Problems at other youth groups?

[Hunt 11]

"The BSA has a committee within the relationships division that is made up or representatives of several Chartering organizations that use the BSA programs. They make recommendations to the executive board based on their discussions. The executive board then makes the decision as they do on all matters regarding policies of the BSA."

 

Bob, can you tell us the official title of this committee, and how they can be contacted? It would also be very useful to know who the members are--that way, if the CO to which a unit belongs is on the committee, they would know to whom to write to express views, and if their CO isn't represented, they could urge the CO to get involved. Does the committee have some mechanism to collect views of other COs, and of volunteer members? If so, what is it, and how can people get involved? I appreciate your assurance that BSA will not kick people out for expressing concerns through proper channels--can you help identify what those proper channels are?

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I think we've covered a fair bit of ground in this thread in regards to the original topic posted. Thanks to all those who provided their thoughts. It seems pretty clear that there is at least a perception in the public that BSA has more problems than other organizations, and that would seem to be especially true this year, with all the press BSA has gotten over deaths and accidents. Whether BSA is at fault in these case, or whether you can describe them as all being isolated problems, I don't know. But it seems clear that BSA has a visibility problem, as in too much visibility that is negative towards them. Once again, whether that is their own doing or not by not dealing with it effectively, I don't know.

 

On the off topic discussion of actions within BSA to effect change...

I've also kind of tired of the kibitzing in the topic with BW. I ask questions. The answers I get always seem to have to include some sort of accusation. BW asks for examples, I provide what I have available. The standard response seems to be something to the effect of "those don't count". So, I'll continue down the "path of enlightenment" that I've chosen, which is slow, but steady. If Bob wants to say that that means I'm not doing anything, in effect calling me a liar and further, that I purposely post false information, that's his perogative. Bob, if you're attitudes towards some people here reflect how you act in your District and Council, I can only assume that life there for the others must be, to say the least, interesting.

[Bob White 20]

Thanks PS life here is just fine.

 

If you have really convinced yourself that only thinking about sending a letter (that has not been written, to somebody you have no idea who to send it to, while you have been mislead to believe that it could get you removed if you do it)... is showing an "effort to solve a situation", then there is nothing I'm sure that anyone can say to convince you otherwise.

 

Had you actually composed and sent a letter to the national office...now that would be an effort.

 

Here is something available on the BSA website that might interest you.

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html

 

While I do not know the name of the subcommittee it will easy enough for you to contact the national office and ask.

 

Before you ask again for minutes of the meetings I will remind you that the BSA is a PRIVATE organization. Like other private organizations they have no more legal or moral obligation to publicly post private meeting minutes than you have to release transcripts of your private conversations.

 

I appreciate your curiosity, but curiosity is not a mandate.

 

You are a member of your CO's charter, you belong to them. They have contracted to national to follow the program and policies of the BSA and the CO accepted you as a volunteer for them to do the work.

 

B:)b White

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[jkhny 10]

"I appreciate your assurance that BSA will not kick people out for expressing concerns through proper channels--can you help identify what those proper channels are? "

 

Sorry, can't let this pass.

 

BSA HAS and WILL "kick out" members for expressing concern through "proper channels". But then it's really hard to express concerns about the illegal acts committed by an SE TO that same SE or his hand-picked Executive Board.

 

Willis - head of training in Greater Alabama was concerned that too many units had NO trained leaders. Making inquiries, he was told to "don't worry". Pushing the issue he found that many of these units appeared to be "ghost units". He raised the issue in his Council anwas told to drop ir - or he might find himself out of Scouting. He pursued it with local authorities who passed off that hot potato to the FBI. Willis was thrown out the very day an audit showed his claims of fraudulent overstatement were proven true. Willis has taken BSA to court - who argued unsuccessfully in trying to make this a "membership" issue. It remains in state court as a corporate malfeasance case. Expect it to draw out for years.

 

Knaul - a 17 year Scoutmaster in Auburn NY raised objections when his SE wanted to spend $500,000 on unneeded new offices instead of programs for boys. He was ignored by his Council. He - and 23 others raised this issue in a letter to the local paper - "Is this an ethical decision?" Of note this SMALL council met its goals - but continued to solicit funds until one of the donors questioned what was going on. Knaul was portrayed as a "troublemaker" and had his registration revoked. He has the support of his unit and CO. He can't afford to take this to court.

 

Dave Rice was thrown out because he raised the issue of "tolerance" in a nonn-scout venue. Scared to death of a 60 year Scouter - with an impeccable record - testifying against them in court on this issue, his membership was revoked over the objections of his Council Leadership.

 

A number of volunteers have been "sspended" for their activism in fighting to remove current Council leadership.

 

Something similar happened locally to a Unit Leader who protested property sales. Another who was working to organize COR's to oust the Se was threatened with removal.

 

Other dedicated leaders that have questioned their SE or Council have had their registrations revoked.

 

An Eagle Scout and his leader mother in NEGA were removed after complaining about a DE buying beer for underage Counselors. They were reinstated ONLY through the unceasing efforts of others and because that same DE (A good Baptist who would NEVER even drink himself) was arrested DUI and the SE caught in an IRS investigation over misuse of funds and removed (promoted to Regional actually!?!).

 

An incident reported in the archives recounted a parent and boy who were removed for refusing to change out of camoflage pants when told to do so by their SE at a camporee.

 

DE's who have refused to go along with enrollment fraud have been fired. One in Oregon is suing BSA over this.

 

BSA has developed an increasingly autocratic culture where arrogant paid staffers are removing volunteers at will for ANY reanon they see fit - and getting away with it. Procedures meant to "protect boys" are being misused to remove critics, or anyone a SE feels is "trouble" or a threat. AND BSA National goes along with this knowing that up until now, nobody could afford the time or money to take tham on in court. BSA's own appeals process is a joke.

 

 

BSA does NOT like dissent. History shows that dedicated and accomplished Scouters have been thrown out of BSA for challenging them on both illegal behavior and policy.

 

FACTS. Specific. Please refute with specifics.

 

I've made my points with detailed facts in other posts. I have yet to see those specifics refuted. Instead I have been told to be a good obedient Scout and shut up, stop trying to change what I can't, do my job, and trust my leaders.

 

Failures and bad behavior are explained away by "they could be worse, it happens everywhere and it isn't happening here."

 

Well it all IS happening in BSA and it shouldn't be. THAT is my point. There are clear and obvious warning signs that things are not well andgood in BSA - warning signs that have accompanied other corporate scandals. The future will tell.

 

Note:

 

Our SE finally came clean. His "From the Scout Executive" statement in our local newsletter is titled "IT IS ABOUT THE NUMBERS" Yeah....especially when you're 3000 under what you claimed for membership in your last fundraising letter.....

 

As another professional noted (privately): It's all about the numbers and money - that's ALL BSA cares about.

 

Reading our newsletter you'd thing Scouting was an Amway pyramid scheme all about adding members and selling popcorn. Great image for BSA.

 

No more time for endless non-debates on semantics. School's starting, as well as Scouting. Wonder if our Council will survive the year.

 

 

[evmori 11]

Does this subcommittee still exist? This resolution was from 2002 & if I'm not mistaken, these issues have been resolved. So what's the point of posting a 3 year old link?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[Bob White 20]

jhnky's posts remind of a line from "the Legend of Sleepy Hollow" where we are told that a bewildered Ichabod...'leapt upon his horse and rode off in all directions.

 

One topic at a time please jhnky if you are to allow for any resemblance of conversation.

 

PS was suggesting he would formulate his opinion and mail it to the appropriate committee.

 

You are talking about public accusations. BIG difference. You want to complain in public go ahead, but the BSA is not required to treat you as a welcomed guest in their house.

 

Ed, that was the last press release on the topic that I am aware of. Unless they have changed their minds what need have they for another press release at this time? The lack of of a press release does not mean that there are no dicussions, just that no one has changed their minds.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori 11]

My point was not another press release is needed. My point is this subcommittee might not exist any longer if this issue has been resolved. So posting a 3 year old link without knowing if it is relevant makes no sense. Those are my points.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

When read objectively the link told you a number of things all related to prairie scouters misconceptions.The post showed that

A. That national does discuss and review this topic

B. That this is not a new position as the release explains that the BSA "re-affirms" their position.

C. That it was taken seriously enough to create a task force to investigate it.

d. That the task force consisted of representatives of the Charter Organizatins of scouting

e. It tells you when. That it was a fairly recent review, (yes when looking at the history of the organization three years is recent)

 

f. and most importantly it tells you who made the decison. Not Professionals..."The board, the relationships committee, and the special task force are all comprised of volunteer members of the BSA.

 

So you see it gave quite a bit of information.

 

Bob White

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Bob, thanks for the information. Appreciate it.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I have been very quiet but this business about the February 2002 resolution requires some comment.

 

That resolution, and all of its flaws and fallacies, was discussed in this forum at the time and shortly thereafter. (I think I joined the forum within a few days before or after the resolution was first discussed here.) It did not resolve the issue, it simply indicated that National had put on a show of listening to those within the BSA who sought reconsideration of the policy (including resolutions from nine councils who sought a modification of the policy, some including "local option"), and then did what they always intended to do, which was to reaffirm the policy. There is no explanation of why an "avowed homosexual" cannot be a role model for the values expressed in the Oath and Law, any more than there had been when this notion was first publicly advanced as part of the lawsuits in the 80's and 90's. There really is no explanation of why there could not be a local option, other than the dubious proposition that exclusion of gays is a "moral value" of Scouting, which it isn't.

 

These were just some of the problems with the resolution as discussed at the time. But the most important thing is, the issue has not gone away and it is not going to go away, and there is no indication that National intends to review it again. (Nor would I necessarily want them to, until there is a significant turnover in the people involved in the decision, so there can be some chance of a different outcome.)

 

Personally I do not think the resolution shows that any of what Prairie Scouter has said was a "misconception" as Bob has alleged.

[Bob White 20]

I am curious at to what evidence anyone has that the job given the task force and its volunteer members of charter organization representatives was not done in a serious, thoughtful, and concsiensious manner?

 

I understand that there are those who think ill of any effort beyond their control i scouting be that district council or national. But what actual evidence do you have?

 

I would also like to know what makes any unit volunteer feel they are due any explaination by the BSA? We agreed to follow the program, but that does not give any of us the authority to determine it. We were selected by the CO to serve the CO.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Re submission

 

I am curious at to what evidence anyone has that the job given the task force and its volunteer members of charter organization representatives was not done in a serious, thoughtful, and conscientious manner?

 

I understand that there are those who think ill of any effort beyond their control I scouting be that district council or national. However, what actual evidence do you have?

 

I would also like to know what makes any unit volunteer feel they are due any explanation by the BSA? We agreed to follow the program, but that does not give any of us the authority to determine it. We were selected by the CO to serve the CO.

 

[evmori 11]

I don't think anyone is saying they are due an explanation. I think what posters are saying is if National is making position statements, it would be nice if the rank & file knew the logic & reasoning behind those statements in the event they are asked by parents or anyone else. That's all. It's kinda tough to answer a question with "Because National says so."

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

Its a good answer when you remember what your personal responsibilities to scouting are. They do not include determining or approving national policies or program. As commissioners our job is to support those decisions not make them. The fact that representatives of the chartering organizations that contract to use the program, reviewed and approved this policy, is all the detail needed to do the job you accepted.

 

This is not majority rules. This is a representative community. Every council has a member or members that make up the BSA national council. Do you know who they are in your area? If it is not you, then it is someone else. They have a job to do and it is different than yours.

 

Being a unit leader is no different. We are there to deliver the scoutng program to the yourh FOR the chartering organization. Our role is to deliver the BSA program not to determine it. If this was not a program you liked then you made a bad choice agrreeing to join it and deliver it.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Thankfully, across the country and in many different areas besides Scouting, we have "whistleblowers" who have taken it upon themselves to look beyond their own cubicle of responsibility and look to the greater good. These are the people who effect change, from the inside as well as the outside. These people are generally castigated by those who are perfectly happy with the status quo or don't truly understand the issues being brought up.

 

Scouting says that they want the best possible leaders for the youth in their units. These are going to be reasonably intelligent people, and may have a problem with accepting a policy, not because it is explained to them, but because the National office says "we said so". It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the National office to provide Scouters with the rational and logic behind their decisions if they expect us to live with those policies, and possibly defend them to our units. That information does seem to be lacking.

 

This whole idea of just following the National office dictates because they say so, and not understanding, or be given the information needed to understand, WHY we're doing the things we do, just seems really contrary of the whole idea of Scouters assisting the youth in their units to become thinking, responsible citizens if we're not being that ourselves.