Leader DUI...

[scoutldr 726]

Curious...welcome to the campfire. You picked a good thread to jump in on! The BSA has membership requirements for all registered leaders. You must agree to the Declaration of Religious Priniciple. You must not be an avowed homosexual. You must pass a criminal background check. YOu must be wanted and approved by the Chartering Organization. If you don't pass the first three, the last one doesn't matter. I really don't know what the criteria are for a background check. Is one DUI conviction ok? Two? Only the SE and National know the answer to that. I still say the proper course is to alert the SE, then see what happens. IF the SE allows membership to continue, THEN the CO and unit committee have a decision to make. If the SE revokes membership, then your're done. As stated above, he can appeal for reinstatement at the appropriate time.

[packsaddle 753]

Curious, I'd like to add my "welcome to the forums" as well.

I appreciate the fact that you distinguished 'sinners' from gays and atheists.

I'd also like to note that BSA has, in the past, made an offer to at least one atheist to reinstate them if they changed their mind on the subject of God. BSA evidently is ready to reverse themselves if a person is willing to change in that manner. I suppose that means that BSA might be willing to reinstate the drunk once he's paid the fine. Would you feel good about that? I wouldn't. But I admit, it's a personal thing with me. I'm usually more forgiving than this.

 

As far as visiting iniquities, there's also a passage that contradicts the one I mentioned in Ezekial 18:20. But when I look at earlier versions of the Bible, it's all Greek to me, yuk, yuk. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Hey, did anyone else notice the ad at the top of the page for lawyers that will help you beat that DUI charge? Today's dose of irony is brought to you by Google ads.

[Curious 10]

>> Like I said, until people quit trying to trivialize DUI/DWI, this is going to be an ongoing problem.

 

I don't believe anyone in this thread has trivialized it. The impact on people's lives, no matter where they stand, is no trivial matter.

 

 

>> And no, a criminal doesn't deserve to be a leader. They've already made their decisions, be it wrong ones, and the BSA have established guidelines that must be followed.

 

Using your criteria, you would need to exclude from a BSA leadership role such individuals as Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barrack Obama. All have admitted to abusing drugs or alcohol before becoming President. I think it is also interesting that your criteria excludes people like Martin Luther King, Jr, Bishop Desmund Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandella. All have run afoul of the criminal justice system. And lets not forget John Scopes. He was, after all, charged, tried, and convicted of teaching evolution!

 

I'm curious, are you a Christian? Let us not forget that Jesus Himself was convicted in both a Jewish and Roman court. He too would fail to meet your criteria.

 

Extreme examples, I admit. But that is the problem with blanket judgments such as these. It excludes the individual. I submit that a method of selecting leaders based solely upon computer printouts will inevitably scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

 

>> IF the SE allows membership to continue, THEN the CO and unit committee have a decision to make.

 

In other words, a decision about individuals by individuals.

 

 

>> I suppose that means that BSA might be willing to reinstate the drunk once he's paid the fine. Would you feel good about that? I wouldn't.

 

Would I trade one extreme for another? Absolutely not! Universal absolution is no more the answer than the humiliation or seppuku punishments suggested by some. I believe that each case should be weighed based upon its own merits.

 

Your example doesn't give enough information to make a decision one way or another. Neither does the situation described in the OP.

 

An example that does contain enough information, though, is found in this post:

 

>> A SM clearly had a drinking problem and occasionally would show up for troop meetings with a couple under his belt.

 

A Scoutmaster shows up inebriated on multiple occasions and the troop leadership does nothing?!?!?!? Talk about ignoring YP protocol! They wait until he is arrested before being spurred into action?

 

This individual should have been removed from a position of leadership long before he ran afoul of the justice system. Who knows, maybe if the committee had taken their youth protection training seriously, this man might have gotten help sooner.

 

My guess is the scoutmaster's criminal background check came back clean. Yet another example of why the background check is not the complete measure of a man. You must look at the individual as a whole!

 

 

>> I appreciate the fact that you distinguished 'sinners' from gays and atheists.

 

You read too much between the lines. As for the discussion of Ezekiel 18 vs Exodus 34, I shall sadly leave that to another thread. While an interesting topic, this post has become far too long.

[Beavah 205]

Who knows, maybe if the committee had taken their youth protection training seriously, this man might have gotten help sooner.

 

Yah, I must be teachin' and takin' a different version of Youth Protection Trainin' than you folks, eh? I can't recall any bit talkin' about drinkin'. Even da rule about no alcohol at events with kids isn't part of the syllabus.

 

When we talk about the requirement to notify an SE about a youth protection issue, we're talkin' about allegations of sexual battery or actual injury or death that occurred in a Scouting context. In other words "a serious incident where our liability insurance is in play." That's it. Da requirement is so that the SE can get the insurers involved promptly and mitigate risk, not so that he can make leadership decisions for da CO (which he's not allowed to do). The notification is not for when Joe's late for work and runs a red light causin' an accident. Not when Fred's dad gets arrested for vandalism when da picket line he was walkin' got out of hand, not when Bobby's mom gets fired for dippin' into the petty cash drawer to pay for his ADHD meds. Yah and not when Billy's dad gets stopped on da way home from his cousin's wedding and is above the limit. Scouting context, eh?

 

DUI is a crime. Alcoholism is a disease. We punish one because of da risk the behavior poses to others. We treat the other, and provide support and compassion.

 

Where yeh fall on this depends on the values and mission of the CO you serve, and da specifics of the individual case. But da unit and the CO doesn't get to avoid their responsibility by runnin' to "daddy" the SE. They're adults who must make their own decision.

 

Beavah

 

[nolesrule 58]

"When we talk about the requirement to notify an SE about a youth protection issue, we're talkin' about allegations of sexual battery or actual injury or death that occurred in a Scouting context."

 

I'm having a little trouble parsing this; it may just be the grammar.

 

I can't tell if you were you saying that the allegations of sexual battery had to occur in a Scouting context. The online YPT training I retook 2 weeks ago stated that any allegations of abuse need to be reported to the SE, whether in a Scouting context or not.

[Beavah 205]

Yeh must be seein' a funny version of YPT on your line, nolesrule. Or maybe yeh should start readin' BSA materials with a cute furry northern accent, eh?!

 

From G2SS:

 

How an adult responds to a child when he tries to dis-

close abuse can influence the outcome of the childs vic-

timization. By maintaining an apparent calm, the adult can

help reassure the child that everything is going to be okay.

By not criticizing the child, we counteract any statements

the molester made to the victim about the child getting into

trouble. Reassure the child that you are concerned about

what happened to him and that you would like to get him

some help. Allegations by a Scout concerning abuse in the

program must be reported to the Scout executive. Since

these reports are required, you should tell the child that you

have to tell the proper authorities but that you will not tell

anyone else. It is important that you not tell anyone other

than the Scout executive or the child protective services

agency about allegations of abuseif the allegations can-

not be substantiated, you could be sued for defamation of

character.

 

-------

 

Da online and offline YPT say da same thing as G2SS.

 

This is a very intelligent way to proceed, eh?

1) For allegations of battery/molestation within da program, talk to the SE. (BUT, if there's a separate CO policy and you're a unit scouter for a unit-level "issue", follow da CO policy, which should include notifying the SE when/if appropriate).

2) For allegations of battery/molestation outside da program, talk to law enforcement but not the SE.

3) For reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect (typically by a parent or guardian), call child protective services, and not the SE.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[nolesrule 58]

Well Beavah, if I'm mistaken, then I guess the online YPT training was not clear enough on that point, because that's how I absorbed the information. Wouldn't be the first time something wasn't clear...grammatical parsing and all that.

[packsaddle 753]

Nolesrule, I sympathize. While the version Beavah just posted is the interpretation that most of us came up with during YPT, the trainer and the DE both insisted that our interpretation was wrong and that the SE should be contacted in ALL cases. They even insisted that the SE be contacted BEFORE the other authorities in each case.

I think we decided to ignore the trainer and DE do it the way that makes sense...but obviously, it's easy to be confused by all this.

[Beavah 205]

While the version Beavah just posted is the interpretation that most of us came up with during YPT, the trainer and the DE both insisted that our interpretation was wrong and that the SE should be contacted in ALL cases.

 

Yah, I'm goin' to start soundin' like BobWhite, eh? If people would just follow da training syllabus instead of makin' this stuff up...

 

I mentioned to nolesrule offline that there's one question in da online trainin' that seems to be causin' a lot of confusion. It's got a cub scout and da scenario is somethin' like yeh notice bruises and such. Da picture and the text both clearly imply parental abuse at home, but the "answer" says contact both da SE and children's services because it's not clear whether the abuse occurred within scouting or not. Da disconnect between the context and answer causes everybody to miss da explanation and get the wrong idea.

 

They should fix da thing, but they contract out these Flash jobs and really don't have money for revisions.

 

B

 

[scoutldr 726]

So, if I understand the Beav correctly...if I robbed a bank and did hard time, the BSA should still approve my application since it was not in a "scouting context"? OK, I'll stipulate to the idea that a DUI may not technically be a YP issue if it occured outside of scouting. But I do think it's a reason to reassess the perp's suitability for membership.

[Beavah 205]

So, if I understand the Beav correctly...if I robbed a bank and did hard time, the BSA should still approve my application since it was not in a "scouting context"?

 

????

 

Not quite sure how that followed, eh?

 

What da funny old furry fellow said was that this was not an issue where reporting to da SE is mandated, and the CO is da one that has to choose whether to fire an existing leader for conduct outside of scoutin'. They're the owner of da unit, they're the ones responsible for da unit leaders' behavior, they're da ones who need to step up if an adult doesn't meet their standards. Some COs will dismiss leaders for gettin' a divorce, eh? Or for leavin' their church. Some might dismiss a leader for bein' arrested at a tea bag protest, while others may not.

 

As far as background checks, I do know several scout leaders with old felony records who were approved after background checks. Don't know about bank robbery, but if a CO recommends a person and it's a non-violent crime long done and debt to society paid, that won't block an application. Leastways, not if the crime was unrelated to youth.

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Beav, do you have a source for this? It's reasonable and I don't question your logic, but my point is that we -- at least I -- don't have access to the alchemy of how BSA judges the returns from a background check. But using the information and/or logic we have, would you not say it is reasonable that mutiple, recent DUI convictions would result in some BSA action?

 

I don't agree with the intrepretation of the reporting policies taught youth protection training. I'm looking at the Discussion Guide that comes with the YPT video -- the closest thing I have to a syllabus for the course. In the instructions for the first discussion break, the guide reads, in part:

 

"If you have a reasonable suspicion that a child is being abused, you should report your suspicions. If you suspect that a child in the Scouting program is being abused, you should contact your Scout executive about your suspicions. If the child is not in the Scouting program, contact you local child protective services agency and report your suspicions and the reasons you have for feeling the child is being abused."

 

That is much broader than "a Scouting context". If the child is "in the Scouting program" you should notify the SE, regardless of where the abuse takes place or who you suspect of causing the abuse.

 

If to whom the report is made were a big deal, I would think the video would make a similar big deal about differentiating between abuse in a Scouting context and not.

 

If I were the SE and one of my voluntees reports to the authorities a suspected case of abuse with one of the boys in his unit, I would certainly want at least a head's up as to what is going on. It doesn't take much to imagine a parent, accused of child abuse by his/her son's Scout leader, going off on the BSA.

 

While it's not particularly germaine to this debate, even if I suspected a case of abuse with a child not in Scouts, I know could call my DE and he would be glad to get involved and help as he could. We have that kind of relationship. Your results may vary.

 

Reading the thread "What would get you to increase your FOS contribution" and hearing the long lists of complaints folks have with their councils and professionals I suppose I am lucky in that I have a great DE who I consider a good friend and a seemingly very good (but new) Scout Executive. I have a lot of faith in these guy's professionalism and competence. Perhaps that skews my thinking such that I would involve them more quickly that other folks may.

 

In the situation with the DUI it would be reasonable and prudent to approach the situation on mutiple fronts. Yes, the CO should handle it themselves. But the SE needs to be in the loop as well. My vote would be for this guy to have his BSA membership revoked totally to prevent him from taking his problem down the road (no pun intended).

 

Leaving for camp in an hour. See you Sunday night.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Hal_Crawford 15]

My understanding from the last time I took YPT from a live human as opposed to on line was that if we had reason to believe a child was being abused we were required to report it to the authorities (CPS) AND to the SE. In my mind the logic would be that even if the suspected abuse was occurring outside of scouting our contact with the youth is through scouting.

 

In the case of the DUI I would contact both the COR and the SE. It just makes sense to have both in the loop. Both may be able to provide guidance or direction as to what to do next.

 

 

 

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

Many in our district take the YPT offered at roundtable yearly. Why? Because for nearly a decade, it has been put on by a Unit/District/Council scouter who was a prosecuter specializing in child abuse cases. His presentations do go beyond what is in the standard YPT (he does like the latest video, by the way).

 

His coments to us all are that in Florida (each state has different laws), the first call must be to authorities. Our SE knows and backs this information. My wife owns a pre-school (not scouting aged youth) and she is under the same legal obligations.

 

In our case, state law trumps the G2SS.