ASMwquestions

5 hours ago, NDW5332 said:

Was the committee member the letter was shared with the Committee Chair or just another member?  If it was Council that removed the ASM, then at the very least the Troop's Key 3 needed to be advised, along with the IH (if the COR was not the IH).  Depending on what the accusation was that resulted in the ASM's removal, it may be prudent to advise select committee members of the situation - such as if it was financial impropriety or theft, the Treasurer may need to audit the books.  If the accusation was abuse, then necessary YPT and G2SS precautions will need to be enacted.

Committee member was just a member/treasurer but accusation was not financial so in my eyes letter should not have been shared. Only fact that ASM was no longer with troop should be shared in my opinion. Sharing more than needed is how rumors start and lives ruined.

4 hours ago, scoutldr said:

If Council sent the letter to the SM, I would say that was improper, as well.  Should have gone to the IH/COR who owns the unit and approves all adult memberships.  Just my opinion...

The COR shared w SM who shared w committee member...

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I think I misunderstood - I thought your concern was that the SM shared the letter, not that he was removed.

I'm out of my element on fighting removals.  Sorry.

The problem is the sharing of the letter.

The letter contains specific enough info. Enough so that I feel should not have been shared. The letter was private communication. The fact they were removed is not the issue at moment. It's the sharing of the letter which committee member had no need of info beyond said person was removed.

@ParkMan does it matter why he did? Now what if committee member shares info and the next person shares. The accusations were not allowed to be disputed. Accused, assumed guilty, now private info that no one needs to know is out there.

ASM removed due to accusations. Letter from council shared from SM to a committee member. Is this allowed? Shouldn't committee member only need to know ASM was removed? Not only can ASM not defend themself but now privacy violated.