jkhny

BW wanted more .....two of 40+ entries relating to Idaho Update after this; Stowell back in prison, another victim comes forward stating he reported a SEPARATE incident involving a separate abuser to Hansen before all this occurred. Two other abusers were also revealed to have been active in this Council. In response to "this is old" - it is long after Youth Protection was established. It is VERY relevant in that the SE in this Council is there IN SPITE of his failure to properly handle this and other incidents. This is one of the FEW times a court case has been UNSEALED. BSA was coplicit in cover-ups at alllevels. In how many OTHER cases remaining sealed has BSA behaved the same? http://www.postregister.com/story.php?accnum=69121-03312005&today=2005-03-31&keywords=stowell Thursday March 31, 2005 The art of concealment By Marty Trillhaase Post Register editorial board members are Roger Plothow, publisher; J. Robb Brady, publisher emeritus; Marty Trillhaase, Opinions page editor; and Dean Miller, managing editor. On Nov. 30, 1999, lawyers for the Boy Scouts of America and the Grand Teton Council learned about a new victim who had been sexually abused by Scout camp staffer Brad Stowell. Testifying under oath in a deposition, convicted pedophile Stowell named the boy. And under an Idaho law, these lawyers and their clients had 24 hours to notify either police or the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Fourteen months later, lawyers who sued the Scouts on behalf of another Stowell victim discovered nothing had been done. Lawyers Chad Campos and Laurie Gaffney alerted District Judge Gregory Anderson that even the boy's mother was unaware of the crime. Since the Boy Scouts' lawyer Gary Dance brushed it off -- he didn't want to "open old wounds," figured the boy "could have been asleep" and might not remember being abused anyway -- Anderson directed Gaffney and Campos to contact the authorities. Much has been made about the 1995 law exempting ministers, priests and clergy from the child-abuse reporting requirement. But it still applies to doctors, nurses, teachers, day-care staff or any person having reason to believe that a child younger than 18 has been abused, abandoned or neglected. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor carrying a six-month jail term and a $300 fine. Certainly that includes Grand Teton Council Executive Director Kim Hansen, members of his staff and possibly his attorneys. So what happened? Did they answer in criminal court for not obeying the reporting law? Nope. Turns out 14 months was just long enough. Idaho's statute of limitations runs 12 months. ................... Where are they now? By DEAN MILLER By PETER ZUCKERMAN AND POST REGISTER STAFF THEN THEIR ROLE NOW THE PERPETRATOR Started molesting boys in 1988 at age 16. Admits to 24 victims in Blackfoot, at Scout Camp Little Lemhi and during his LDS mission in Alaska. Sentenced to 150 days in jail. Cannot leave Bonneville County for seven years. Now 32, married, working in RV sales. Probation forbids contact with kids and requires regular lie detector tests. Brad Stowell Eagle Scout, Camp Little Lemhi counselor, promoted to camp program director SILENT MOTHER Was on executive committee of Grand Teton Council, and from 1988 on, never told fellow Scout and Camp Little Lemhi leaders that her son confessed he molested a 6-year-old boy. Retired Blackfoot High School teacher. No longer a Scout officer. Hall of Fame member, Grand Teton Council. Judith Stowell mother of Brad Stowell, 18-year Scouting volunteer THE CONFESSOR Heard 16-year-old Brad Stowell's confession. Arranged counseling through LDS Social Services. Vouched for Stowell when Scout leaders inquired into tips that Stowell was a pedophile. Testified on his behalf at sentencing. Released from his duties as bishop shortly after Stowell finished counseling. Did not learn of Stowell's abuse during mission until Feb. 26, 2005. Lorin Talbot bishop of Stowell's LDS congregation SCOUTS' APOLOGIST Reported to Grand Teton Council executive committee, which included Brad Stowell's mother, Judith. Responsible for youth-protection program. Grand Teton Council's paid director. Any reports of improper activities by Scouts, Scout volunteers or Scout staff are to be sent through Hansen to national headquarters, which maintains the national eligibility list that is used to weed out those who do not uphold Boy Scout standards of behavior and morality. Kim Hansen Grand Teton Council's paid director Sources: Interviews, sworn testimony and exhibits from Bonneville County civil case CV-99-3416 THE RECRUITER Recruited Brad Stowell after being warned by a fellow teacher that Stowell was a pedophile. No longer on the Boy Scouts of America's paid professional staff. No further information available. THE INVESTIGATOR Investigated 1995 warning about Stowell by talking to Stowell and Stowell's LDS bishop, Lorin Talbot. Both said there was an "incident" with a 6-year-old boy, but assured him there was no problem. Allen not place Stowell on notice. He did not report Stowell's background to the Boy Scouts. Promoted to director of a multistate Scout region, then promoted to director of the Boy Scouts' LDS Relations office in Salt Lake City. Brad Allen Grand Teton Council executive THE PERPETRATOR'S BOSS Hired Brad Stowell in 1995 after being told Stowell was a pedophile. Deceased Richard Snow Camp Little Lemhi program director ANOTHER BOSS Recruited Stowell to be camp program director, based on his observation of Stowell's "personal power" to motivate youths and adults. Admonished Stowell for sitting a boy on his lap and massaging the boy's back. Promoted from a second-tier job at Grand Teton Council to top Scouting job with Maui County (Hawaii) Boy Scout council. Robert Fawcett Grand Teton Council director of camping and Camp Little Lemhi director HERO OR GOAT? Rehired Stowell to be camp program director, admonished him in June to stop giving campers rides home, alone, from camp. Either called the police willingly or was forced to by campers. Currently employed at a carpet store in Idaho Falls. No longer on Boy Scouts of America paid professional staff. Elias Lopez Grand Teton Council district executive and Camp Little Lemhi director Series synopsis "Scouts' honor" tells the story that the Boy Scouts did not want you to read: How Grand Teton Council leaders ignored multiple warnings and hired a pedophile to help lead a summer camp. This series relies on public documents that two of Idaho's most powerful law firms tried to bury -- more than 1,000 pages, including sworn statements that spell out how the molester depended on church, family and Scout connections to get away with abusing at least two dozen boys from Idaho to Alaska. SUNDAY Sick of being preyed on, a 14-year-old Scout forced Scout leaders to call police. MONDAY At least one Grand Teton Council board officer knew Brad Stowell had a problem. TUESDAY Experts disagree, widely, whether it was certain that Stowell would strike again. WEDNESDAY After the molester was caught, what did Grand Teton Council leaders decide to change? Where are the key Boy Scout officials and other major players today? FRIDAY What should you do if you think you, your child or a friend was in harm's way? Separately

the short answer - paraphrasing something read somewhere not remembered BSA sure DOES reflect the good old USA - unfortunately. Instead of timeless values, BSA reflects out times. Overpaid executives fake results they cannot achieve. Assets are sold off to meet short term financial goals - hurting the company. Overworked and undercompensated workers see what's wrong and try to speak out byt whistleblowers are punished - fired for their concern. Criticism is met with rhetoric. ANY questioning is treated as an "attack." There is an increasing exodus in the lower ranks, with work being left undone. this company's customers are ill served and begin to go elsewhere for many reasons. The basic business is failing. Great efforts go into a secondary contrived effort carefully crafted to get as much governmental and charitable money as it can - money the main business cannot receive. But the main business is failing and no actions taken have been able to reverse its decline. The only question is whether or not the business will coollapse before or after its executives run through all its assets with their slalries and generous retirement plans - compensation never even seen by the majority of their "workers."

"BSA does disappoint me at times. Then again, so does my son, my family, the Chicago Bears, and not leastwise myself. But it doesnt mean I love them less. So, jk, what I am saying is I dont know why you feel the way you do, but there are people who are working to improve the BSA. We could use your help " Too much to go into, too much to possibly cover, but fact is, I and others HAVE tried here locally to deal with our autocratic and incompetent SE. The way BSA is structured its impossible - CHicago makes that point clear. Volunteers have no real voice or control over Council leadership. And BSA is GETTING my help though they'd prefer I simply walk away like so many others. Property sales opposed by volunteers were fought in court - we lost. Instead of proceeds going to buy a replacement facility as intended, BSA -"our" Council - is taking the money and tacking this name on a place they already own. There are serious problems in BSA. Overpaid, autocratic and incompetent executives. Faked success, asset sales, declinging numbers and support. BSA National makes this all possible and is complicit in it all. Dissent is stifled. ANY valid questioning in BSA is treated as an attack. BSA is anything BUT open and transparent - WHY? The issues I cited are clear warning signs of major problems in this organization. I and others nationwide now believe change is impossible from within. Willis tried to get his Council to correct inflated counts and was thrown out. He is now in court, a process that will take years and cost thousands. Should that be necessary to get BSA to do the right thing. Atlanta has made superficial changes but will still not allow ana outside audit of their far reduced present claim of just over 5000 kids (3400 active). Local Scotu leaders and a civil rights leader believe the true count for this program for disadvantaged kids is closer to 500. Yet this Council just spent $10million on new offices. Grand Teton has a SE who failed to report two separate incidents of child abuse reported to him personally. Dozens of kids were abused there over the 7 years BSA knew they had a problem there. I - and others all over the country are NOT seeing any real and meaningful change in BSA to address any of the issues I have raised. If you can point out REAL progress in these areas, I'd love to hear it. But the focus continues to be on image and not real change. This isn't a matter of "disappointment" this is a matter of outright failure, illegal acts and autocratic unresponsive leadership that hides behind "character" it does not possess. BSA has set itself up as a bastion of "character and values" - its mission is to teach "ethical and moral" decision making to boys. Any movement that betrays its ideals should fear its own true believers more than any outsiders. Yet BSA leadership is actively hypocritical in their behavior - or in the case of the the larger number of "good guys" - silently complicit in the wrongs perpatrated by those around them in BSA. Critics are punished. Volunteers ARE thrown out of Scouting for trying to get BSA to do what is right. DE's fake numbers and accomplishments in fear of dictatorial SE's or at their direction. Others have learned that you criticize BSA or fellow professionals at your own risk - and with the expectation of losing job. Is change really possible in that environment? I have heard from too many good people who have seen the same hypocrisy, seen the damage done in their Councils and been truly hurt by Scouting. You cannot defend BSA when it's thrown out a 17 year Scoutmaster who rightfully questioned why his tiny Council (which seems to survive ONLY to provide their SE with a job) was spending $500,000 on offices instead of kids. Dave Rice - with 60 years in Scouting - was thrown out for talking of "tolerance" - in a NON Scout venue. Some issues will never be rationally discussed in BSA. BSA leadership squashes contrary and dissident ideas and questioning - it won't even listen to them. below -- from the Atlanta site - a good summary of the issue that I and others see. I do not think change is possible from within now. BSA has circled thewagons and views any calls for change as an attack. Those in power in Irving do not want to relinquish it. "Change" however desperately needed, is viewed as bad. My presence has served a purpose. But at this point there is no real point in endless circular arguments that are NOT a true debate on facts or the issue at hand. Again, a voice screaming in the wilderness is sometimes a prophet. Below from http://www.boyscoutsfortruth.com/wst_page8.html How far do you believe we should go in exposing the deep problems of the BSA professional organization? Is this something that we all should be letting loose to the interested national media swarming around Atlanta right now? These are far from simple questions. I have wrestled with them for several years without coming to satisfactory answers. I know that the patient is sick. I know that strong medicine is probably required to make the patient well. I fear that the patient is not strong enough to take the strong medicine and that, if it is administered, the patient will die. For me, it always comes down to trying to figure out whether it is better to sustain the patient and gently push them in the direction of health or give the medicine knowing "what ever does not kill us, makes us stronger." Scouting, for all its flaws, has been an important agent for good in this country and has saved many youth from the influence of much less savory gangs. I know that at the just concluded national meeting of BSA a new audit procedure was discussed. The new procedure will require that volunteers, as well as the professionals, sign off on the veracity of the membership numbers. This is an encouraging sign as it shows that national is aware there is a problem within the professional ranks and has taken steps which might fix the problem. The potential devil, here, is in the details. If the volunteers get full access to the fundamental information, and if they are willing to hold the pros to account, there should never be another large membership fraud. If, however, the pros obfuscate the books or the volunteers do not step up, what we have created is volunteers who end up serving as dupes for the pros. In fact, once they have signed off on numbers that are false, they are under tremendous pressure to become, and remain, co-conspirators in future fraud. Can leopards change their spots? Professional Scouters have shown themselves to be as slippery as eels in the past. Sadly, I have reached the point where I do not trust them as a class. One of my local colleagues suggested that the folks in Atlanta had violated real laws. That real harm had been done to people (careers ended, resources illegally diverted, services not delivered) by their actions and that, if Scouting was serious about reform, a mea culpa and a resignation would not be enough. I suspect, though, that that, and some vague promises about cleaning up the council, were all you got. If some one were held personally responsible, it would send a message to the whole organization that these behaviors are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. As things currently stand, no such message has been transmitted. Instead, rumor has it that our council board has been cautioned to steer clear of the media and to refer all questions about membership to the professional staff. By the end of summer, that same message is likely to have filtered down to all the key volunteers. On the one hand it makes sense to coordinate the flow of organizational information through those who are in a position to have the big picture (though one wishes that board members had the big picture). The cynic, however, sees a determined effort to plug leaks and avoid the rogue board member who goes public with the problems. I suspect that similar guidance is happening all across the country. Rumor has it that Scout Executives are taught that there are two kinds of Board Members. There are those who think for themselves and who can bring creative ideas to the organization (along with a certain amount of chaos) and those who are yes men who will not bring much energy to the process but will not bring much disruption either. Smart Scout Executives populate their boards with the latter. Whether or not they are taught to do this, my experience with Scout Boards is that they are largely filled with people who, by habit and inclination, defer to the professionals. It should also be noted that the professionals have what amounts to veto power over the appointment of all key volunteers. Boat rockers, whistle blowers and agitators, who are all too rare to begin with, can be effectively screened out by denying them any power positions (and therefore, information access) in the organization. The combination of lap dog boards and control of senior and middle volunteer management positions give the pros an immensely powerful position from which to block reform (and protect their own positions). It will take a grass roots rebellion or a determined legal attack at the top to actually reform the system nationally. Small determined groups with strong ethics and strong stomachs can achieve local results but, unless the tide shifts nationally, the system always tries to return to the old status quo. A determined legal attack at the top is the fastest and surest way to root out the things that are wrong but the risks are great. A determined legal attack on the corruption at Arthur Anderson and at ENRON cured their corruption but destroyed the organizations. On the other hand, grass roots rebellions are also messy. The typical volunteer scouter is only vaguely aware that the District and Council exist. They are unaware of how they function and they little care, so long as necessary services are provided. (Not unlike their knowledge of government...) If the good ones knew what was going on, they would clamor for reform. But, to make them aware of what is going on, a lot of dirty laundry would have to be hung out in public. Scouting has many enemies who would love to use that to pick the organization apart. Sadly, the rebellion will also divert a lot of energy that should be going into servicing youth. If you loose the press, the dirty linen goes public, the enemies have a field day, and maybe Scouting reforms or maybe it is not resilient enough and it dies. The media, as I am sure you know, follow their own path and, once you have opened to them, things tend to get out of control. Some of them are already enemies of Scouting. All that said, I guess I lean in the direction of going public and pushing the mantra of - preserving the "timeless values" by purging the organizational corruption - and hoping for the best. The acid test data are not really available to me. If the Scout internal study in Atlanta looked at the Council as a whole and addressed the problems of membership padding and professional assessment in both the urban and suburban settings, maybe Scouting sees the light and there is some hope of internal reform. If the study focused only on Scoutreach and the units pre-identified by outsiders as problems, national does not "get it" and strong medicine must be administered. The basic problem MUST BE fixed. It is a cancer slowly eating away at the organization. Just changing top execs in Atlanta will not get scouting to inner city boys in Atlanta ( the new execs will probably steer clear of the inner city because of the "problems" that they had there) or anywhere else. Nor will it fix the basic climate of dishonesty created by the current professional incentive system. So, I apologize for rambling, but I am troubled by selecting from nothing but bad alternatives. It is, I suspect, a little like Martin Luther. All he wanted was for the church to reform itself. Instead, the law of unintended consequences kicked in and the path of Christianity was altered. I worry about the law of unintended consequences... On the other hand, evil triumphs if good men do nothing.

Idaho facts Kinda pointless to spoon feed someone who won't taste anything they don't like. Idaho's been detailed here previously and was a regular on "Headlines" - guess you never looked at the time. The Idaho Falls Post-Register details the Stowell case and others in detail. The series used to be a free link but no longer. Go pay for an online subscription yourself and read the whole series. Printing out all the pages and references gives you an inch thick pile. The series start: http://www.postregister.com/story.php?accnum=53165-02272005&today=2005-02-27&keywords=stowell short excerpts Unsealed records (which the BSA was very eager to see stay sealed) show that many BSA officials, including National HQ, were informed years before this guy was caught: "At least seven people within the organization were given reports about Stowell years before his arrest" And this isn't an old case (the arrest was 1997): "A letter from Richard Scarborough dated May of 1991 to the National Scouting Headquarters sends a warning that Stowell molested a 6-year-old Blackfoot child when Stowell was 16" http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcstories.cfm&ID=2216 CASE FILE UNSEALED Mar 10, 2005 What did they know and when? The records in a three-year-old civil case between a molestation victim and the Boy Scouts of America are unsealed for the first time. Leaders with the scouting organization say they wanted the case kept sealed because it contained the names of other young victims of former Scout Leader Brad Stowell. But the file also shows evidence that more people knew Stowell was a pedophile - and ignored it. Senior reporter Suzanne Hobbs looked at the files today. There is damning evidence that not only did the Scout leaders know Brad Stowell had molested a child when he was 16, but others also witnessed Stowell engaged in inappropriate conduct with young Scouts at Camp Little Lemhi. The now unsealed civil case brought on by the parents of a then 11-year-old boy known only as "John Doe" consists of hundreds of pages in nine file folders filled with motions, testimony, witness lists and graphic details of what happened at camp. On order by the judge, the names of Stowell's victims are blacked out. This is what the Boy Scouts of America did not want the public to know. Brad Stowell was arrested at Camp Little Lemhi in the summer of 1997 and charged with sexual abuse of a child. These court records show that Stowell admitted that from 1988 to 1997, he repeatedly molested boys at camp and away from camp. The file shows that the Boy Scouts of America were 'repeatedly placed on notice' as far back as 1991 of Stowell's pedophiliac propensity. A letter from Richard Scarborough dated May of 1991 to the National Scouting Headquarters sends a warning that Stowell molested a 6-year-old Blackfoot child when Stowell was 16. There is case evidence of a note taken in 1995 by Hart Bullock, the area director for the Scouts Western Region. He was warned by a phone call that Stowell had fondled and sodomized a child and was now working with young boys at camp. The file shows Stowell could have been stopped much sooner. At least seven people within the organization were given reports about Stowell years before his arrest. Despite an investigation by the Scouts, Stowell continued to work at camp several more years until his arrest. Was there intentional concealment by the Scouts? The records state that three Scout staffers observed Stowell engaged in some level of inappropriate conduct but failed to report it and the Scouts admit they knew that Stowell had been improperly touching some of the younger camp staff in 1997. The record also alleges that at the time, the Scouts did not notify the parents of other victims to avoid further liability - meaning there could be other victims out there who have not come forward. Kim Hansen, the Scout executive for the Grand Teton Council, maintains that the council took swift action to remove Brad Stowell and did not turn a 'blind eye'. As for Stowell, he lives in Idaho Falls and is still on supervised probation for pleading guilty to the sexual abuse." Stowell's back in prison, other abusers have come to light and case files have shown that BSA did NOT follow its own Youth Prtotection rules in any of this.

OK, you're really a nice guy. Point conceded. But I disagree with your semantics. Should a scout ignore or "justify" ethically and morally unacceptable, even illegal acts? Isn't it a Scout's responsibiltiy to question such behavior, investigate it and act to correct what is clearly wrong? Hence my postings about "enrollment fraud," Abuse cover-ups, property sales and more. A Scout is supposed to be able to act "ethically and morally" - teaching this is the stated MISSION of BSA. A Scout should THINK independently, NOT mindlessly obey. Wasn't this the oft highlighted difference in WWII? Boy Scouts trump Hitler Youth. Our guys THINK and don't simply OBEY. So, IMHO It is UN-SCOUTLIKE to sit idly by and defend behavior that is clearly "Questionable" if not downright illegal. It is UN-SCOUTLIKE to sit quietly in the presence of wrongdoing. Evil thrives when good people are silent. But some feel that any point of view counter to their own is wrong and SHOULD be silenced - not by refuting facts or making logical rational arguments but by rhetoric and attacks on the source. Rational discourse and debate is not possible when valid questioning is portrayed as an "Attack" - THAT is the same diversionary tactic used by BSA Saying that the ACLU is responsible for the 40% discrepancy in enrollments in Alabama is a lie and a diversion(when Holmes the SE there has been caught for the SECOND time in 5 years faking numbers. He wants to hold onto his $200,000+ a year salary in new $2million offices. so throw out the whistleblower, lie like hell and hope it blows over). Refusing outside oversight and INDEPENDENT audits after your own audit shows only 5000 kids (3400 active) in a program Atlanta had claimed served 23,000, 15,000 or 10,000 (depending on the time and venue) does not help establish "transparency" and show a real desire NOT to let this happen again. When Scout Leaders as STILL saying there are only 500 kids in this program, there is still cause for concern. FIX the problem, don't keep HIDING it. When child abuse has been personally reported to a Scout Executive on at least two separete occasions and they did nothing, in violation of the law and BSA procedures, it is valid to ask why is that person still employed by BSA. And when the head of BSA has a compensation package that exceeds $900,000 (in 2003) - making him one of the HIGHEST compensated CEOS in the non-profit world - it is valid to ask if thsi is appropriate or deserved. After all, membership in Scouting has fallen continuously under Mr. WIlliams' leadership and his stated goal - to INCREASE Cub Scout enrollments has NOT been met - those numbers have declined for 7 years straight. It IS valid to point out that even BSA is expressing concern over the exodus of adult members. Ans it IS valid, ethical, moral AND most "Scout-like" to point out that hypocrisy evident in BSA actions of late has clearly cast a shadow on Scouting. "Trustworthy" is the most important part of the Scout law - as even Mr. Williams noted in a NOAC interview. When BSA or its paid professionals - or its volunteers are NOT being "trustworthy" Scouting suffers. "Obeidience" is low on the list. Even our military trains its members to question orders they feel are illegal or immoral. They are told they should refuse to follow an illegal order. Nuremberg made that point clear. "Orders" are NOT a vaid excuse for illegal acts. Scouting is a great progam for kids. Some of the best people I have met are Scout volunteers. BSA itself has staked out the high ground in claiming they represent "character and values" and that they expect members of BSA to meet the highest standards. Why shouldn't its members expect BSA and its paid staff to meet the very standards tehy so publicly espouse? Saying this is "good enough" or explaining away failures does not help Scouting. A Scout works to fix what goes wrong and make sure it won't happen again. Or at least they used to. A SCOUT should expect the BEST possible from BSA - and I will argue, we are getting far than that. BSA Inc. and its paid leadership has NOT been meeting its own standards; THAT is far too clear in recent media coverage and THAT hurts Scouting and drives current and potential members away. A Scout is BRAVE - he speaks out for what he believes in even if ridiculed or punished for doing so. Still waiting for FACTS (not rhetoric or attacks) refuting points made elsewhere.

Stumbled across this. Not expresing an opinion on content, just noting that I keep running into very similar commentaries - from former Scouts, sons of Scouts, and even current Scouts.....This seems to have been inspired by a news report on the Alabama fraud. Know nothing more than what's on the link. His father seemed like a great guy, wish mine had been a Ranger at Yellowstone and I'd have killed to have grown up in all the places cited. Seems like he died far too young. Bet he was a great Scout Leader. The BSA these people see today is not THEIR Scouting or their father's Scouting. The image they see is tarnished - for varied reasons - and no longer what they believe Scouting should be. BSA has an image problem - like it or not. It "mirrors" too small a proportion of the population of the US - clearly reflected in declining numbers involved in Scouting. "Scouting This article about the Boy Scouts of America being investigated for reporting inflated membership numbers wasn't that interesting to me until I got to the line, Tom Willis, a dentist who serves on the board of the Greater Alabama Boy Scout Council, said it appeared lists were being faked, possibly to attract more funding or to make paid Boy Scout recruiters look impressive. Wait a minute. There are people who make a living as recruiters for the Boy Scouts? Whaaaaa? How is this even remotely possible? Has membership in the BSA declined to such a point that professional recruiters must be paid to increase the member rolls? My father (who died in 1985) was a ceaseless advocate for scouting and organized many jamborees and troops around the world, as my family traveled from place to place. He's likely rolling in his grave at the recent swing the BSA has taken towards conservatism and outright discrimination. When I was a scout in the early 80's, it didn't matter if you were a homosexual or a non-Christian. At least it didn't matter in my father's view of the BSA, which became my view of the BSA. All that mattered was scouting for scouting's sake. It saddens me to see the BSA fall victim to some peoples' bigotry and small-mindedness. Of course, there are other, more tolerant, scouting organizations. I'd love to see the rise of a secular and tolerant scouting organization to rival the BSA. The optimist in me believes that, of the people who are interested in scouting, the majority don't care whether a member is homosexual or an atheist." http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oF75npam9bsJ:www.mrbarrett.com/archives/personal/+%22Tom+Willis%22+court+Alabama&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I'd expect that from San Francisco - topical, ironic - from a place with a history of satire, political and otherwise (And a clearly pro-gay focus). But the same topic has been raised in far more conservative and "red state" venues - places that take God and "divine retribution" a bit more seriously. If someone in TEXAS has noticed and felt compelled to REFUTE it ....people ALL over have to be at least THINKING it... From the Galveston County (Texas) Daily News: http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=24562682e062dea8 "Is God Punishing The Boy Scouts? Its funny, isnt it, that when Orlando gets hit with crisscrossing hurricanes, someone has to write in and say that God is punishing Disney for its pro-gay stance, but when the Boy Scouts have three natural disasters in a week, no connection is made to their anti-gay stance. Is there some other reason God is punishing the Boy Scouts? Or are we just reading too much into things and being very selective at that? Carleton W. Brown Galveston" I think God gets more peeved with hypocrisy and people using his name to justify bad behavior (like in jihads - OR the Inquisistion). If God wanted to play Thor with BSA, you'd expect better accuracy, not random hits on kids.....say a tornado through Irving (or would that mean he somehow missed Crawford?....just joking Ashcroft, really). Still you can't help but think God really DOES have it in for Florida - whatever the reason. Here they go again......... I ran into one former Sunshine State resident (now living at Saint George) on a trail at Arches who'd had enough after last year and sought refugee in Utah. But even LDS sanctuary didn't work - they got hit with floods this spring. Sometimes you can't win.

Funny, but Baden Powell himself questioned whether there should be paid staff in Scouting. And the organization below - which has been growing (and whose existance in the US has been fought in court by BSA - afraid of competition?) does NOT have paid staff. Now the sticklers will note that this does not mean there is not a "parent" organization. OK, point conceded. ALL the functions of BSA with no PAID staff. From elsewhere: "Our Association, BP Scouts Association International HQ is based in the heart of England in Stainsby, Derbyshire, in the country where Scouting originated. We are members of Baden Powell Scouts International who have branches in Ireland, Argentina, Uganda, Texas, Arizona, Japan, Austrailia and Canada. We follow the same charter set down in our Policy Association Rules. We have no paid Executive Staff or Leaders. We are a registered charity organisation." Please note the next to last line. "Scouting" is a movement, an "ideal" - NOT bricks and mortar, NOT one "corporation" NOT even the people that work or volunteer in its employ. I have no doubt that a Troop could function WITHOUT the uniforms, patches and all the accoutrements of Scouting, WITHOUT the facilities owned by BSA and WITHOUT any support from a larger organization. An old manual for guidance is enough - and some have functioned with less. "Scouting" HAS functioned and survived under the most hostile conditions - as noted previously - under the Nazi occupation of Europe and Communist rule. We should be proud that "Scouting" can and HAS survived under the most "deprived" conditions. In contrast, "Scouting " under BSA has evolved into a bloated bureaucracy where there is a larger focus on "goals" - numbers and money - than boys. Executives who are very well compensated are NOT doing a good job running Scouting. Perhaps it is time to rethink this model. Others have done so and chosen an alternate model for Scouting. The highly compensated leadership of BSA is horrified that its membership may some day realize that that they - those who are supposed to "serve" and "support" the efforts of volunteers are very expensive "overhead" - that they are NOT needed - and worse, that their "leadership" has NOT served Scouting well. Do I think BSA would function well without ANY paid staff? Probably not. But it is NOT functioning well with all those it has. I think that BSA leadership is failing - on a pragmatic, ethical and moral basis. Reform and change are needed. My posts have been an attempt to document WHY I believe that change is needed. Agree or disagree. Ignore. HOWEVER, please refute facts with facts, not rhetoric or name calling. Do not say how it could be "worse" or how others are. Please explain why BSA has failed to show the "character" and "values" it claims to represent. Please explain why membership fraud has been an issue for 30+ years (or more). Please explain why child abuse is still a recurring issue - more than in other organizations - despite "youth protection" (about Smith again?) and please explain why abuse is STILL covered up (there are more incidents than Idaho - another surfaced in closed venues today). Please stop making excuses for the continuing declines in Scouting membership and ask why do top executives deserve to be so generously rewarded for FAILURE to accomplish their number one goal - to GROW Scouting. And while at it, please explain why so many actions by paid leadership are neither "ethical" or "moral" Having staked out such high moral ground - representing itself as "the best" allowing only "the best" to serve as leaders in Scouting, BSA is duty bound to be just that, nothing less. ANd BSA has been failing to come even close to its stated ideals. There is mere incompetence at work and even corruption. Neither should be allowed in BSA - however "infrequently" it occurs. Some of th ebest people I have known are volunteers in Scouting. BSA - as currently run - does not deserve them.

"Taking a different tack from jkhny I tried the following searches. .......Thus my point is scouting is more visable on many fronts. If you Google only the NEWS area the results are even more pronounced. ...... Umm I see a trend...and it's positive!!! " While in that sense one can claim the glass is half full, This reflects a CONCERTED Public Relations by BSA. First, your search term "service" is BIG in the BSA phrase book which boosts counts immensely. BSA has a large PR firm on retainer which is pushing "good Turn for America" with countless press releases touting service to America. Few organizations seem to have a publicity effort that is as well oiled. BSA is adept at "spin." Even in local Councils there is a real effort to "market" Scouting. If you help an old lady across the street NOW, our SE wants you to issue a press release. In my youth you did the good deed to do the good deed, NOT as a PR effort. Jews believe a mitzvah (good work) is undone if publicized. It's intent and value are undermined by the publicity. Personally , I feel the same. Locally, some Scouting efforts have become a joke in this respect with leaders following Council's lead and publicizing efforts that are hardly notable. Our Troop does far more every year than the Cub Scout Pack that touts its superficial efforts that barely involve boys. They tout their "food drive effort" - all the outdated stuff grabbed by parents running out the door - cocktail onions? - while other far more REAL efforts have gone to the food pantry and ASKED "What do you need?" and gone out and bought items to meet thae need. "Publicity" for such superficial efforts has made Scouting look BAD. Many feel that those leaders are involved in Scouting more for self-promotion than for the boys. They do little "work" on anything themselves but their pictures regularly surface in the local paper. Cracks about the "Junior League" Cub Scouts are NOT meant to be complimentary - the Junior League here is known for superficial poofy "beautification" projects - while others are providing books for schools or helping families in need - REAL "service." The Cub Scouts noted actually "hijacked" a long running toy drive that benefitted a local Head Start program to contribute to an effort (NOT needs driven) that two of its leaders supported. They got to "look good" in the other effort but took away the ONLY source of toys for truly needy kids. Other Scout Units and community groups were horrified and scurried to make up the shortfall. When the person running the original toy drive protested, she had HER character attacked!?! Sorry, but I think your search helps make one of my my points. BSA has a focus on IMAGE and puts more effort into that than SUBSTANCE. BSA's focus on "disadvantaged youth" reflects that. You will get a far more "diverse" image of BSA through all its literature (which reflects a veritable rainbow of kids) than you see in Scouting's reality. BSA has found it easier to fake "diversity" and service to a wide range of youth than actually provide it. Recurring scandals in "inner city programs" prove that. As noted, our much publicized effort here is a joke with a PAID head for the units in question and less than a dozen kids at last report. In my opinion - and from personal contact - various Boys and Girls Clubs efforts serve "disadvantaged" youth in a very real way, youth who NEED a "program", FAR better than BSA. But they spend far less time on public relations. They aren't making the headlines as often - in the good ways they may deserve. But then they sure aren't making haedlines in the NEGATIVE ways BSA is. How many stories have now hit about the "latest" molestation case? I really doubt that "service" stories can convince parents that Scouting is great for their son if if follows a story about child abuse by a long serving Scoutmaster. Again, even WITH a CONCERTED effort by BSA to project a "positive" image, there is far more negative to offset than there should be.

I really am not happy to add ANOTHER listing, but it reinforces my point - BSA makes the news in bad ways far more often than other groups. Googled News - "Boys and Girls Clubs" "Big Brothers" "Boy Scouts" NO qualifiers. Nothing negative on first five pages for Big Brothers or Boys and Girls Clubs Under Boy Scouts first page, this pops up. NOT part of the search I did earlier (this incident is repeated multiple times). "Posted on Thu, Aug. 25, 2005 Los Altos scoutmaster held on molest charges OTHER POSSIBLE VICTIMS BEING SOUGHT By Elise Ackerman Mercury News The Santa Clara County Sheriff arrested a Los Altos Boy Scout leader Thursday morning for allegedly molesting several scouts over a five-year period. Terrance Helm, a spokesman for the sheriff's office, said Gregory Allen Wagner, 42, has been associated with Troop 31 of the Pacific Skyline Council, Boy Scouts of America, since 1986. Authorities said he is a scoutmaster. The Pacific Skyline Council covers Northern Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Helm said the sheriff's office began an investigation about 11 days ago, when one of Wagner's alleged victims came forward. The sheriff's office now believes that Wagner had inappropriate contact with several scouts from 1987 to 1992. Most of the alleged molestation took place on scouting trips and the age of the victims ranged from 12 to 17 years, Helm said. Deputies arrested Helm at his home on Thursday morning around 7 a.m. Helm said sheriff's investigators are hoping that more victims will step forward and are asking anyone who has been a member of Troop 31 and was either a victim themselves or saw Wagner acting inappropriately with someone else to call Detective Deborah Johnson at (408) 808-4530 or the anonymous tip line at (408) 808-4431." I'm starting to wonder about the abuse issue. I had a sense that this was an issue but there are far more than I expected. "Youth Protection" does NOT seem to be preventing these incidents in BSA. Why not? It seems like this issue needs revisiting if parents are really to have any faith that their boys are safe in Scouting. NOTE: From Boys and Girls Club site: "more than 4.4 million boys & girls served some 3,700 Club locations Locations in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands plus domestic and international military bases Some 44,000 trained professional staff " This organization and BSA can be considered roughly equivalent in youth served - though many participants here spend more time in activities here than a Scout would in Scouting. Nothing of concern in searches. Big Brothers serves 220,000 youth according to their web site. A closer look at this organization is in order to provide a fair comparison. There are only a fraction of the boys served by BSA here and a fraction of hits that have anything to do with the organization in question (the colloquialism does pop up in hits routinely). There DO seem to be relevant reports here but I had to go back quite far to find them. However a Big Brother incident seems to usually involve one boy while many of the Scout reports seem to involve multiple victims -reflecting the differring nature of the organizations. A real comparison would require listing individual cases for each organization and analyzing the proportionate totals in a common time frame. So, Prairie has a valid point with Big Brothers. There may be a problem here with abuse but the rate of abuse is not readily determined from a quick look. HOWEVER, my initial point remains. In searches, Boy Scouts is associated with "bad things" FAR more often than "Big Brothers." Anyone doing such a search will see a large amount of negative things about BSA. They will NOT see very much (if anything, depending on the duration and length of the search) negative about Big Brothers. But abuse is not the only "problem" or "negative" issue that arises in searches. "Fraud" regularly pops up as a relevant hit with BSA. And in an unpopular topic, so does "death" (even ignoring random "acts of God"). After doing such searches, parents cannot be faulted in thinking that BSA does a far poorer job of "protecting" their children than other organizations and that BSA has far more problems than other organizations. THAT is a problem in recruiting (if not retaining) Scouts.

You can't win with some people. He wants facts. Give him facts. Facts aren't right and I don't "understand" - did my post even get read? Yet no facts supporting a counter argument are provided. (Still waiting for responses on Williams salary.....I was wrong wrong wrong and did not understand. After finding out to my surprise I was LOW in my numbers and that this issue HAS come un in criticisms of non-profit leadership. BSA seems to be one of the worst offenders - as noted by others far more expert than I - in provided articles. But no facts refuted. ) Insulting your critics and denigrating their pov without countering their arguments and facts is the technique being expertly used by BSA National to deflect attention from any problem that surfaces. One could speculate on how little some know in a stereotypical way denegrating education, accomplishments and education, but you can encounter the same mindset in an adjacent box at the Kenucky Derby, on the Forbes yacht or at a charitable event at the Pierre. There is little correlation. People who are well educated, "succesful" and wealthy can be amazingly blind too. (I'm just waiting for THAT to get turned around on me....lol). The CEO of a large corporation was perfectly comfortable defending his $20 million bonus at his daughter's million (2? 3?)dollar wedding - after he had just laid off 5,000 employees to "cut costs." (And note, with customer service levels plunging as a result - only a short time passed before those workers were rehired.) But then I must simply be "speculating". Couldn't be "first hand" knowledge on my part though, could it? Is it possible I actually know MORE than some about the inner workings of Councils AND BSA National? Is it possible that I have first-hand knowledge of which I speak? Am I actually saying LESS about what I know than I could? Blind obedience and uninformed defense does not benefit any organization. Refute the facts and arguments please. Is this all NOT true in BSA? - then please explain the individual incidents for even the first three pages cited for BSA Is it worse elsewhere? - please list relevant events and how many pages were required for that count of individual incidents. Does none of this matter? Do such negative events have NO effect on parents of boys that are considering joining BSA? Please explain and cite similar situations where bad publicity has increased membership in an organization that touts "character." Bad behavior may boost the career of a Rap performer but we are discussing Scouting. Should a parent feel comfortable about their son joining BSA - with all these issues appearing as problems on a simple web search? (ignore the absolute totals - look at the CONTENT) Why?

"Simple answer. FOS supports the district, council, and national levels of Scouting. If there is no funding, your unit will get no support. Without that support, your unit is DEAD. " Really? I beg to differ. I postulate that a group of dedicated volunteers can run a "Scout" Unit with NO direct support from Council or even BSA National save a few readily available Scout books. The uniforms and all else are really not integral to "the program." Scouting survived underground in Nazi occupied Europe and even in Soviet controlled Eastern Europe for years. "Scouting" is a world-wide movement with common ideals and a basic program that can be replicated without the overhead entailed by a large organization. Yes, you lose all the "support" - which is usually volunteer run - training, events and such. You lose the "paperwork". You lose access to BSA facilities - but if BSA feels that public facilities are just as good....why not your unit? You lose the legal and business niceties like insurance. BUT - "Scouting" HAS run before without any of this. BSA seems to forget that they are "in business" to support the volunteers, not vice-versa. As noted before - in our Council, "Camping and events" revenue covers "Camping and events costs". wash. Most of the Council remaining budget is salaries and overhead - for staff that does a poor job of recordkeeping and who most units see once a year to ask for money ("to pay THEIR salaries" is the standing comment). Units can and do run fine fundraising for unit activities on their own or paying their own way. In our Council, an accomplished Scoutmaster has said - out of paid staff earshot "We use Council for patches." with an unstated "PERIOD." not completely true but pragmatically so.

This is not an "attack" on BSA. It is a recap of facts that anyone else can see. Like it or not, this is what you find when looking at youth organizations. We should be wondering "Why?" You can't MAKE people join Scouting....but you sure can scare them away - and BSA is doing just that. This isn't "image" - these are serious issues. People regularly Google summer camps, education programs, vacation destinations. If I had no history in Scouting, I'd check. Someone noted that people will use any excuse not to give to FOS. Perhaps. But they will use these "excuses" not to join BSA. THEY view them as valid REASONS not to put their son in Scoutng. Boys and Girls Clubs is a comparable org in size. A search on Boys and Girls club member arrest gives 619,000 hits But few are relevant - talks bout preventing arrests, crimes against B&G club, unlinked entries. No relevant hits showe din the first few pages. Big Brothers member arrest - had only 31,000 or so - with two relevant entries Boy Scouts, Boy Scout arrest leader, 205,000, 245,000, 315,000 OK, high profile cases have occurred BTK had 500,000 hits but only 500 or 700 in adding BTK or Rader to the above. The media were kind in NOT widely reporting the Scout link Smith - whose arrest for distributing child porn WAS horridly embarrassing to BSA had 45,000 hits. But that STILL leaves a huge number. Look at the entries you get for "Boy Scout leader arrest" More than half for Boy Scout leader arrest - are reporting on the arrest of a Boy Scout leader - not some irrelevant issue (cardiac arrest - in connection with the lightning strikes- not good either - or reward offerred for arrest). There were duplicate entries but of 30, there were 9 separate hits - Smith and Rader (expected) Great Neck, Manhattan, Mesa, Indiania, Pocatello, LA , Baltimore only one (Manhattan) seemed "old" This doesn't seem to be media bias - any youth organization would get similar coverage - BSA links are downplayed in many arrests or ignored in many others. I doubt Google rigged its search engine to smear BSA Like it or not, this is what pops up. But instead of viewing all this as the sign of serious and valid issues - it is "image." Well the image of BSA here is abysmal - in valid comparisons to other youth organizations. No amount of "Good Turn for America" stories offset "Boy abused at Scout Camp" when its your son. And THAT is what people will think. It seems that Youth Protection is NOT working when you compare things in BSA to other organizations. This admitedly superficial look may not accurately reflect reality, but it IS what people see. Yet BSA seems reluctant to be transparent and open about this or anything else. Idaho Falls is a history of cover-up and failure which SHOULD be impossible" in BSA. But it happened. ANd those involved sufferred no repurcussions. Ignoring even the abuse cases, recent headlines do NOT reflect an organization that shows "character" or protects your child. This is an issue that SHOULD concern BSA National and the solution is NOT "spinning" stories. It is making sure these things don't happen.

Got it now.... "Loyalty" comes first. So, "loyalty" should be unquestioning, preferrably absolute and takes precedence over all else. Anything less is unacceptable, almost traitorous. "Whoever is in Boy Scouts of America is not one among millions but one dedicated to an idea - Scouting. The individual member's value to the whole is determined by the degree to which he is permeated by the idea. The best Scout, irrespective of rank and office, is he who completely surrenders himself to the view of B.S.A." paraphrasing the awkwardly translated words from a speech by the head of an immensely successful and far larger youth organization - Schirach Is THAT what you're trying to say? Just confirmed my worst fears...... I would argue - vociferously - that this is NOT what Scouting should be teaching ANYONE. I am appalled that I can even make the comparison in attitudes (NOT organizations).

regarding my reference above The original story did NOT give ages. The girl was described as an "Assistant Scoutmaster" - I thought "Venturing?" older kids.... I was hoping this was NOT what you'd expect....The thought crossed my mind that this could have been two older teens involved in consenual behavior - until caught. Additional facts reported below are more disturbing. What was a PAID Field Director - 24 years older than the 14 year old - doing with the girl at his house? Youth Protection rules???? There seems to be a real failure here..... Even if a family friend, this seems to be something that should NOT have happened.....any other reports with more info? I would hope that there is some explanation for this violation of YP. This is NOT a junior paid professional. from http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/4884790/detail.html Scouts Director Accused Of Fondling Girl In Penn Hills POSTED: 9:04 am EDT August 23, 2005 PENN HILLS, Pa. -- A Boy Scouts employee has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in his home, police said. Timothy B. Colcombe, 38, is accused of fondling the teenager under her clothing on July 24 at his Penn Hills home while the girl was under his care, police said. Colcombe is the field director for the Westmoreland-Fayette Council of the Boy Scouts of America in Greensburg. Colcombe was charged with indecent assault, endangering the welfare of children and corruption of a minor. He did not immediately return a phone call left by The Associated Press Tuesday morning. Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Not really a response to FB Should have split

"If a Scout Camp is sold and nobody is there to complain, has it really been sold? " Nobody ever joined BSA because a camp WASN'T there. Many have joined because one was. I had a friend who joined our Troop after hearing stories about our first summer at Scout Camp. My youngest couldn't wait to get into Cub Scouts to go to the same place his brother was going to Day Camp - the place we are now selling. Fewer and fewer members are the primary problem Scouting now faces - and a trend leadership has failed even to slow. BSA may have the unquestioning loyalty of some but it is giving too many of its members reasons to leave and too many potential members reasons NOT to ever join. It is giving too many former Scouts reasons NOT to support Scouting. It's hard to appeal to someone's fond memories of Scouting when you've sold them off.... A sale like Owasippe and the refusal of leadership to be accountable to its members drives good people out of Scouting. "I offer this without the slightest possibility of you learning from it but in the hopes that other, more sensible folks, will."

From the "Camp Kilworth bites the dust" thread "This land is worth millions of dollars but, there's a catch, BSA doesn't own it. In this case, the deed stipulates that if the camp is not maintained and used by the "Tacoma area Boy Scouts", the ownership of the property will revert back to the Kilworth heirs. BSA can't sell the property because it doesn't own it. To get around this provision, the local council has struck a deal with a few representatives of the Kilworth family. BSA will give back the property if the Kilworths will cut them in for a major portion of the profits. They've even arranged a deal with a local developer that wants to harvest the timber and put expensive view homes on the property. In this deal, Pacific Harbors Council stands to gain about $2.3M for which the Kilworth family will pocket a tidy $1M bribe. Local Scouters are split on the deal. Some are accepting the Council's story that the family wants to donate the proceeds while others have noticed that the family is in no way in agreement and are encouraging the Kilworth family to just take possession of the property and keep the entire $3.3M. " This story parallels many others and raises some questions - practical, ethical and moral. Someone donates property to Boy Scouts with the condition that it be used for Scouting - the intent, specifically spelled out or not, that boys make use of the property itself (NOT the money obtained from its sale). If not USED by BSA it reverts to the donor or some other group. Here we had a bequest that had an escape clause of sorts - after 20 years the property could be sold but ONLY if the proceeds were used ("to purchase" everyont THOUGHT) for another property of eequal or greater value. Years, decades, later Boy Scouts doesn't want to use the property - for whatever reason. But they don't own it. Legally can't sell it. In simple terms - they should simply give it back - to the heirs or whoever. Period. BSA was given USE of the property. They aren't going to USE it anymore. But in cases like Kilworth - and so many others - a "deal" of some kind is brokered. BSA gets to somehow get part or all of the proceeds when such a property is sold. A great deal of legal effort is expended on such deals. Yes, it's better that BSA gets some money from such sales - but SHOULD they? This type of transaction ENCOURAGES BSA to sell off property, NOT to make good use of it. Instead of real long term planning to maintain financial health and fund their facilities, too many Councils simply run through their assets, selling them off one at a time. Now here "camping and events" costs equal the revenues for "camping and events". These propertiies are free from taxes and CAN be self-funding. The decline in properties does NOT match the declines in membership - it far outpaces them AND has hurt Scouting. Facilities and Camps that are farther and farther away mean LESS use and contribute to more declines. Parents of a 12 year old boy - and the boy himself may be far more comfortable with a camp 1 hour away - that his Troop has already visited on weekends - than one 3 hours away. Fewer facilities farther away HURT Scouting programs. Our Council used to own 3 camps - two close and one far away. The closer camps (originally 2 different Councils) provided a more "civilized" summer camp eaxperience and could be also used on weekends during the year. The other camp was a more "high adventure" camp and far more "primitive." Now we only have the more primitive one - too primitive for some of the younger Scous and their parents - and too far away. A Scout can do much of what there is to do in three or four weeks total - a time period covered by many in two stays. Many boys in our Troop have "been there done that". With regards to the facility previously mentioned....it is on the Long Island Scound, with an indoor pool, docks, large meeting rooms and a large "garage" for boat storage and maintenance. It also has a trust fund for maintenance and upkeep. This facility makes money as a place used by other groups besides Scouting as well. It will NEVER be replaced given the unavailability of such parcels. It is expected that a few mansions will be be built by any buyer. Use of "alternate" public facilities will NOT make up for loss of this facility. We are NOT "replacing" it in a real and pragmatic sense with use of the already owned "rocks and stagnant lake" though that is the claim. So, why is it being sold? Volunteers oppose this sale and have fought it in court. BSA won - with the understanding that the funds will be uded for an EXISTING facility - a pile of rocks around a stagnant lake - itself a remnant of a far larger parcel. The remaining Scout parcel (besides summer camp 4 hours away) has an environmental easement to preserve the remaining part of a great swamp - which says much about the property. It is 45 minutes to an hour away from us at the far end of our Council andd is NOT easy to reach. Some very nice - and EXTREMELY costly (some would scream "overpriced") cabins were built which serve Cub Scouts fine but are a bit too civilized for many Troops. But there are few flat spots for tent camping - and none without rocks in your back. Water facilities are an algae filled pond - replacing an indoor pool and access to LI Sound. Does anyone NOT expect FEWER Scouts to go swimming, learn boating, learn sailing and (I doubt it Scuba Diving) like they did in the far closer old facility?' So why is this and other camps being sold? MONEY. If BSA could NOT profit from these sales they would focus far harder on finding a way to fund them and use them. But there is NO incentive to do so. Scout owned facilities are the "piggybank" that is raided far too often. Salaries for executives are a higher priority than camp maintenance and upkeep. MONEY in an endowment fund a higher priority than program resources. And WHAT is left to "endow?" Scout Executives that can't balance their budgets are more than willing to sell off property - hey, they're only in a Council for so long. Meet your "goals" and move on. There is NO incentive to retain or even BUILD for the future. We've all seen the routine. Let a camp or facility run down by NOT keeping it up - even minimally. Then as use starts to decline BECAUSE it is not kept up, deliberately limit use more. Move previously held events elsewhere. Don't have it open often. Don't even mention that the place exitsts to new leaders. Make it difficult to use for those that still want to use it. The decline worsens and after a while use is minimal. Then Council leadership announces: "Nobody's using it, it costs too much to maintain - we HAVE to sell it" Chicago has seen that happen over and over and has said "NO MORE!" and is fighting - but volunteers don't matter. Leadership has said Owasippe is no more (the last of many there). BSA is running through its assets everywhere - another sign of a poorly run and failing organization. NATIONAL is sitting on $500,000,000 in LIQUID assets - securities and cash, bragging about what a great job they're doing for BSA's FINANCIAL future. Well where does all that money go when you have no camps and no boys? Salaries and retirement benefits for those running a contrive "educational" program - "Learning for Life". (I haven't seen too many people saying that LFL is a great program and far BETTER than Scouting but that's the way National leadership seems to think.) Do these sales make sense on a practical level - limiting facilities and hurting access? Do they make sense on an ethical and moral level - selling property actually USED by boys to obtaion money supposedly used for boys - but in a far less direct way? Questionable property sales hurt Scouting Programs and hurt Scouting's image. The even HURT fundraising. A lot of donors get really annoyed when you close down THEIR old Camp or sell off THEIR old Scout Cabin Why are camps being sold off and new Council offices being built at the same time? This IS occurring. Looks bad. Another warning sign - executives more concerned with THEIR own perks than what is available for the kids they are supposed to serve. Sorry but Council offices do NOT provide DIRECT "support" for kids. A Camp does. A local Scout Cabin does. A local Scout Center with a pool does. A local Reservation does. And if BSA is claiming that less money is now coming in (at least for Scouting - they can't use all those LFL funds coming from grants and charitable donations on the "discriminatory" Scouts) - why is that? "Field of Dreams" Build it and they will come. Kids WILL show up and join Scouting if you have great LOCAL facilities they can't find elsewhere. They DON'T join up to visit a new Scout Shop and offices.

"Well this type of discussion always stinks, but I have a question. Jknhy you said that single male in a troop is a red flag. I myself am a bachelor scouter and have been an adult leader since my college years. Some of the parents were wary at first but soon warmed up when they see that the boys have someone they can look up to, and talk to as almost all of them have a mom or pop in the troop as committe or sm or and asm. In fact I've become a mentor to several of the boys. We have another bachelor scouter, also an eagle whos kids have long grown up and he has returned to scouting to help the youth grow and learn. I see the single male, and the single female scouter as a tool and advantage to the program rather than a red flag." I did not saw this was a given, I said it was a red flag. A situation where there elsewhere was proven past cause for caution. Having caught flak for being too verbose, I did not repeat my detailed qualifying comments posted previously on related threads. Elsewhere I have detailed those who were clearly NOT problems but quite the opposite - local legends in Scouting.....my old sixth grade taecher, my own Scoutmaster as a kid, and our community's long serving Assistant Scoutmaster. Kudos if you are among those ranks. HOWEVER, the most egregious serial abusers in Scouting - detailed by Boyle in his book DID fit that profile. "Scout's Honor" is worth reading - again if only to recognize signs and avoid repeating past mistakes. And a word of warning, as an adult without kids, you'd better be meticulous in NEVER getting in a position where you can be unjustly accused of something by a boy. Too many leaders trying to help a troubled kid have had one turn on them and unjustly accuse them of something inappropriate as "payback." Even if innocent, don't count on BSA vindicating you. One detailed case is in the Scouter Forum archives here. A removed scout - proved innocent by a law enforcement investigation was STILL refused reinstatement by BSA. He didn't even know what he was accused of for the first 6 months after his removal. Do NOT expect anything like "Due Process" or fairness. That's why these procedures are routinely abused to remove critics (a separate and substantiated issue). Our Scoutmaster had a kid cause problems for him. The kid WAS guilty of a pretty egregious racial slur at camp. The SM went to bat for him but the kid continued to be a problem and later falsely accused the SM of wrongdoing - luckily not anything sexual. The Scoutmaster was vindicated - this guy is the closest thing to a Saint I've seen on Earth.....but if abuse was falsely reported....he'd be out (or should be according to the rules - accusation is enough, proof not required, anonymous is allowable). Read "Procedures for Maintaining Standards of Membership" - if you can find a copy. It's top secret - restricted to top Council leadership.....and why? Some might think after reading that it is more concerned with BSA's image and liability than protecting boys. I know another long time single guy - from Brooklyn, poor background who's done well in life. He was "paying back" Scouts for what it did for him but got to the point where it wasn't worth the risk and hassle. He couldn't have a private one-on -one talk with a kid who needed it (like he'd been able to have with his Scoutmaster), he felt that procedures were more designed for show and avoidance of liability than helping kids.... Loaded issue. I can see his point but woulld NOT let myself be alone with a kid anywhere (though try to make sure THAT happens ...you can end up alone on a trail in the woods or at a campsite with a kid...no others around). But at the same time a kid may simply NOT feel comfortable discussing some things if visible (but out of earshot) to others. HIS point. This is a complex and loaded problem (and it is NOT only childless adults that are a problem) but it is one that seems to haunt BSA. One of the reasons I became a leader is because I wanted to know (well) the adults involved. I did NOT blindly trust others simply because they were already leaders. If you Google "Boy Scout" and "abuse" a horrifying number of cases pop up - and continue to pop up (literally a week or two cannot go by without a report somewhere). Yes, BSA is a large organization. BUT you do NOT see the same number with any other similar youth organization. As noted in another post, I saw NO child abuse cases in a limited web search for some other youth orgainzations while BSA was full of them. Keep in mind These reports are seen by parents see all over the country. A parent wondering how "safe" BSA was for boys would be horrified by such a Google Search - and many will have enough sense to do such a check. Bad publicity on this issue has almost killed Councils if not BSA. (New Orleans I believe, a while back) Even now some Scouters in the know will tell you (privately and quietly) that some Councils have simply told people to "go away" and NOT reported abusers (as required by law) to local authorities. Idaho is appalling - with willful disregard of clear policies, rules and the law at all leels of BSA. And let's be real. Smith was a horriffic embarrassment BUT he didn't get fired. BSA let him retire. Criminal behavior should clearly be grounds for termination. Yet BSA FIRED another "respected" long time paid staffer (30+ years) because he was gay. The message some got was "BSA treats men sexually interested in boys better than men sexually interested in other men" (one is not going to meet underage boys at a gay resort - the incident that allegedly sparked that staffer's removal). And if you feel that both are equally bad around boys, why the disparity in treatment? Why is the gay staffer suing for his accrrued benefits? But then that may be why nobody wants to discuss this issue. NOBODY wants to believe their son an be abused in Boy Scouts. BSA's pedophile scandal in the 80s and 90's faded faster than the Catholic Church's because BSA stonewalled and refused to talk about it. ABSOLUTELY refused. Lawyerly statements were issued - nobody ever had to answer questions face to face with a reporter or anyone else. BSA drew up "youth Protection" guidelines and such and declared the problem solved. Leave what happened buried. Thousands of cases of abuse were NEVER reported to authorities. You will see little about this issue because settlements are sealed with non-disclosure clauses and court cases are sealed "to protect the boys" - though Idaho has showed otherwise. Thankfully the majority of cases of abuse do seem to be handled properly now but the larger issue is still ignored. Why is this happening in Boy Scouts? And again, to answer the "it happens everywhere" "it's a small number" arguments - a simple Google search shows otherwise. BSA clearly has a problem - still. I will not post further on this issue. I made my points. Honestly, it makes me ill. I want to throw up.

From above: "So rather than complain or worry over what you cannot control why not focus on what you can? Learn the actual program, deliver it as it is designed, keep the promise of scouting. That is the responsibility of a unit volunteer. " So, finding it impossible to change anything I should not complain or worry, I should simply "go along and do my job" feeling confident that in serving the cause of Scouting in my responsibilities as a mere unit volunteer I am serving the higher good of Scouting? I should put my own individual concerns aside and serve loyally?" From fgoodwin connenting on "Scout's Honor" Zeiger's book "While the Boy Scouts are certainly not a malignant organization, they arent a sacred one, either. ........... Another curiosity posed by the book is the manner in which almost all liberals are accused of being extreme individualists. At one point, Zeiger praises the words of Frank Hearn: One may have the right to self-esteem or feeling good but being good-being in a way that permits one to realize institutional goals-is an achievement. One earns self-respect only through the disciplined work of performing institutional duties or achieving institutional ideals. Such words were reminiscent of Julius Evola, a former Italian fascist, when, in Men Among the Ruins, he described the sort of people who supported fascist regimes. The inferior never lives a fuller life than when he feels his existence is subsumed in a greater order endowed with a center; then he feels like a man standing before leaders of men, and experiences the pride of serving as a free man in his proper station, wrote Evola. " Somehow seemed appropriate at this point...... I can't be the ONLY person really scared by the "logic" of "ignore it all, stop thinking and do your job" No more from me on this thread. It's starting to remind me of that classic saying about compliantly serving the greater good: "Arbeit Macht Frei" A commentary on the "logical" arguments being proffered NOT on the character or actions by any individual or BSA itself.

this seems like an amazing amount of discussion over semantics. Can the boy swim well enough NOT to drown if he's iin water deep enough not to touch bottom?

I was actually surprised to see a report of heterosexual abuse - of an older assistant Scoutmaster (female?) by another leader Not meaning to be flippant but as posted elsewhere; Pedophilia is the gorilla in the room nobody wants to talk about It has not been addressed adequately and Idaho makes that clear. THAT made it to the light of day. I have heard too many cases where the same old "Leave Quietly" approach has been used and abuse NOT reported by volunteer and professionals in Scouting (in violation of YP and the law). There are many places to lay blame - including parents who do not seem to pay attention but this is a recurring problem that has causes one major scandal in the past but remains an issue. Many cases can be prevented. The single male, one without a kid in the unit (not all are as noted elsewhere) but it is a red flag. Boyle's book should be read by any Scout Leader just to know what to look for.

A test Google "Boy's and Girl's Clubs" and "fraud" then with "abuse" then "scandal" not much- more stories about funding cuts than anything else Google "Little League" and "fraud" then "abuse" then "scandal" Overage kid - we all know that story....checking for steroids (there too?) Google "4H" and "fraud" then "abuse" then "scandal" One "scandal" - a kid didn't actually the animal they showed and articles on "showring cheating" - making animals look better (big issue in livestock fairs) The first few pages for all of these showed little to show real malfeasnace or problems (except for the Little League stories). There are regular mentions of policies to prevent wsuch actions but no examples. NO reports of illegal acts, child abuse, child porn - nothing that would scare a parent off or indicate that there were problems with the program leadership (again excepting Little League) Google "Boy Scouts" and "fraud" or "abuse" or "scandal" An appallingly long list of serious incidents, illegal acts, child abuse. (You really don't want to do this with "death" - it's too depressing, even ignoring the "acts of God") Any neutral outside rational person doing the same search is going to come to what conclusions? Frankly, I expected SOMETHING to jump out at me on the other searches, but nothing did. Could I have missed something, maybe - it was a quick look. But do the same yourself and see. It was worse than I expected and you can't blame "hostile media" - frankly the evil liberal NY Times has mentioned ONLY the Smith story - staying conspicuously AWAY from any others. It seems that great effort is made to treat BSA as favorably as possible in alot of these stories. And even though there may be problems elsewhere, there is a difference: Little League doesn't make "moral and ethical decisions" their raison d'etre. A reminder Cut and pasted right off BSA National's site. The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. Scout Oath Scout Law On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. A Scout is: Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind Obedient Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent Vision Statement The Boy Scouts of America is the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

Well worded Madkins007 Now if those are only possible fallouts in a WELL RUN local Scouting program, what do you think is happening right now in Atlanta, Chicago, Alabama, Idaho and others - the places making the news? Our Council hasn't hit that level of publicity (it may yet) but, out of a dozen great properties and camps we're down to 3 and one of those is up for sale. Volunteers fought that sale in court and lost on technicalities. Any "dissidents" opposing that sale have been removed from District and Council positions replaced in name only. Senior volunteers wrote to National protesting these actions an complaining about our SE's behavior. It is a "local" problem (though the same issues were raised in his past Council). One volunteer had his registration revoked after vocally protesting all of this and others were threatened. Real work is not being done. Our District's Pinewood runoff last spring had 19 kids - and no volunteers willing to run it. Cub Scout Day camp - now run at public facilities - had paid staff in charge in two districts because volunteers refused to have responsibility under the conditions existing. Half the kids did Cub Scout Day Camp this year. The Dining Hall had empty seats at Boy Scout Camp this summer in all sessions - we used to be eating on the porch or lawn. Paid staff has turned over almost completedly - left or been pushed. Over 100 volunteers showed up an an Executive Board meeting to protest her firing but the Board ran away - literally. A web site set up to show support had 3-400 entries (at a time when schools were ending and Scouting had been shut down). There are 200 less adult leaders by the OFFICIAL numbers. The truth is probably higher and does not reflect the number of leaders that remain involved ONLY as Unit leaders now, refusing to have anything to do with "Council." Yet we added a District - many believe to show "growth" where none existed. The two split Districts do not have enough volunteers to staff Roundtables and other functions. The Cub Scout Spring activity had to be a "Joint" event and had 1/2 - 2/3 the units they had in previous years. Counts of boys and adults were much lower as well. By OFFICIAL numbers we had delines of 12-18% (depending on the program) comparing counts after charter renewal to 12 months earlier. (forget the meaningless "year end youth served" counts that mean nothing). Somehow we claimed "growth" of 1.4% using those numbers - still short of the 2% goal. We have more than 3000 less scouts than the officially claimed 10,000 - though ther are about 1000 more in non-scouting you may be able to count - if they really exist. Our much touted inner city program - which faded from mention - resurfaced with a paid staffer (and a not mentioned 10 kids). Our District claims of 2190 to achieve "Quality District" status were not supported by official counts showing 1818 or 1826. Clear alterations (in different handwriting and weight) were visible on the copies of the form handed out at a District meeting. Counts after charter renewal were 1529 but after queries about dead units, that dropped to 1249 without explanation. The Executive Board was presented with a package of information documenting "misstatements" and "errors" in our Council's claims but no change is apparent. An "investigation" promised last Spring has yet to be started. An attempt to muster COR's to vote out current leadership failed after they were contacted by Concil leadership and told that a few malcontents were interfering in things and there was no point in them becoming involved. Things were "well run" - take their word. A former Board member of 40 or 50 years service quit in disgust, making his POV known. Others have left less visibly. Needless to say, Scouting is NOT doing well here. Even unit leaders are growing tired of the hypocrisy. FOS numbers have been kept up ONLY by a relentless pursuit of money - that's the only job DE's seem to have. Two Districts showed $0 under leadership inthe last FOS report. Only one made its goal in that category. "Leadership and Family" categories all show fall-offs despite multiple mailings and a phone campaign. Witholding doantions is the ONLY way left to protest. One unit here failed after pleading for help. The DE was around for recruiting to grab forms and funds but that was it. Our former Commmissioner of 20 years was removed and replaced with some 70 or 80 year old guy that doesn't even live here for most of the year. They got no help and died. Another Cub Scout Unit that claimed 50 kids had 8 in the Memorial Day parade. Our Pack which has demamded that rosters be "corrected", with 36 had 27. Gotta wonder. Faced with increasing dissent even from hand-picked Executive Board Members, approval has been gotten from the Council Attorney to have an "Executive Committee" act in place of the full Board. Oversight becomes more and more limited. Of course this is in compliance with Council Bylaws - which nobody has seen in years or can get a copy of..... THAT is what is happening in a problem Council where leadership has failed to listen to their volunteers, forced unneeded sales to make financials look better, tried to fake growth where none existed and bully volunteers into submission. But many think that - as in Chicago - it's all a plan to dissolve this once rich Council and merge it out of existence allocating OUR assets as BSA sees fit. Of course it could just be plain old incompetence. Our SE made the same mess of his former Council. Postings here, correspondence and 990 filings will support that contention. And - to give some indicator about the competence of OUR Council leadership, one of our Executive Board was head of "Risk Management" at Jamboree. I don't know the man - the position may have only been honorary - but why on earth would anyone brag about this on their web site? http://www.wpcbsa.org/Highlight/ Unintended irony and after seeing the last post on Jamboree incidents it's clear that a full "spin" campaign is underway on that mess (note that whole category is now archived and not easily seen). I can't imaging what Chicago is like where the volunteers voted out the leadership - who won't leave. Or any of the other Councils having problems. Enough facts? all supported by Council documents It's truly sad to see something you care about hurt so badly - for no real reason, simply because an autocratic and incompetent staffer cannot do his job and cannot be removed - and because those that SHOULD intervene refuse to do so. Is this how Scouting should run? How do you change things here? Is change possible? Can ANYONE change things in a situation like this or Chicago (where they DID vote their disapproval and refused to vote in new handpicked leadership - but cannot vote FOR their own choices)? Is the only option to walk away? I - and others concerned with these issues - do not have any solution. How do you FORCE BSA to follow their own rules and procedures? How do you FORCE them to act "ethically and morally?" And if it can happen in even one Council it can happen in any, it can happen in all.

just don't Google Boy Scout AND abuse under NEWS - it gets depressing though at least we're seeing heterosexual abuse now.....