DESPERATE...Need input and support on serious retaliation by Council

[local1400 10]

After re-reading the post describing her ordeal, it doesn't sound all that bad compared to my ordeal in 84 except that the Lodge had us in Lazy-Boys and not sitting on logs at the ceremony.

[GernBlansten 10]

Wow is right.

Scary.

What a shame that these people could come in and destroy an established program like this and cause so much pain for everyone involved. How could a pair like this gain so much control? I guess with a detached CO, it could. Scares me. We have a detached CO, but a good committee.

 

Victims:

The scouts and scouters displaced to other units.

The special needs scouts who stuck it out and are now left out in the cold.

 

Not so much victims:

The instigators (seems they had ulterior motives)

The CO for letting this happen.

The DE for allowing this to progress, no followup with the CO to make sure the committee was proper.

The parents/scouters, if they didn't escalate the issues to the CO or district and just quietly moved on (although, if I faced that situation, I probably would have done just such)

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Has anyone else noticed how Mr Rasmussen made his single drive-by post and never came back?

[local1400 10]

Yes John, he worked us all into a frenzy and left us begging for more. I guess he did not like the responses of needing more info.(This message has been edited by local1400)

[TRUTH2 10]

It's really too bad that most of the people on this posting resort to truly disgusting and demeaning personal attacks. Especially when they don't have all of the facts and/or are lying.

 

Making derogatory remarks like those on this forum are the exact activity that launched this whole episode in the first place.

 

The's a lot of nasty comments being posted by the Council and its cronies and those that wish to see justice derailed.

 

You have NO IDEA what evidence has been collected, what and how many witnesses have been interviewed and how much the Council is actually lying to its volunteers.

 

Everyone, keeps missing the real issues here. Is the National organization committed to those with disabilities? They state they are...Is the BSA a great organization? For the most part...

 

The problem here is that this whole episode arose from the wrongdoings of SEVERAL/MANY professional staff and volunteers who feel very differently and did not implement the National policies nor did they care to.

 

No one is saying Scouting is bad. But like all organizations, there are sometimes more than a few bad apples that ruin it for many.

 

Mrs. Rasmussen asked for mediation and resolution on MANY occassions prior to filing the suit and has waited for a year to do so. The Council chose to rebuff her at every turn. Legally, because these volunteers and staff were operating on behalf of the Council when the incidents and crimes occurred, her suit is againt the Council. Let me restate, she is suing the COUNCIL, not the BSA as a whole.

 

She has been given the go ahead by the EEOC who have approved her case and found her to have protection under the EEO laws.

 

The Council Staff CHOSE to retaliate against not only Mrs. Rasmussen, but also the Scouting families in her units. Her actions have never been anything but honorable and in the interests of the kids.

 

Funny how the DE showed up at their door with 2 hours of a 6pm TV news story to revoke their memberships with no explanation as required. Funny how the Council's countersuit was filed just a few minutes before 5pm the same day after being asked questions by a reporter...Funny how the parents still stand behind her...Funny how the countersuit surrounds issues that have already been answered and explained and have absolutely no merit...Funny how she is being blamed for two leaders being removed from the units by Good Shepherd since the leaders of a unit do not have the authority to do so and that it was on a unanimous recommendation from ALL the parents...HMMMMM!

 

Has she been camping? Yes. She even attended Woodbadge training and had no problems, because that particular staff made it there duty to make sure she was welcomed and felt wanted so that the training would be a great experience.

 

Then came the OA. A completely diferent group of people. A group that had already resigned itself to not wanting her around. This group didn't make her feel welcome, put her in harm's way and humiliated her. They certainly were not interested in her well-being or whether the group lived up to it "honor society" status. The Ordeal was a disgusting display of the worst of humanity. What's worse is that these displays of hatred were done in front of her son, his Troop-mates and may other youth members. Great example these people are, huh?

 

The difference between Woodbadge and the OA...The group involved, their philosohies, their behavior and the fact that the DE was not at the WB course but was at the OA event. Just like every other event that he attends, there's a problem.

 

As for the name calling, personal attacks, completely innaccurate information and shows of false bravado that everyone seems to enjoy on this posting, I would suggest that you all knock it off. Based on your comments, etc, most of you are quite well known. Scouters should no better than to goip or run to the defense o the Council so quickly.

 

Until any of you have lived with several debilitating mobility diseases and constantly have to undergo surgery since birth, and then fight and survive breast cancer and and continue to fight for everything to show that you are still a viable, strong human being, then you can have a say in this case. The parents are behind her and the kids are behind her. Several posts here are from known indiiduals in the Council that are a part of this suit.

 

As for her husband, he is an Eagle Scout and has earned every feather on each wing. He has been in Scouting since he was a Cub Scout and knows the PROPER way to execute the program.

 

So let's see, they had their memberships revoked for standing up for themselves and the kids. I certainly know a LOT of othe leaders, some in very high positions who didn't have their memberships revoked and they have committed CRIMES!

 

These are honorable people. I was there, I am there and will continue to be there for as long as it takes!

 

Since most of you are Scouts and Scouters, I would expect more support for one of our own.

 

This suit is not a blnket suit condemning everyone who is or has ever been in the Scouts. It is a suit to correct the injustices of a select group of bad people. It is unfortunate tat many of you feel included in that group and feel the need to negatively comment on the plaintiffs. What would you do in this situation? Shut up and move on. Not correct the situaton? That is th sign of a follower, not a leader. Leadership is what Scouting is about. She chose to fight so that no youth or ault ever has to face that humiliation again. What would you do if you rported a crime to the SE and he laughed you out of the office. What wuld you do if you reported a Scouter who struck a Scout and was given his own brand new unit for it? What would you do if you had a medical emergency and the OA staff ignored you? What would you do if the OA did not follow written policy and humiliate you in front of yor peers? What would you do if the DE ws there through all of this and just laughed at you? What wouldyou do?

 

I'm sure by the reponses some have posted, you'd shut up, cower down and say yer sir! A leader would stand up for what is right and fight...YES, EVEN IF IT IS THE BOY SCOUTS!

 

Tha Scout Oath and Law are the guiding principes and from what I've seen here, it is being applied only to youth and leaderand staff have the option to dissect it.

 

There's a LOT more that will becoming out and a lot that will show everyone the truth. The problem is, you don't get an anonymous screen name at a deposition or when you are on the stand.

 

I've seen any of you post regarding that you just CANNOT believe that the Council would do such a thing!! Let me tell you that they have, do, will and are. You have not seen the mounds of evidence in this case.

 

Why doesn't everyone wait until all the depositions and court testimony are finished?

 

If anyone has lied under oath, they will be charged with perjury.

 

Everyone should just wait for the appropriate forum. That's usually where all the bravado goes out the door.

 

It's easy to hide behind a forum to make comments. Its not easy tostand up and face the truth...isn't it?

 

Good luck to everyone.

[captainron14 11]

Let me guess, is "TRUTH2" Mr. or Mrs. Rasmussen? (or family member)

If not either, what dog in this fight do you have?

[purcelce 11]

Personally I have not noticed any personal attacks to Mr and Mrs. R. on this forum.

 

THUTH2, Don't start throwing stones here. Mr R posted asking for input and he got from my fellow forum members. This forum is for opinions on issues, and we have given our opinion. If it not the opinion you had hoped for then sorry, but I call them like I see them (given the information that I was able to find)

 

I am not hiding.

 

Cary P

Belleville IL

[Lisabob 13]

TRUTH2 writes: "Everyone should just wait for the appropriate forum."

 

Well that does seem like good advice. It is also advice that should apply to the original poster, apparently Mr. Rasmussen, in this thread. Perhaps especially to him (and his wife) since they are now embroiled in a legal battle.

 

As for the rest of the thread, well what do you expect? Somebody posts a long and rather salacious post that fed the fires, and yet with too few details to make heads or tails of the situation. Go to any online forum and you'll find that people who engage in that sort of behavior are suspect in terms of credibility (keeping in mind that other forum members have only the written word to go upon). In fact, it wouldn't be unheard of on the web for someone to have started such a thread with the apparent intent of simply stirring things up a bit.

 

Now as it turns out, there is apparently at least some truth to the situation and that is certainly unfortunate. But if the Rasmussens expected that they, and only they, would be the ones telling the story (from their viewpoint) and that everyone else would automatically accept it without question or contradiction, well that is a bit naive, isn't it. In fact I'd say that I'd have been even more surprised if, upon discovering that this is a real story, the "other side(s)" kept quiet. Why should they, when they too are being impugned by what the original poster wrote? Yeah, that's just not how a free society, or a free web-forum, works.

 

And I find the implicit threats about people's identities in TRUTH2's post to be really goofy, by the way. It may be good netiquette not to post one's identifying info and so most of us would not - but I really don't think it would be tough for anyone in most of our councils who knows us "in real life" to figure out who is who on the board here. And also, many of us have met other scouters who read this board and are known, both by name and screen-name. So c'mon, what are you planning, to "out" us? Hmm. Hard to do when most of us probably are not "in hiding" anyway.

 

So at this point: I wish a quick and just outcome of this whole mess to all. And in the meantime, good scouting to those families whose children are in the program. It is, after all, supposed to be "about the kids!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jr56 92]

Yes, the unfortunate thing about this whole mess is that the kids will have to suffer.

[local1400 10]

Well said Lisabob! I would also add Scouter30's original post was almost a month ago and like John (in the KC!) said, hasn't returned to update/fill in the blanks for us. And ya know Truth2, we all have opinions(and you know what they are like?).

[ScoutNut 147]

I agree with purcelce.

 

The only one who has done any name calling, is TRUTH2, who while complainng that we are all hiding behind user names in a forum, doen not give any information on who he is or what connection he has to the case.

 

Almost one month ago, Mr Rasmussen, who also did not give us any information on himself or the council involved, asked us for any and all input. That was the last time we ever heard from him, dspite our requests for more information.

 

Posting on a forum, or simply dealing with people, you learn early on that there are 2 sides to every story, and that the folks involved on each side will put their side in the best possible light and the other side in the worst.

 

We did NOT automatically go with the Council's side. We also did NOT automatically go with Mr. Rasmussen's side. We asked for information and when none was forthcoming we made comments based on what we DID know.

 

There are still a few things that find strange.

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - You state - the EEOC who have approved her case and found her to have protection under the EEO laws. I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see how the EEO laws apply to this situation. Unless I missed something in the articles and posts, the Rasmussen's are not professional Scouters and are NOT EMPLOYED by the Council or BSA. They are VOLUNTEERS, not employees.

 

OA - Since she had disabilities, why did she not do some research into what the Ordeal entailed? Why did she not talk to the Lodge's special needs person before the Ordeal?

 

We, here on this forum, will never know what really went on. However, from the information that has finally come to light, it seems to me that, as usual, there is enough blame to go around on both sides.

 

 

[Region 7 Voyageur 10]

There is some weird stuff going on here. On November 24th someone called TRUTH2 posted an identical post as TRUTH2 posted here on December 8th. Here is a link to the other post:

 

http://forums.floridatoday.com/viewtopic.php?t=60058&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&sid=bded6d984950202b77a48def1b5dc3d0

 

So who is TRUTH2 talking to? The posters at Florida Today or us here at Scouter.com?

 

[John-in-KC 311]

I think it's time to say, no more posts from me in this thread. It's more fun, and more rewarding, to help a young Life Scout find his passion for an ELSP... a new Lodge Officer try to find buzz at an OA winter banquet, a new Day Camp PD find a way to fit activities to the Council theme for the year...

 

 

[eolesen 10]

Yeah, TRUTH2's post was identical to one I saw at one of the newspaper's "comment on this story" section. There were also some posts over there that were downright cruel and hurtful. I don't see too much of that here unless it is an athiesm/gay related thread...

 

To Scouter30 and Truth2, a Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal & Helpful, and sometimes that means telling another Scouter things they don't want to hear or accept.

 

Perhaps the answer is to treat Ordeal as a Class 3 medical activity, since it's not your normal camping experience....

 

John, I don't believe EEOC has jurisdiction on this -- if they didn't take up the case themselves (they have administrative law judges who can and do intervene when ADA and Title VII are violated), they most likely responded "you're free to pursue civil action on your own" which is not the same as permission to file a civil discrimination suit.

 

BSA makes reasonable accommodation for their employees, but EEOC rules wouldn't typically apply to volunteers.

 

501-C's are specifically exempt from ADA, and ADA also has a "federal wilderness" exception which pretty clearly states that while nobody with disabilities is to be prohibited from wilderness areas, no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area in order to facilitate such use.

 

Common sense would dictate that in a court of law, BSA's camp areas could be viewed in a similar light.

[Crew21_Adv 25]

Fellow Scouters,

 

 

Just a few comments and a question to add.

 

 

Over the years, I have camped and Scouted with three physically disabled Scouts/Scouters and one severely autistic Scout. I am in know way an expert, but I can empathize with their challenges.

 

My question. Regarding ADA compliance. Isn't there a "Grandfather Clause" on most state ADA regulations. If buildings or facilities are pre-existing, they normally do not require modification by law. However, buildings and facilities since ADA was passed need to be compliant. I honestly do not know, but I would suspect state clauses providing allowance for older facilities. Am I correct? or just confused again?

 

 

Now most OA weekends or Council events that I know of require a pre-registration, as well as bringing either Class 1/2 or Class 3 physical health assessments, stating physical limitations, dietary needs, food allergies, and drug allergies.

 

Pre-registration probably could have prevented some of the disappointments experienced. I would suspect my fellow Scouters and volunteer staff in Central Florida should have that as their standard.

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv