Jump to content

Violation of privacy


Recommended Posts

My .02.  Have a quiet word with the SM and explain the point and ask him not to do it again.  The downside of a volunteer organization is that not everyone in a leadership position actually understands that they need to show discretion in these cases.  You could go start a big to-do and report on the guy, but to what end?  What he purposefully malicious or just a dolt?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

APPEALS OUTSIDE COUNCIL ARE LARGELY HOPELESS.

That is true.  An appeal isn't what it sounds like.  It is more like asking for a review.  Region and national review the statements sent to them by the council.  Then they make a decision.  There is no hearing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ASMwquestions said:

@ParkMan does it matter why he did? Now what if committee member shares info and the next person shares. The accusations were not allowed to be disputed. Accused, assumed guilty, now private info that no one needs to know is out there.

I think I misunderstood - I thought your concern was that the SM shared the letter, not that he was removed.

I'm out of my element on fighting removals.  Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter contains specific enough info. Enough so that I feel should not have been shared. The letter was private communication. The fact they were removed is not the issue at moment. It's the sharing of the letter which committee member had no need of info beyond said person was removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ASMwquestions said:

The problem is the sharing of the letter.

Oh - the other responses confused me.  

I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe there are any laws in this space.  It's a question of decency and ethics.  

Sharing the letter like this shows poor form unless there was a reason it had to be shared.  I'll assume in this case it did not have to be shared and so the CC acted in poor form.  But, as far as I know there is no rule against being a jerk.  As a result, you're stuck trying to get some putative action taken by the CO (unlikely to happen, but maybe) or the BSA (certainly won't happen).  So I think you're facing an uphill battle here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to deal with a similar situation. Long story short, if a volunteer, or applicant in the case I dealt with, is denied, the council is suppose to send a letter to the COR or IH ( sorry forgot which) who then informs the ineligible volunteer.

Sometimes The IH or COR does not inform the ineligible volunteer, and leaves them hanging. If another volunteer inquires, the council will just tell them Approved or Not Approved.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scoutldr said:

If Council sent the letter to the SM, I would say that was improper, as well.  Should have gone to the IH/COR who owns the unit and approves all adult memberships.  Just my opinion...

The COR shared w SM who shared w committee member...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the committee member the letter was shared with the Committee Chair or just another member?  If it was Council that removed the ASM, then at the very least the Troop's Key 3 needed to be advised, along with the IH (if the COR was not the IH).  Depending on what the accusation was that resulted in the ASM's removal, it may be prudent to advise select committee members of the situation - such as if it was financial impropriety or theft, the Treasurer may need to audit the books.  If the accusation was abuse, then necessary YPT and G2SS precautions will need to be enacted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...