Parent Behavior

[ehweinmann 10]

Quick situation I would like feedback from the group on:

 

I am an ASM and we have a parent (Jack) whose son bridged to our Troop a year ago this last April (along with my younger son - my older son was already in the Troop). The parent makes some of the other parents in the troop uneasy and has really upset one parent (Mike) in particular (an ASM). Several of the parents (female) said that Jack has touched them in a manner that made them feel uncomfortable (e.g., rubbing their backs while licking his lips, lingering over a bra clasp while rubbing a perent's back, lingering a bit too long with a "hello" hug, etc.). Id addition, Jack (did I mention he's an Eagle Scout) physically pulled my son out of a raft during a whitewater rafting trip (in calm water where you could stand up, fortunately during a water gun fight between our two rafts. Jack got out of hand and didn't hurt my son, but he startled him by his actions.

 

The committee decided these actions were inappropriate (I was unhappy that he put his hands on my son, or any Scout for that matter - no other parent did this during the WWR trip) and needed to take action. We confronted Jack and he apologized and said that he didn't know he was touching some of the female parents in a way that made them uncomfortable. He said he is a very affectionate person and expreses that by touching. He also wrote my son and me a letter apologizing for his actions during the WWR trip and that it wouldn't happen again - he realized his actions were inappropriate.

 

The committee decided not to process his application to be an ASM and that he stay away from Troop meetings / activities for at least a year (his son brigded April, 2008, the WWR trip was in June 2008), which he has done.

 

Jack would now like to rejoin troop acivities, but some of the parents aren't comfortable with this (I am satisfied in the situation with my son). Jack has said his son and wife like our Troop and he wants to get more involved and has no intention of leaving. Mike (the upset parent) who is a very active ASM (and whose wife was one of the women Jack touched) has said that if Jack comes back, he will leave the troop (he has a 14 year old son in the Troop and an 18 year old son who just earned his Eagle). The Scoutmaster is siding with Mike saying he doesn't want Mike to leave and would rather have Jack leave since some of the parents are still not comfortable with him around anyway. This situation is making for uncomfortable meetings where Jack is in attendance (Jack hasn't been on an outing yet since his return).

 

We know we have to deal with this, but I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I think Mike is overreacting a bit (but I understand his uneasiness) and would hate to lose him too. I think he would let his son stay in the Troop even if he decides not to participate. We are a fairly small Troop so we need all the good volunreer adult leaders we can get.

 

I'm looking for potential solutions here. I realize we probably won't be able to make both Jack and Mike happy (one or the other will likely have to go, otherwise the tension will get so great it will explode into something bigger which we don't want). Our DC is aware of the situation and isn't offering much help. Our SOR is aware of the situation but is leaving it up to the Troop to decide what the recommended course of action should be. Can the SM remove a parent because that parent makes the other parents uncomfortable, or would that be a committee action (delivered by the CC)? Do we need any sort of Council approval or intervention should we decide to invite the offending parent to leave our Troop?

 

This is new ground for us, so any advice would be great. We need to remove this cloud that is hanging over our Troop so we can get on with the business of Scouting. Thanks in advance for your ideas.

[evmori 11]

I'd tell this "handy" parent thanks but no thanks. There services are not needed and based on the prior incidents not wanted.

 

[scoutldr 732]

"Can the SM remove a parent because that parent makes the other parents uncomfortable, or would that be a committee action (delivered by the CC)? Do we need any sort of Council approval or intervention should we decide to invite the offending parent to leave our Troop?"

 

Adult applications are approved/denied by the Chartered Organization Representative and Committee Chair. Council will generally not get involved unless there are reasons that would preclude BSA membership (avowed gay, atheist or failed the background check). They don't have to give a reason, and there is no appeal, to my knowledge.

 

[Gags 10]

However, looks like the "perp" has already complied with the Troops wishes, and done everything that was asked of him - wrote a letter of apology, apologized to the other adults, stayed away for a year. What's the point of the "punishment" if he's not being accepted back into the group afterward, other than being a power trip for the committee? (See, look what we can do - we made him jump through all these hoops, and the poor sucker doesn't know we're still not going to let him back in).

 

This can LOOSELY be related to a current case before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) - child sex offenders served their full prison terms, but they are not being released. Maybe they should have thought of that before they only gave them 2-5 years?

 

As for Mike - are there deeper issues here? Yes - as a husband, I would not want someone fondling my wifes backsides (ok - maybe that should be singular to avoid implying anything about her weight). But to threaten to pull out of the troop just because he's around at a meeting? Was it really that egregious a violation (borderline "groping"), or is there a jealousy factor that Mike may just have to suck-up and deal with?

 

As for removing a parent - I think you've already handled it properly - that's a Committee role. Unless he's an ASM, the SM can let others issue the "thanks but no thanks" statements.

 

Lastly - it wasn't clear if an apology to the adults was directly given by Jack to the offended parties - if not, that could explain the ongoing uneasiness (and contradict what I mentioned above), and should be placed in the "this would be a good thing to do asap" column.

 

Best of luck with your situation - I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback on this one!

 

Gags

[sandspur 10]

Sounds like a bad situation, but then you knew that.

I am curious why the committee told this guy he had what amount to a one year suspension when it seems that the intent was suspension for life? Now he has done as you asked and you are in an uncomfortable spot.

Would Mike and others bail if Jack participated as a parent but not as an adult leader?

I am conflicted here. On the one hand, what Jack did was so far out of line it is indefensible. On the other hand, he apologized, did his suspension and penance and is trying to participate again, even on probation. So, is Mike simply unwilling to accept the apology and penance?

Can Jack participate on probation? As in: OK, youre back but one strike and youre out? Attend for a year as a parent but not as a leader? Or was the problem too upsetting to the troop for that? If the latter is the case, it is best for all if he stay away permanently and it would have been best, in hindsight, to say so a year ago.

Only your troops adults can decide this one. In the end, do what is best for the troop and the boys, not Jack. If he needs to go, so be it. If the choice is Mike or Jack, I go with Mike based on what you have told us.

 

[sandspur 10]

Actually, there is another problem I should have thought of right away. Jacks son. He has been in the troop for a year now. If his dad is barred, eventually, he will want to know why. By the time he is 16 and a Life scout and dad is never there for him, it will be impossible to avoid.

Can Mike and the others ask themselves what is best for Jacks son?

I might find it hard to forgive Jack for touching my wife, but I would probably be willing to tolerate his presence for the sake of the boy. Might be worth giving him one final chance on that basis. Ask Mike in private.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, welcome to da forums, ehweinmann!

 

I think if yeh all told the fellow he'd serve a 1-year suspension then that's it, eh? Unless there's some new behavior, you're honor-bound to live up to your word. I also dislike folks with long-term grudges myself. A Scout is Kind. If it was serious enough to ban the dad for life, then yeh needed to do it last year so he could have taken his family to a different program. Now that his son has made friends in the troop, doin' an about-face for no good reason just isn't fair. The time for ASM Mike to speak up and demand a harsher penalty was last year. No double jeopardy.

 

Perhaps I'm missin' something, though. To my mind, an adult who pulls/pushes a boy overboard during an ongoing water fight would be something pretty normal. Boys and adults flip each other's canoes around here all the time! And at swim events, one of the favorite things can be Mr. Scoutmaster tossing the younger fellows in the air (or the younger fellows tryin' to sink Mr. Scoutmaster!). Occasionally an adult may misjudge a lad's willingness to participate or fear of the water or whatnot, but I wouldn't consider that an offense that bans the fellow for a year. Was there somethin' else about how he touched your son, or other boys?

 

I also wouldn't ordinarily get my dander up over back rubs. Leastways not until one of the ladies asked him not to and he persisted anyways.

 

So is there somethin' else goin' on here?

 

Dare I ask... is this man different than other folks in the troop? Different race or ethnicity or income level? Could there be some prejudice here by the others that makes 'em interpret what really happened more harshly than they should?

 

Generally speakin', I think a guy who gets a penalty like this then graciously serves out his term is unlikely to be a problem. If he was really in it for anything other than his son he would have pulled out a year ago. And he's done everything right in terms of being surprised, and making apologies and such.

 

Beavah

 

Added:

Can the SM remove a parent because that parent makes the other parents uncomfortable, or would that be a committee action (delivered by the CC)?

 

It should be a committee action, approved by the COR, and if at all possible da IH as well.

 

Do we need any sort of Council approval or intervention should we decide to invite the offending parent to leave our Troop?

 

No, if you have da CO's approval, but you should let the council know. If there is a possible prejudice issue, I think that's somethin' everyone needs to be prepared for. As in what your response is goin' to be if the man shows up in the paper accusing you and your CO of being prejudiced against his [insert ethnicity here] family? "He pushed a kid into the water during a water fight" ain't goin' to cut it.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[ehweinmann 10]

Two things:

 

1) When the committee decided last year to have Jack sit out of Troop meetings / activities for a year, Mike didn't agree (we went with majority rule) and the committee made it clear that the "suspension" was a "minimum" of a year at which time we would reassess. Mike has a strong personality and is pretty much black or white (no gray area with him), so I don't think he is willing to move on (not too Scout like I know). But then, it was his wife that Jack touched, so I might feel the same if it was my wife (though Jack says it was all innocent, so who to believe). My personal feeling is let's give Jack another chance (I have with the WWR situation). Jack did apologize to the Troop parents as a whole since the females who were touched and made to feel uncomfortable didn't want to be named. One female did tell Jack to stop touching her and he did, but then he did the same activity with other females (a total of 5-6 females in the Troop said he had done the same with them).

 

2) My son was pulled over backward into the water from a raft he was sitting in while Jack was standing in the river next to the raft (calm water - waist deep). He wasn't hurt, but was startled since he didn't know it was about to happen (didn't see Jack coming). This was inappropriate and Jack admitted that, so as far as I'm concerned, that matter is closed (unless he does it again on a future trip).

 

The issue is the SM is taking the side of Mike and I can see his point. We'd hate to lose Mike, but that might have to happen and ultimately, our SM too if he gets tweaked enough about this situation (can you say grown men acting like children?) to say the heck with it.

 

I appreciate the responses, and was just curious what folks would do in our situation. We know ultimately it will be up to us and we'll have to decide what to do, but the SM pretty much has his mind made up (he just doesn't want to have to be the one to tell Jack).

 

Ah the fun of Scouting (at least our boys are well behaved, too bad the parents can't take a lead from them)!!!!

 

Thanks for responses to date.

[Beavah 205]

Mike didn't agree (we went with majority rule) and the committee made it clear that the "suspension" was a "minimum" of a year at which time we would reassess.

 

Yah, so Mike had his say, and yeh made a decision. If Mike wants to leave based on that, he should have done so last year.

 

I'm not sure how you would "reassess" a fellow who has been absent and unobserved for a year? Other than by his behavior in handlin' the situation, which by your account has been exemplary.

 

I'm still a bit lost, though. Back rubs and a kid surprised to be tossed in the water on a whitewater rafting trip? There's got to be more to this than just that, eh? If I were your COR and yeh came to me with that for a one-year suspension, I'd think yeh all were loony.

 

Are you sure there's not some prior history or prejudice against this fellow? Is he the only single dad? What does his wife say? Did he perhaps make a pass at Mike's wife?

 

Based on what you're sayin', the only way out to my mind is to go to Jack, explain that Mike's still in a snit, and ask if he'd voluntarily stay away a bit longer to let yeh work on that without creatin' a big to-do. But to be honest, if Jack is willing to accept extending his suspension for the good of the troop, I think ASM Mike is your real problem and should be the one movin' on.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[DeanRx 69]

I tend to side w/ Beavah on this one...

 

1) The guy appologized, to both you and your kid (which at the time it happened he probably thought it was just fun and games... a water fight and a kid gets pulled overboard into waist deep water... WHY was this an issue in the 1st place)? If he got a little rough, then tell him so and move on with life.

 

2) Then the guy makes a general appology to the unit b/c the "offended" women don't want to be named. Well, my first question is: Did these women (including Mike's wife) ask him to STOP and tell them it made them feel uncomfortable at the time the supposed inappropriate "touching" took place? If not - then why the heck was this guy banished for a year? At a minimum the guy should be allowed to KNOW who accused him of what and at least given a chance to defend himself against the accusation. YPG or innapropriate behavoir with any sexual undertones tends to be good fodder for knee-jerk, guilty until proven otherwise type of actions. After all, one wouldn't want to fail to protect the victim(s) in the situation, so one must ASSUME the worst case until shown otherwise.... or instead of looking into the validity, one can just ASSUME the worst and tar-n-feather the offender and ride them out on a rail. A good ol' fashion witch hunt is what it becomes. Not saying that's want happened in this case, but by the OP info given, it certainly sounds that way to the causal observer.

 

3) This guy sits out a year and now wants to come back. He played by the rules set forth by a committee (whether it was fair or not can be debated ad nauseum) that frankly sounds like it was on a witch hunt for a reason to get rid of this guy. How can you with a straight face not allow him back?

 

BTW - he doesn't need to be a different race, creed, or scocio-economic standard than the rest of the unit to go crying "descrimination" to the council and worse yet the local press. All he needs is one other instance in which one adult in the unit did "wrong" by another adult in the unit and the offender was not met with the same punishment metted out for him.... applying a different standard of justice to a like offense by another is enough to get the charge of prejudice leveled at your unit. Hope no one else in the unit has ever touched Mike's wife's shoulders at a unit function... but I forget - sexual harrasment (which is what we are really talking about here) is based on the perception of the victim, not the intent of the offender, right? So if someone else touched Mike's wife's shoulders, but she happens to like that person, then no offensive behavoir has taken place? That's why its paramount that the women involved needed to make it KNOWN that it made them uncomfortable. Jack might be a clod, he might just be a touchy-feely person, he might be a pervert. But if he was asked to sit out 1 year, then why wasn't a police report filed? Why weren't charges pressed? Is it because he's really that big a threat, or just beacose some (or maybe even a majority) in the unit just wanted him to GO AWAY! Now, if the gals involved were to come forward w/ specific issues, dates, times, and the fact that he was TOLD to stop and he didn't, then he should be invited to take an indefinate leave. But thats not how you present it and its obviously not what happened.

 

As for Mike, strong willed or not - he needs to be made to understand the GROUP is more important than one person. He had his say, the committee made a decision, and he can either live by it or go find another unit. Otherwise, not only will you loose Jack and his kid, but you might as well disband your unit committee and just let Mike run the show from now on.

 

As a cubmaster for a pack of over 60 kids, I can tell you the unit leadership and the committee are ALWAYS going to have people that disagree with what you decide. Doesn't matter if its a big issue or a small one, it comes with the turf. However, I would offer Jack a 2nd chance (as he was led to believe he'd be given) and I'd offer Mike the standard answer that I offer to any and ALL sideline Monday morning QB's I deal with in our unit. Which is, "The committee took your thoughts under advisement, but as a committee decided that x,y,z was the best course of action for everyone in the unit. I'm sorry if you feel your concerns have not been adequately addressed, but the committee made the decision, and I as the CM am charged with carrying out the program as designed and directed by the committee."

 

If Jack made a pass at Mike's wife - frankly, its between those two couples to deal with it outside the realm of scouts. If divorced parents can share the room with each other because they understand its for the good of their son's scouting expirience, then these bozo's can share some common public space and still be adults and act accordingly for the good of the unit. Otherwise, you don't want ANY of them involved long term, even if Mike "walks on water" as an ASM.

 

There's no rule that says a scout (or scout parent) must like and get along with EVERYONE in the unit. That's just not real life. Some people you want to hang around, others you meerly tolerate because thats what a decent human does for another human that they can't stand.

 

Let the guy back in. Make it known that any SUBSTANTIATED claim of improper behavoir will get him uninvited for life. At the same time, make sure Mike KNOWS this guy is coming back and that Mike is expected to conduct himself in a scout-like manner, lest he be asked to leave the unit. If they can both play well in the same sandbox, then great. Otherwise - address any future issue (with either party) as a new issue. What's happened in the past has been dealt with and the punishment paid. Live in and deal with the present and future. Period.

 

Good luck, its was the 1/2-hearted attempt (in the 1st place) to deal with the situation by the committee that has placed you guys in this crappy situation. Its not going to be easy to get to closure on it. I'd bet at best you loose one or the other of these families to another unit (likely both of them). The larger issue, is if the issue is allowed to destroy the unit altogether. Its your job as a unit leader to make sure that does NOT happen. Good luck - you'll need it.

[sandspur 10]

Slightly different opinion here:

First, I do not see the WWR incident as a big deal. When I first read it, I thought it was a hamhanded attempt at discipline, not horseplay, but in any event, the parties involved reconciled long ago. Case closed. You and your son are the offended party, you accepted the apology. Mike has no standing to be involved.

Second, I guess I see the backrubs as more indefensible than some of the other posters. Having spent most of my life as a manager and director, I must say that in this day and age any adult, married male who decides to give a backrub to a woman he doesnt know (or know well enough to know how it will be received) is as dense as a post. I find it hard to believe protestations that he didnt know it was wrong. If he was in his 20s and alcohol was involved, maybe it can be put down to youth and stupidity, but that is not the case here. I cannot imagine myself giving an unsolicited backrub to any of the female colleagues in my office. If I did, I would expect to be told in no uncertain terms to cut it out and I am sure there would be no second chances. I have fired people for sexual harassment on the second offense! (The first offense earned them a very uncomfortable half hour in my office)

The OP said several others were uncomfortable, not just Mike so no, there doesnt have to be more to the story. Multiple incidents of touchy feely is enough.

Still I agree that the suspension was given, served, and for the sake of the boys everyone should move on with the program. Mike and the SM should realize they dont need to be friends with every other scouter. But they can get along well enough to support the boys. Some of the scouters I have served with have became friends for life. Others, frankly I dont like on a personal level (I suspect the feeling is mutual) but we dont let that affect the program. As I said previously, Mike needs to be asked to think what is best for the scouts, especially Jacks son. Even having Jack and son move to another troop will be uncomfortable for the lad. Would Mike be willing to tell Jacks son to his face he needs to move troops because his Dad was a jerk a year ago? Of course not! So why do it behind his back? If Mike wont back off after a private discussion of the issue, I would have a committee meeting without Jack and lay the above on the line. I would be very surprised if anyone was willing stand up in the meeting and go against the best interests of a scout. By the way, is it Mike or his wife who holds the grudge?

 

[ScoutNut 147]

Posters seem to be under the impression that what ehweinmann is talking about is a real, honest to goodness, 2-handed back rub.

 

I really doubt that is the case. Granted, we really have no idea what went on, on either side of this.

 

However, to me, it sounds like a case of instead of standing with a hand on your shoulder talking to you, this guy stands with his hand on your back. The "back rubbing" part comes in because his hand is most likely moving a bit. Could be a nervous movement, or just habit, like the back touching. "Lingering over a bra clasp" could be as simple as the fact a bra clasp is centered in the middle of the upper back, right where a hand would go if you were patting someone on the back.

 

Some people just have no sense of personal space. Their personal bubble is nonexistent so they do not recognize when they are infringing on others. While talking to people like this, I have often found myself backing away. I have gone so far as to put a table between us. I also know a few "huggy" people, and some who are into cheek kissing too. I will usually make sure to say hello from a "safe" distance. If I do not know them well, or they get to pushy, I have let them know that they need to back off a bit. There are only a few who are close friends who I will allow to do the huggy/kissy thing.

 

If these women were uncomfortable they should have said something to him then and there. As I understand it, he respected the request of the one who actually did say something to him. So, why couldn't the rest of them have acted like adults and spoken up - to him - too? If they asked, and were ignored, it would be different, but they did not.

 

As for the "licking his lips" thing - What the heck is wrong with you folks? Since when did licking your lips get to be a crime? This comment, more than any other, tells me this was nothing more than a witch hunt.

 

BSA has specified that parents have a right to attend activities when their children are present. There are no closed, or secret, activities. Yet this parent has respected your "suspension" for an entire year. He has missed participating with his son, seeing him grow as a Scout, and watching him be recognized by his peers.

 

I REALLY hope that the righteous people in this Troop did not take out their ire on the son.

 

Grow up, and follow the Scout Oath and Law. The example you are setting the boys in the Troop is not a good one.

[CalicoPenn 729]

I'd be far more concerened about a leader who only see's things in black-and-white rather than in shades of gray, especially if that leader was an ASM who may have to discipline the Scouts.

 

I agree with Beavah - bring Jack aboard, and let Mike make his own decision.

[Lisabob 13]

OK the backrub thing is a little creepy. I have been known to cause pain to men who have tried that sort of thing on me out of the blue and without my permission. Typically it happens only once.

 

But it was a year ago, and he apologized. Take it at face value. Have the committee chair have an unofficial talk with Mike to tell him to back off. And an unofficial talk with Jack to tell him that any untoward behavior in the future will be unacceptable to the unit. And then move on already.

[Vicki 11]

Yep, I'm with Lisabob on this one - women just need to "man up" and stop this "oh, I'm so helpless" c**p. Ask Jack if he'd touch Mike that way and call it a day. My personal opinion, obviously.

 

I also understand the poster's point who said that Jack is obviously as dense as a post to not understand that in today's world, you just don't touch women you don't know really well. How 'bout we just say you don't touch people you know really well? Puts it on a little bit different playing field when you say it that way, doesn't it?

 

OTOH, Jack served the sentence he was given, the offending behavior was between adults, I tend to think he should be allowed another chance. Mike sounds like he might have some "protect the women-folk" issues - back to my first paragraph, there are women out there who take advantage of that perfectly valid instinct, so our society says that it's OK, even taken to an extreme (which this seems to be). Talk to Mike, too.

 

Real world? Jack doesn't stand a chance.

 

Obviously everyone's mileage may vary, I acknowledge that I am widely known as not representative of my gender (hi, Pack!). But there are more of us out there today than there used to be! Obviously Lisabob is one, too.

 

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)