Bob White

Since Cubs Sell the most Popcorn I will share the approach I have found very sucessful. Wear a complete uniform and a big smile. Stay off the lawns, stay on the sidewalks. Always have a buddy nearby. Have a few penms a couple order forms. Knock or ring, and ask to speak with an adult if an adult does not answer the door. Say this as you hold out a pen and an order form. "Hi, my name is___________ I am a cub scout in pack ________and I am selling Delicious Boy Scout Popcorn. How much would you like to order today?" BW

BackPacker, If you want a thread about me then start one, and see if it is allowed. I will not cooperate in your attempt to alter the topic of this thread or your attempt to twist my words for your personal goal of attacking me. If you have nothing to offer that is on the topic then it would be best if you just read.

While we don't know this for sure What don't we' know for sure Ed? That he has no prior convictions? Have you not read the news articles or listened to any reports? The District attorney said that he has no prior convictions or sex abuse allegations. Or, that background checks can only see prior convictions? Do you have any idea what a background check can see? If you do then you know it can't see a conviction that hasn't happened yet. And while new background checks might not turn anything up, it would be a good step to take. If doing them again won't do turn up anything then how can it be a good step to take? Shows the public the BSA is doing everything it can to prevent this from happening again and not just sweeping it under the rug. Are you following this Fred? How would a background check of every employee have kept this from happening this time let alone from happening again? What is it that you believe has been swept under the rug here that you don't want to happen again? This had nothing to do with the BSA other than he was an employee. He was caught, he was charged, the BSA was shown to have no connection to the criminal activity, they did not try to hide the fact that he was an employee. They said here is who is was with us, here is what he did as an employee. What could you possibly believe was swept under the rug? Whose ruge was it? Who did the sweeping? We don't know right, so what's the soultion? Well it seems to be "investigate EVERYONE" of course. For what? Who knows? But won't it make us look good to the public! Calgon take me away! (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Former Boy Scout and Scoutmaster, Pope John Paul II is gravely ill. As most people are aware he has been ill for some time but has carried his tremendous personal pain with grace and humility. The Pontiff speaks lovingly in his books of his days as a Boy Scout and Scout leader in Poland, and how his time in the outdoors brought him closer to God and to his calling as a priest. Over the years he has been a quiet by forceful leader of change and stability in much of Europe and other regions of our world. He is greatly respected by people of many cultures and creeds for his leadership and example of faith. He has been a pillar of committment in maintaining the values and beliefs of the Catholic church throughout the world, dispite the strong social and political efforts made to have those values changed or abandonded. I pray that God relieves John Paul of his pain and returns him to his role here on earth, or in God's Kingdom. Bob White

"Maybe it would be a good idea for National to redo the bachground checks on ALL employees at National and ALL councils." For what purpose? If you had done a background check of Mr.Smith just 3-days ago nothing would have shown up. Background checks reveal past convictions and nothing else. Mr. Smith had no prior convictions. The instant the BSA was informed that he was under investigation he was removed of all his BSA responsibilities. What more could the BSA have done at that point? "But the public image of the BSA has taken a pretty big hit and I believe it will effect fundraising at both the national level and the unit level, at least for the short term." Not if we keep our heads and not get caught up in the irrational ideas adn misinformation that some of our own leaders are creating. The BSA was his employer, The investigation which has lasted almost two years has turned up no evidence and no allegations that Mr.Snith ever molested a child. His actions were done at home and never involved scouting or scouts. Tell parents and scouts the truth. Your character is not determined by the uniform or the rank. It is determined by the decisons you make each day. Mr. Smith made some very bad decisions at home. They were not decisions made by the BSA. They did not involve any contact with children. He developed an addiiction to child pornography on the internet, and when at home he collected and sent images to others over the internet. That was his crime. According to the Dallas News reports he faces no jail time but a fine up to $250,000. He was not a leader in the BSA, being employed does not you you a leader. He was a department head, with a very distinguished work record. His freinds were astonished to learn of this other life that no one else knew of. We need to keep this in perspective as we deal with the public. We are not victims here. Any wounds you feel are self-inflicted. The BSA is not the criminal lets stop suggesting that they are by talking about investigating them or other employees. Irrational reactions on our part as volunteers will do more to harm our local programs than this man's actions have done. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

WHOA WHOA WHOA See this is the kinda of half cocked things that happen when we don't stand up for your own program. Mr. Smith was not charged with pedophilia, there was no evidence of pedophilia, there was no accusation of pedophilia. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to recieving and distributing child pornography. An activity that was unknown to his employers, that was done only from his home computer on his own time. The BSA had no way to know of his activity. His own family had no knowledge of this how was the BSA supposed to? Any hypocracy was on the part of Mr.Smith alone. As soon as the BSA was informed of the investigation they put Smith on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation. Prior to being charged, Smith retired. Once charged he was already separated from the BSA. You cannot fire a man who doesn't work for you. He was not in charge of the YP program until recently where he developed the on-line training program. To say that because scouting holds high moral standards they are guilty of ntagonizing their critics is like saying people who work hard for a paycheck are guilty of antagonizing the poor. The only people the BSA holds to high standards are only their own members. Mr. Smith was not a leader in the BSA he was an employee of the BSA, the leaders are the volunteers in the units. What did the BSA do, or not do, that caused this crime to take place? Ed, Fred, what is your resonse to Dadnow's post? (This message has been edited by Bob White)

But what it says is that in order to be a leader the parent will have to accept these principles. I do not believe at any part of the application ther scouts beliefs are established. Isn't that correct? BW

You are right Fred I misread that.

Ed writes "All I am saying is there are questions that need investigated and answered." Fred writes "Doesn't sound like someone who is "manufacturing allegations" against BSA, but that's just me." Really? Then please share your answers to these questions. Who does he want investigated? What does he want investigated? About what allegations? By whom were these allegations made? Based on the the non-existent charges what organization or authority does he think should conduct this investigation? Since they do not know what they are investigating for, how does Ed propose that they determine when the investigation is succesful, let alone completed? Mr. Smith, it has been determined by the attorney general, has not had any inappropriate contact with any minor, nor were any of his photos of scouts, nor were any of the transactions done at work or on BSA time or equipment, nor is he considered a danger to the public, and he will not face a jail term. He is no longer employed by the BSA. And according to the AG the BSA cooperated fully in the process. He has pleady guilty and will face a large fine as determined by law. So why should we or anyone else carry this any further or suggest that there is further investigation needed? (This message has been edited by Bob White)

So you need three commissioners to call on Crews in your district. Have you recruited three commmisioners yet to visit crews?

Sure I can give you a couple. I will ley you find the names becasue if I post thenmI will be accused of attaccking individuals. I will give credit to the last post just to show i am not the only person to understand the tone of the posts.... There will undoubtedly be lawsuits filed against the BSA due to this! If this guy is in the system & the BSA overlooked it, then that IS a problem. but until all the facts come out, nobody can say how much the BSA knew about this man's background, or when they knew it. but it might be relevant to know what the "corporate culture" was at that time and whether a tendency to "hush things up" still remains. I haven't seen anything in the published articles that tells me whether or not BSA knew of this man's activities, nor do the articles mention whether or not BSA actively assisted the FBI in its investigation. We'll just have to wait and let the facts come out don't think anyone in this thread is saying BSA is guilty of anything. But don't you find it the least bit ironic that the National Chairman of the Youth Protection Task Force would be into child porn? So we may never learn what BSA knew or when they knew it. Unfortunately, B.S.A. tends to be less than forthright in these matters. Too often the focus is on protecting B.S.A.'s image and not boys. There could be lawsuits filed against the BSA because of this. Not necessarily valid ones since, but they could occur. And some are questioning if the BSA might have known about this guy & did nothing based on past history. All I am saying is there are questions that need investigated and answered. This would be a civil trail, not criminal. Proof is different in civil cases. But the Catholic church sloughed this type of thing under the rug & it cost them big time in nasty press & legal fees. I don't want to see the same thing happen to the BSA. From OGE "Ed, I am not sure what you are driving at. Its almost as though you want the BSA to be involved somehow. That you want complicity with the BSA to be proved" Ed's call is for an ivestigation to clear the air of questions and allegations. Who is asking questions and making allegations? Where are these phantoms who need this investigation. Investigate what? There have been no charges made. Investighate who? there's nearly 1200 employees there who do you want to talk to and why? Its is fear mongering and opportunistic and unrelated to the actual crime.

Thank you, but I am not the only poster to question Ed's imaginary crimes by the BSA , but I am not surprised that you chose to single me out. Remember that I am not the topic of discussion here, and you should not be trying to make me the topic. I did not attack Ed I attacked Ed's lack of evidence and grounds. If you find fault in my facts then find facts of your own to counter them. Otherwise, the 1st ammendment rights you want to use to support posts that suggest the BSA has somehow committeed a wrong here, also allows me to disagree with those posts. Freedom is after all a two way street, but it comes with responsibility. Manufacturing allegations where no evidence existed is a misuse of that freedom and invites a rebuttal. I merely accepted the invitation. BW

Actually proud eagle a re-visit to New Leader essentials may be in order. Without rying to do the entire chapter here let me try to clarify. There are in fact three Scouting Programs, what we call "Traditional" Scouting. It includes Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting (which includes Varsity), and Venturing (which includes Sea Scouting). The Den, Patrol, and Crew, share similarities and have differences. Each is designed to meet the social needs and abilities of a youth at various stages of development. An 8 year old would not be successful in a boy lead patrol, nor would they survive a larger fluctuating group like a crew. In the same manner a Youth in the late teens or early twenties no longer socializes with one set group for every activity. Like most adults thaey are capable of intersctinting in a variety of group sizes and make-up depending on the activity. These are not new concepts to scouting. To say that Venturing is complertely different from exploring is not accurate. It has some unique features but also borrows greatly on many of the features of both early and and later exploring programs and Sea Scouts has changed only slightly. So Venturing does not depend on patrols because youth of that age broup are capable of handling a more complex social environmemnt. depending on the size of the crew and the specific activity temporary 'patrols' may form. Just as adults drop in and out of subgroups for various work and social functions rather than doing everything with ones set group of 6 to 10 people. Also as we mature and have opportunities to practice leadership skill we find the ability to lead larger groups and more complex tasks than patrols and dens are designed for. Remember that there are three sets of scouting methods, one for each of the three programs. They are not indentical because the needs and abilities of the youth at differing stages of development are not identical. "Then there is Learning for Life, a totally seperate corporation that sub-contracts to BSA for administration and such. Its programs are not grounded in Scouting's traditional values, though it does embrace ethics. The LFL program includes the Explorer program. That's close. LFL is a subsidiary of the BSA, it is actually owned by BSA publications, the folks who briing you Boys' Life and Scouting magazine. It is the "non-traditional" program affiliate. It was designed as a response to Explorer Posts being forced from some COs due to conflicts from the BSA membership requirements, and to provide a way for the BSa to continue to bring ethical training into schools where many youth had little interest in "scouting" but had need for the ethical instruction scouting could provide. Again, I do not know if you have had the opportunity to attend new Leader Essentials but you might find it helpful in understanding the need for the three levels of the program. BW

dana How many Venturing units do you have in the district that you would require a "team", and how many commissioners do you envision on this team?

Maybe Mr. Smith will use the same defense that Pete Townsend, lead guitarist of the Who used, he was conducting research on child pornography This is the sort of thing we don't need to be saying. The man has already pleaded guilty before the court and his sentencing date is already set. (by the way this crime carries no jail time but a very large fine). There is no line of defense being mounted. This is how we start rumors that damage our own organization. Fred some of the posts again, if one poster had a high branch and a rope he would lead the lynch mob to hang the BSA with absolutely no evidence just a fantasy of what maybe, possibly, might, could of happened (regardless of the fact that there was no evidence, no charges, an no suggestion of wrong doing other than the one he fabricated). You don't see that as a witch hunt?

Anarchist and I are discussing this situation off line at the moment so I do not want to muddy the waters by addressing his situation here as well. But I do want to comment on Fred's last post. Fred you mention inviting the "families" on the troop outings. While family participation is a Cub Scout program Method it is not a Boy Scout one. I see that your background is largely in Cubbing so I yunderstand your tendency to think along those lines. But a Troop or patrol activity is rarely an appropriate place for siblings and should not be presented as appropriate. But certainly any parent should feel welcome to come along.

Actually busylady the organizational process you describe is the one laid out in the Advancement Committee Policies and Pocedures manual for how the Districts and Councils are to organize counselor recruitment and management. It is important to point out that these responsibilities are the district and council's job not the units. Also, adult association is not about working with adults other than your parents. It is about youth having opportunities to meet and model themselves after positive adult role models. Certainly many parents of scouts would fall into that catagory, and using the methods of Scouting to strengthen the family unit and promote healthy family interaction does not fly in the face of any scouting method or aim. BW(This message has been edited by Bob White)

In fact the media is now quoting the district attorney as saying that all the e-mails and images were transmitted through Smith's home computer and that none were done through his work computer. He goes on to say that the there is no evidence of the BSA's knowledge or involvement in the case which has been under investigation since 2003 beginning with a raid of a home in Germany. So lets have an end to this witch hunt please. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

BARTENDER!! While I wait Ed , Explain to us how if the parent found the picture of their child on the internet, that they would have anyway of knowing that it was in Mr. Smiths e-mails and that the BSA was involved in the crime???? Your fantasies of how the BSA can be involved here bring on their own kind of damage to the program. "Who has grounds in this case against the BSA?" Anyone. There are a lot of crazies out there looking for a quick way to make a buck!" If being crazy were legal grounds for someone to win a judgement against the BSA I can think of a poster or two who would be bloody zillionaires by now. BW (This message has been edited by Bob White)

"Unless all family members can be worked into the program...it can't be done??? Who has suggested that ALL family members go on ALL troop outings? That is not what you said your policy was about.

Troops are not just sponsored by churches and packs by schools. I have never heard of training that would teach a commissioner how to talk to someone based on whether the are a church representative, a school representative, American, Legion, etc.... What you were supposed to be taught is how units are structured. What are healthy program elements, and what are signs of a weak program. And what BSA and community resources are available to help. Sounds like your District Commissioner needs more training at this point in time than the commissioners do. You might consider getting a hold of some Unit commission manuals from your local council office and doing some independent study. I think you will find them useful. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

TheScout You are correct in your understanding of the process according to the BSA program, unfortunately not all units know or follow the BSA program. It sounds like you do. That's great! BW

Excuse me but doesn't someone have to hire the conniving lawyer? Doesn't that person have to be someone who could prove direct injury or loss due the BSA's active or passive participation in the crime committed by Mr. Smith? Just who is that person going to be? A parent of one of the children in the photos? Do you think that parent exists? How would they know unless they were involved in the making or distribution of the photo? You think the photographer is going to step forward? Who has grounds in this case against the BSA?

You do not have to choose to be embarrassed, or accept attacks on the BSA based on what the uninformed or unintelligent make of this. And volunteer leaders should not open the gates for those people by fantasizing of charges and investigations that do not exist and have no cause to exist. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

OGE and I have not missed the point. I think perhaps we see it more clearly. You see this as a recruitment problem. How can you keep this restrictive decision and still get the families to join your unit? You can't. It's a bad idea that is going to turn off the very adults who want to come be a part of scouting. It's a bad policy, but it is your bad policy not the BSA program's. So when it doesn't get you the results you want do not expect the program to have a solution. The BSA's solution is don't have a troop policy like that.