Speak out and get ousted - no free speech in BSA

[emb021 16]

All-

 

Prehaps I can add something to this discussion.

 

Southwest Florida Council happens to be my home council. I have been part of that council since the 70s as a youth and later an adult. I haven't been as tuned in to things going on in the council in the last few years.

 

Camp Flying Eagle is one of the oldest scout camps in Florida. they recently held a 75th anniversary celebration, and the council used this as a way to solicite funds for the camp. When this camp was found and purchased, the local council (Sunnyland) did not own it! Instead, the local scouters formed a separate organization for the sole purpose of owning the camp. they were worried that the council might go under, and that National would sell the camp. (back in the 1920/30, most councils weren't very stable and came and went).

 

When Sunnyland went under in 1995 and had to be taken over, there was a choice between 2 local councils. They decided to go with SWFL, in no small part because they were told the council would keep and maintain CFE.

 

Since the takeover of Sunnyland, there have been rumors of a sale of the camp. There are several problems with the camp. Issues with the encrouchment of neighbors, issues with vandals coming into camp off the river (the camp is one the lower manatee river), etc. Most of the talk about selling the camp almost always included the council getting a new camp. More recently, the council leased part of the camp property to a group to establish their own camp (Camp Dream Oaks). I believe this is mentioned in the recent articles. This group claimed they would put in improvements to the camp that could be used by both their group and scouts. This is how they sold themselves, but I've heard of issues where they haven't followed thru with recent promises. So I am sure that some scouters are not too trusting of this group's claim that if they owned it, the camp could still be used by scouts.

 

There has been a lot of concern in recent years that the council would sell off the camp. This is a very emotional issue. I was a bit surprised to read in some of the these recent articles that 'Red Dog' was president of the 'Manatee Boys Development Association', the original group that owned the camp. You see, I had heard that the group (which, as I noted above, was pretty much founded by those early scouters just to own the camp) had pretty much gone defunct, and some had re-grouped it for the sole purpose of turning the camp over to the council, and letting it go under. So I wonder what really happen. And its a bit much to claim that 'Red Dog' (or any scouter) being the president of the association is some kind of 'conflict of interest'. The group had always been a group of scouters owning the scout camp!

 

So, even if you have your issues with "jkhny", a lot that he is passing on is true. Plus, you can also read the articles in the newspapers. He cites an article in the local Bradenton paper, and I know of about 3-4 in that paper on this isse. the Wall Street Journal reported on the matter, as have other Florida papers.

 

[FScouter 24]

jkhny needs to get a life but he/she has just as much of a right to post here as anyone else!

 

No one has any rights to post in this private forum. Free speech does not apply. Permission to post is granted by the forum owner with the understanding that all posts are subject to editing or deletion by the forum moderators.

 

Additionally, in regards to (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[evmori 11]

FScouter,

Thanks so much for your insight. Did you edit yourself?

 

It would seem the site owner has granted jkhny the right to post in these forums & it also seems none of the moderators has edited his/her posts. What I should have posted was "jkhny has just as much of a right to post here as any other forum member!"

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[jkhny 10]

from OldGreyEagle:

 

[Trevorum 24]

Well, my opinion is

 

(This message has been edited by someone who knows better than Trevorum, who is just a trouble maker)

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"from OldGreyEagle:

... "

 

Excuse me here, when did I say that?

[t158sm 10]

I thought I had the feeling that didn't sound like OGE.

[mgkaiser 10]

Visit http://www.savecfe.org to get all (well, as many as we've found so far) of the news articles relating to the sale of Camp Flying Eagle and the ouster of Red Dog in one place

[scoutingagain 20]

Just out of curiosity ... how many folks out there work for an organization where if more than a half dozen of so key executives were to be found in violation of either the law or internal company ethics policies, to the point where the information is published in local and or national news outlets, would have their current chief executive still in place?

 

SA

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Well, until recently I did. I worked for the federal government.

[jkhny 10]

 

 

Which summarizes all I've said in about as clearly as possible.

 

And how sad that this is in an organizations whose stated mission to to teach boys to make ethical and moral decisions.

 

What example is BSA setting?

 

Would ANY parent be happy if their child had shown the behavior exhibited by BSA leadership lately? - lying, lying to get money, refusing to follow the law (especially in not reporting child abuse), blaming others for your own misdeeds (the ACLU is responsible for "missing units"), failing to follow their stated ideals, throwing out anyone that validly questions bad behavior.....

 

 

If BSA's own supporters WILLFULLY excuse clear wrongdoing - wherever it occurs - they they are failing to follow the Scout Law.

 

and under the circumstances, I suppose you can say that the current Administration in DC really IS acting like a bunch of "Boy Scouts" - or their leaders - grabbing all they can while professing to defend "values".

 

Look up your Council's 990 and see what your SE makes - do YOU make that much money? Forget what Williams and those at National make.....

He was over $900,000 total comp in 2004.

 

[LongHaul 10]

Just a bit on the Chicago Council issue. Three volunteers, Scouters with long service (Thirty years each in two cases) were suspended for publicly denouncing Executive Board actions. One of the suspensions has been made permanent, that for organizing a rally to protest Executive Board action. Eleven Scouters have banded together and taken the Council to court to force them to honor the by-laws. A judge has ruled that the by-laws were indeed not followed and that the Council President has breached his fiduciary responsibilities in refusing to schedule elections. In the [ast two years the voting members have voted NOT to accept the slate proposed. Finally the nominating committee came up with a slate but the president refused to accept it. By-laws state that special elections must be held when requested by at least 20% of the voting members, over 40% signed a petition demanding a vote on the proposed slate but the President refused to accept the petition. The judge has ruled that the Council must hold and election per the by laws, said election to take place on April 20, 2006. The Council has appealed this decision with the State Appellate Court in an attempt to stop the election until it, the current executive board, can alter the slate proposed by the nominating committee. That volunteers should have to take their council to court to get the council to follow its own by-laws should be red flag enough, but to have that council seeking court injunctions to allow it to violate the by laws using council monies and in objection to the voting members of that council should be a warning to all who value traditional scouting. National seems to be supporting liquidating assets to generate bank accounts even at the expense of program and in violation of local by-laws.

LongHaul

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Am I the only one who read the following?

 

"On March 21, Manatee County Commissioners voted 6-0 to change the county's future land-use map so that Camp Flying Eagle would be required to remain a recreational area, thus saving its use as a Boy Scout camp."

 

Seems to me that ruling would take developers out of the equation. Who else is going to pay $12 million for property that must remain recreational?

 

Hampton sounds pretty reasonable to me:

 

"Hampton has steadfastly maintained that the council is not actively marketing the property but it does listen to offers; and if the price was right, the camp could be sold."

 

So if someone came in and offered $20 million for a property worth, say, $15 million, they shouldn't sell? What if they were offered $50 million? $100 million? Bottom line is everything has a price, and to not listen to offers and consider options would be unreasonable.

 

As for Red Dog, looks like he opted for a sledgehammer when a feather would have worked:

 

"There were other ways, within the structure of the Boy Scouts, for Maynard to address his concerns over Camp Flying Eagle, Hampton said.

 

"There is a process within the system that he could have followed to keep it from being sold," Hampton said. "Mr. Maynard went a direction that is inconsistent with being loyal to the scouting program as a whole."

 

It would be interesting to know how much the "sledgehammer" approach cost the council to defend.

 

There a two sides to every story. As with most posts from jkh, we are only hearing one side.

 

Question: Do you think SE Hampton had the backing of his board before he made the decision to kick out Maynard? I'm guessing he did. So shouldn't the "Defend Maynard" crowd be asking for the entire executive board to resign, instead of just SE Hampton? All 52 of them?

 

Could the actual situation be something like this? Old Sunny Land Council is a failure. Can't recruit new leaders or Scouts, can't manage to continue to be a going concern. Asks to merge with Southwest. Few vocal leaders from failed Sunny Land show up at new Council and ask for money to fix up Camp Flying Eagle, since they weren't able to do so on their own. When Southwest refuses to fund all their requests, old Sunny Landers consider Southwest the bad guys.

"I don't know of a single Scout leader in Manatee County that has a favorable impression of the council office in Fort Myers," Hall said. "They just don't listen to Manatee County."

Interesting.

 

Final question: Why is the Manatee County seat on the executive board vacant, and why is their seat on the executive committee vacant? Can they not find volunteers to hold these positions?

 

jkh - you may have long conversations with certain people in councils outside your own, like Atlanta, but the problem is you only listen to one side of the story and never seek out the other. Consequently, you miss out on the true situation. Your characterizations of the situation in Atlanta were so far off base they were laughable. If you were truly interested in serving the BSA, which you are not, you would search out both sides of the story, instead of just looking for those who support your side of the issue and your agenda.

 

[jkhny 10]

On "one side" of things.......

 

BSA continues to lose members and youth. An increasingly autocratic paid professional staff seems to have forgotten that they EXIST to support the efforts of volunteers. BSA itself says it is a "representative democracy" though anyone that has tried to put that into action has found out how little "representation" occurs.

 

SE's are like any other CEO - they handpick Executive Boards willing to support them. How many Corporate Boards actually represent shareholders now? BSA has been like too many corporations - excusing the bad behavior of its executives instead of holding them accountable. As asked above - how many other companies would tolerate the far too numerous examples of malfeasance by their executives that have been shown over the past year by BSA? If BSA were a SUCCESSFUL organization, gaining members and GROWING STRONGER then defense of the professionals in BSA might have some merit. But BSA is LOSING members at an astounding rate. Yet according to some defenders, this has nothign to do with the paid leadership of BSA. It is the fault of volunteers.

 

In too many cases "failing Councils" occur because paid staff manage to alienate the volunteer base by ordering them about instead of listening to them. A meaningless focus on increasing numbers and raising money angers dedicated volunteers who get NO help from paid staff in running units. How many new volunteers has a paid staffer ever brought in to YOUR unit? How many units never SEE a paid staffer except when they do FOS?

 

LOSE the support of your VOLUNTEER base and you are doomed. BSA seems NOT to realize that. If they are doing something that enrages a alrge number of volunteers then odds are it's WRONG.

 

And the issue of finances is too often bogus. Too many volunteers have seen contrived strategies used to make a camp "unprofitable" so it CAN be sold. ANd too many camps that were donated for the use of boys - that were supposed to revert to the donor when that ceased are STILL sold through contrived legal arguments.

 

As a very successful professional noted, BSA tars volunteers as "problems" when they speak out on valid issues, volunteers that CARE about and believe in Scouting. Too many professionals prefer to drive out old dedicated "Red Jacket" Scouters and put inexperienced novice leaders in spots who will do as they're told. That's happening here and it is hurting the program. When you lose over 400 adult leaders in a year and a half - real leaders not paper ones..... THAT hurts. And it's happening directly because the volunteer base is fed up with the SE and a Board that does NOT listen. When your SE spends all of a fireside chat looking at his watch, refusing to answer questions and belittling long serving volunteers.... who wants to put up with THAT BS as a VOLUNTEER?

 

Executive Boards are staffed with local businessmen who have little direct involvement in day-to-day Scouting, they are chosen for fundraising abilities or business contacts. THese businessmen too often take a SE's word on issues and do NOT look closely at things. Two year limits mean few have any real memory of past promises or issues. BSA doesn't WANT knowledgeable oversight. Here District Chairs - who HAD real Scouting experience and credentials were removed from spots on the Board. Our Council Commissioner has never run a unit, done nothing in Scouting since receiving his Eagle years ago. To many Boards have NO real Scouters on them.

 

BSA has forgotten that Scouting is run by VOLUNTEERS - and they are NOT easy to come by in these times. How many people are willing to take on the responsiblity boren by a Scoutmaster or even Den Leader?

 

But professionals view volunteers as "employees" - not very valuable (they work for free, right?) and readily replaceable ones at that. Our local SE - confronted with an open boycott of FOS by volunteers literally ordered DE's to "Find new volunteers who will raise money for us!"

 

That says much about how paid staff view volunteers. A dedicated Scouter's response was "I will not put up with the same underhanded politics and mistreatment too many of us have to endure at work where I VOLUNTEER my time." Whose fault is it that he simply quit Scouting?

 

 

 

This is about the BASIC focus of BSA.

 

Does BSA and its paid staff exist to serve and support the efforts of volunteers that run units, run activities and make Scouting possible?

 

Is BSA truly a democracy that serves and represents its volunteers?

 

or

 

Are volunteers serving at the beck and call of paid staff who can do as they wish - irrespective of what volunteers feel?

 

Should the paid staff in BSA be paid far more than almost all of their volunteers earn - with far better benefits and job security?

 

 

Baden Powell himself had real doubts about having ANY paid staff in Scouting - something BSA prefers not to mention.

 

And for those so vocal in defending the professionals in Scouting -

 

Please justify the very large salaries paid to those overseeing DECLINES in membership?

 

Please explain how so many executives caught in wrongdoing and fraud remain employed by this corporation? Why have none been fired?

 

As noted, BSA does not even have GOOD leadership. Membership continues to drop, "success" is faked but nothing changes. Financial goals are met by selling off valuable assets - not reducing excessive management costs. Volunteers that call for change are ousted.

[BrentAllen 10]

All I can say is the situation you describe might as well be on Mars. It certainly isn't the situation I see in Atlanta, nor anywhere else.

A good friend of mine is now on the AAC Executive Board. He is 3 years older than me - around 45. He is a fraternity brother from Georgia Tech; I have known him for over 20 years. His son is an Eagle Scout, he has been to Philmont twice, is Wood Badge trained, and just received his Silver Beaver. He lives out at Sugarloaf Country Club, where the PGA is playing the Bell South Classic this weekend.

According to you, this guy was hand-picked because he will go along with anything the SE wants, and is too busy to pay attention to what is going on with the Council. You couldn't be more wrong!

This guy loves Scouting, and all it stands for. He has served as a leader at the unit level and District. He is now serving the Council. Does this sound like the kind of Executive Board member you are describing? I don't think so.