Screaming Irony

[johndaigler 10]

jk defined this thread to be about Smith and St. Jean - thus the Irony. This is as good a place as any to focus on the St. Jean part of the first post. TJ makes some good points - and has actually brought a little sense and collaborative discussion to the thread - saints preserve us! Let's run with it a while.

 

Isn't the point the seeming lack of consistency on the part of BSA as employer? I'm not saying they handled Smith inappropriately, but if so, was St. Jean handled fairly? Surely, it's not inappropriate to ask the questions, given the obvious disparity in the base causes, and the rather somersaulted end results.

 

jd

 

BTW, jk, thank you for trying to trim your sails a bit. As you show your ability to listen, I think the crowd will find it easier to listen in return.

[Bob White 20]

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.

[Bob White 20]

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.)

[evmori 11]

Does anyone else see something a little amiss here? Posters are bantering back & forth about whether someone who was a purveyor of child porn should have been fired or not. Who cares! The man was in charge of Youth Protection! And distributing kiddie porn! Sure not on his work computer but what's the difference where he was distributing it from? The fact is he was distributing kiddie porn and working for the BSA in charge of Youth Protection at the same time! That's ethical & moral! Sorta like a Christian minister selling Playboy subscriptions in his free time!

 

Just wrong!

 

OK. Now I would like a Teem & some wax lips, please!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter 24]

The responsibilities of his job are irrelevant to the action taken.

[evmori 11]

The responsibilities of his job are irrelevant to the action taken.

 

What does that mean?

[Bob White 20]

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!

[kags61 10]

groovycandies.com

 

They'll have everything you're looking for

[Hunt 11]

It seems to me that not enough facts have been made clear about the Smith case to know if there is inconsistency here. I think everybody can see the hypocrasy on Smith's part--and it goes far beyond firing somebody else.

 

To know if BSA acted responsibly in the Smith case, you'd have to know what they knew and when they knew it. When did they learn that he had been accused of child pornography? What did they do at that point? Did he deny guilt? Certainly, I don't think you should fire somebody for being accused of a crime, unless they admit it to you. You might take prudent action, such as making sure they don't have any contact with youth while it's being sorted out. What did BSA actually do? From what little we know, Smith took retirement before the charges were actually filed. There may not have been much else BSA could do.

 

For the St. Jean case, I have to say that simply staying at a "gay" resort does not, to me, rise to the level of being an "avowed" homosexual. There could be plenty of reasons a non-gay person might go there--maybe he got a good rate on Priceline. If that is really the only basis they had for firing the guy, I think it really does not comply with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

 

So while I have to wonder if the firing of St. Jean was fair, I just don't see any evidence of disparate treatment here. Nobody can possibly think that Smith wouldn't have been fired if he hadn't retired before charges were filed.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

One could also ask if Smith "retired" before the accusations came out, or if he was "allowed to retire" in order protect his benefits, an accomodation apparently not extended to Mr. St. John., or possibly exteneded and refused.

 

Also, from a story published in Florida, it seems that St. John was "outted" by a disgruntled employee of SeaBase. St. John didn't seem to be acting in a way that would have made him "avowed". The fact that he stayed at a gay resort in Key West doesn't seem to me to be enough to get fired. In the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of BSA, what happens if someone else "tells"? Interestingly, I can't find any stories so far where St John actually admitted to being gay; anyone else seen anything?

 

As you said, Hunt, many unanswered questions that I doubt we'll ever get the answers to.

[Bob White 20]

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.

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

on what grounds do you disallow retirement benefits to Smith? At the time he took retirement he had no charges against him!

 

It does seem that at the time of his retirement there were no charges files. But one could make the argument that his crimes were committed prior to retirement so his retirement benefits should be disallowed.

 

We still don't have all the facts!

 

How about a Squirt & Banana Flip?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

"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."

 

Well, you're entitled to make assumptions in BSA's favor, certainly. People who are suspicious of BSA will make contrary assumptions. Without more information, it's impossible to say which set of assumptions are correct. However, 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. Perhaps BSA can't correct that impression because of confidentiality, or because they anticipate litigation, or for some other unknown reason. But it sure looks to an outside observer like a pretty weak reason to fire somebody, and it does appear contrary to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that BSA has touted for members.

Personally, I am willing to give BSA the benefit of the doubt on the Smith case, because I have to believe they would treat anybody as totally toxic when word of child pornography came out--I can't believe such a person would be protected, no matter how high up he is.

[Bob White 20]

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?

[Hunt 11]

"Why is this treated as a sport where spectators choose sides, and not a private matter between an employer and employee?"

 

Could it be because the employer is an organization to which we belong, pay dues, and make voluntary donations, and whose actions reflect on us? Could it be because we think BSA should follow the Scout Oath and Law in its employer-employee relations, and in all its business dealings? I also continue to find it odd that somebody would come into an "Issues and Politics" discussion board to remind others that they have no business discussiong issues and politics.