Questions about what is appropriate

[Beavah 205]

Yah, VentureMom, one of the sad things is that the folks who harm or take advantage of kids often do the same sorts of things that the very best mentoring adults do. They treat kids with respect as young adults, they talk to 'em as older friends, they are generous with their time and resources, they build meaningful relationships. They become "family", eh? In fact, the most common molesters are relatives.

 

So it requires some degree of alertness, wisdom, and balance both as a parent and a young person. We don't want to deprive our kids of those meaningful adult relationships with strong mentors; by all accounts they are essential to growing up. At the same time, we want to maintain enough alertness to be able to protect our kids from the very rare but still real possibility of someone being a "bad actor." It sounds like you've done your job in terms of having those hard conversations with your son, and you're stayin' appropriately alert without goin' overboard. That's as it should be.

 

Drop back in and let us know how the conversation goes with the crew advisors after they return. Keep an open mind and stay friendly, but if in the end yeh aren't satisfied please do call the local scout executive and the crew's chartered partner to share your concerns. Sometimes other folks aren't being as alert as a new family, so things go on that shouldn't.

 

Beavah

 

[qwazse 4342]

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT the work of a troll or April Fool's Day joke. I am a REAL mother of a new Venture scout with a REAL problem. ...

 

I believe you're a real mom. You make new-mom mistakes like not calling him a "venturer" and calling his unit a "troop"!

 

This weekend is the start of spring break for lots of youth, so it's the perfect time for a 4 day trip. (Kinda wish my crew had pulled something together.)

 

But, even if you are a very clever troll, the issue isn't that far off the beaten path, and if it saves somebody else grief by us mulling it over here, then of trolls, you would have been of the most helpful variety!

[ScoutNut 147]

>>"a higher-up volunteer leadership position.">"We have decided to wait until he returns and then address this with the appropriate scouting management/leaders."

[Basementdweller 608]

I will be real honest.....

 

I don't care for Older Never been married adult males being involved with my scouts.

 

something just isn't right...

 

 

then havin the crew over at his home.......Now if I was gonna do the gear or food prep thing as some eluded too, I would do it at the CO and not my home.

 

 

It brings many questions to my mind "Danger Will Robinson, Danger"

[GKlose 24]

Sorry to think it was a hoax, but there were so many Youth Protection violations in the original note that it just didn't make sense. The violations, of course, were lack of two-deep, lack of co-ed leadership and non-separate sleeping quarters. Anyone who has been through BSA Youth Protection would know this.

 

On top of that -- I'm not sure about the Venturing program, but in the Boy Scout program there is a youth protection pamphlet that a young Scout is supposed to discuss with his parents. This lets the parent know *exactly* what the BSA youth protection policies are, and hopefully it will help the Scout understand them too.

 

With so many youth protection violations (and a BSA leader is *required* to be trained, and *required* to follow the policies, no grey area at all) I don't really see this as a matter to discuss with the Venturing leader. This is a matter to take straight to the SE.

 

Guy

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Some of the very best scouters I have known have been older, single fellows who got into scouting when they were young and made it their volunteer effort for the community. I also know men who kept up their volunteering for scouting after their boys graduated, or who kept up their volunteering after their divorce and loss of custody, or after their spouse passed on. Sometimes the Scoutin' community and ability to contribute to help someone else's kids helped 'em work through the issues of losing members of their own family.

 

I think we have to be careful about bein' prejudiced about people who have made different life choices or happen to be in different circumstances. Honestly, parents are often the folks who have the least time to give to the program compared to us older folks and the young adults.

 

Not all COs have space available even for meetings, let alone space available after hours some Friday evening to host a get together. My guess is the majority do not. So I don't think there's any particular issue with usin' some scouter or scout family's home to get together. In fact, that's the norm for a lot of Venturing crews.

 

I also don't see "multiple" YP violations, eh? There's a provision within the guidelines for cabin camping / sleepin' on a church floor all in one room, and it's done on a regular basis by crews everywhere. The only issue here is da overnight without da second (female) adult. That is more of a concern, especially for "appearances sake", but apparently an effort was made to ensure no one-on-one was adhered to.

 

So a bad judgment call, with how bad dependin' on whether there was some other stuff goin' on that caused the second adult to cancel at the last minute or somesuch. Certainly somethin' to be alert to that merits some conversations and heightened awareness. I'm not sure it quite merits breakin' out the torches and pitchforks quite yet, though.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[KC9DDI 11]

I don't really see this as a matter to discuss with the Venturing leader. This is a matter to take straight to the SE.

 

I agree that it certainly sounds like the YP guidelines were interpreted far too loosely in this case, if everything reported ends up being true. And it also sounds like there was some other questionable behavior on the part of this particular leader. But I have to wonder what it is you want the SE to do about it? Remember, volunteers don't really "answer" to professional Scouters, even the SE. The council has very limited investigation and enforcement powers. My guess is that, in the absence of a credible indication that a youth may have actually been harmed in the course of this event, the council is just going to punt the issue back to your CO and committee - as they should, really.

 

Part of the YP guidelines read:

 

"Units are responsible for enforcing Youth Protection policies" - emphasis mine. Point is, the burden for making policies compliant with YP, and enforcing those policies, lies with the individual units. So, if I were in your shoes, I'd start with the crew committee in terms of seeking resolution to your concerns. I think you're concerns are completely, 100% spot-on - based on the information posted here, several very important guidelines were ignored. You're well within your rights to expect an explanation and resolution. But I think the best way to do that is to start at the unit level, and work your way up. If the committee chair doesn't respond appropriately, move on to the COR. If he or she blows you off, move on to the IH (that's the Institution Head of your Chartered Organization - might be the pastor of a parish, a president of a social club, etc.) If that still doesn't work, you can then try your luck with professional Scouters.

 

I think it's also important to remember that many people wrongly associate "Youth Protection violation" with "child abuse." YP actually covers much more than abuse situations. Right now it seems pretty clear that YP policies were violated, but there's currently no indication that any type of abuse or other inappropriate behavior occurred, and it's important to remember that. Ignoring YP is most definitely a Bad Idea, a sign of very poor judgement, and a situation that needs to be swiftly addressed and resolved - but it's also important not to treat a technical violation of policy with actual child abuse.

 

 

[qwazse 4342]

KC,

 

Agreed, to a point. The SE may have two resources:

1. the scouter's track record, and

2. CYS on speed dial.

 

If this is the first call ever, the SE may call the COR and raise a concern.

If this is the 5th in as many different units, the SE might demand an investigation. That action would be hard on everybody, but if there was no abuse it is the best way to stop the rumor mill.

 

It is impossible to judge this situation from a distance. But sounds like Mom has a plan that will serve her.

 

In my case, I had to summarize facts in evidence in a letter to my DE. That put an end to false accusations that were fomenting while folks were trying "sweep everything under the rug." Anyone who dared bring up the subject was informed that the matter had been discussed with HQ, we are proceeding according to their recommendation, and you should fill free to call them if you have any evidence requiring further action. And, best of all, I have a smooth running unit again! I only wish folks would have taken the matter to HQ three years earlier.

[Basementdweller 608]

Beavah

 

I know a number of scouters who are widowers or divorcee's......I am not speaking of them.

 

 

 

[Eagle92 110]

I knew of one long term volunteer who never married. I thought he was a widower, but found out at his funeral otherwise. The only time he was not registered with the BSA since becoming a CS way back when, was when he was overseas serving in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Reflecting on conversations with him that I had, and knowing a little about him, I'm willign to bet two things kept him form getting married: love of the Corps and the BSA.

 

I know I had some weird looks and questions arise when as young leader new to an area I looked to join troops. But eventually the folks came to understand why I was involved.

 

Anyway back to the OP. Trust your instincts.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, not to stand in the way of your prejudice there, Basementdweller, but being married doesn't offer a lick of protection against abuse. Just ask the victims of Jerry Sandusky.

 

I often wonder where da people who don't want volunteers for this, that, and the other thing get their leaders from. No single people, no young people, no female scouters, no old folks without kids, on and on. Yeh just took out the majority of the best scouters from da best troops in our council.

 

Beavah

 

 

[GKlose 24]

So I'll go out on a limb here, because life without highly-opinionated people is boring :-)

 

Beav, I think you are so off-base that it isn't funny. You know as well as I do that ignorance (of the rules) is no excuse. Willful ignorance (or disregard) is even worse.

 

I also think you're making an assumption here that wasn't supported by VentureMom: "but apparently an effort was made to ensure no one-on-one was adhered to." Where did that come from?

 

We presumably have a real BSA leader here, right? Required YPT? If so, there is absolutely no excusing the willful disregard of youth protection rules. You can pooh-pooh that all you want, and even chalk it up based on his age, or that it wasn't so bad, or whatever. But it WAS breaking the guidelines -- it WAS a violation of the youth protection guidelines of the crew. And there were two problems that I don't think can be chalked up as one -- there is supposed to be 2-deep leadership (unless this wasn't considered an "outing") and there is supposed to be co-ed leadership for a co-ed crew. BOTH were ignored.

 

I could tell you firsthand stories about a Webelos DL and an ASM -- a lovable old guy, and he was even married, with kids around my age, but something was kind of off -- there were "funny" (strange) incidents, with multiple Scouts. Not covert at all. Guess what? The story eventually ended with molestation of multiple members of a church youth group, and an arrest and trial. I can't recall the disposition -- my faulty memory says a please of no contest and a suspended sentence.

 

I'm sorry, but I take the "protection" part of this seriously. Hence, the strong opinions.

 

Guy

[GKlose 24]

"a please of no contest"?

 

Sorry, I really do know better than that.

 

Sheepish Guy

[Basementdweller 608]

Beavah.....In my local most of the fellows who have not been married and are in their thirties, forties and fifties are ex cons......

 

With all of new sexual offender laws, a large number of these fellows end up in our neighborhoods, most of the suburbs have laws that say a sex offender cannot live with in 1000 feet of a Park or school. So what did they do make sure the grassy center strip on their main roads were designated parks......Guess what that means they can't live anywhere in the burb.

 

 

Difference in urban vs suburban setting I suppose......

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagle92 110]

Base,

 

Understood. WOW.