionals", "they sold my camp" and other potentially distressing discussion allowed under penalty of getting jello thrown in your face! 

For me, I have had two separate one-week stays at the spectacular 5,000-acre Goshen Scout Reservation in Virginia,  just south of Shenandoah National Park.  The first week was with our all-girl Troop.  My wife (an ASM) and Star Scout daughter came to that.  A bit hot, but the week restored my faith in the great things we are doing in Scouting.  The second week was with my Sea Scout Ship, whose members had not been there before.  They spent nearly the entire week on the 700-acre lake.  

Next week my family will stay in the family camp at the equally-spectacular Owasippe Scout Reservation near the cool-breeze locale of Muskegon Michigan.  America's oldest Scout property is equally huge, wonderful and features 40 housekeeping cabins for families throughout the summer.   This will be our seventh summer in a row doing this.

These pristine places could easily be small national parks.  I hope you have had similar experiences this summer.

For me it is just six knots.  The top row has three favorite service award knots from my years of adult service.  The bottom row has my AOL, Eagle and Quartermaster  from my youth years.  These knots are conversation-starters that help break the ice with new friends.  Other than that, just my Scoutmaster or Skipper patches.  I find the guide is pretty good on limiting excess quantity.

Maybe after the bankruptcy we will all be wearing blank polo shirts!   

The BSA policy is clear.  When a Scouter becomes aware that actual abuse is taking place, action should be taken to cease the immediate abuse, followed by a report to law enforcement, and then the Scout Executive.  Whether a fact is abuse or not would depend on local law.

The policy still says to go first to law enforcement (for actusl reports of abuse) and then to the local Scout Executive.  The national 800 number was intended to be a place for BSA employees to report personnel problems with their BSA bosses.  Generally, it is still not intended for YPT issues or volunteer/youth matters.  I presume the practice of the 800 number contractor referring volunteer/youth matters to the local councils is just a sound administrative  referral practice.