jkhny

"As strange as it may seem, it IS possible to be in overall support of a country, or organzation, and yet see fault with it that one might want to try to fix. Bringing up those issues shouldn't make someone "the enemy"." Well, that USED to be the case in this country.......but in some quarters you'd be hard pressed to find that sentiment being expressed now..... failed leadership saying we shouldn't be concerned with what's gone wrong - and shouldn't "point fingers" leaders who'll be in charge of the "investigation" into THEIR own behavior..... sounds eerily familiar......... And as another stated, ever notice that those who say don't play "the blame game" are ususlly to blame? And I rather expect THAT sentiment will not be popular here - which shows how BSA has become far TOO limited in who it DOES "include" - "Liberal" chartering organizations have been told to "take it or leave it" and HAVE left. So have individuals who have questioned BSA's stance on "membership." BSA is in danger of becoming a parody of what it once used to be..... If BSA keeps throwing out - or forcing out - anyone who does not "obey" unconditionally, you're going to end up with a far smaller and less successful version of Herr Schirach's organization. ONLY organizations with something to hide resist calls for transparency and openness. And BSA has been MOST resistant to both.

Who wanted more "independent" information? Other independent reports. Note the web site link. Explore away. Ron is quite forthcoming about the situation there - as are other CAC members. Note - Ron was "suspended" from BSA for his efforts fighting this sale. So much for members having any voice in BSA. The Scarlet Sassafras - Special Edition Blast ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ August 30, 2005 - http://scarlet_sassafras.tripod.com Opening Quotes: "A Scout Is Courteous" ... the 5th point of the Scout Law. The third principle of the Scout Oath..."to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight". Something that ALL should be mindful of as they represent Scouting in Chicago. ======================================= WARNING Issued By Chicago Area Council! ======================================= To TSS Subscribers, Dedicated Scouters & Owasippe Loyalists: You may have read or heard about a plan to conduct a picketing protest outside the homes of some Chicago Area Council BSA board members sometime on Labor Day Weekend. I want it to be clearly known that while I support and encourage all to be fearlessly outspoken and to share their opinions and displeasures about the sale and development of Owasippe and the governance of Chicago Area Council, that... > I do NOT condone any participation in activities deemed to be illegal or unscoutlike, > I am NOT leading nor attending any such picketing protest in front of the private homes of board members, > I ask all to REFRAIN from conducting themselves in any manner that would be breaking the law or jeopardizing your membership in the BSA, > I respectfully request you or those you know to ABANDON any notions of conducting said picketing of private homes, AND > I highly recommend that everyone channel their talents, energy and enthusiasm in such a manner that would be in keeping with the letter of the law, that does not interfere with the rights and liberties of others, that is in keeping with our Scouting ideals, and that is positively and productively oriented toward our common cause. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with exercising one's right to free speech and to freedom of assembly under the letter of the law as was previously conducted last September 4th and on another later date in front of the Scout service center at 1218 W Adams. Proper protest permits were applied for and granted and we conducted our rally in front of a business establishment on "public" rights of way and in keeping with conduct and behavior commensurate with the Scout Oath and Law. You should never be ashamed to speak your mind, to stand up for what you believe in, and to join in any cause for the good of our Scouts and for a fair and democratic process in CAC that respects the will of its frontline Scouters and their chartered institutions. I have recently received a written warning by the legal counsel of Chicago Area Council, Louis Vitullo, and I now share that with you below along with a copy of an Illinois statute that he referenced. While I'm not an attorney and unable to ascertain the current validity of this statute, I think all of you should conduct yourselves on the side of caution and assume that the below referenced statute is still active and inforce. I know that many have legitimate grievances and may feel wronged and disenfranchised from council governance, but this doesn't grant anyone the right to do something immoral and illegal. I've always been taught that two wrongs don't make a right! So, behave yourselves as good and responsible Scouters, stay away from these homes, and do the right thing by your Scouts! -------------------------------------------------------------------- August 25 Letter from Louis Vitullo, Legal Counsel for CAC... "Dear Mr Kulak: I have reviewed your recent emails regarding the proposed activities on Labor Day, September 5, 2005, involving Lewis Greenblatt, James Stone, Mark Linse and Dennis Chookaszian. From the description in the email, it appears you are organizing a picketing activity at the residences of these individuals, and further that it is being organized as a scouting event." "Please be advised that the activities that you contemplate constitute a criminal offense for yourself and all participants under Article 21.1 of the Criminal Code of the State of Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/21.1-1, et seq. (See Enclosure No. 2). Specifically, residential picketing is a Class B Misdemeanor which is punishable by imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not to exceed $1,500.00. We will be notifying the appropriate law enforcement officials of your proposed illegal activity and should you choose to proceed, we will seek criminal sanctions to the fullest extent of the law. We sincerely hope this will not be necessary." ~ Louis P Vitullo CAC Legal Counsel to the Board Wildman Harrold, Attorneys and Counselors ------------------------------------------------------------------- & -------------------------------------------------------------------- Illinois Compiled Statutes: Criminal Offenses (720 ILCS 5/) - Criminal Code of 1961. Article 21.1. RESIDENTIAL PICKETING ** (720 ILCS 5/21.1-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 21.1-1) Sec. 21.1-1. Legislative finding and declaration. The Legislature finds and declares that men in a free society have the right to quiet enjoyment of their homes; that the stability of community and family life cannot be maintained unless the right to privacy and a sense of security and peace in the home are respected and encouraged; that residential picketing, however just the cause inspiring it, disrupts home, family and communal life; that residential picketing is inappropriate in our society, where the jealously guarded rights of free speech and assembly have always been associated with the respect for the rights of others. For these reasons the Legislature finds and declares this Article to be necessary. (Source: Laws 1967, p. 940.) ** (720 ILCS 5/21.1-2) (from Ch.38, par. 21.1-2) Sec. 21.1-2. It is unlawful to picket before or about the residence or dwelling of any person, except when the residence or dwelling is used as a place of business. However, this Article does not apply to a person peacefully picketing his own residence or dwelling and does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of the place of holding a meeting or assembly on premises commonly used to discuss subjects of general public interest. (Source: P.A. 81-1270.) ** (720 ilcs 5/21.1-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21.1-3) Sec. 21.1-3. Sentence. Violation of Section 21.1-2 is a Class B misdemeanor. (Source: P.A. 77-2638.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- When all else fails, you can't go wrong if you always follow the Scout Oath and Law. My personal favorite is the first law, "TRUSTWORTHY"! FYI...I have respectfully responded to Mr Vitullo and to those whom he copied with his correspondence. Have a GREAT Scouting Year with your units, and a joyful and peaceful Labor Day weekend with your loved ones, ~ Ron Kulak Lachawelendamen Lenape, ...Suspended and spurned but not silent ================================================================ OWASIPPE PROSPECTIVE BUYER MAKES HIS COMMENTS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ================================================================ August 24, 2005 - OOEC Responds to Benjamin Smith's Letter - via www.ooec.org Two weeks after comments by the President of the Chicago Area Council in a Letter to the Editor of the White Lake Beacon, prospective developer Benjamin A. Smith III has used the same forum to make public comment about the pending rezoning and sale of Owasippe. Mr Smith commented that since his purchase offer was made area residents have continued to enjoy the beautiful forests, meadows, lakes and other areas that make this (Owasippe) such a magical location. He also acknowledges Some area residents have also used these intervening months to tellwhy they dont want to see changes in the property. Ben Smith offers assurance that it is my intention of preserving as much of this beautiful acreage in its current condition as feasible. My motivation in purchasing this property was not driven by a profit motive, but rather by an appreciation for the beauty and serenity of this property. The Owasippe Outdoor Education Center observes that Mr. Smith proposed his $19-million+ purchase to be contingent on the Blue Lake Township approval of the Chicago Council of Boy Scouts rezoning proposal. That rezoning proposal was submitted a half-year before Mr. Smiths offer and OOEC believes Mr. Smith was aware of the details of the rezoning request and stands squarely behind the Council and the proposal. The zoning proposal is that 90% of Owasippe would become residential housing while 10% would be preserved. OOEC notes that the vast majority of the land to be preserved is wetlands that by law could not be disturbed. The single minor preservation concession of the rezoning is 41 acres to assist in the preservation of the Karner Blue Butterfly. Mr. Smith asks that the residents of Blue Lake Township look at the track record of the Chicago Area Council concerning their commitment to the property and the stewardship that has been demonstrated. OOEC agrees that a close look is in order. Until the 1980s Owasippe was a property of more than 12,000 acres. The current rezoning proposal is the final disposal by the Chicago Council of their land holdings in West Michigan. One needs to just look west and south at the 8,000+ acres already sold in order to realize what is planned for the remainder of Owasippe. We believe that even the folks now living on former Owasippe property are saying.ENOUGH! OOEC recognizes the personal and professional background that Mr. Smith presented in his letter. However, we do have reservations about just how three decades of civic and business activities in the dramatic development of the City of Holland transfers to the rural character of Blue Lake Township. We observe that the revitalization of downtown Muskegon seems to be a bit more in line with the experience and interests of Mr. Smith. It would take a huge, and we believe unwarranted leap of faith by local residents, to bridge the gap between the Ben Smith comments about preservation and natural set asides and the proposal presented to Blue Lake Township by the Chicago Boy Scouts. This is the very zoning approval that Mr. Smith has made his $19-million+ purchase agreement contingent upon. As we commented earlier this month about the letter from the Council President, Blue Lake Township officials can only respond to what has been presented to them. We fully support the idea that whats on paper and being asked for by the Chicago Scouts is the true future proposed for Blue Lake Township. We steadfastly encourage that no residential development become a part of the designated camping land that is the deep rooted character of Blue Lake Township. Troubling to the OOEC is what seems to be saber rattling from Mr. Smith. We read the following as a threat to the community that is in the process of reviewing its future: the longer and more costly the process of getting the property returned to its former zoning, the more the property will have to be developed. If our investors grow weary of this process, there are others who are willing to step in and I can assure you they will not have the same attitude we have. OOEC and many residents are growing weary of the misrepresentations and pleadings that the Council is a victim of rezoning. The facts do not support these pleadings by the Chicago Council and Mr. Smith. Jim Schlichting OOEC Development Director ======================================== Camp Sauger Lake & Some Turkey Feathers ======================================== Gordon Zion is quoted on page... http://scarlet_sassafras.tripod.com/id16.html as saying, Zion commented on the efforts to save Owasippe: "By way of introduction, I was a professional with the CAC for nine years and a camp director at Owasippe for two (ie. Wolverine North in 1969 and Sauger Lake in its inaugural year of 1970)." Well, I love you for what you do, Gordy, but Sauger Lakes charter year was 1969, not 1970, and Charlie Largent was Camp Director that year. I know, I was on staff at Sauger Lake that year and have the staff picture and the Charter Year patch to prove it (for a picture of that patch, see http://campimages.com/4image/details.php?image_id=7219 and note the year embroidered into the side of the tent). I was waterfront staff and taught rowing and canoeing, mostly. Took my Troop (Troop 69, Des Plaines Valley Council) to Wolverine this year (session 6, site 7), and walked around Sauger Lake (cant quite bring myself to call it Camp Carlen). I walked the loop, checked out the abandoned program areas. The camp is still in use, though; there were two Venture Crews in it, and the kybos have HOT WATER HEATERS! Good Lord! Wish wed had that when I was there. Theres been some changes, but other spots look as they always have. And I was rewarded with a 14 turkey feather that I found and which will be in my hat for a while. ~ Ron Fox ============================================= More Animal Stories From The OSR Hinterlands ============================================= Dateline...First Period 2005 Dateline: First Period 2005 Wolverine Site 5 We all know that keeping food in your tent is an invitation to visits by critters. That apparently includes small packages of TUMS accidentally left in the scoutmaster's toiletry kit. I awoke one night to the sound of grunts and scratching - coming from inside my tent. The animal making these unearthly noises must have been one of the largest raccoons to ever walk the planet - I'm guessing here since I didn't have my glasses on. I stirred, and the beast stopped briefly before continuing it's effort to get at the small morsel in my bag. Finally it lumbered away after more animated movement and noise from me. I related this brush with nature to my scouts, who now know that we are serious when we say "no food in tents." If that isn't enough, an hour or two after the middle-of-the-night visit, a massive raccoon battle took place just outside of our campsite. Since I was already sleeping with one eye open to defend against another raid of my tent, I was the only one to hear any of it. The battle opened with much rustling and some grunts. The rustling and grunts intensified and were accompanied by shrieks and screams. This went on for several minutes and must have involved several animals. It ended with one loud shriek and the defeated scurrying away, alive to fight another day. Edward J Gorz, SM, CAC T-471 ==================================== 4.2% of Scouts Now Make It To Eagle ==================================== - - - previously it was known to be 2% From the 2004 Annual Report of the BSA As of Dec 31, 2004: 988,995 are in Boy Scouting 50,377 earned the Eagle Award The percent then, by simple arithmetic, is 50,377/988,995 x 100% = 5.1% However, there are 250,584 in Venturing as of Dec 31, 2004 If you do the calculation: (50,377 / (988,995 + 250,584)) x 100% = 4.06% Whatever the percentage is Nationally, what really counts is that each boy in Scouting has an excellent experience with the BSA Advancement method. ========================================= Urban Scout Effort Draws Fire in Atlanta! ========================================= August 15, 2005 - www.Boston.com "BLAIRSVILLE, Ga. -- There are towering pines, shimmering lakes, bike trails, target shooting, and cookouts. For Julian White, a Boy Scout camp in the north Georgia mountains seems to be a world away from his life on the streets of Atlanta." To see this story in its entirety, click on the link below or cut and paste it into a Web browser: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/15/urban_scout_effort_draws_fire_in_atlanta/ ===================================================================== Closing Quotes: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "Dissent does not include the freedom to destroy the system of law which guarantees freedom to speak, assemble and march in protest. Dissent is not anarchy." ~ Seymour F Simon ==================================================================== ============================================= *** WHAZZUP? IMPORTANT OSR DATES - 2005 *** ============================================= * August 29, Monday...You have one week to get your board nominations in to the CAC Nominations Committee. Please do so! And what was wrong with the board nominations submitted for the May 5th Slate? * September 5, Monday... Nominations due for CAC members at large, board members, & executive officers with profiles to CAC Nominations Committee Chrmn Dennis Chookaszian at 1218 W Adams St, Chicago. * September 16-19... Owasippe Fall Fixit sponsored by the Owasippe Staff Association. More info at http://www.Owasippe.com. * October 5, Wednesday... Reconvened Chicago Area Council annual meeting for the purpose of voting on five slates of executive officers, board members and members at large. ALL voting members of CAC are highly encouraged to attend and to VOTE their conscience for the good of their Scouting programs!!! Chartered Org Reps and Members at Large should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to be there to vote. * November 25, Friday... Owasippalooza at European Chalet Banquet Hall. Info to follow (formerly known as OSA Pizza Night Rendezvous). * November 26, Saturday... tentative opening day for Owasippe Staff interviews. Location and time TBA. * June 25, 2006... Owasippe's 1st Period opens for its 95th Anniversary Season. Site reservations now being taken. Staff applications now gladly accepted. ====================================================== COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, IDEAS, OPINIONS, CRITICISM, KUDOS ====================================================== The Scarlet Sassafras Blast and Website are private publications and reports and opinions contained therein are not necessarily views shared by this publisher, the Owasippe Staff Association, Owasippe Outdoor Education Center, Chicago Area Council, and the Boy Scouts of America...the latter of which have no direct affiliation to this publication and its related website. If you no longer want to get this periodic bulletin on Owasippe, just e-mail me back at Owasiron@juno.com and type "REMOVE" in the subject if you wish to be taken off of the broadcast list. No hard feelings. >>>-----> Number of subscribers to this edition = 1,175. Help spread the word and forward this bulletin to your friends and family who don't yet directly subscribe. >>> The Scarlet Sassafras, Owasippe's E-zine and "Unwebsite"

BW must have someone screening news reports so he can avoid reading anything that doesn't fit with his view of things. According to BW...."REMEMBER jhnky creates his own facts even when they do not appear in his "supporting" material. "below noted that Smith was "placed on leave" by BSA when the FBI informed BSA they were investigating him for distributing child porn" Nowhere does his article state that. " Did I not cut and paste everything? sorry.....does BW expect to be spoon fed? Somehow he missed what EVERY news report at the time was reporting?????? Smith was PUT on leave BECAUSE OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. That ALONE would have been grounds for IMMEDIATE "firing" of a volunteer - IMMEDIATE revocation of his registration. Blind defense or semantics based "justifications" do NOT help BSA - they only make my point - that change is NEEDED in BSA. Below from CNN - one report of MANY and the first to surface on a search. There are far more. "Ex-Boy Scout official faces child porn charges Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Posted: 11:30 PM EST (0430 GMT) Douglas S. Smith Jr. DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- A former top official of the Boy Scouts of America faces federal Internet child pornography charges and is expected to plead guilty Wednesday, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office said. Douglas S. Smith Jr. faces a single count of receiving and distributing child pornography -- a charge resulting from a federal investigation conducted with German authorities. The U.S. attorney's office in Fort Worth, Texas, filed the charges after federal investigators found images of children engaging in sex acts on Smith's computer. Smith is scheduled to appear before a federal judge Wednesday in Fort Worth, said Kathy Colvin, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office. "We anticipate Mr. Smith will enter a guilty plea at that time," she said. Smith retired from the Boy Scouts in February after a 39-year career with the youth organization, based in suburban Dallas. The organization placed him on administrative leave after learning that he was under criminal investigation, and Smith stepped down soon afterward, BSA spokesman Greg Shields said............more"

"jkhny, if you spent half the time delivering a quality Scouting program to your boys instead of finding fault with councils across the nation and bad mouthing the program from one end to the other, you would be much better off. " Actually our SE would LOVE for me to simply quit Scouting.....he was rather perturbed that one of my $1000 donations went directly to a TROOP instead of FOS (and that's only one of a few). LOCAL Scouters are rather happy I'm STILL involved, as are the kids. But BSA would rather DRIVE good people OUT of Scouting than respond to their questions and criticisms. Look at the decline in adult volunteers in Scouting. BSA simply doesn't "get" it. I'm more worried about BSA simply surviving. It may not make it through another national level scandal. I may not have a Scouting program to participate in if all these issues hit the fan. But even if a single incident doesn't provide that "catalyst" - BSA is STILL FAILING. NO MATTER WHAT you want to say or believe, BSA membership has been DECLINING at an accelerating and non-stop rate. NOTHING that current leadership has done is stopping that - if anything they have made the situation WORSE by an endless focus on numbers (resulting in further fraud) instead of determining what is wrong and FIXING it. THAT applies to MY local Council - which a limited tenure "professional" is trashing - driving out voluntreers with decades of service and lying about "numbers" AND to National.

"Incompetence would mean rushing to the wrong city in a different state, unless that is the reason they were so late." Like telling Charleston SOUTH CAROLINA to expect a plane full of people needing medical attention.......and leaving that city's ambulances, hospitals and MD's on standby while the plane lands in Charleston WEST VIRGINIA? FEMA has been gutted and filled with incompetent political appointees. Sometimes Bureaucracies are better run by bureaucrats instead of Arabian Horse breeders. EVERYONE knew there were issues with levees in N.O. Yet the $40 million allocated years ago for work was defunded (while the new highway bill allocates over $200 million for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska). Years back - BEFORE 9./11 - the three biggest "catastrophes" that could be expected in the US were defined as 1) SF earthquake, 2) NY terrorist attack and 3) New Orleans Hurricane. So much for "Be Prepared". The Netherlands has coped with a situation as "problematic" if not MORE so than New Orleans for the last 50 years. The floods from storms in 1953 resulted in a comprehensive effort to MAKE SURE this problem would NOT happen again. I sure hope we don't see a major terrorist attack in NY or SF earthquake. "Planning" seems to be a real weakness with our current government. Anyone else find it odd that the 82nd Airborne is in MS and LA while the MSNG and LANG is in Iraq? Seems kinda backwards.

"Some have protested that they were required to fabricate the enrollment numbers by the very supervisors who are inducing them to sign the fraud statements. This issue directly hits to the heart of the matter. To what extent will this problem be contained as the work of lower level staff in Atlanta? And to what extent will the higher level staff and the national Boy Scout organization accept responsibility? This is a matter of integrity in Scouting and a likely concern to active volunteers everywhere. This problem is not limited to Atlanta. Why is it so widespread and will it be stopped?" INTEGRITY - THAT is the HEART of the MATTER One more cover-up or a REAL effort to fix things? A careful read - and further investigations of other reports makes clear what is happening here. Those close to the situation do NOT have great faith this is being handled WITH INTEGRITY. The points noted are valid - who is "disadvantaged" and what are the REAL counts. CLEAR, transparent and open answers have NOT been provided. BSA goes to great lengths to say "we're fixing things" but won't say "how" or what's being done or even what the parameters for measuring participation are. TRANSPARENCY and OPENNESS are needed if BSA really wants to make this "right". This is still murky and dark.

The sad thing is that you're never going to hear "complaints" about alot of these issues - like Smith. The people that reacted negatively to it simply will not go near BSA. Anyone hear the rant on Fox by Greta Von Whatever the day that story broke?...and this was FOX the all-American network.....She was screaming over how could BSA let a pervert be in charge of Youth Protection. How many people that MIGHT have been interested in Scouting decided - "no....I don't think so" after that? As far as Owasippe, most Scouters don't have a clue that is happening - unless their own Council is selling more property off....they start looking and stumble across that. BSA seems to forget that NOTHING is "local" anymore.... Scouters DO get fed up with sales and the way they are handled......THOSE issues drive SUPPORTERS out of Scouting - especially when they see how impossible it is to be heard. Those that THOUGHT they really did have a voice in Scouting see they don't. Nothing like disillusioning a "true believer" The fact is - like it or not, BSA has been failing to act as the "pillar" of ethical and moral behavior it claims to be. THAT hurts. It staked out the high ground on "character" - making its failures pretty visible (Just as when your motto is "Be Prepared" it's pretty embarrassing when you're NOT. The Jamboree id dNOT reassure people about Scouting, but then you're not going to hear it from people that won't be coming to your open house.) BS has already driven away a large part of its potential base with its stance on some issues. We lost some GOOD leaders over the gay issue - not ambivilent parents who were reluctant leaders but truly involved and "moral" people who felt they could not remain involved in BSA. Some pretty vocal supporters of the BSA stance are rarely seen at ANY meetings or activities. BSA has lost whole denominations over that issue (though some would argue it would lose others if it took a different stance - I wonder.) One cannot help but wonder if BSA is becoming more and more "conservative"? Look at the thread on "creationism". Many people will look at that and go - this is not me. BSA is NOW viewed as "exclusionary" - like it or not. The BSA of MY youth was INCLUSIVE - the ONLY organization for boys that had a wide spectrum of kids - smart, athletic, "skaters" even "heads" - it was amazing. There was no concern about any of the kids who were a bit "different" - we were ALL Scouts. The few that turned out gay later in life were of less concern that the "perverts" that were always talking about sex (and ignorant beyond belief). Our SM would periodically shut them down with "This is NOT appropriate in Scouting." We ven had a few - gasp - "liberals" who ended up lawyers, one is even in the ACLU. His kids aren't Scouts. Few of those I knew in Scouts have kids in BSA now. Yet the conservative and truly "regligious" - who take their "ethical and moral" behavior seriously are "disturbed" by what they see in BSA as well. Well paid professionals lying about acomplishments who are NOT held accountable for their bad behavior. Paid professionals who cover up abuse. NO amount of letters saying "Your child will be safe at Scout Camp" will offset the headlines reporting the FOURTH pedophile who'd been active in that Council's Scouting program. Some Councils NEVER recovered from abuse scandals decades ago. Old dedicated Scouters (and how many Council Scouters are well over 60, with no replacements in sight?) are unhappy with professionals who talk ceaselessly about "numbers" and money instead of "boys." Former Scouts aren't donating money when you've sold off THEIR memories. And "marketing" BSA in any way just to get kids in the door does not KEEP them in Scouting if you don't have quality leaders who care about Scouting and do a good job - even if the "numbers" look good at year end. The reality is you 're NOT going to hear concerns from those who decide NOT to become involved in Scouting. The rather "incomplete" explantions provided by BSA do NOT allay the concerns expressed by the few willing to voice their thoughts. At the same point, the dedicated Scouters that try to raise these issues are far too often given the simple ultimatum - "If you don't like it, leave" (and isn't that BW's pov?) - and that is JUST what many ARE doing. Far more remain involved IN SPITE of what they see - ONLY on a Unit level, avoiding ANYTHING in BSA above that level. THAT is happening here, with a massive collapse of support at the Council level. But even Unit Leaders are growing tired of the "games" with numbers and lack of support and simply walking away. As for the McDonalds analogy...... LBP came up with the structure of a "program" - the outlines of a "movement". Those practicing "Scouting" here were VOLUNTEERS who looked to provide a structure for serving and supporting THEIR efforts. THAT is the genesis of BSA. But BSA Inc. - the corporate "parent" is not doing a great job SERVING Scouting and those IN Scouting. To use your analogy, it is as if a number of burger stands following the same basic premise - coming from a shared "heritage" saw an advantage to sharing resources. They "standardized" and formed a "co-operative" parent organization to do purchasing, store design and marketing. Only now they find that those in the organization that is supposed to be HELPING them is doing quite the opposite. Those in "corporate" would not exist if nobody was selling burgers. That is THEIR reason for existing. Yet "corporate" thinks they "know best" and are now pushing Sushi more than burgers......instead of serving and supporting the burger stands, it is DICTATING to them - and not doing a very good job in providing the service and support they need. Long time customers are walking away. The quality of the food is declining - it's not what it used to be. Hungry new customers coming in for a good burger are finding overcooked tasteless shoe leather with counter help more concerned with raw fish (LFL). They won't be coming back. Yet the corporate parent is touting success by counting people coming in to use the rest rooms and saying "traffic is up." They reward themselves with large raises, even though business is tanking, stores are folding and employees quitting. That scandal about e-coli in the last shipment of beef won't have any long lasting effects. The place in Wisconsin that blew up because of a gas leak won't hurt business - only a couple customers died. We keep running out of fries, but it really doesn't matter if we give them chips instead. After all that's what "corporate" says to do. Some Scouters view BSA as an organization that volunteers are supposed to blindly OBEY. Others see BSA as an organization that is supposed to serve and support THEIR efforts in providing Scouting. Dictatorial and autocratic organizations rarely work well even when their "workforce" or "customers" are captive - even with a core of dedicated "true believers". Eventually they fail or become so small as to be irrelevant to most potential customers. Organizations that listen to their "workers" run far better and are far more effective. Companies that are responsive to their "customers" thrive. Simple concept. My elementary school kid gets it.

From: http://www.boyscoutsfortruth.com/ "There is apparently a serious effort underway to assess the condition of Atlanta's inner city scouting program. The rolls have been cleaned and procedures put in place to ensure that all enrollments will have the endorsement of a unit leader. Two key questions remain: 1. The cleaning of the rolls begs a question - how many of these real registrations are legitimate "Operation First Class" members? What is the standard for a "disadvantaged" scout? What is the standard for a "real scout program"? How many "disadvantaged scouts" are participating in a "real scout program"? That would be the real number. 2. The fallout from the fraudulent enrollment scheme is now slowly finding its way to the surface. Who will be held responsible and why? Lower level African American employees have been asked to sign statements admitting fraud. Some have apparently signed but others have refused. Some have protested that they were required to fabricate the enrollment numbers by the very supervisors who are inducing them to sign the fraud statements. This issue directly hits to the heart of the matter. To what extent will this problem be contained as the work of lower level staff in Atlanta? And to what extent will the higher level staff and the national Boy Scout organization accept responsibility? This is a matter of integrity in Scouting and a likely concern to active volunteers everywhere. This problem is not limited to Atlanta. Why is it so widespread and will it be stopped?" The issues cited are serious and raise questions about just how committed BSA is about being OPEN and TRANSPARENT about what happened here and what is being done to prevent it from occurring again. Why have those directly involved in raising these issues been EXCLUDED from the task force charged with "fixing" problems in Atlanta? BSA has yet to directly answer charges that current enrollments are NOT the 5000 cited by BSA's audit (3400 "active") but less than 500. The present effort seems less than complete and genuine and is leading others to ask "whitewash?"

"Ignoring Prairie Scouter's jab at Chicago politics, and assuming he's correct about CAC, my take on this and jkhny's frustration is that CAC has taken liberties with "Trustworthy" and if the higher levels of BSA ignore this, they are silently condoning it. Is this about right or have I oversimplified it? " Exactly - and this is a case where members in a Council HAVE managed to follow all the rules and organize COR's to vote leadership out. Unless you have undergone this, you have no idea how hard it actually IS to do this. It is near impossible. It was tried here. Our SE and his handpicked Board have made a mess of Scouting here and are lying about numbers. Any that press these issues are removed or marginalized. An "Executive Committee" acts in lieu of the full Executive Board - just as in Chicago. But Chicago clearly shows, despite BSA's claims about being a "representative democracy" and "listening to its members" and "having procedures for input" these are all simply words. This has happened in varying degrees in other Councils - Chicago is simply the most extreme example. Quite simply, WHY does BSA allow this to occur? BSA National can revoke a Council's charter for malfeasance and failures to follow bylaws. It has threatened to do so over Councils that took "different" stands on membership criteria. Why does it ignore serious failures and problems. Complaints registered wit National by senior Scouters here have been answered with "It's a local problem." This is the same answere Scouters heard when raising the very same complaints about this SE in his previous Council. So, why does BSA ignore problems like Chicago where Council Leadership is NOT following bylaws, why does it allow leadership to remain in place in Alabama where Council leadership has yet to "explain" the membership overstatement there and the whistleblower was thrown out? Why does BSA conveniently ignore its own rules and regulations in these another cases?

"Look, just because you have an opinion it doesn't have anything to do with real life. An employer cannot punnish someone for being investigated. Ever hear of innocent till proven guilty?" BSA hasn't. Ever read "Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Measurement?" Ever even SEEN a copy? But Smith WAS guilty. (and St. Jean was not - of anything illegal) "Smith was put on paid leave. Then he chose to retire BEFORE any charges were announced. An employer, even the BSA, cannot refuse him retirement when at the time there was no known impropriety" BSA was informed that Smith was UNDER INVESTIGATION for distribution of Child Pornogaphy (That ALONE was a reason to fire him under "Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Membership" - hard "proof" is not needed and being blunt, an FBI "investigation" is pretty strong evidence that something is wrong). The "impropriety" was KNOWN - it is WHY Smith was placed "on leave." And, as noted, Smith WAS guilty. He pled guilty. NO attempt was made to fight the charges. MANY, MANY organizations - private and public - have caught flak for letting people under investigation for criminal acts "retire" under circumstances that allow them to collect benefits. Once made public, those circumstances are "reevaluated" and those that had "retired" found themselves terminated. Employers HAVE managed to fire people under similar circumstances and deny them benefits but let's ignore that. If BSA does NOT have provisions for FIRING people under these circumstances (instead of ALLOWING them to retire), WHY NOT? Now, let's ignore Smith. Please explain how Mr. Hansen in Grand Teton remains in HIS job. He (among others) ignored credible reports that Brad Stowell had a history of abusing boys. Over two dozen were abused by Mr. Stowell after BSA received these warnings. Years earlier in a separate case Mr. Hansen heard directly from a 15 year old that he had been raped by adult at Camp (who was brandishing a gun). Mr. Hansen did NOT take the actions specified by BSA, did NOT report THAT incident to authorities and actually told this 15 year old that he was expected to "get along" with people at camp.......That 15 year old was terrified and felt his life threatened and left camp and Scouting. All this is documented in court documents and Idaho Falls Post-Register reports - including a letter from the second mentioned victim. Mr. Hansen has not denied these reports and hasd pointedly refused to answer ANY questions on these incidents. Notably the official statement issued by Grand Teton Council "disatppeared" when unsealed court documents showed that their claims about handling the Stowell case properly and on a timely basis were patently false. Why is Hansen still employed by BSA? BSA HAS failed to act appropriately when paid professionals have NOT followed "youth Protection" guidelines. Like it or not, the public looks at Smith and Hansen and others and wonders "What is going on in BSA?" ANY "defense" of BSA's inaction only fuels the doubts and suspicions that parents feel about BSA's committment to "protecting" boys. Recurring headlines about new abuse cases reinforce those doubts. Like it or not, BSA's "Youth Protection" program is failing too frequently. Isn't it time to reexamine what is going on there? And if professionals are not FIRED for ignoring "Youth Protection" is there any incentive to follow even the procedures that exist? And THAT in its simplest sense is what this thread is about. BSA and its leaders failing to follow clear procedures and rules with the results reflecting poorly on BSA and Scouting. The leaders in Chicago are refusing to leave and changing rules and bylaws as THEY see fit to remain in power - though the LEGALLY DEFINED POWERS AND REPRESENTATIVES THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEM OUT have refused to approve these leaders and have been denied their right to choose representatives they want. HOWEVER you try to semantically weasel around things the truth is that the leadership in Chicago has been voted OUT - those with the power to do so do NOT want them remaining in leadership positions. Yet the current leadership has said - clearly and unmistakenly that they do not care what the rules and bylaws say - they are NOT leaving and will change the bylaws if necessary to allow this to occur. BSA makes a point of saying "As a private organization, the BSA conducts its affairs according to its charter, articles of incorporation, and bylaws." Well, the LEADERSHIP - THE EXECUTIVE BOARD - in Chicago are NOT doing so. It's THAT simple. BSA National is refusing to do anything - it HAS the power to revoke this Council's charter and let the membership there (or rather the duly empowered representatives) elect new leadership. Why isn't National doing so? Does it have anything to do with Chookaszian being the former National Head of Learning for Life? So again, what do you do when Council Leadership is refusing to follow BSA rules, procedures, bylaws, et. al.? complaining to the leadership clearly doesn't work.

"As Smith's employer on what grounds would you fire him, when he had not been charged with any crime, and when once he was charged he no longer was an employee? " ANY BSA employee or volunteer involved in activities involving child abuse or child pornography or illegal acts of any kind (especially that reflect on his position in an organization that deals with youth) should be subject to TERMINATION. (Do you disagree with that?) Smith SHOULD have been put on "suspension" pending outcome of charges - since the FBI made clear they had substantial evidence of wrongdoing and had an investigation underway. Once "suspended" Smith should not have HAD the "option" to "quit" or retire. He should have been in an intermediate disciplinary holding state pending the outcome of expected legal charges. Having pled guilty, Smith should have been FIRED. The far more appropriate question is WHY DID BSA LET HIM "RESIGN?" Other companies have denied retirement benefits to employees who have committed illegal acts. Like it or not, many people see BSA letting a now convicted distributor of child porn take the "easy" way out of BSA - a way that let him collect benefits (and they wonder just why BSA let this happen). And what CRIME was St. Jean charged with? What was the legal justification for HIS termination? And if BSA can terminate ANY person for any reason (which I expect will be your argument), why didn't they terminate Smith as oon as the FBI informed BSA about their investigation? And why is the SE in Grand Teton still an amployee of BSA after failing to report child abuse in two separate cases? THAT is a violation of BSA procedures and Local law.....THAT sure doesn't make parents feel that BSA puts child safety high on their priority list. Checked recent headlines? amazing how the abuse cases keep coming...Why is that? Is it possible that BSA policies have driven many qualified leaders away from BSA - to the point where many units will take volunteers without looking too closely at their motivations or qualifications? OF COURSE it's the Chartered Organization that's at fault here - though many pay attention to BSA ONLY once a year when they sign charter renewals. Not in accordance with BSA policy? Well, it's reality. Funny how some people will find reasons to justify anything and NEVER even question things that so many other people see as being so very wrong. There is a reason most people simply "give up" trying to deal with the hypocrisy in BSA and simply leave. But some downwind wonder what the godawful smell is, look closer and try to get problems fixed. Some refuse to be party to clear wrongdoing and bring in outside authorities. But others blindly ignore the stench and go "What smell?" They don't smell anything. They are later Shocked! - absolutely OUTRAGED! - when it becomes clear what was going on. They NEVER saw signs of problems, NEVER had any reason to believe anything was wrong.....they never thought that those "troublemakers" they ignored may have had real concerns....all those news reports didn't apply to THEIR Council...... About Alabama, Atlanta, Florida..........the ACLU must be real busy making BSA look so bad.....are all the volunteers going to the media about membership fraud secret ACLU operatives? Sometime the most vehement "defenders" of BSA make clear the problems being raised.

Ok.....you still missed the point. THE COR'S REFUSE TO APPROVE THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP. The duly qualified "representatives" do not want current leadership in power. NOBODY WANTS THESE PEOPLE TO STAY BUT THEY WON'T LEAVE They did everything they were supposed to do. as far as "YOU agreed to deliver the BSA program, and the council and district is there to help you keep your promise. They are not there to help you CHANGE the program, They are there to help you learn and follow the program." Schirach would've loved this mindset Funny but most of the leaders I know think that BSA is supposed to be here to serve and support the VOLUNTEER leaders that actually do the real work of Scouting. LBP himself questioned whether or not there should even BE paid staff in Scouting and many other Scouting organizations do NOT have any. But then with a "take it or leave it" attitude, maybe that's WHY the number of adult leaders is dropping even faster than the numbers of Scouts.

As has been explained to you a board cannot be un-elected EXACTLY!!! It is IMPOSSIBLE for the membership in this "representative democracy" acting according to rules and procedures specified by this Council's bylaws to REMOVE ledership that REFUSES to leave. The membership REFUSES to vote "FOR" the slate provided that maintains the status-quo. Yet the membership is NOT allowed to choose candidates that their representatives WILL vote FOR. This is not "democracy" in any way shape or form. This is an autocracy where those in power refuse to relinquish it. The LEADERSHIP in this Council is refusing to follow rules, procedures or the corporate bylaws. But somehow it's the members - who have done all they are supposed to do - that are at fault....???!??? Making it as simple as possible. Following procedures and rules, the representatives in this Council, following the will of the membership, refuse to re-elect current leadership. Current leadership REFUSES to provide an alternative slate of candidates or allow a competing slate of candidates to run against their choices. The membership wants to "elect" DIFFERENT leadership but are NOT being allowed to do so. How can the membership - which has followed the rules - get rid of leadership that refuses to leave? Is their only alternative to take this to court? How absurd is that? This whole incident clearly shows that "leadership" in BSA can and does refuse to be accountable to membership and will do whatever it takes to remain in place - even over the objections of the majority of a Council's members. This is nothing resembling a "democracy" - this situation shows that even when complying with the difficult and onerous procedures needed to vote out a Council's leadership, the volunteers in BSA are ignored wih impunity. This has nothing to do with "me" - this has to do with Council leadership that refuses to be accountable to membership or even their own bylaws. Should volunteer members have to take BSA (or its subsidiary corporations) to court simply to get them to follow clearly stated bylaws? Again, this is about openness, transparency and all the things that BSA SHOULD represent - ethical and moral behavior, character, American values. BSA National should find this situation intolerable and intercede - as they can - by revoking this Council's charter and forcing open elections to be held. Why aren't they doing so? Once again, instead of addressing the issue, the response becomes personal.

When asked if that meant that there was no way to vote them out of office, Chookaszian responded, "that is correct". He further emphasized that the current board would remain "whether we liked it or not." As noted, the current leadership has said they will provide a third slate of candidates - of THEIR choosing. If that THIRD slate is voted down they have said they will change the bylaws to allow current Board Members to reappoint themselves. So....this is as if ONE candidate was running for President of the US. Voters refuse to "approve" him and vote NOT to elect him - twice. BUT they are not allowed to run any candidate they WILL vote for. The president remains in power - like it or not. And that is EXACTLY what the "un-elected" but not removed leadership has said in Chicago. Here, Executive Board members who objected to our SE were removed from the Board (District Chairmen are somehow no longer part of the Executive Board despite Council Bylaws to the contrary). Board members that have "disagreed" with this SE are NOT nominated for re-election at the end of their term. It sure seems like some COuncils "make up the rules as they go along" to do what the "leadership" wants - irrespective of what the majority of the volunteer members want. And BSA's response is that it is a "local" problem, though National COULD simply suspend that Council's charter pending PROPER "elections" that represent the will of the majority. So, back to the question, HOW do you oust "leadership" that refuses to leave? Should members have to go to court to force BSA and their local Council to follow BSA bylaws?

"Fast forward to the recent pass. The Edward Deming style of Quality Management says that organizations do its best work when EVERYONE is in on the policy decisions. No, its not required, but how many readers are employed by company's that do "grass root" surveys every year or on some regular basis. Its not bad to hear what the underlings think. Old Sam Walton came up with a lot of ideas by traveling cross country with his truck drivers and he did all right." I have an IE degree from one of the best schools in the US. I know a litte bit about making things work better - my career has been spent doing so. My biggest obstacle in doing so has NEVER been "workers" -even in highly unionized environments - but management that did not want "change" no matter how desperately it was needed. Autocratic and short-sighted management that shows little respect for its workers is its own worst enemy - and has killed many companies. Management in too many companies is resistant to change in any way shape or form. To some, "Improvements" implied a failure to do the best they could have done in the past (and NOBODY wanted to admit that). Others simply did not want change - period. "We've always done it this way." Some viewed change as a threat to their turf - a essening of their "power." Many objected to anything that might give "workers" greater freedom in judgement and latitude in doing their jobs - because workers "had to be told what to do"(and preferably in as much detail as possible). The old "efficiency expert" distilled work into something readily quantifiable and definable. Now that may work when you are doing something simple and repetitive like shoveling coal, but it does not work for anything that really involves some degree of thinking. The truth is that ANY organization gets more out of its workers when it shows them respect and listens to them. Does BSA respect its volunteers and listen to them - or does it simply expect obedience? Volunteers can walk away far easily than paid workers. They seem to be doing so in BSA - which has noted the dropping number of adult volunteers. Has BSA made ANY effort to find out why volunteers are leaving? Any company I've ever worked for has exit interviews. They may ignore what they hear - but in some cases these polls result in real and direct action. When a staff turns over regularly - with tenures rarely exceeding a year and ALL leaving define "the problem" identically - as one pmanager, it proved to be wise to remove that ONE manager. Why doesn't BSA have regular "polling" of unit leaders and District/Council leaders to evaluate "How are we doing?" Some companies regularly ask employees to rate subordinated AND superiors and DO attention to the results. When VOLUNTEERS make up the bulk of your workforce you'd expect an organization to care about what they have to say. Does anyone feel that BSA cares about what they say? Why doesn't National have the same type of polling or ANY established and easy means for feedback and communication? Ever try to e-mail National? It's a bear to even get a hold of our District officials or staff. While "volunteer relations" are supposed to be a part of EVERY professional's job performance evaluation, has any volunteer ever felt that they had any input into this process? Have any volunteers ever even been asked to evaluate the skill and abilities of paid staff? of their Council's program? BSA regularly professes that it "listens" to its members. Do any members really feel that they ARE listened to? Our Council fireside chats are something of a joke. While held to elicit "feedback" from volunteers, our SE sits impatiently looking at his watch, and refuses to answer questions not to his liking. NOBODY in our Council feels they have a VOICE in anything related to Council operations. When over 100 leaders appeared at an Executive Board meeting to protest the removal of a paid staffer, the board members literally ran away. This is clearly NOT a case where BSA (at least in in this Council) is "listening" to anything. Others have complained about "autocratic" paid staff in BSA. Giving volunteers a direct say in evaluating paid staff would go a long way to ending these cases. And as far as "being qualified" - there are volunteer leaders here who are FAR more accomplished and qualified (and who handle far greater responsibilities in their own careeers) that our paid staff or even our Board members. Frankly, a SE with only Cub Scout experience (though some in his last Council were "mistakenly" left with the impression that he was an Eagle Scout) seems particularly UNqualified. Many volunteers feel that a paid staffer in Scouting should have experience as a Scout - or at least a volunteer leader FIRST. Many have decried the change in BSA in the 70's to a "business" model focused on numbers and statistics and away from Scouting. But has that change worked to stem declining numbers? no. Most organizations stuck in a declinging phase stop to re-evaluate what is wrong. Has BSA done so? Is BSA even willing to admit that it has problems? Membership in Scouting has declined drastically and continues to decline. Has BSA it even asked its volunteers what they feel is wrong? And THAT is something you will learn as an IE - the person doing a job has a better understanding of it than anyone who studies him for a short period. You can accomplish amazing improvements by simply LISTENING to those that do a job and helping them get what THEY feel they need. Yes, you may improve things by detailed motion study and such but I guarantee that a guy doing a job tries his best to make it as EASY for himself as possible to do the best job he can. Yes, you should review and evaluate what you are hearing and there is a "bigger" picture, BUT there's a reason most on a factory floor think the guys in the suits are clueless. Often, they are. Others have commented about a corporate culture in BSA that seems frozen in time and is "unresponsive." My communications with professionals reinforces that. There is a "do what you're told, don't rock the boat" attitude within BSA. There is little desire to listen to volunteers or anyone else. One DE noted that the "black list" of volunteers he was handed on taking his job proved to be filled with some of the most dedicated and committed Scouters he ever met. They felt ignored and dictated to. Simply by listening to their concerns and addressing them, these people became "my most valuable resources." Such an attitude is too rare in the professional ranks. Most colleges have "rate your professor" surveys. They are informally run - sometimes by student government. Poor professors HATE these surveys because they are shown for what they are. Good professors have nothing to fear. The few extreme comments are clear for what they are and even "Hard, alot of work but you LEARN the subject" will not put off someone who wants to learn. But "plays favorites, easy workload, but doesn't know the subject" or "barely speaks English - you'll have to learn this on your own" are NOT good reviews. One of those decrying the problems in the professional ranks proposed an independent "rating" system of sorts to expose the problem Councils - and problem professionals in BSA (since BSA is apparently unwilling to even admit that these people exist). Open, transparent, soliciting feedback from ALL - these are GOOD things in an organization. BSA conducts enough surveys with meaningless results - like 49% of boys feel like they get positive feedback from Scout Leaders (that's all?) or 89% of boys like to play together or 76% of Boy Scouts are less likely to cheat in school. How about asking the volunteers in BSA how THEY feel about BSA, its professionals, its program, and its future? The class of 1976 at West Point set a record in resignations - one that holds to this day. No scandals. Cadets simply quit. Forty percent of that class in 2 years. It was a big deal. A GSA investigation. What was wrong? There was not a simple answer. The First Classmen (Seniors) for that class entered in 1969. Not a good time to go to USMA. Some appointments were left unfilled. Some filling appointments were second or third alternates. The "quality" of that class was not up to expected standards in the opinion of many (and by quantifiable standards). But then after Tet in 68, Vietnam seemed unending and was pretty much a guaranteed posting on graduation. Many in that class had low lottery nuumbers and were cadets only to put off the inevietable for 4 more years (and it had to be better as an officer, right?). The class of '76 - entering in 1972 - had been recruited through an intensive "marketing" campaign (Truth did not match reality - one issue). Vietnam was still hot but US involvement seemed likely to be over in 4 years. By most quantifiable standards this was a highly qualified class. High SAT's, top HS ranks, most were athletes as well. Yet they quit - in large numbers and voluntarily. Some had little "respect" for those they reported to - and with some cause. You do not mind the expected abuse involved in being a cadet if you feel it is "fair" and dealt out by others you have respect for. But often that was not the case. Others saw that Duty, Honor, Country were really of little concern to too many already there. Many who were naively idealistic, lost that feeling quickly when they saw upperclassmen caring more about well, let's say, "less idealistic things...." There were some very bright people in that class who left. They could see very real problems and knew that they would not be in any position to effect change for a long time - if ever. The Army lost some very good potential officers - officers that were NEEDED in a military going through a difficult time. USMA was producing the officers the Army WANTED (who were all too often getting killed by their own subordinates in Vietnam) instead of the officers they needed. Changes were major and deep after all this. There was aperiod of drastic change - including the admission of women. Most feel that USMA is now drawing exceptionally qualified applicants and producing talented and skilled leaders. Why do I bring this up? BSA prefers obedient and unquestioning volunteers that do as BSA wants. But that is not helping BSA. Many great potential leaders will have nothing to do with BSA now - and DO have other organizations to choose from. Even long serving volunteer leaders are leaving Scouting. Perhaps it is time for BSA to take a long hard, and unbiased look at itself. Recent headlines point out very real and embarrassing failures. Excusing them or pretending they did not happen does not change anything. Mayor Ed Koch in NY used to ask "How am I doing?" on a regular basis. BSA seems to go to great lengths NOT to do so - instead preferring to TELL everyone that "things are fine." Is BSA afraid of asking its members "How are we doing?"

"It is not the unit volunteers role to make decisions for the council. Nor is it the councils responsilbility to make decisions based on the emotional outbursts of volunteers. " A clear avoidance of the issue. The volunteers through their representatives, in compliance with the Council bylaws voted NOT to approve the ONLY slate of candidates submitted by the handpicked nominating committee. A SECOND slate of candidates was ALSO voted down, in compliance with the Council bylaws and procedures. The Council Leadership has refused to allow ANY other nominees but those THEY nave chosen on a slate of candidates. A "democracy" - even a "representative" one ius supposed to reflect the will of its members. BUT as structured, most COuncils ONLY allow representatives to vote FOR or Against the full slate of candidates chosen by a "nominating committee" If the slate chosen by this committee has been voted DOWN twice, it it time to allow the candidates that the majority WILL vote FOR to at least be put on the ballot. But this Council leadership REFUSES to do so. This Council leadership REFUSES to follow its own bylaws and rules. Having in effect been told - We (through our "representatives") will NOT vote FOR current leadership - or their hand-picked successors, the majority are NOT being allowed to run candidates they ARE willing to elect. Council leadership has clearly stated the they are NOT going to step down - despite losing two elections - and will change bylaws as needed to remain in power. The COuncil ledership has refused to follow BSA rules and their Council's own bylaws. The volunteers, having done all they are supposed to do to remove their "leadership" has been stymied in their efforts to do so. Back to the questions: If BSA IS a 'representative democracy" how do you remove leaders that refuse to abide by the legally and rule abidingly expressed wishes of the majority? Is the claim of being a "representative democracy" meaningless in practical terms? NO response has answered this directly or dealt with the flagrant disregard of BSA's own procedures and bylaws by leadership that REFUSES to relinquish control. The "volunteers" are blamed for THEIR behavior - yet they have done exactly what they needed to do to oust their leadership. The leadership simply will NOT leave. If this is what happens when volunteers attempt to "take control" of their own Council, then any claims of being a "representative democracy" are a fraud (at least in this Council) and claims that BSA "listens to its members" equally false.

"I guess you have to go to the annual meeting and voice concerns, it would help if you got the CORs involved as they are the ones who actually control things. If you say the CORs are non-responsive, then you have to work to get them more on the ball. " The COR's et al have VOTED the slates DOWN. Chicago Area Coiuncio has TWICE now refused to approve the handpicked slated proposed by their Council "leadership" that wants to remain in place. Yet the Council "leadership" refuses to allow the hand-picked "nominating committee" to nominate ANY candidats that the volunteers (through their COR's) WANT to VOTE for. The threat has already been made - vote for us or we're changing the rules and reappointing ourselves. Council leadership HAS been voted OUT (an almost impossible feat given BSA rules) but they REFUSE to leave. The local bylawas and BSA rules and regulations are being BLATANTLY ignored by this Council's leadership. Even the full Executive Board is being ignored with COuncil business being approved by a hand-picked "Executive Committee" - something NOT discussed in Bylaws. The situation in Chicago parallels events in my Council where "rules" are being violated at will. Yet BSA National says this is a "local" problem and does nothing. Should volunteers have to SUE their own Council Leadership to get the LEADERSHIP to simply follow rules and regulations? My point is that Councils HAVE and DO blatantly inore BSA's own rules and regulations - and that there is NOTHING short of court action (volunteers suing their own Council) to stop this. Anyone else have a solution? This is a valid issue and concern - yet some would prefer to say it is NOT a problem and is unworthy of discussion. If it can happen in one, two or more Councils it can happen anywhere in BSA.

Many have repeatedly said BSA "works" and that ther eare rules and regulations and procedures in place to deal with things. In the case cited - Chicago - things are clearly NOT working. Please do not dispute the "facts" - they have been confirmed by numerous sources. My point is: What do you do when it is clear things are NOT working? What do volunteers do when they have followed all the rules and regulations and are STILL ignored? Is this appropriate ANYWHERE? What should the volunteers in Chicago do?

THEORY From BSA "talking points" The BSA is a representative democracy .Local councils elect representatives to the National Council, which in turn, sets policy. The BSA procedural methods for input are well-established. As a private organization, the BSA conducts its affairs according to its charter, articles of incorporation, and bylaws. The National Council operates just like local councils. Governance is provided by an elected executive board composed of volunteers. The BSA is a representative democracy that considers diversity of opinions invaluable. Our bylaws provide a mechanism for local council input on program and policies. REALITY Below - forwarded from Chicago "per www.fortdearborn.org (from a handful of contributing reporters) 8/28/05--Dennis Chookaszian decided to host two more open volunteer meetings on Chicago's Northside the week of August 15th to reportedly solicit ideas and opinions from CAC volunteer Scouters about council nominations. This is on the heels of the fiery meeting held at the European Chalet in mid-July. Many that went felt that the meeting was a travesty and a waste of their time. There were about 20 there including a few from the "new" council nominating committee, namely George Walper, Tom Thilman, and Sue Castillo. As in prior meetings, many in attendance walked away feeling that their ideas and grievances fell on deaf ears. However, while the meeting was supposedly organized to address council governance issues and the board nomination process, Chookaszian kept jamming his theme of..."Owasippe's gone, now lets all get on the bandwagon and plan for the future." When asked about the nominating committee procedure, Chookaszian explained that the committee would present a slate and, if it were voted down, they would take 90 days and either revise it or not and present it again. If it were defeated again, the board would move to appoint themselves. When asked if that meant that there was no way to vote them out of office, Chookaszian responded, "that is correct". He further emphasized that the current board would remain "whether we liked it or not." Someone asked what then was the purpose of even holding a vote to which he responded that the real ones who should have the vote are the boys themselves. Another then replied that as the unit's chosen council representative, he had a vote but felt that this exhibited attitude disenfranchised the voting membership "whether he liked it or not." During discussion about the slate, it was asked why the May 5th slate wasn't used as a model and, if additional representation for LFL needed to be put onto the board, why not just add additional names to what was already researched and reviewed. Mr Walper of the new nominating committee suggested that the prior duly selected nominations committee had done a poor job in putting together a representative slate on May 5th. Chookaszian also reported that the CAC hierarchy had been looking at camping properties near Madison WI (Makajawan?); Dubuque IA, and Rochelle IL (a 3-Fires Council Camp?). According to Chookaszian, they are looking for approximately 500 acres with a lake for swimming. Some Scouters present felt that the criteria Chookaszian outlined sounded like they were looking for a camp similar to Hoover Outdoor Education Center and wondered, if that were the criteria, why HOEC was sold last year? Chookaszian emphasized CAC's desire to build a "Cub World Camp" and intended to do it "whether we like it or not" (a phrase he used liberally throughout the meeting)! While Chookaszian had been concerned about getting Scouters to attend and to present their ideas and input, he seemed very quick to challenge, dismiss or even ridicule opinions rendered by those whom he asked to participate. Following both meetings, a general impression of attending Scouters was that Chookaszian had shown a total disrespect for volunteer Scouters and a disdain for allowing them to manage the destiny of their own council organization." About that "representative democracy" - When asked if that meant that there was no way to vote them out of office, Chookaszian responded, "that is correct". He further emphasized that the current board would remain "whether we liked it or not." And this is how BSA works when you try to exercise that "representative democracy" clause........ American values, character, ethics and morals - all lacking.

I am sure that the level of discourse shown here will reassure ANY parent that BSA takes distribution of child pornography seriously (not). The willingness to excuse what happened to Smith INSTEAD of questioning WHY he wasn't FIRED will not be reassuring to "outsiders" that BSA takes these issues seriously. Note that I am not dragging BSA through the mud. Mr. Smith's actions were highly embarassing to BSA and clearly hurt BSA's image. I am raising questions that MANY parents and "outsiders" - and even Scout Leaders - have had about what happened here. The difference in treatment between Smith and St. Jean is clear and obvious. It would be in BSA's own interest to be as open and transparent in this as possible - instead of leaving others to "speculate" but this has not happened. Why? The way in which what is a VERY real issue to parents and others outside BSA is cavalierly dismissed does NOT make parents feel "good" about BSA. As far as what should have been done? Smith was put "on leave." Pending the outcome of a court case - which is a far more stringent measure than accorded volunteers - Smith should have been kept on leave. If guilty of these crimes - which he was - he should have been FIRED. THAT would have made parents and others feel far better about this mess, showing that there was ZERO tolerance for such activities in BSA and that there were very real and severe repurcussions for it in BSA. It seems appallingly logical to "outsiders" that ANY behavior in BSA by a volunteer or professional that involves child abuse (possession/distribution of child pornography, actual abuse, failing to report abuse to authorities) should result in IMMEDIATE termination AND legal action (if first discovered by BSA). In the case of paid staff, this should include TERMINATION. An accused person, found guilty, should not be allowed to "resign." When paid staff have violated the law - and even when they have escaped prosecution (through statute of limitations or whatever) BSA should STILL dismiss them - "FIRE" them - just as they would a volunteer.

duplicate post (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

"To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. " Of note, Lee took FULL responsibility for his actions as a commander. He NEVER "blamed" others for failures or cast aspersions on his subordinates - even when their failures cost him dearly. A recent book "explains" the disaster at Gettysburg - the seeming pointlessness of Picketts Charge - by showing that Lee was following the "game plan" of other Napoleanic battles (well studied by Lee and his contemporaries). If the plan postulated (and supported by evidence) HAD worked, Hood's cavalry lost off on the perhiphery (to the bewilderment of most historians) - would have been hitting Seminary Ridge from behind just as Pickett hit from the front. Instead a brash young commander led a few hundred of the 7th Michigan straight into Hood's force of thousands, rallying other demoralized Union forces into holding Hood far away from the main battle. Ironically, that man was George Armstrong Custer - remembered only for his failure at Little Big Horn (one born of arrogance). Yet Lee NEVER "blamed" others or even tried to explain what his intentions were. He pointedly stated it was HIS "fault". He took DIRECT responsibility as Commander for this and other failures - many beyond his capabilities with the limited resources available to him. Contrast that behavior to current BSA leadership. The ACLU is responsible for "missing" units in Alabama. "The media" is making BSA look bad. Continued enrollment fraud and other problems are whitewashed - NOT "fixed". The panel to "fix things" in Atlanta pointedly EXCLUDES the local leaders that HAVE been successful in running units for "disadvantaged youth" - and who have been BSA's biggest critics in this fraud. DE's have been fired for NOT going along with fraudulent claims. BSA's leadership is not being morally "straight" - throwing out volunteers and paid staff who try to do what is right, covering up problems instead of fixing them.

NOT "making light" of pedophiles vs homosexuality, though an intelligent conversation on the topic seems impossible in BSA. MANY in BSA would make NO distinction between these two people and call them both "gay" - they were interested in males sexually. How many religious sites screaming about "deviates" make this same association? Many defending BSA's exclusion of homosexuals cite "protecting boys" as a justifiable reason - noting that the pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church proves their point. Note: NO opinion is being expressed by me either way on this or BSA may decide to throw me out. But that is NOT my point in raising this. Many companies retain the right to terminate someone for cause if they commit an illegal act. Given the standards in "Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Membership" Smith should have IMMEDIATELY been "disassociated" from BSA in ANY way shape or form just by the "credible" evidence possessed by the FBI. And having pled guilty, there is no "excuse" for him NOT being terminated. Even ignoring the pension issue - Why wasn't Smith FIRED? Why did BSA let him "retire?" If St. Jean was FIRED, Smith sure should have been FIRED. Ignore the pension issue - though other companies have denied retirement benefots from executives terminated for cause. And distributing kiddie porn sure SHOULD be "cause" for terminating ANYONE's association with BSA - volunteer or paid. This was raised to show the utter hypocrisy here. The kiddie porn distributor who fired the gay guy was NOT fired himself. BSA seems NOT to see that many people are appalled that the Head of Youth Protection was NOT "FIRED" or "TERMINATED" by BSA. But then BSA seems not to see just how bad it looks to have the head of youth protection distributing kiddie porn. Any in-depth investigation of his history to MAKE SURE there was no cause for concern in BSA? Are you SURE he didn't act on this? BSA is sure NOT looking real hard or they would have noticed their own statements on Smith were full of holes. Yet a seemingly gay staffer with 30 odd years service (but no illegal acts) WAS fired. If St. Jean did do something illegal to jutify this - you can bet BSA would make that known. WHY are people willing to "understand" why Smith got to retire with benefits? Why aren't Scouts screaming that he SHOULD have been fired? - look at the damage this man did to BSA. Why are people so willing to voluntarily "explain" away such things instead of DEMANDING an explanation from BSA? Its bad enought that abuse cases continue to occur in BSA but c'mon......the HEAD of "Youth protection" in BSA distributing Kiddie porn.......Like it or NOT this HURT BSA and NOT taking the STRONGEST possible action - FIRING Smith - hurt BSA even more. Please tell a parent why they SHOULD feel their son (or daughter) is safe in Scouting with all this in the news.

OK, I didn't realize that Smith is the one that fired St. Jean....that update requires a revisit Screaming irony. Makes BSA look like flaming hypocrites, The guy who is so anti-gay FIRES a long time apparently gay staffer yet is allowed to retire himself when caught by the FBI distributing kiddie porn (focused on underage BOYS engaged in graphic sexual acts). Some will note that Smith supposedly never acted on this "interest" - or at least that's what is claimed. But many would think that this interest alone makes Smith "gay" or just a pedophile (since children are abused in producing this material). And is anyone SURE he NEVER acted on this "interest"? And that is assumong that BSA had the right to fire both - why the disparity in treatment? "The Boy Scouts of America, Inc. has fired Dennis St. Jean, the former director of the Florida Seabase, after discovering that he went to a predominately gay resort in Key West while on vacation. St. Jean, who had a glowing record within the BSA, had been a professional Scouter since 1973 and was less than two years away from retirement. The BSA executive from National Headquarters in Texas who did the firing was Douglas S. Smith, who was arrested two weeks later on Federal child pornography charges. Smith had previously been a vocal supporter of the BSA's stance for "traditional scouting values" and a letter of his in support of the BSA's discriminatory membership policy was discreetly pulled from BSA's public relations web site shortly after his arrest. Apparently, the BSA Inc. allowed Smith to retire and keep his benefits after he was arrested, while the BSA is fighting St. Jean's attempts to collect full retirement benefits even after his firing in apparent violation of local anti-discrimination laws in Florida. "

"I appreciate your assurance that BSA will not kick people out for expressing concerns through proper channels--can you help identify what those proper channels are? " Sorry, can't let this pass. BSA HAS and WILL "kick out" members for expressing concern through "proper channels". But then it's really hard to express concerns about the illegal acts committed by an SE TO that same SE or his hand-picked Executive Board. Willis - head of training in Greater Alabama was concerned that too many units had NO trained leaders. Making inquiries, he was told to "don't worry". Pushing the issue he found that many of these units appeared to be "ghost units". He raised the issue in his Council anwas told to drop ir - or he might find himself out of Scouting. He pursued it with local authorities who passed off that hot potato to the FBI. Willis was thrown out the very day an audit showed his claims of fraudulent overstatement were proven true. Willis has taken BSA to court - who argued unsuccessfully in trying to make this a "membership" issue. It remains in state court as a corporate malfeasance case. Expect it to draw out for years. Knaul - a 17 year Scoutmaster in Auburn NY raised objections when his SE wanted to spend $500,000 on unneeded new offices instead of programs for boys. He was ignored by his Council. He - and 23 others raised this issue in a letter to the local paper - "Is this an ethical decision?" Of note this SMALL council met its goals - but continued to solicit funds until one of the donors questioned what was going on. Knaul was portrayed as a "troublemaker" and had his registration revoked. He has the support of his unit and CO. He can't afford to take this to court. Dave Rice was thrown out because he raised the issue of "tolerance" in a nonn-scout venue. Scared to death of a 60 year Scouter - with an impeccable record - testifying against them in court on this issue, his membership was revoked over the objections of his Council Leadership. A number of volunteers have been "sspended" for their activism in fighting to remove current Council leadership. Something similar happened locally to a Unit Leader who protested property sales. Another who was working to organize COR's to oust the Se was threatened with removal. Other dedicated leaders that have questioned their SE or Council have had their registrations revoked. An Eagle Scout and his leader mother in NEGA were removed after complaining about a DE buying beer for underage Counselors. They were reinstated ONLY through the unceasing efforts of others and because that same DE (A good Baptist who would NEVER even drink himself) was arrested DUI and the SE caught in an IRS investigation over misuse of funds and removed (promoted to Regional actually!?!). An incident reported in the archives recounted a parent and boy who were removed for refusing to change out of camoflage pants when told to do so by their SE at a camporee. DE's who have refused to go along with enrollment fraud have been fired. One in Oregon is suing BSA over this. BSA has developed an increasingly autocratic culture where arrogant paid staffers are removing volunteers at will for ANY reanon they see fit - and getting away with it. Procedures meant to "protect boys" are being misused to remove critics, or anyone a SE feels is "trouble" or a threat. AND BSA National goes along with this knowing that up until now, nobody could afford the time or money to take tham on in court. BSA's own appeals process is a joke. BSA does NOT like dissent. History shows that dedicated and accomplished Scouters have been thrown out of BSA for challenging them on both illegal behavior and policy. FACTS. Specific. Please refute with specifics. I've made my points with detailed facts in other posts. I have yet to see those specifics refuted. Instead I have been told to be a good obedient Scout and shut up, stop trying to change what I can't, do my job, and trust my leaders. Failures and bad behavior are explained away by "they could be worse, it happens everywhere and it isn't happening here." Well it all IS happening in BSA and it shouldn't be. THAT is my point. There are clear and obvious warning signs that things are not well andgood in BSA - warning signs that have accompanied other corporate scandals. The future will tell. Note: Our SE finally came clean. His "From the Scout Executive" statement in our local newsletter is titled "IT IS ABOUT THE NUMBERS" Yeah....especially when you're 3000 under what you claimed for membership in your last fundraising letter..... As another professional noted (privately): It's all about the numbers and money - that's ALL BSA cares about. Reading our newsletter you'd thing Scouting was an Amway pyramid scheme all about adding members and selling popcorn. Great image for BSA. No more time for endless non-debates on semantics. School's starting, as well as Scouting. Wonder if our Council will survive the year.